Tory MP compares gay marriage to polygamy

 

Offord didn’t go as far as comparing same sex unions to bestiality … like Boris did.

6 Comments

  1. “I don’t know what to say in the House, today.”
    “Don’t you, dear?”
    “No. And I ought to say something.”
    “What about the economy?”
    “Too difficult, and anyway George wouldn’t like it.”
    “Then what about this marriage thing for people who aren’t like us?
    “But the workers have been getting married for centuries.”
    “No, no, dear. I mean the, you-know, others.”
    “Ah. Yes. I get you. Good suggestion, dear.”
    “I mean, what’s next – polygamy?”
    “See you at dinner, dear. Must dash!”

  2. Cole says:

    At least he didn’t compare it to bestiality, which some of those charming American conservatives did.

  3. Cole says:

    Whoops. Missed your last line…

  4. …mind you, Stephen Fry the other day on QI did state that 97% of all animals display some form of homosexual behaviour, so if that doesn’t make it right for a Penguin to do it up a dog’s bum, I don’t know what does.

    As my mate Terry put it to me:

    [daily mail] I assyoom dat if none of youse inteeligent lefft-liburil wisdomists dun’t hobject to concenting odalts -{ both denizens of the lower reaches of the digestive tract, and ladies who think that “sexual intercourse doesn’t involve sexual organs, it’s all in the mind, Gary” and proceed to interfere with each other’s breakfasts }- shud be formuleyzed wivin da contecst ov a bileef sistum -{ a hobby involving a loose grip on reason, sky pixies, ritual, ornamentation, and fancy dress }- iz a lijitimut fing, den, yoose wun’t hobject to concenting odalts ov anny jender and numba frum formin’ a legul contrackt dat formuliziz dere rites, wivout dem avin’ tuh put dere ‘andz down t’ each uvvaz trouzurs, or owt, innit tho’? wy cun’t three mans get married ? ‘Ow du youse difine t’ diffrunse bitween luvz, an’ duz it mattuh, iff orl we iz torkin’ abaot iz uh leagull derrangment? [/daily mail]

    I couldn’t agree less – obviously I can’t marry my best mate Simon, because he refuses to acquiesce to my confirmative demands for physical intimacy – I mean it’s only skin, and we might get more tax credits. Some people! Personally, I think they ought to be force-fed the Guardian at school, instead o’ that five-a-day cr@p they keep whittering on about. How about page 5 of the guardian for elevenses – that’ll give ‘em fibre – moral fibre. That’ll make ‘em like us. Like us! Like us! Like us! Like us! Like us! Like us! Like us! Like us! Make them all Like us! We must use these rights to protect us minorities like a big rusty spade to make sure everybody agrees with us, the little Nazi proles… how dare they use a vacuum cleaner for voting with, when they could be using it to SUCK THE DUST OFF SAUSAGES!

    Good boy Matthew.

  5. Charley Hasted says:

    Rinky I honestly have no idea what you were trying to say there…

    Would quite like it if we could stop shouting ‘no of course not’ whenever some right wing twerp goes “what next? Polygamy?!” What the hell’s wrong with polygamy or polyandry or any other configuration of people and genitals as long as everyone’s consenting to what’s going on?! Can we please stop with this idea that relationships have to be two people exclusively together and anything else is ipso facto of lesser quality? It’s puritanical bullshit!

  6. rinky stingpiece says:

    Well Charley,

    The point is that, leftards will absolutely NOT PERMIT any real debate about anything, unless they are in complete control of the debate.

    For instance, just now on the big pink Huff, you’ve got this fine specimen of journalism:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/murray-lipp/the-top-10-arguments-agai_b_3337249.html

    So, (biting my lip) and assuming the persona of a Guardian article thread poster, I gently challenge a minor point, along the lines of your own argument…

    Thusly:

    “8. … yet.

    How about explaining to everyone why Platonic Marriage and both Polygamy and Polyandry for both Platonic and Sexual Marriages, for any permutation of consenting members. – contracts between consenting adults is to be excluded? You seem to imply that you would regard this as wrong, as it would invalidate point 8 of your 10 points.

    Surely, either you give the rights to everyone, or you are simply replacing one inequality with another.”

    The response? It’s immediately removed, and I am unable to post. Presumably my nom de web is not really the issue, but that I am simply off message.

    Why is this post being removed? It’s not aggressive or hateful, it’s a reasonable question, a question that clearly those in control do not want asked.

    This is why the left is fundamentally a force for evil… as in Communist totalitarian states, you are forbidden from disagreement or dissent, either in effect through heavily-funded propaganda designed to “nudge” or rather “coerce” through self-censorship, and the chilling effect of the censorship of well-intentioned others; or, through blatent force and the full weight of the mental health system, police, and even military.

    Diversity is very restrictive in what is permitted to be celebrated.

    When every opponent is attacked via the traditional “play the man and not the ball” routine, and caricatured as every species of morally evil and mental affliction in lieu of an actual argument, you can’t take these people seriously, you have no choice but to mock them in any way you can… they’re very good at sounding “reasonable”, and sighing at the lack of “cogent debate”, but this is a facade… as soon as they are engaged with, the teeth are bared, and the herd charges.

    This is the banality of evil.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  • Follow us on Twitter