Future U.S. History Students: ‘It’s Pretty Embarrassing How Long You Guys Took To Legalize Gay Marriage’

Posted on February 10, 2011. Filed under: Atheist Ethics, Canadian Politics, Humour, Politics, Religion, Social Justice |

Until I have sufficient time to write several new blog posts, here’s a gem I found searching the web this morning.  Enjoy…

The class of 2086 said it was "laughable" that people against gay marriage were given a legitimate political voice in the early 21st century.

The classroom of 15-year-olds at MacArthur High School—all of whom were born in the late 2060s and grew up never questioning the obvious fact that homosexual couples deserve the right to get married—were reportedly “amazed” to learn in their Modern U.S. History: 2081 Edition textbooks that as late as the 2020s, gays and lesbians actually had to fight for the constitutional right to wed.

“Wow, that is nuts,” said student Jeremy Golliver, who claimed he knew gay rights was a struggle “like, a hundred years ago” but didn’t realize it lasted so long. “It’s really embarrassing, when you think about it. Just the fact that people in this century were actually saying things like, ‘No, gays should not be allowed to marry,’ and were getting all up in arms about it, as if homosexuals weren’t full citizens or something. It’s insane.”

“I mean, was everybody just a huge bigot back then or what?” Golliver added.

Read the rest of the article here.

Courtesy of the always funny Onion.

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

6 Responses to “Future U.S. History Students: ‘It’s Pretty Embarrassing How Long You Guys Took To Legalize Gay Marriage’”

RSS Feed for Misplaced Grace Comments RSS Feed

Maybe the same future will be a shock for the rights of new humans.

“Wow, that is nuts,” said student Eve, who claimed she knew human rights was a struggle “like, a hundred years ago” but didn’t realize it lasted so long. “It’s really embarrassing, when you think about it. Just the fact that people in this century were actually saying things like, ‘No, unwanted babies should not be allowed to live,’ and were getting all up in arms about it, as if babies weren’t full citizens or something. They murdered some 53 million babies. It’s insane.”

Just more pure hypocrisy from people with an atheistic worldview. They will defend perverse, anti-nature, sexual acts of people who can defend themselves, but not the rights of human babies from natural sexual relations who cannot defend themselves.

Go Atheists. *pshaw

Rest assured that I love babies. I have four of my own. So in this respect I would have to say I am Pro-Life.
I would hope that we all are. There is nothing I would love more than to see abortion rates lowered, potential lives saved, and better sexual education in my country and yours.
Proper access to birth control, teaching children and adults to make mature sexual decisions, and better health care are all part of the solution. Deregulating abortion is not.
What the Anti-Choice movement wants to do is increase government control over the sex lives and bodies of humans in general and women in particular. I cannot agree with that. I am both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. Abortion is one of the hardest decisions any woman would have to make. I do not envy in the least being put in that position. It would always be my preference that fetuses be afforded the miracle of life, but I cannot in good conscience endorse taking the choice away from the person who must make the commitment.

As to your ridiculous views on homosexuality, you are misinformed, uninformed, or chloroformed if you believe that homosexual behavior is “anti-nature”, or “perverse”. It is both absolutely natural, in that several other animals exhibit homosexual behavior, and completely normal, in that we gladly allow you to express your consensual sexual desires and that is all homosexuality is. The only case against homosexuality is a religious one, to take rights away from loving gay couples is to enforce your religious beliefs on them. While we are at it maybe we could deny citizenship to those who refuse to profess Jesus as their personal savior?

George,

>> It is both absolutely natural, in that several other animals exhibit homosexual behavior, and completely normal, in that we gladly allow you to express your consensual sexual desires and that is all homosexuality is.

You do understand, as you are a believer of evolution, that evolution is AGAINST homosexuality. Homosexual couples do not continue their genes. So its anti-evolutionary process. The mutated gene would die away.

So either you believe in evolution, or you believe in homosexuals being “natural.” You cannot have it both ways. So homosexuality is purely, as I believe, environmental. Its not genetic, even evolution agrees. Also, science knows there is no such a thing as a gay gene. So yes people CHOOSE to be homosexuals and CHOOSE to murder babies. Its because of their worldview, and the source of their authority, and ironically its the same as Satanists believe and that source is “self”. Their authority is self. Same as you obviously. You cannot account for right or wrong without appealing to a moral standard. Your morals standard is purely subjective. Abortions are murdering humans, and homosexuality is perverse to God and evolutionary nature. Live with it.

It is comments like that that expose the ignorance of creationists to genetics and evolution. That explanation might hold water at your church, or in a grade eight classroom, but it certainly is misinformed. Homosexuality has two very powerful things going for it genetically. One is recessive expression of genes. The other, ironically for all your protestations of environmental factors, is environmental factors. Many homosexuals still breed. Culture plays an important role here. Cultural pressure will drive humans to marry and procreate regardless of orientation. Ted Haggard is a good example. That guy is as queer as a three dollar bill. Gayer than a rainbow in May. He has kids. So what is your point?

I wouldn’t say that science says there is no “gay gene”. Unless you can back that up. That is Christian propaganda to imply that gays can be “normalized”. Why would anyone choose to be gay? Why would teens commit suicide if it was as simple as choosing to be straight?
You might want to tread lightly before you claim my morality is subjective. Look up the word in philosophical textbooks and you will find that you are the one with subjective morality. I have argued that no-one has the “subjective morality” that presuppositionalists claim. I did so by arguing that my morality was subjective in a far different sense than Van Til and Bahnsen imply. You are repeating a tired fallacy that is meant for Christian ears only. Apologetics is affirmation, not information.

George,

>>I wouldn’t say that science says there is no “gay gene”. Unless you can back that up.

There is plenty of evidence that they were on the wrong path. I am sure you will find a way to deny evidence considering you deny all the evidence of God.

>>Why would teens commit suicide if it was as simple as choosing to be straight?

I sure hope its not your claim that ALL suicides are from homosexuals. If not, you have no argument. There are plenty of factors as to why people commit suicide. Mainly selfishness and hopelessness. BOTH are condoned, encourage, and glorified by ATHEISTS, and not Christianity. Live with that.

>> Apologetics is affirmation, not information.

Its true that apologetics is an affirmation of one’s positions because of its definition and meaning, mainly a reasonable defense. But you are wrong that its not information because the audience of the apologetics is the one that is questioning one’s position. So its dishonest to say that its not information when the inquirer is the one that is seeking said information. We do not use apologetics on ourselves after all. I do not need a reasonable defense, I am convinced. So I expect a retraction of that claim, unless you want to be considered dishonest for the record. Pride, after all, is an Atheist’s strongest suite.

Religion too, “Oh my god, they believed in god in the 2030′s… AD!!!”


Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 368 other followers

%d bloggers like this: