Yes, only gay people deserve to be married.

But is it encoded with subliminal messages to help people like the taste of semen? Or is that too impossible?



Yep.

Hey, you know what we should do? Find the headquarters of any organization that believes gays are responsible for natural disasters and Occupy Homophobia! Every day we remain there, it'll be more likely that they'll get hit by disaster (or so they believe), so they'll have to give into our demands! Or just stop accusing us of bringing down their god's wrath on them. We don't need to even have any metaphysical powers, since they're attributing them to us!

That really depends on the semen in question.

I'm really hoping this turns into a picture thread now.

All I know is that Nemiga and Steve aren't invited over to my house for a taste test.

<.<
>.>



And as for the "gay agenda" mentioned earlier, I'm looking at the Conservapedia article on it. I swear, I'm not changing this at all.

"The Homosexual Agenda is a self-centered set of beliefs and objectives designed to promote and even mandate approval of homosexuality and homosexual ideology, along with the strategies used to implement such."

Well, this sounds totally trustworthy and unbiased right from the start.
So it's their term for a set of beliefs, not an actual agenda. An agenda is 1. plural for agendum, 2. a plan to take care of matters, 3. a list of matters, or 4. a book containing #3. Nowhere does it say that it's a set of beliefs. But while we can apparently call it one, I now declare a belief in Christ to be the Christian Agenda, a belief in the FSM to be the Spaghetti Agenda, and a belief in the Veruca Gnome to be the Pratchett Agenda!
So basically, if you support equal rights, you're trying to force other people to accept that things that don't concern them don't need to be concerning them. How terrible.

"The goals and means of this movement include indoctrinating students in public school, restricting the free speech of opposition, obtaining special treatment for homosexuals, distorting Biblical teaching and science, and interfering with freedom of association."

That link is there in the article, too. Special privileges are "privileges extended to a particular special-interest group but denied to the majority." And marriage equality and the repeal of DADT are cited as special privileges. So, they just implied that 1. heterosexuals are not allowed to marry, and 2. heterosexuals cannot serve openly in the military. My face is somewhere between and .
Also, there's a very short article stating that rights are a zero-sum game, so any time someone gets rights, someone else loses rights. That, of course, is why when women got the right to vote, all men lost the right, because you can't get more rights than you take away from someone else.

Also, "restricting the free speech of opposition?" Hey, hey, how do you restrict a rich white guy's freedom of speech? Disagree with him! (ba-dum-tish)
And yet, if you were to find a slur of equal power as the ones they sling and use it against them, they would whine.

"Indoctrinating students in public school": okay, I was raised in a blue state and never heard anything stating that two men/two women was okay. I got all my information from the internet on that account. Well, and The Sims.

"Distorting biblical and scientific teachings": Absolutely true. 100% of homosexuals are against animal and human sacrifice. And I'm not really sure what science they're referring to. Are we distorting geology and nuclear physics? I'm going to assume they mean biology, though I'm not sure how they can be offended that biology supports homosexuality when their article on evolution states that biologists are part of a grand conspiracy to undermine Christianity. Kind of like being annoyed that running from an angry gorilla means that a pebble landed in their shoe.

They never explain the "freedom of association" thing. Apparently, homosexuality prevents people from talking to who they want to talk to?

Then the article goes on to complain some more about the "homosexuality in schools" thing, though the only thing they reference is Parker v. Hurley. And then there's this.

"Focus on the Family provides additional quotes from After the Ball, outlining key points of the homosexual agenda:
1. "Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible." (They use late night air waves and special channels, as well as their right to peacefully assemble to do so.)
2. "Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers."
*cough*
3. "Give homosexual protectors a just cause."
4. "Make gays look good."
5. "Make the victimizers look bad."
6. "Get funds from corporate America.""

Okay, because a book that nobody remembers - it doesn't even have a Wikipedia article! - suggested these plans in 1989, it's the entire basis of the "homosexual agenda".
Also, that's the suggested procedure for making anyone look good! The strategy they call "deceptive psychological tactics" is what the conservatives use to deny gay rights! They talk about how LGBT are evil as much as possible, portray them as aggressive or "militant" and themselves as victims of their need for rights (from the "Homosexual logic" page: "Claiming to be persecuted when in reality it is they who are doing the persecuting"), claim that denying them rights is for the family, or a "just cause", try to make themselves look good and homosexuals to look bad (just look at all the loaded language in the article!), and they get funding from corporations. They're idiots!

"The goals of the homosexual movement include:
1. Ignoring Christian morals and discouraging religiously based laws."
Well yes, since religiously based laws are ILLEGAL in the US. It's called separation of church and state!
Also, the Conservapedia page on separation states that though the Establishment Clause is in the constitution, the exact words are not in there, so we can and should make laws based on the bible. However, the aforementioned homosexual logic page states that one fallacy of theirs is "Demanding that their own interpretation (or misinterpretation) of the Bible be made binding on everyone, despite the establishment clause."

"2. Reminding the world that marriage is a legal term and standing in the US, not a spiritual one as believed by Christians."
...Which it is. Or perhaps we should take away all the legal benefits from marriage, since it's clearly a purely spiritual standing?
Also, Christians do not all believe what you think they believe.

"3. Ignore the clear message of the Bible that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination unto God because their first amendment rights allow them to."
Why not? Leviticus also says that eating shellfish is a sin and that anything with cloven hoofs that doesn't chew cud is an abomination. Your bacon is a sin.

"4. Remind conservatives that there cannot be a gay gene, just like like there cannot be a "black gene" because complex things like these are caused by complex interactions between genes."
...But if there were evidence of a "gay gene", then it would make our claim stronger. I mean, you can't fault someone for something that they were born with. Well, you can, but you'd be an idiot.

"5. Censoring evidence that the "gay gene" is a hoax. After all, it would have to be multiple genes interacting together."
Again, if there were a "gay gene", then it would be on our side!

"6. Censoring speech against homosexuality by branding it to be "hate-speech""
Because when someone mildly insults the conservative groups, it's hate speech, but when someone aims a far more damaging insult at homosexuals, it's not.

"7. Censoring biblical statements condemning homosexuality"
No, that's called "quoting the older versions that existed before people wanted to condemn homosexuality."

"8. Lobbying for equal employment rights."
Correct, because it's wrong to discriminate against people.

"9. Expand hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation, which would be equally wrong for heterosexuals to do."
So if a gang of gay people decided to kill someone for being straight, it would be wrong for heterosexuals to brand it a hate crime? Because if that happened, I think there would be a lot of slinging around the phrase.

"10. Ending the military's and Boy Scout's restrictions on homosexuality"
Correct, because that's bigotry.

"11. Stopping children as young as 5 years old from attending therapy to repair their sexual preference."
They state below that children as young as eight do not have a sexual preference. How are five-year-olds supposed to have them, let alone need to "repair" them? And aren't you exposing children to sexual concepts when you do that?

"12. Teach tolerance of homosexuals in schools."
We can't even get decent sex ed in high schools, how are we supposed to be teaching children about homosexuality?

"13. In places like Massachusetts and California, where the gay lobby is the strongest, it starts as early as preschool. They tell seven- or eight-year-old boys, "If you only like boys, there's a chance you may be homosexual," or "If you only like girls, maybe you are lesbian." Children at that age also do not have the hormones to experience sexual attraction, so they cannot understand this yet."
But I thought that five year olds had sexual preferences and needed to repair them if they were wrong.
And this is not a point, it's an elaboration of one.

"14. Demands protections from job discrimination."
This is a reiteration of point 8.

"15. Suing an online dating website for discrimination. This was because sexual orientation is a federally protected group, as such, this company was breaking the law."
This is not a point, this is a specific incident.

"16. Undermining the resolve of latent homosexuals so that their will becomes too weak to resist the temptations of homosexuality"
So...their position is that homosexuality is genetic...which suggests that their god created a "gay gene"...but that you're not supposed to act on what your god gave you...

"17. Pushing for legalized adoption by gay individuals and couples"
Well, if they're going to prevent abortions, the babies need to go somewhere.

"18. Indoctrination of public school children to support the homosexual agenda"
This is a reiteration of point 12.

Ooh, here's another list!
"Liberals are critical of Christian groups that oppose homosexuality. These criticisms include Christian activities of:
Threatening to shut Salvation Army soup kitchens in New York if they cannot exclude homosexuals from employment."
Because shutting down a charity if they employ a certain group of people is totally reasonable and not at all bigoted!

"Encouraging email activism"
...How is email activism a Christian activity? Also, I'm against any kind of email activism. It clogs up my spam folder.

"Producing and disseminating gay reform information"
Well, generally, promoting the abuse of anyone is a bad idea.

"Influencing local media in what stories they produce"
So they're admitting that Christians are trying to influence the media...but criticize liberals for "controlling the media"?

"Lobbying local, state and federal government officials to vote in the desired way on pending legislation"
Because LGBT lobbies who influence government officials are evil, but criticizing Christians for influencing government officials is WRONG.

"Calling anyone who supports gay rights a 'sinner' or other untrue insults."
...You're saying that someone who supports gay rights is NOT a sinner? Cool!

My brain feels broken.

Say hello to my little friend!

Sorry,I just express my opinion in wrong way.Of course that be gay is normal as to be hetero.I just disagree with author text

You're disagreeing with your misinterpretation of the original post. It was intended to be a mockery of homophobic propaganda, not a serious argument for making homosexuality the only legitimate sexuality. Ever heard of Poe's Law?

And when this was pointed out to you, you said that you were "reading between the lines" so that you knew that it was actually "gay propaganda" and not what the author intended it to be.

You're not so much expressing your opinion in the wrong way as photocopying your butt, posting it in public, and then trying to convince the offended people that it's actually a work of high art that they aren't interpreting properly.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that English isn't Nemiga's first language, and that there is some misunderstanding on both sides as a result of "lost in translation" type wording.

...So someone not fluent in English is claiming that a post in English is saying something that a lot of fluent English-speakers say isn't there? That's not really better.

And Nemiga seems to convey and understand the gist of it pretty well, except for the articles and tenses. That doesn't seem like enough to completely miss the point of a post.

Whoa whoa ok now chill...and let's continue this movement of anti-straight arseholes!

No, that is a misnomer. In the USA a marriage composed of one heterosexual male and one heterosexual female would most accurately be referred to as an Impending Divorce.

That's because Conservapedia only makes sense as a satirical website.

I thought this picture might be relatable to this thread. Lol.



(DISCLAIMER: I AM IN NO WAY SUPPORTING ANTI-GAY CAMPAIGNS. I AM STRONGLY PRO-GAY MARRIAGE. IF YOU READ THE ARTICLE AND IF YOU HAVE AT LEAST A FEW BRAIN CELLS UP IN THAT NOGGIN YOU MIGHT HAVE NOTICED THAT IT IS MOCKING POPULAR ANTI-GAY SLOGANS AND PROVING THAT THERE IS NO VALID REASON WHY GAY MARRIAGE SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.)