Well, gays want to gay marry.  In order to prevent gay marriage, Texas had to eliminate opposite marriage. 

We all know that opposite marriage is the foundation of all society AND it’s the only way anyone can reproduce.  So now Texans are an endangered species.

Texas knows all too well the harm gays cause!  They are a cautionary tale for the rest of humanity!

I have known Annise and Kathy for better than 20 years as friends. They are two of the most incredibly intelligent, industrious, knowledgeable, warm and amazing people I’ve ever met - both of them tremendous assets to the city of Houston. They are dedicated to each other and their beautiful children. All children should have the love and stability that Annise and Kathy provide to theirs!

No one would lead this city better than Annise with her bulldog tenaciousness against stupid and wasteful spending that has characterized the job she has done as Comptroller. Her compassion and wisdom are exactly what this city needs (all cities for that matter - I would like to call her President Parker!).

OK, I’ll stop now. This kind of vicious and bullshit slander just makes my blood boil.

homosexual behavior leads to extinction

There’s certainly plenty of empirical evidence to prove this. After all, every extinct animal species is extinct because its members started turning gay and spreading their gay agenda. Don’t let the liberals tell you it was habitat destruction or overhunting. It was the dodo gay agenda. And the panda gay agenda. Know why it’s so hard to get pandas to mate in captivity? ‘Cause the liberals made them all gay, that’s why.

I am still angry at the gays for causing the extinction of San Francisco.  It once was a thriving city; now it’s nothing but desert and tumbleweeds, devoid of people.

Guess the fundies never heard of artificial insemination…

Come the glorious Lesbian Revolution, the few men who will not have been exterminated will be reeducated for domesticity, and bred for yield so they can be milked for their precious, precious sperm.

I mean, if they’re going to be hysterical about some imaginary gay agenda, might as well give them a proper dystopia to be hysterical about.

This is all they got? That’s pretty much conceding your candidate is a useless turd, isn’t it?

It’s true that if no one ever had heterosexual intercourse or used artificial insemination, the human race would die out.

It’s also true that if the entire population of Earth tried to get to the McDonald’s near my house for lunch, the world would collapse in chaos.

Which of these events do you think is less likely?

On the local CBS affiliate here in Houston, they occasionally run viewer comments from their website on TV as an addendum to high profile stories.  They usually trend conservatively.  However, when this hit yesterday, the comments trended from “That’s an unnecessary cheap shot” to “That’s vile hate speech”.  That, and the fact that she’s leading, gives me hope for my fellow Houstonians.

Triplanetary:

And the panda gay agenda. Know why it’s so hard to get pandas to mate in captivity? ‘Cause the liberals made them all gay, that’s why.

Is that why all the Panda gone?

/rimshot

BlackBloc:

Come the glorious Lesbian Revolution, the few men who will not have been exterminated will be reeducated for domesticity, and bred for yield so they can be milked for their precious, precious sperm.

Straws will have to be drawn. I can’t see any of the revolutionaries volunteering for that duty.

It took me a while to figure out what was wrong with that picture. I mean, teh ghey doesn’t exactly leap off the page at you…it’s just three women. And then I realized that it’s three women and NO MAN! And that’s a sure sign of the apocalypse.

I can’t see any of the revolutionaries volunteering for that duty.

That’s what machines are for, comrade. Plus, maybe they’ll keep a few gay men around, since they’re less objectionable, and I think those would gladly volunteer for the job.

In fact, according to the right-wingers ‘domesticity’ in the male of the species is more or less synonymous with teh Gey, so with some luck they’ll all happily milk each other…

It’s weird.  In that image that we are supposed to be afraid of portraying, I didn’t see anything there that even suggested homosexuality.  If I hadn’t read the text, I would think that the guy was trying to scare us with the idea of an all-female government.

“I have nothing but compassion, respect and sensitivity towards those trapped in [belief in God] behavior. I have family members and friends who have been ensnared in this behavior, and I know something of the incredible pain and sorrow it has brought to them and their families….

There, fixed that for the manly, and totally not inappropriate, Dave Wilson.

‘homosexual behavior leads to extinction.’

‘homosexual behavior leads to extinction.’

Sorry, #17 entered a little quicker than I wanted. 

Where was I? Oh yes. The pattern with sexophobe loons like Wilson is that sex is so impossible for them to deal with that they would love to ban all sex—every shred, the whole icky, icky business.

However, that that would lead to extinction. So they have to—grudgingly—make exceptions, all of them for fertile married couples.

From that mindset, any manner of birth control renders sexual activity pointless, and of course, homosexuality doesn’t make the cut at all.

You can see how someone that effed-up might confuse “not making babies” with “leads to extinction.”

He says that Parker should not be mayor because ‘homosexual behavior leads to extinction.’

I thought it led to blindness and needing to clean up with a gym sock…

Or am I observing the wrong type of homosexual behavior?

With God’s grace, I carefully balance this love and respect for these individuals with warnings about the promotion and demand for legal and political approval for homosexual behavior that will stifle religious freedom and trap millions of more people in its deadly grip.

This snippet of retrograde filth manages to encompass every element of gay panic in one grammatically questionable package.  The implication of this statement is that Parker will focus on gay rights to the exclusion of all other issues, similar to the boot-stomping-on-whitey’s-face rhetoric of Limbaugh following the presidential election.

OT, but the word ‘sheeple’ jumped the Objectivist shark years ago, Pam.

Does your neighborhood Mickey D’s have Shamrock Shakes year-round?

They’re just vanilla shakes with green food coloring.

No one mentioned how this guy is claiming that the existence of gays “stifle religious freedom”? (And also the implication of some sort of gay recruitment agenda, which I will plead the Fifth on.)

I just find it bizarre how much power they accuse us of having, while simultaneously taking pride in their achievements of discriminatory laws against us. It does not make sense.

Parker’s got this one in the bag. We’re all voting for her, right? We have a long record of voting for Parker. We’ve been putting her into some office or other for what seems like forever.

I hope Parker sweeps it; I think Barbara Jordan would be proud.

How does one become “trapped in homosexual behaviour”?  Would it involve some unfortunate interaction between pubic hair and orthodontia?

Now, I certainly don’t buy into the myth that all homophobes are secretly closeted homosexuals themselves.  However, when someone in all seriousness advances the thesis that everyone will just stop copulating with the opposite sex unless we apply a sufficiently draconian stigma to homosexuality, it does reveal that they have no idea what it’s like to be heterosexual.

Extinction.

Wow, really?

The man lacks the problem-solving capacity God gave the White House front doorknob.

Since when does “with a specific person” form the whole of a person’s fertility?  Sure we can’t conceive with our (apologies for cis-centricity) chosen partner(s), but if anything, that’s a bonus—-given the common tendency for too much fertility to cause problems in heterosexual couples.  That reproduction is separate from recreational sex (which for most of us, most of the time, is not desired to result in babies) is a feature, not a bug.  And, as anyone with a functioning brain can figure out, is not in itself any significant kind of barrier to a homosexual person reproducing.  (Various bigoted laws and roadblocks in same-sex couples adopting, using surrogacy, accessing reproductive assistance technology, and gaining parental rights, of course, are, but that’s a whole ‘nother skunk.)

He is a moron talking out his ass, and all that comes out is crap.

But then, what can one expect from someone who manages to think gays and lesbians are so anti-fertile that we cancel out the fertility of every heterosexual couple on this planet.

Also?  Not trapped.

Fucking asshole.

That’s what machines are for, comrade. Plus, maybe they’ll keep a few gay men around, since they’re less objectionable, and I think those would gladly volunteer for the job.

I’m fairly sure that any men kept will already be quite adept at self-milking.

He says that Parker should not be mayor because ‘homosexual behavior leads to extinction.’

You know what else leads to extinction? Abstinence.

‘The openly gay lifestyle leads to extinction,’ he said. ‘You can’t reproduce.’”

I have never understood this argument. There’s almost 8 billion people on the planet. Most of them are not gay. I don’t know how the numbers break down and I’m too stoned to even think about how to begin looking ‘em up, but the straight-to-gay ratio is pretty skewered towards the straight end, I’m willing to wager. And that’s ignoring, as many have pointed out, that one can reproduce via many means, including surrogate-hood or artificial insemination. Even if every gay person promised to never pass on his/her genetic material and if everyone who was bi counted and if everyone who was gay actually self-identified as gay, I’m pretty sure we’d still have a sufficient amount of straight people having boring straight sex for procreation only to keep fielding football teams or whatever the hell we need so many people for anyway.

Or maybe most people are gay, I don’t know. I do know I still know a lot of people having kids and I saw like seven pregnant women during my wanderings yesterday and apparently the condom industry hasn’t collapsed overnight, so I reckon we’re still good either way. And even so, how long do these people think it would take for us to gay ourselves to extinction? The way they talk, it’s like it could be any minute now. Like “too many gay people” is up there with “being hit by comet” or “supervolcano under Yosemite goes off”, but I don’t understand how it’s supposed to work.

Yellowstone , Matt T.

The argument of “too many gays will lead to our extinction” might make sense in the concept of a small, wandering, bronze-age tribe in the desert (which is the real reason the Old Testament forbids homosexuality) but it doesn’t make sense in the modern worldm with 6 billion some odd people. Even within the United States, we’re one of the few developed nations that is still growing (even before you take immigration into account) in population. That argument is really weak sauce.

I don’t even think that’s true, Ben D.  If you’re a small, wandering, bronze-age tribe you need to limit your numbers to be sustainable.  Having a few gay members (phnarr phnarr) will certainly help with that.

There’s a theory floating around that John Barrowman looked at that a man is more likely to be gay if his mother has had sons before him.  Jiggle that around and make some enormous leaps of logic and you get to the proposition that homosexuality may have evolved to be a useful population limiter and/or added family-member for childcare and support mechanism.