Being in the heart of the South, my folks get to see all kinds of flat out stupid opinions on people’s facebook. Maybe now that I’m in Kansas I’ll get a piece of this treasure, but until then I just have to trust mom to send me stuff like this:

So I looked up the article.

Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.

Hey! It’s the old (and already debunked) slippery slope argument. I guess it’s not just Christians who make this argument, but pedophiles too! If the Vatican weren’t a Christian organization, I’d call it a strange alliance.

Right from the beginning the article already drops the ball. Nobody’s using “I have x impulse and therefore should be allowed to do it” as the sum of their argument. Otherwise we’d be arguing that people with a disposition to vandalize buildings should be allowed to do so. What gay people are saying is that they shouldn’t be constrained in who they love because of what other people find attractive when their partner is a consenting adult. You may have the impulse to sleep with children or to do any number of things, but if those things violate someone else’s rights or cause harm there is a societal interest in barring those behaviors. The avoidance of harm and the protection of others, including children, takes precedence over what someone wants to do.

Homosexuals are arguing for the ability to marry the consenting adult that they love. They are not arguing for adults to have the right to violate children, so pedophiles are not arguing for the same rights as homosexuals.

Children are not consenting adults. Children don’t get to make a lot of decisions about what goes on in their life…because they’re children. And that’s exactly the problem with the anti-marriage equality crowd: you want to treat adults not only like they’re children, but you want to treat every gay person as if they were your child and you are their parents, where you get to determine who they date, fuck, and marry. Ironically, you seem to think that defying that idea lends legitimacy to the idea of children being treated as adults. What’s next? If we let gay people drive cars we also have to let five year-olds? Jesus Christ.

And since the whole article is predicated on the soundness of its opening statement, the whole thing’s shit.

And the comments on Donella’s facebook are a special brand of oblivious and self-important that only seem to come from minds contaminated by faith.

That was my question…Where does it stop??

At one of two places: where somebody is not an adult or where sufficient harm is done (which is really why it stops when someone isn’t an adult), just like every other law in an ideal and civilized society. Gay marriage is between adults, no harm is done, and a great deal of joy is created. Not only that, but barring an adult from marrying the consenting adult of their choice on the basis of what one group finds attractive, as if all marriages should be based upon the opinions of that one group, is pure discrimination. If there was a law saying two people with the same hair color couldn’t marry, it would be determined that this was an arbitrary standard and a discriminatory law. Nobody would be shrieking “If we let two blondes marry because of what they find attractive, why shouldn’t we let adults marry children if they find it attractive?” Anybody using that argument would be given a sneer that said “You’re a deranged person” before they were ignored. That’s what should be happening here with the people saying that letting two consenting adults who find vaginas attractive get married means adults should be able to marry children, but because they’re carrying bibles they’re somehow spared the “you’re an idiot” sneer.

I think only God can save our nation, we have gone to far for man to get us out of the mess we have allowed our judges and political parties to create for us.

Out of this mess? What mess? Two dudes or two dudettes kissing? Where is the mess here? Does two clasped female hands somehow negatively impact the lives of others besides irritating people who think it’s their right to dictate what makes other adults happy?

Show me how we’re in a “mess” and then we’ll talk about whether or not the same god who watches children die of malaria on the daily is the one to get us out of it.

Are we to allow everyone with a different “sexual orientation” to do as they please. I mean after all we are “trampling” on their “rights”!

That depends. Does their sexual orientation have to do with consenting adults? If so, and not harm is done, then yes.

Here are some examples to help out people like Bob who seem immune to even the most obvious nuance:

Sexual orientations that are ok to indulge:

If you find cross necklaces attractive

If you find people of the opposite sex attractive

If you find piercings attractive

If you find blonde hair attractive

If you find someone of the same sex attractive

If you find feet sexy and want have sex with them

If you find sex with your kitchen table attractive (it’s your own property and doesn’t have a conscience, it’s not my bag but go nuts if that’s what gets you off)

Sexual orientations that are not ok to indulge:

If you find sex with someone against their will attractive (unless you’ve gotten an adult to consent to pretending in order to satisfy your orientation, but you don’t get to actually do this)

If you find sex with pigs attractive (a pig cannot consent)

If you find sex with children attractive (a child can consent to you giving them alcohol too or can consent to voting, but because children are not adults their consent is not always the deciding factor)(unless you’ve gotten an adult to consent to pretending to be a child in order to satisfy your orientation, but you don’t get to actually do this)

If stealing turns you on (it creates harm, so even if it gives you a boner you don’t get to do this as foreplay)

These lines are based upon the avoidance of harm while maintaining equality. They are not arbitrary like the lines of the Christians who oppose certain people marrying because their holy book says so, regardless of whether happiness or harm is created by their proposed rules.

May I suggest you read Frank Perreti’s book “Piercing the darkness”. The Bible talks about the end says being similar to the times of Sodom and Gomorrah (sp?) and look what happened to them! I agree if God does not choose to intervene we are on our way to extinction.

Gay people getting married will lead to extinction? What, will allowing gay people to marry somehow make straight people sterile? You realize that prohibiting gay people from marrying will not make them any more attracted to people of the opposite sex, and that straight people will continue procreating at about the same rate, right? This argument from Jan is flat out one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read.

It’s interesting that Jan laments modern times, replete with our technology, medicine, abundant food, etc. as if it represent a regression of some sort, by comparing it to Sodom and Gomorrah. You know what is not present in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the bible? So much as a hint that god destroyed the city on account of rampant homosexuality. Do you know what is present in the story? Pedophilia and incest, all by the “good guys”.

As my father put it once:

A lot of people don’t really read the Sodom and Gomorrah story in Genesis. I read it. I find nowhere–repeat, NOWHERE–does it say homosexuality was the reason for god’s destruction of the cities. Since it is your reference, can you please provide that quote for me? I could understand the mistaken notion that the crime was homosexual RAPE or bestiality (angels aren’t men), but you would have to be in a fantasy world to manufacture anything resembling homosexual love in the story. You DO understand the difference between heterosexual rape and heterosexual lovemaking, don’t you? Yeah, well, homosexual rape and homosexual lovemaking have the same difference.Anyway, what it definitely DID say in Genesis Chapter 19 verse 8 (KJV): Lot the righteous good guy says: “Behold, now, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes….”Now there is a great lesson for us. Lot (the only righteous good guy worth saving in the city) offers to send his two virgin daughters out to be gang raped! As an aside, if all the men are homosexuals, why even bother to offer to send out virgin girls? What interest would homosexual men have in girls? Does this make any kind of sense? I am astonished that you people focus on the homosexuality that isn’t even mentioned and ignore the invitation to toss out young virgin girls for gang rape that is specifically stated. “Here, crowd, rape my virgin daughters as much as you want”. That’s sick. But wait, there’s more! How about a little incest and pedophilia from the only truly righteous people worth saving from Sin City? Moving on to Genesis Chapter 19 verses 32+36: “Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father……Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.” How can you people ignore this type of incestuous pedophilia that is clearly and undeniably there while focusing on homosexuality that isn’t there? Where is your head? Oh, yeah, Let’s get Daddy likkered up and jump his bones. We’re the Good Guys! We’re the Role Models! Either you are incredibly desperate or you don’t read your own reference….or both. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for:

Social injustice: Isiah: 1:9; 3:9

General immorality: Jeremiah 23-14

Ezekial 16:48-49 states that incredibly clearly:

“As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” It seems just from reading a few passages in the story of Sodom that the problem is not homosexuality, but is social injustice, even though an implied case could be made for rape . Lot offers his daughters to the group of men, but asks them to spare the angels because they have come under the “shelter of his roof,” and he is responsible for them, so honoring that trust is more important than his daughter’s virginity. The men are rapists.