Sunday, August 12, 2007

Two completely different things that we just happen to use the exact same language for

As an addendum to my last post, I'd like to draw further attention to the Freeper screed that Pam quoted:
Does the same church deny memorial services to the deceased if they were divorced or remarried?

Nice try. Maybe you do not clearly understand what homosexuality is vs what a divorced or remarried person is. Homosexuality is an act that is totally unnatural. It involves a LIFESTYLE, a CHOICE OF HOW YOU WANT TO HAVE SEX. It is totally unnatural in the scheme of life as it has evolved.

You see, 100 divorce regular people on a deserted island will eventually have a second generation and so continue the species on that island.

100 homosexuals on a deserted island will NEVER have a second generation. Now if the article had been about a church having denied to hold services for a practicer of bestiality (which is also an unnatural choice of how to have sex and also contrary to human survival) would you have posted the same silly question?

Again, nice try but still ridiculous.

Ugh. I feel like vomiting just copying and pasting that. But compare his "100 homosexuals on a deserted island will NEVER have a second generation" to what Josiah Nott had to say in his Two Lectures on the Natural History of the Caucasian and Negro Races (emphasis mine):
What then could we expect in breeding from a faulty stock; a stock which has been produced by a violation of nature's laws, but that they should become more and more degenerate in each succeeding generation? We know that the parent will transmit to the child, not only his external form, character, expression, temperament, &c., but diseases, through many generations, as insanity, gout, scrofula, consumption, &c. Why then may not that defective internal organization which leads to ultimate destruction exist in the mulatto? I believe that if a hundred white men and one hundred black women were put together on an Island, and cut off from all intercourse with the rest of the world, they would in time become extinct.

But of course the miscegenation analogy is faulty because, uh... gays are icky! Or something.

No comments: