Page 1 of 1 [ 2 posts ] 

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

09 Aug 2012, 11:46 pm

Remember this image?
[img][800:768]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m80awqPk0Y1qkdvl3o1_1280.jpg[/img]

If you have been using the bible to justify your bigoted opposition to gay marriage, then it is a good idea to completely ignore this image and pray so that those liberals forget about it. Else we will all know that biblical marriage is a concept so incompatible with our society that we should not come close to it at all.

But ignoring the image and praying we forget about it is not NOM's style. National organization for Marriage. Apparently that organization has decided to embrace the kinds of marriages in the image!

http://www.ruthblog.org/2012/08/06/left ... ey-do-not/

Quote:
Look carefully at the image and you will see that in ALL of the examples, both genders are represented. This image reinforces the conservative position about needing a gender requirement, it does not undermine our position.


I mean, really. What? So for these people, gay marriage is so wrong, that even rape and concubines looks like a much better alternative "At least it is heterosexual". I guess.


via http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/08/0 ... -and-rape/


_________________
.


peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

10 Aug 2012, 12:26 am

aye seeing it all laid out in a table like that is a bit of an eye opener. especially the "female rape victim obliged to marry and submit sexually to the perpetrator" part.

this in itself should negate the bible as being any indicator whatsoever as to what is appropriate in terms of marriage arrangements in modern society. the site linked is a disgrace, basically saying that raping a virgin and forcing her to marry and submit to you sexually is a better option than gay marriage.

the opinions held by some people are nothing short of unbelievable.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith