Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Actually, it IS the same argument.

Apparently I'm just really stupid. So, explain the difference to me.

6 comments:

Chris said...

Oh, Matt, you poor naïve boy. Allow me to explain it to you:

You see, there are black people in the Bible. Even though they're slaves, they're still people. Also, we totally apologized for that slavery thing.

Gay marriage is, like, so totally different. It is. Really. Absolutely. Totally. Go beat your head against a Bible until this all makes sense. (It'll happen right before you pass out from the pain. Or maybe after. I'm not sure which.)

Scooter said...

Sadly, some believe in equality only when it's convenient.

Dave said...

For that matter, the bible still says that owning slaves is totally cool. When did God change his mind about that?

Sooo-this-is-me said...

Owning slaves is only cool if they are from another country according to the bible, however since I'm up in Canada I would urge you to look towards Mexico as I am just too lazy to make a good slave!

Come on Matt think about it, if gays can marry and live happy lives together, then little gay kids will see that and grow up to be happy, healthy, productive adults and that is just sick!

afod said...

I seem to be the only one who views it entirely different. In the first frame, a white man is saying no to inter-racial marriage, and in the second frame (using the SAME likeness of the man in the first frame, with a light black complexion) you have the off-spring (son) of the guy in the first frame partaking in the same type of activity his father partook in. So in other words, the guy in 1960 did not practice what he preached. And the guy in 2000 could be raising a gay son or daughter in the future despite what he is preaching.

That was my take on it. :-)

afod said...

I seem to be the only one who views it entirely different. In the first frame, a white man is saying no to inter-racial marriage, and in the second frame (using the SAME likeness of the man in the first frame, with a light black complexion) you have the off-spring (son) of the guy in the first frame partaking in the same type of activity his father partook in. So in other words, the guy in 1960 did not practice what he preached. And the guy in 2000 could be raising a gay son or daughter in the future despite what he is preaching.

That was my take on it. :-)