From the article:

"It's finally happened," said Rush Limbaugh, conservative radio personality. "America, I've been warning you for years that gay marriage would destroy the American family and look there they are, a husband, wife, and four children destroyed. When is this going to stop America? When will the liberals be satisfied? When all the marriages break up? This wasn't Mark Sanford's fault, this was Ted Kennedy's fault. Sanford didn't cheapen the value of marriage, he was victimized by the cheapening of marriage."

Sad thing is, this isn't that far from the realm of possibility - it wouldn't surprise me a bit.

are you fucking kidding me? What a bizarro world it is when someone can say such utter nonsense and all the dittoheads just lap it up.

"Sanford didn't cheapen the value of marriage, he was victimized by the cheapening of marriage."

classic stuff! you just can't make up stuff as good as this!

What a retarded bitch.

Liberals didn't destroy the Sanford's marriage. Mark Sanford's inability to keep it in his pants did.

Conservatives need to man up and stop blaming all of their failures on other people.

Er....are these the same folks who preach about "personal responsibility"????

Yeah, screwing women in different countries didn't ruin his marriage, Tom and Steve buttfucking in Fresno did.

And you dittoheads wonder why we laugh at you........

Jenny needs to admit that she just can't keep a man happy.

It's HER fault her husband strayed.

I think there is a contest going on that most of us are unaware of. The righties are all competing with each other to say the stupidest things possible without actually causing the 25% of the population who listen to them realizing it is all a big joke.
So far Rush is winning, but Glen Beck is gaining on him.

Conservatives need to man up and stop blaming all of their failures on other people.

You expect personal responsibility form the party of "personal responsbility"?

without actually causing the 25% of the population who listen to them realizing it is all a big joke.

Judging by the representatives of the 25%ers here, they can rest assure that will never happen. You've got Republicans saying the Republicans who screwed up never were Republicans and teabgaggers like aflac saying "Neither was I."

And yes, I know the article is Onion-esque. It's just not that far from reality.

Well I fucking fell for it.

Kudos!

This is not true--why is this getting any attention?

Oh--yeah--the gays need to feel like victims--so make up statements for an ongoing story regarding a cheating Gov and his family.

Makes perfect sense.

Oh--yeah--the gays need to feel like victims--so make up statements for an ongoing story regarding a cheating Gov and his family.

Makes perfect sense.

#14 | Posted by MURPHY

Uhm, ever heard of parody?

Or were you just looking for an excuse to gay-bash?

"the gays need to feel like victims"

Don't kid yourself. You wouldn't trade your rights for the rights of a gay woman. And if the government forbade you from collecting your husband's social security after he dies, yet you had to pay in to the SS system the same as others, you might "feel like" a victim as well. Same if the government denied you another thousand or so of the rights you & your husband, and my wife & I get to take for granted.

"And yes, I know the article is Onion-esque. It's just not that far from reality."

See: Poe's Law

Oh--yeah--the gays need to feel like victims--so make up statements for an ongoing story regarding a cheating Gov and his family.

Makes perfect sense.

#13 | Posted by SMURPHY at 2009-07-02 06:18 PM | Reply | Flag: Idiotic Post O' The Day.....

Oh--yeah--the gays need to feel like victims--so make up statements for an ongoing story regarding a cheating Gov and his family.

Makes perfect sense.

#13 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-07-02 06:18 PM | Reply | Flag Still waiting for the hate whitey tape I paid good money for.

Oh--yeah--the gays need to feel like victims--so make up statements for an ongoing story regarding a cheating Gov and his family.

Makes perfect sense.

#14 | Posted by MURPHY

Uhm, ever heard of parody?

Or were you just looking for an excuse to gay-bash?

#14 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2009-07-02 06:22 PM |

She was looking for an excuse to gay bash.

Right Muffy?

"In the end, he is the one who is going to hell and we're going to have to work through that, but make no mistake, this whole affair can be traced back to the liberals in Washington. We may not be able to save our marriage, but it's not too late for the rest of America. Say no to gay marriage the marriage you save might be your own."

I'd step out on her too. She's one seriously crazy lady. And what does Washington have to do with gay marriage? They've blocked it every time it has come up.

Sounds like a woman just looking for a way to avoid admitting her husband is world-class scoundrel.

Some homosexuals contrive to use any situation involving a disruption in the relationship of normal people as a pulpit for declaring their victimization because biology precludes people who are not attracted to members of the opposite sex from having marital relationships, a relationship in which sex is the nexus. It's not a matter of fault that precludes the inanity of homosexual marriage from existing. It's the reality. Marriage is not for asexual creatures. It is based on sex. Biology provides the anatomical basis for marriage.

People are impaired in many ways, physically ranging from being paralyzed to being blind or deaf or having congestive heart failure, or any of a wide range of conditions compromising their ability to live a full life. Many have the vitality and courage to try to overcome their impairments and live life as fully as they can with their dysfunction. It seems to be the homosexuals who rage against the world because they don't qualify to be fully engaged.

As to the Governor. He is apparently delusionary and should be institutionalized for his own protection and that of others. His retention in office with his inconsistent flitting between rationality and delusion, is foolhardy. It's a personal tragedy for the family due to a plunge into insanity by the unfortunate man. This attempt to convolute the situation into some type of endorsement for the oxymoronic idea of "a homosexual marriage," certainly displays the desperation of homosexuals in pursuit of some rational justification for their absurd proposition.

.....so is Bill Clinton finally absolved of responsibility for the Blow Job ??......

....and is Rush absolved of responsiblity for fucking 10 year old Dominican boys ??.......

.....is that gay marriage's fault also ??.....

"Marriage is not for asexual creatures."

Laugh of the Day: Johnson doesn't believe gays have sex.

Laugh of the Day: Johnson doesn't believe gays have sex.

#24 | Posted by Danforth

The bigger laugh (and Johnson provides so many) is that he believes marriage is only about the mechanics of sex, and not about love, companionship, and security.

What a sad, hollow man.

The bigger laugh (and Johnson provides so many) is that he believes marriage is only about the mechanics of sex -- #25 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue

I get so confused by this. According to a lot of DR men, sex ends when you get married.

According to a lot of DR men, sex ends when you get married.

No, just the kinky stuff.

"According to a lot of DR men, sex ends when you get married."

No, just the kinky stuff.

Nothing wrong with "kinky" after marriage to keep some spice in the relationship.

Although I suppose it also depends on the man's definition of "kinky"

Perhaps that question is best left unanswered.

Although I suppose it also depends on the man's definition of "kinky"

Mayonnaise.

And Kaopectate.

All over your body.

The bigger laugh (and Johnson provides so many) is that he believes marriage is only about the mechanics of sex, and not about love, companionship, and security.

Johnson's been bitter ever since the Klan kicked him out for giving syphilis to the Grand Wizard's wife. Now his only solace comes from posting fragments of his manifesto on the internet while he waits for the next shipment of fertilizer to come in...

If it makes perfect sense to Murphy, be worried.

Johnson's broad deifinition of insanity:

"If you are not like me, you are insane"

Although I suppose it also depends on the man's definition of "kinky"

So where do people draw the line?

Hot wax and ice?

Roleplaying? What kind? Nurses, cops, teachers, flight attendants, politicians, dungeons and dragons, abu ghraib re-enactment, Nazi interrogations, simulated rape...

Whips, paddles, and leather?

Latex body suits covered giblet gravy and petroleum jelly?

Nipple, nut, and clit clamps? What if they're electrified?

Chocolate popsicles and a cake decorator loaded with vanilla frosting?

Harnesses mounted to the ceiling?

A supersoaker filled with urine (and fitted with a dildo bayonette)?

Enema play?

This is the reason that God hates orgasms and only approves of the missionary position.

#24 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-07-03 11:30 AM

"Marriage is not for asexual creatures."

Laugh of the Day: Johnson doesn't believe gays have sex.

Oh? You didn't know that? Here is some material for your edification.

sex
1. a distinctive character of most animals and plants, based on the type of gametes produced by the gonads, ova (macrogametes) being typical of the female, and spermatozoa (microgametes) of the male, or the category in which the individual is placed on such basis.
2. see gender identity, under identity.
3. sexual intercourse.
4. to determine whether an organism is male or female.

Also see:

coitus sexual connection per vaginam between male and female.coital
coitus incompletus , coitus interruptus coitus in which the penis is withdrawn from the vagina before ejaculation.
coitus reservatus coitus in which ejaculation is intentionally suppressed.

Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. 2007 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.
coitus
Sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina. Also called coition, copulation.

****************************** ****************************** ********

I hate to disappoint you fellows, but gay conduct is not a sexual act. Anilingus, anal sodomy, fellatio, masturbation, may secure an ejaculation and experience of orgasm, but unless undertaken with a person of the opposite sex, it is just faux, imitative, not a sexual act. Sorry fellows. That doesn't prevent you from enjoying yourselves. And I suppose that indulgence in homosexuality is more pleasurable than a state of celibacy. Go for it.

Thank you for your spirited defense of Bill Clinton.

"Danforth, I recognize that gays have found ways to ejaculate using body parts adopted to that purpose. But that isn't "sex." "

Johnson is Bill Clinton?!? Who knew?

"Anilingus, anal sodomy, fellatio, masturbation, may secure an ejaculation and experience of orgasm, but unless undertaken with a person of the opposite sex, it is just faux, imitative, not a sexual act."

And gays have never had sex!

What's next, Johnson, that Obama is bisexual and Michelle orgiastic? Oh, wait...you already made that ludicrous claim, too:

"Of course, given the as yet unsubstantiated rumors that Michelle and Barack were swingers, he being bisexual, and she orgiastic..."
Posted by Johnson at 2008-06-23 09:43 AM

#25 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2009-07-03 11:34 AM

The bigger laugh (and Johnson provides so many) is that he believes marriage is only about the mechanics of sex, and not about love, companionship, and security.

What a sad, hollow man.

What is it that your saying here, Rogue, that using your example, three out of four components isn't bad, that the sexual component can be eliminated and there can still be a "marriage?" Don't your recognize that that's sort of silly. It's sort of like saying that Na is salt. All that's missing is the Cl. No Rogue, to have salt you need the sodium and the chloride to combine. Otherwise you have something else. NaCl is salt. Omitting the heterosexual component from the relationship transforms it into something else, which certainly is not "marriage."

You can deceive yourselves and that should be enough. but you are trying to foist your misconceptions on society, and have in some places succeeded. So "feelings" will be the basis for entitlement to benefits despite there not being a marriage. This is a folie as with St. Vitus' Dance, or the Tulip Madness or the Salem Witch Trials. But this too shall pass.

"that the sexual component can be eliminated and there can still be a "marriage?""

Simple question:

Yes or no, would you deny marriage to a paraplegic male & female who could never have sex?

What a clueless dolt you show yourself to be every time you post that crap.

Do you think heterosexual couples who have companionship, love, support, and security, but for any variety of reasons do not have sex are suddenly no longer married?

People don't get married to have sex. They can have that regardless of marital status. They get married because they've found someone they have an emotional bond with, as well as a physical attraction.

#30 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-07-03 03:46 PM

The bigger laugh (and Johnson provides so many) is that he believes marriage is only about the mechanics of sex, and not about love, companionship, and security.

Johnson's been bitter ever since the Klan kicked him out for giving syphilis to the Grand Wizard's wife. Now his only solace comes from posting fragments of his manifesto on the internet while he waits for the next shipment of fertilizer to come in...

Why are you bitter? Are you the Grand Wizard? I didn't known that she was married or connected with the Klan, Zombie. I don't knowingly interfere in anyone else's marriage by engaging a married woman. You're privy to information I didn't have. Thanks for alerting me, and if you are the cuckolded man, I certainly hope that you and your wife can work it out, and she can fall in love with you again after the transformational oceanic sexual experience she had. It was her epiphany.

I recognize that gays have found ways to ejaculate using body parts adopted to that purpose. But that isn't "sex"... "Sex" is a male - female thing.

Keep telling yourself that. It's an issue of semantics. People are doing it, and people are ascribing a meaning to the act. Whether or not you accept that definition is irrelevant. What you want to call it is irrelevant. Societies change over time. You apparently didn't get the memo.

When homophobes talk, most of them concentrate on male anal sex because they assume most adults have an innate revulsion to it. Nevermind the fact that heterosexuals do it as well (like the woman who asked me to put it in her butt so she could keep her virginity). What about oral sex? Is cunnilingus different if two women do it or if it happens between heterosexuals? Is the orgasm different? Is the emotional connection different?

Why are you bitter? Are you the Grand Wizard?

I'm not up to Klan standards.

Of course, "semantics" can define anything in a particular way. You can redefine the color "blue," but the definition will not be congruent with the wave lengths. You can redefine an omelet. That doesn't change the physical reality, or in this case the biological reality of "sex," which essentially distinguishes sexual reproduction, male and female, from asexual reproduction such as that of an amoeba.

These folks are pretending that they are engaging in "sex," which necessitates two creatures of different gender.

The orgasm and the ejaculation, and other enumerated activities, are events that involve the sexual organs, but can be experienced in or out of a "sexual" context.

Homosexuals are seeking to be covered by a long history of developed common law and statutory law that relied on the differences between man and women in its development and application. The same distinctions do not apply and the public purpose does not apply in relationships between two same sex creatures, two men or two women, as the differentiation in law doesn't fit their circumstances.

Keep on blah-blah-blahing, Johnson. You reveal yourself constantly as a frightened and embittered old coot who is unable, or unwilling to answer basic, direct questions put to him.

"You can redefine the color "blue," but the definition will not be congruent with the wave lengths."

This from the guy who wants you to believe oral sex and anal sex aren't really sex.

"Homosexuals are seeking to be covered by a long history of developed common law and statutory law that relied on the differences between man and women in its development and application."

So now Johnson is a lawyer?

Methinks he's just a blowhard!

You can redefine the color "blue," but the definition will not be congruent with the wave lengths. You can redefine an omelet. That doesn't change the physical reality, or in this case the biological reality of "sex,"

Your analogy is broken. Intimacy is not a one-dimensional spectrum. And I most certainly can redefine an omlet... that's how new recipes are born. We're seeing the birth of a new recipe for a relationship - or more accurately the acceptance of a very old one. Society is coming to realize that homosexuality isn't this boogeyman that lives in the closet and eats people.

I'll reiterate that your opinion on what anyone calls it is irrelevant. If you don't believe that gay/lesbian sex is sex, nobody else is going to change their definition unless you provide them with valid reason to do so. All you do is reduce "sex" to an action that only serves to propagate the species - and it's clear to anyone with open eyes and a functioning brain that there's more to the birds and bees than procreation.

It's interesting that you've appointed yourself the person who gets to define concepts like sex for society... how convenient for you. It's a pity you can't defend your position with anything with more weight than blind hatred.

...which essentially distinguishes sexual reproduction, male and female, from asexual reproduction such as that of an amoeba.

Why are you so hung up on the sex act? There's a lot more to reproduction than that, but all you seem to care about is who sticks what where.

I feel sorry for your wife (though it wouldn't surprise me to learn that you have gone through much of your life alone). You obviously have no concept of intimacy or the emotional aspects of sex.

Is he telling us his wife is a dude??

"Sanford didn't cheapen the value of marriage, he was victimized by the cheapening of marriage."

I think Rush is actually mocking his listeners with this shit.

#21 | POSTED BY JOHNSON AT 2009-07-03 10:53 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Johnson opposes gay marriage because he does not believe it has any reason to exist. Should we then outlaw religion? I don't think it has any place in modern society. It's disruptive and irrational. Let's outlaw it. "Wait! It has a place in *my* life! How does my choice to worship in the way I see fit affect you, JonO?" It doesn't. And gay marriage doesn't affect you, Johnson, in any demonstrable way other than the fact that in legalizing it we will break down another obstacle to creating a nation of truly free people and egalitarian laws.

I know a guy who is paralyzed from the waist down. Can't have sex. He has a wife. She married him after the accident. According to Johnson, their marriage is a farce. They would be surprised to hear it.

Common law changes over time in accordance with a society's current understanding and iterpretation of matters covered by those laws. The fact that common law has not historically allowed gay marriage doesn't preclude us from doing so. Bullshit argument, Johnson.

We need to outlaw marriages between sterile/barren couples. Johnson, the high priest in charge of defining sex and marriage, has decreed that these couples aren't really married because they cannot reproduce, therefore there is no reason for them to have sex, therefore there is no reason for them to be married. All hail Johnson.

"It's finally happened," said Rush Limbaugh,

Mr. three divorces buying illegal drugs traveling on a boys only weeked with an illegal viagara prescription is lecturing about morals?

Too much.

We need to outlaw marriages between sterile/barren couples.

Women that have entered menopause need to be banned as well.

I know a guy who is paralyzed from the waist down. Can't have sex.

No. He cannot have intercourse. Sex and intimacy is more than just intercourse. Ask Bubba C's cigars.

And if the government forbade you from collecting your husband's social security after he dies, yet you had to pay in to the SS system the same as others, you might "feel like" a victim as well. Same if the government denied you another thousand or so of the rights you & your husband, and my wife & I get to take for granted.#15 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-07-02 06:29 PM | Reply | Flag: ONE TRICK GAY-PRIDE PONY

Do you EVER talk about anything else?

Do you EVER talk about anything else?

#56 | Posted by kirk

Why does truth irritate you so much?

It's sad that so many liberals think this bullcrap article is true...
You think Jews bake matza bread with blood too?

SanantonioRogue,

Somehow I don't think YOU want to really talk about the TRUTH of homosexuality...

#58 Only the tasty matzoh

Somehow I don't think YOU want to really talk about the TRUTH of homosexuality...

#59 | Posted by kirk

But I have done just that here, on may occasions. And its way too late tonight to start over again, talking very slowly to you.

"It's sad that so many liberals think this bullcrap article is true..."

I'm a liberal and I posted it.

Two things: The site from which this came has as its slogan: Because in South Carolina, we expect more than just the truth.

And: Liberals know and understand Poe's Law.

Too bad you're too stupid to understand it, as well.

Somehow I don't think YOU want to really talk about the TRUTH of homosexuality...

I hate to break it to you boy, but truth is not something you find in dusty old works of fiction. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, truth in religion is whatever opinion that happens to survive.

Truth that you can back up with concrete facts means nothing to you, Kirk. All you care about is writing yourself (and everyone else) into a deranged little fairy tale.

"Flag: ONE TRICK GAY-PRIDE PONY"

Kirk can't seem to imagine why a white guy would ever walk in a civil rights march.