WTF

Theists often ask why are we antagonistic towards religion. Many times am not, but when religious dimwits following their religious dogmas feel they have a right to legislate, then I have to use every word in my arsenal to show they are not only idiots but are meddling with people’s lives where they have no say whatsoever. Their religious beliefs are only for them to follow not all of us who don’t adhere to their dogma. 

An idiot all the way             

The fellow captioned above who claims to be an SDA member believes members of the LGBT community should be stoned to death. He calls this a deterrence method. He argues homosexuality is not African. I want to be told what is African in being SDA or believing in a goat herders god. I am waiting to be told, until then I call bull on him and his colleagues.

I would like to know what rot his ilk talk about when they mention LGBTs.

Straight couples fuck left right and centre. If there is any rot, it is found in matrimonial beds where the couples are straight.

For legislators or their cohorts to think they can criminalize homosexuality or they can by doing so moralize a nation that went to the dogs eons ago, they really must be very foolish.

This sort of argument

Their rights are not in isolation. Whoever drafted the Constitution knows that rights are practised in society. You cannot spoil that society in which you are. You cannot dilute its morals

points to a fellow who uses his arse not his brains if he has any. One wonders how being gay dilutes the morals of a society. I am tired of all this idiocy.

The man who wants gays stoned to death

Draft bill proposes harsh penalties against gays

Advertisements

I refuse to accept this specious arguments

This post isn’t about Valentine’s Day for yours truly doesn’t know this guy and doesn’t see a reason to commemorate his day. It is about a vice presidential debate for the upcoming elections due in March and am irked by some of the responses I have heard from these detestable gentlemen[ I can’t think of politicians in a better way, so I’ve tried by calling them genteel].

I believe in sanctity of life. Abortion is murder.

Am tired of all this religious reasoning. Who says those who are pro-choice are against life? To the best of my knowledge, those who stand for choice are more pro- life than those who claim to be pro-lifers. They care for the fetus and then forget about the kid until when they are fit to become soldiers and have no problem with supporting war or death penalty as if these do not lead to death. Can we be free of religion? Can we advance to a level where cases can be considered based on knowledge that we now have a specie or do we still have to refer to this books whose authors are anonymous and whose adherents do not agree on which version is correct about anything important.

Those who practice same-sex marriage are God’s children.

No they are not gods children, I don’t think a god exists, they are humans and deserve to be treated as such. They owe no one any apologies and need no special laws to get married. How does what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their house anyone’s business?

Abortion is unconstitutional and there shouldn’t be any grey areas on this.

The question of abortion should not have been a constitutional matter in the first place but since it is there we must all seek to have this section of the constitution amended. The woman seeking abortion goes through a harrowing experience of whether to keep the baby and for some MPigs to sit in over-sized seats paid for by our money to tell us this matter is closed is being pretentious! This isn’t excusable. This statement is irresponsible and doesn’t allow room for discussion and such a person doesn’t deserve a vote, at least he ain’t getting mine.

 It should be determined clearly, who should decide on the extreme circumstances in which abortion is allowed.

Who will decide when a situation is extreme? Are we going to wait for MPigs to decide what situation is extreme and what situation isn’t. We must begin to see women as being capable of deciding whether they want to a carry a pregnancy to term or not. Just as I have said before, the person wishing to die voluntarily must be the one responsible for the decision not anyone else and this can be applied to this abortion question. It is the expectant woman who must decide whether to or not to carry the pregnancy!

Same Sex relationships should not be allowed, and neither should abortion.

What idiot makes such a statement? Allowing same-sex marriage is not going to do anything to your already failed marriage. What problem should you have with others. What reasons other than religious undertones do these fools have to oppose same-sex marriage and abortion?

 Abortion should be outlawed unless in extreme circumstances

 I am opposed to abortion as life begins at conception, and abortion is therefore essentially ending a life.

Abortion is illegal and should not be allowed. Church should remain vigilant and guard against it.

What business has a church got to do with a woman’s choice on whether to carry or terminate her pregnancy. It saddens when men see women as production lines without a say on whether they want to carry a baby regardless of the circumstances. The men who say this wouldn’t give a batshit whether a child is born to a homeless street girl as long they do not procure an abortion and I refuse to accept this statement. Anyone making such a statement is an ignoramus and bigoted!

Who determines a situation as extreme? MPigs are the last people expected to legislate on abortion.