Yoshidiot strikes again!

[Sephirstein]

From the cyst of Adam Yoshida's ass crack...

"Gay Marriage is a bad idea because:
1) It will generally tend towards devaluing marriage, by removing some of the traditional specialness which surrounds the institution (eliminate the exclusitivity and it becomes like any other contract).
2) Large scale gay marriage, and the resultant coverage of it, will have a serious effect upon straight monogomy. Large numbers of gay 'marriages' are likely to be open ones- a fact which, I have no doubt, will be heavily promoted. This also promotes the continued devaluation of marriage.
3) Gay 'marriage' legitimizes homosexuality more than any other single thing could. This, I believe, will lead to the promotion of homosexuality and a resultant decline in our moral values.

As to the question of why I don't approve of homosexuality- the idea that opposition to homosexuality is some sign of repressed gay tendencies is absurd. By that logic Civil Rights crusaders were closet segregationists, liberal Democrats are conservative Republicans, Nazis want to be Jewish, Communists want to be CEO's, etc., etc., etc.

My opposition to homosexuality stems from essentially one thing: gays are almost universally liberals. Even the occasional 'conservative' gay, like Andrew Sullivan, is a flaming liberal on social issues.

I believe that homosexuals are a danger to the nation in the long term. Allowing them to spread their propaganda is schools, to adopt children, and all these other things will simply lead to more homosexuals (and, by extension, more liberals). Statisitics tell me that while, at present, only a tiny percentage of the population is actively gay (2-5%)- a much larger percentage, if indoctrinated into the idea of the acceptability of homosexuality, could turn in that direction, an outcome which would sap American resolve in the face of its enemies.

More than that, the truth be told, being an active (male) homosexual is roughly as healthy as being a heavy heroin user. It's remarkably stupid to pretend that this is a lifestyle to be admired or encouraged.

Now, I don't want to kill gays or anything like that. Those who do, ought to hang. But I would like to see them away from the public and back into their the closet and their hidden little clubs.

Like prositution, or drug use, we will never be free of homosexuality- but we ought to do what we can to drive it underground, and away from decent (but corruptable) people."

[RobertSeattle]

1. What an asshole

His last line is especially vile. I've revised it:

Like prostitution, or drug use, we will never be free of extreme right wing ideology - but we ought to do what we can to drive it underground, and away from decent (but corruptible) people..

[Sephirstein]

3. You have no idea...

He runs around calling gay members of the Senate Simulation "faggots".

[anti_shrub]

2. How does he come to this conclusion?

"Statisitics tell me that while, at present, only a tiny percentage of the population is actively gay (2-5%)- a much larger percentage, if indoctrinated into the idea of the acceptability of homosexuality, could turn in that direction, an outcome which would sap American resolve in the face of its enemies."


Gayness robs people of their resolve? I know the right makes logical leaps, but that sucker just flew across the Grand Canyon like Evel Knievel.

[ComerPerro]

4. One day while browsing FReepland

I saw something really disturbing.

They were complaining about how "pro-fag" activists, backed by the "anti-heterosexual agenda", were trying to make it so that "gay men could adopt young boys".

Now, this is just wrong and sick of the FReepers in so many ways.

Look, just because conservatives have no family values, practice sexual abuse, and treat their children as objects doesn't mean that everyone does.

Did it ever occur to these facist assholes that maybe these gay men want a family? Why on earth would they adopt a young boy just to sexually abuse him.

Shouldn't straight men not be allowed to adopt girls, by their logic?

[LeftCoast]

5. Interesting...even he acknowledges it's a special right for heteros

"1) It will generally tend towards devaluing marriage, by removing some of the traditional specialness which surrounds the institution (eliminate the exclusitivity and it becomes like any other contract)."

That pretty much invalidates his entire premise since there's an equal protection clause in the US Const. (for now at least).