Much of humanity – especially females – can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction – until now, accomplished through marriage. But that of course is “heterosexism,” a bigoted preference for man-woman erotic love, and therefore to be extirpated from society.

Really? Especially females? Interesting, given that the usual focus of their rants is male homosexuality.

We have to subjugate women into male/female relationships to protect them from enjoying homosexual sex. Wow. It’s all about the heterosexual male privilege, isn’t it.

How does one criticize people who, like the columnists above (whom I’m giving the benefit of the doubt), spout unsupported, irrational claims that are intended to have an impact on public policy, but which — however wrong-headed — are based in sincerely held religious beliefs?
…
And how do you do so without being labeled an “anti-religion bigot”?

Easy (at least I think so). Pretend you know nothing about “their religion” and keep questioning the source of their claims; keep throwing in phrases like “Wow, really. That’s fascinating! But…”. Slowly peeling away the layers — eventually they’ll reveal the true source of their “facts”.

Of course the problem with this is, it takes a long time — it’s like getting meth addicts to admit that they have a problem. Of course, it really accomplishes nothing. Once they realized that they’ve been backed into their religious corner, science, history and logic are no longer acceptable sources of reasoning (unless it enforces their claims), and religious imperatives trumps any logical thinking

Ah, there’s the rub. There is no supporting documentation to establish the veracity of the notions expressed whatsoever! According to the Bible account of Noah and his family, they, and only they, were allowed to survive among all the countless human beings extant before the flood. This, of course, would mean that either Noah and his family invented the Sumerian pictographic written language (believed to be the first example of a written language) or brought it with them and recorded their story; or their story was handed down verbally for generations before someone finally set it to ‘clay’ so to speak. The time-line offered by some so-called ‘experts’ places Noah and his flood around 2300BC but we know of examples of early tablets containing pictographs dating into the late 4th millenium BC. Who wrote those?

Much later, the books of the old testiment were written by the priesthood in the early period of Israel, during the period of the Levites and the time of the kings of Israel being constantly rewritten and revised over at least a millenium or so we’re told. While we consider this to be a time of great antiquity, Noah was certainly not contemporary with them and his story is based on pure conjecture as is most of old testiment ‘history.’ Any discussion of this ‘history’ in the Babylonian Talmud (dated to about 500AD, give or take) would not be based on any actual recorded evidence. Talk about long memories!

Isn’t pseudoscience wonderful? Hey, I think I’m getting the hang of it. ROFL. HELP! I’m turning into Dennis Prager!

babble… babble… babble…

ROFLOL

Then GDad said:
“The time before Noah is now a factual period from which we have same-sex marriage licenses?

Holy cow. What about the time right before Palpatine killed all the Jedi? Or the Interregnum between the Wizard of Oz and Ozma, when the Scarecrow reigned with a straw fist?”

HOWL!

Their vision of the future reminds me of some of the scenes from D.W. Griffin’s Birth of a Nation.

The time before Noah is now a factual period from which we have same-sex marriage licenses?

Holy cow. What about the time right before Palpatine killed all the Jedi? Or the Interregnum between the Wizard of Oz and Ozma, when the Scarecrow reigned with a straw fist?

I have looked through my son’s schoolbooks, and I have yet to see any definition of marriage at all. Sometimes they’ll mention a specific male-female marriage in historical context (e.g. Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon), but it would hardly be the case that the book would be required to de-gender those historical facts. In fact, it might be historically enlightening to mention things like Alexander the Great’s dalliances all around the gender spectrum.

It amazes me that these people are afforded any credibility whatsoever.