Monday, June 05, 2006

Defending marriage

If defining marriage as between a man and a woman is the first step in defending marriage, what's the next step? And do the Republican asswipes who want a Constitutional amendment defining marriage really want to go all the way? Floridian Mustang Bobby speculates that maybe there are some things we're better off not knowing...

Postscript 21:01PM PST: Go read AmericaBlog, hilarity ensues as gay activists call Congressman asking whether they would support a Constitutional amendment banning divorce, masturbation, adultery, etc.! Bwahahahahah! What a bunch of f'ing two-faced hypocrits, their staffers are flopping around on the floor like beached fish absolutely stumped because they have no talking points that apply!

- Badtux the Snarky Penguin


  1. I'm waiting for the "A Woman's Body Belongs to her Husband" amendment.

  2. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

    Bring on the concubines!

  3. Well, I'm going to head over to Americablog to see the fun.

  4. The real issue with Bush's latest anti-gay-marriage rhetoric, this time around, isn't bigotry or moral hypocrisy. It's the very obvious political pandering, and the stink of panicky desperation that it exudes.

    Right now, the general public is pissed over the Iraqmire, rising gas prices, corruption, and unconstitutional invasion of privacy, while the wingnut base is frothing over illegal immigration, an issue that has the GOP in a massive quandary to put it very mildly. Meanwhile, you don't have same-sex couples being married in SF and Massachusetts state legislatures legalizing gay marriage like you did in 2004. What worked as a bogeyman then does not necessarily work today.

    I read about Bush's latest rehashing of the gay marriage issue, and here's what I picture in my mind:

    An angry spouse confronts her husband, who's been cheating on her. He suddenly yells to her and points past her, "Look! Over there! An evil big black ghetto thug coming to rape you! I'm here to protect you!" in the hope that she'll look, panic and turn to him for protection. That worked two years ago, when they were living in an inner-city neighborhood, but now they live in the lily-white 'burbs. The question is whether the wife falls for it this time around, or responds, "Nice try, asshole. You must think I'm an idiot."

  5. Banning masturbation makes perfect sense. After all, if wanking were illegal, every single adult human being in 'Murrica would be guilty, thus creating a need for lots more new prisons. Those prisons would all be built by Haliburton on no-bid contracts, and staffed entirely by Republican Party members, who of course never masturbate, because they love Jesus so much.

    Sheesh! Do we have to spell this out for you?

  6. What about menstration? As a man, I find it dirty and frightening. We have the technology to stop it, and we should make it happen now.


Ground rules: Comments that consist solely of insults, fact-free talking points, are off-topic, or simply spam the same argument over and over will be deleted. The penguin is the only one allowed to be an ass here. All viewpoints, however, are welcomed, even if I disagree vehemently with you.

WARNING: You are entitled to create your own arguments, but you are NOT entitled to create your own facts. If you spew scientific denialism, or insist that the sky is purple, or otherwise insist that your made-up universe of pink unicorns and cotton candy trees is "real", well -- expect the banhammer.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.