Friday, November 14, 2008

SODOMITE RAMPAGE



Even though the people of the great States of California and Florida rejected gay marriage at the ballot box, militant homosexuals, continued their assault on society by staging coordinated attacks on radical right wing establishments (known to average Americans as churches) in California and Michigan. Even a little old granny was not immune to the wrath of the practitioners of buggery. Watch her get man-handled as one of the sodomites rips a cross out of her hand and stomps on it at an anti-Prop 8 rally in Palm Springs, CA.




It seems radical homosexuals feel quite brave when it comes to attacking churches. They make easy targets, given the Christian concept that when one is confronted with violence to “turn the other cheek.” (If there are any gay readers out there, that’s not what you think it means). Considering the punishment for homosexuals in Islamic societies is death – execution by all sorts of unique methods I must say – I invite these same militant homosexuals to express their rage inside a mosque. Or better yet, given the fact that at least 70% of blacks voted against gay marriage in California, go ahead and push Aunt Esther around at a black church and see what happens.
We at RuckingFidiculous realize homosexuality is as old as time. And quite frankly, we don’t care what you do with your junk in private. However, Militant Homosexuality is a relatively new phenomenon. It is a phenomenon that aggressively manifests itself when a nation is in precipitous decline. Just like certain diseases thrive in filth, it’s only when a society has begun to rot from within that Militant Homosexuality can find conditions favorable enough to subject society to the full force of its intolerance and depravity. Militant homosexuals are the shock troops of the secular progressive movement; it’s only a matter of time before the General of this movement, Sheik Hussein Obama and his corrupt minions (activist judges) thwart the will of the people and overturn these pro-family amendments.

Post By El Sid

4 comments:

Fred J. Langemark III said...

"Pro family" amendments that go directly against the very foundation of freedom intended in our constitution.

El Sid said...

Laws are enacted by societies based on natural law and the moral preferences of its citizenry. Accordingly, ALL laws are discriminatory in some way because they either authorize or prohibit certain behaviors or actions.

Marriage laws were not invented to persecute or deny specific rights to gays. Marriage laws in our country enforce an institution which over thousands of years in thousands of cultures provided the foundation of stable societies.

I agree with you that freedom is the cornerstone of our Constitution, but I seriously doubt that the framers of this glorious document had in mind the protection of a group of people whose sole identity and raison d'ĂȘtre is their sexual identity.

Moreover, your blog's argument equating the ban on gay marriage to the old ban on interracial marriage is simplistic at best. Laws banning interracial marriage are inconsistent with the state's interest in promoting marriage. And what is the state's interest in promoting marriage? The procreation and rearing of children. Gay relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage.

Fred J. Langemark III said...

The entire issue is simplistic at best.

You are saying that in our country where we promote Equal Rights for Equal People, it is alright to tell people that because they are homosexual they are not our equals, and so they are not able to share in all the same rights awarded to straight couples.

The argument concerning interracial marriage is discrimination, same as marriage based solely on peoples sexuality. I realize there is a difference between the two issues, but they have the same moral issue facing them.

As for the benefit of marriage being to promote procreation... the state gives much more money and benefits to single parents than it does to married couples.

Laws are enacted for the good of the people, and to allow for their protection. When you are talking about a law against murder for example, you are not discriminating against any group of people, you are protecting the population as a whole from being murdered. People are born homosexual or heterosexual, and do not become such like a murderer becomes a murderer, so that argument of yours is flawed for many, many reasons.

And lastly, the founders of the Constitution would be strongly offended by a group of people not being granted the same rights of their fellow citizens based on something as minute as their sexual preference. Something which, for the record, causes no harm, discomfort, or any other negative effects to any one.

Still waiting on a legitimate reason to ban gay marriage.

jay said...

I love the Outrage over militant homosexuals from the right wing and conservatives. We (as a people) have been beaten, murdered, left for dead ridiculed and even raped by "heterosexuals" who aren't considered radical, but healthy normal members of society. I think the hate mongers are just upset that we finally decided that we're not going to take it anymore. The arguments are similar from ages gone by... someone is the radical (Malcolm X???) Maybe, just maybe, hate inspires a radical reaction. But for you, peace and love are wished.