Saturday, August 07, 2010

Pearl clutchers hyperventilate on Prop 8 overturn

So we got the usual pearl clutchers -- the magic undies bunch, the holy babbler bunch, and so forth -- hyperventilating over the fact that a Federal judge ruled that a state ban on gay marriage violated the Constitution. At which point, I gotta say, WTF?

Look. I don't give a shit whether your mate is black, white, male, or female. Whatever kinky shit you get up to in your private time is your business. Gay sex? I ain't gay, so WTF would I think about gay sex for?

Y'know, for some supposedly non-gay people, these folks sure do have an obsession about gay sex. I mean, they obsess more about it than the gay mayor of Gaytown. That's just, well, squicky. Look: Most normal straight folks, we don't go through every day thinking about gay sex. I mean, we got lives. We think about our families, we think about our jobs, we think about the grass needing mowing, but the only time we think about gay sex is when somebody brings it up in our presence, at which point our reaction is probably squick! (since gay sex ain't what moves our rod, if y'know what I mean), but once that moment's over, we ain't thinking about gay sex no more because, well, we aren't gay. So what does that say about the magic undies wearers and such who are doing such pearl-clutchin' about gay marriage and whinin' about how that mighty supervillain The Gay Agenda is gonna shoot everybody with his magic Gay Ray of Gayness and, like, make everybody gay? Dude. Gay. Just sayin'.

-- Badtux the Snarky Penguin


  1. It's not just gay sex the tighty righties think about. They seem to see everyone in terms of what it would be like to have sex with them. It's like they're perpetually at that 13-year-old-boy maturity level where they imagine what everybody looks like with no clothes on, and how they must "do it." A morbid fascination with sexual details, instead of just seeing a person as a person.

    And FWIW, the idea of fat people having sex squicks me out. Can Cali please have a referendum banning that? I'd re-establish a postal address just so I could vote "yes" on that one.

  2. If they are really worried about protecting marriage, they ought to try to outlaw divorce. Divorce destroys more marriages than does gayness.

  3. I said something about that in my comments section this morning.

    Not that it matters, we're going to die anyway, hehehehe

    the idea of fat people having sex squicks me out.

    Don't it bother you one wit, fat people don't have sex.

  4. You won't be laughing when the laser range-finder of the magic Gay Ray of Gayness is trained on your forehead. Oh no, you won't be laughing then, sir, you won't be laughing then.

  5. Nope, won't be laughing. Just mincing. :).

    - Badtux the Snarky Penguin

  6. Thanks, Bukko Canukko. May you, too, someday endure bigotry. And thanks and similar wishes to the rest of you, who let his bigoted comment slide.

    Minerva Cathubodva, the very pissed, oversized war goddess

  7. "And FWIW, the idea of fat people having sex squicks me out. Can Cali please have a referendum banning that?"

    The anti-obesity laws that liberals want enacted should help solve that issue for ya.

  8. Minerva -- this is a snarky blog. All comments made herein should be interpreted in that light. I don't give a rip if fat people have sex. (Although I agree with BBC -- first time for everything! -- that fat people don't have too much of it, unless it's by their own hands.) Maybe you're one of the lucky ones who fall outside that category.

    I have nothing agains fat people. Some of my best friends are fat! Well, they used to be best friends, but that was one state and two countries ago when we used to live in Florida. Haven't seen 'em since 2002. Judging from their pictures, they haven't lost any weight. Being fat, sweaty and sticky in south Florida is a miserable thing...

    As for "anti-obesity laws that liberals want enacted" I'd be curious to see some details about those. Are liberals proposing imprisonment in weight-loss camps? Or is this a reference to sensible shit like banning crappy sugary soda vending machines from schools, or eliminating the chem-lab molecules known as "high-fructose corn syrup" and "trans-fats" from public consumption? Because I'm all for the latter.

    Haven't heard much about that being successful, though. But I'm sure "the liberals" will win. With their mighty united liberal front and all. The money from billion-dollar corporations is powerless against that, eh?


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.