||[Feb. 23rd, 2009|12:56 pm]
- Anti-gay ad in the Salt Lake Tribune - this is good wingnut territory. Takes a quote about "enhanced equal rights" and says that "Gays will have MORE RIGHTS than anyone else". I'll be sure to let you know when that happens, but equal rights would be just fine with me. Also apparently there was a Homosexual Declaration of War in 1987 where the gays want to sodomize your children? News to me.
Also, my word is this an ugly ad! Lots of random BOLDING and capitalization :-)
- Gay Snipers Attack Marriage In West Virginia Campaign Ad (VIDEO) - the gay snipers appear at :58 and it just gets better from there. (foreboding music! whooooo will think of the children?? religious liberty is losing to the gays!)
I certainly don't feel discriminated against on a daily basis, but it's good to remember that just because I'm lucky enough to live in Austin doesn't mean crap like this isn't going on other places.
2009-02-23 07:43 pm (UTC)
declaration of war
Apparently this Homosexual Declaration of War was a satirical piece that somebody wrote and printed somewhere. Reprinting a satirical essay as a straight-faced essay = fail.
Self-pwnership is the best kind of pwnership.
You know, for all this talk about gays declaring war on things, you think they would be welcomed into the military with open arms.
I'm amused at how "marriage between a man and a woman is held up as the ideal in all of civilized society." So, those countries in which men may have more than one wife, or countries where Christian marriage is not practiced aren't civilized?
Oh, and somehow, people who have children without marriage, or end up with broken marriages don't "favor the desires of adults over the needs of children" but gay marriage does?
I'm getting a big kick out of their rhetoric: "West Virginians should define marriage, not judges" who were elected or appointed by your elected officials, and yet somehow aren't West Virginians?
"preserve the definition of marriage as one man, one woman." um, I thought the point of this ad was that no such definition currently exists, so any preservation would keep it undefined.
"By holding hands and kissing in the public area...is stating that he or she practices sodomy...": And every het couple who holds hands or kisses in a public place is declaring that they have sex? I don't think so.
And further down, "What one cannot do is display his or her sexual conduct and force the people to accept it.": By this argument, straight people should never kiss or hold hands or talk about their partners in public either.
I could go on, too. Fun, fun.
yeah, I chose to focus on the video, so I didn't work myself up into a pissed off, "you're all idiots" mode. ;)
Actually, many of these people do not consider these other countries to be civilized.
It's incredible that people have such a short view of history. I'm constantly amazed that most people just assume things have always been as they are now. The idea of romantic, heterosexual, 2-people marriage is about a century old. Diamonds as a girl's best friend/engagement ring necessities are less than a century old.
I know, that was kind of hidden in my comment. Silly people talking about 2,000-year traditions don't even know, or want to know, what it really was like 2,000 years ago!