If Anal Sex Were Legal, Everybody Would Want It!

I keep mine locked

Unlike the woman in the above picture, the only pain in my ass is how many hours I’m working these days. It has been difficult to sit on the sidelines while Proposition 8 was declared unconstitutional. The fundies are throwing a fit! They’re having a conniption! I don’t think I’ve ever seen the fundies this worked up! Oh, happy day!

They’re upset for a lot of reasons. For one, they somehow think that their religion gets to make the laws of our land. The last time I checked the Constitution, that wasn’t how it’s done.

There are a lot of other reasons they’re upset. Most of them you’ve probably heard. I was thinking about this, and I may have come up with another.

The fundies object to gay marriage, because it legalizes anal sex.

In fundie-land, any form of sexual activity outside of marriage is forbidden. Certain activities (the ones they refer to as “unnatural acts”), though, are so heinous that you’re guaranteed a trip to hell just for contemplating them.

You’re also guaranteed a trip to prison. Most states, in fact, used to have laws against sodomy (some states still do). They’ll throw your ass in the slammer if they catch you, which, ironically, just guarantees you’ll be having a lot more anal sex.

But once you’re married, all of the taboos are lifted. You’re supposed to have sex. It’s your moral obligation. God is watching you have sex, and if he doesn’t see enough of it, you’re in trouble!

You can see what the problem is. Legalizing gay marriage legalizes gay sex. That probably bothers many fundies more than the idea of two men playing house together.

18 Responses to “If Anal Sex Were Legal, Everybody Would Want It!”

  1. L.Long Says:

    Are all porn stars atheists???
    Cuz there is a lot of man-girl butt sex out there. And if gay sex is bad then so is the other and its been shown that fundies are the biggest buying group of porn. So once again they demo their intense self-hate reflected off their actions to others.

  2. alex a Says:

    Most states, in fact, used to have laws against sodomy (some states still do).

    If I’m not mistaken, that ended in 2003 with Lawrence v. Texas, so buttsecks will not land you in jail anymore.

  3. Ron Britton Says:

    Alex A:

    Thanks for finding that. I was aware of several lower-court decisions going back and forth (in and out?) on that issue. I couldn’t recall if it had been settled by the Supreme Court.

    The point I’m making here, though, is that gay marriage implicitly sanctions gay sex. Remember that fundies are somehow confused. They think that by the state sanctioning gay marriage, it somehow is forcing their church to sanction gay marriage. The state, therefore, is somehow forcing their religion to approve of gay sex.

  4. sue blue Says:

    You may have already seen this, but I find it so delicious I just can’t resist linking to it here. Before making any marriage proposal, fundies should always check their Bibles to see if their particular situation is, in fact, sanctioned by Gawd!

    I also love to continually point out the high-grade, 99.99% pure irony in the fact that Prop 8 was dreamed up, funded and promoted by the Mormons, who oh-so-recently sanctioned polygamy. Yep, marrying a dozen underage girls who might also be your daughters, nieces, or first cousins was just a-okay, but teh gay love? Never!

  5. ericsan Says:

    Interesting opinion I just heard on the radio today, before judge Walker is to release his opinion on whether or not to uphold the temporary stay he granted prop 8 proponents: this New York law professor explained that in order to appeal your case to the circuit court, you must be able to prove the ruling causes your party personal harm. In other words, they may just be completely out of steam, and marriages could resume tomorrow. Apparently Walker stitched up the case really, really well and if they pursue the case they may end up losing even more, anyway. Something tells me the supreme court will be quite happy not having to deal with this hot potato.

  6. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Okay, I’ll be first to admit it. I’m straight and I enjoy the buttsecks from time to time (with a lady butt). I’m glad I can’t be arrested for it anymore. I can finally come out of the straight-guy-who-likes-anal closet! Freedom!

  7. OtherRob Says:

    That was pretty funny, sue blue. I’ll have to check out her other videos when I get a bit of time.

  8. Brian Says:

    I think it says a lot about this issue when someone like Ted Olsen argued against Prop Hate. Clearly the ONLY people who insist the gays and lesbians are second-class citizens are ignorant religious retards who think they’re doing the lord’s work. Intelligent people who actually have an inkling of what the Constitution says and means realize same-sex marriage is not against what our country is supposed to stand for. So-called “conservatives” who are always crying about government infringing on personal freedoms conveniently overlook their own intended tyranny over their fellow citizens. They are hypocrites of the highest order.

  9. dvsrat Says:

    Parrotlover, all this time I thought you were into parrots. ;)

    Yeah, just make gay sex legal and — wow look at the gay population instantly skyrocket. Yeah.

  10. roddma Says:

    Yea but groups like NAMBLA want make it ok for adult/child relationships. If it is wrong for hetero minor and adults to have relationships, then it should be wrong for same gender. I’m afraid before long things like prop 8 will give way to normalize child/adult relationships. Believe me I disagree with 90 % of what Fundies say. But i notice some of the ones who support gay marriage can be just as vile as the religious fanatics they preach about. I could care less who is gay just keep it among legal adults

  11. Brian Says:

    Roddma,

    Your argument is such a non sequitur it almost doesn’t merit a response. Yes, adult-child sexual relationships are vile, reprehensible acts that demand the full punishment the law allows. But what does it have to do with same-sex marriage? Most of the bastards raping children that I hear about seem to prefer girls at least as much as boys (I could be wrong on this, and if so, someone please correct me). Likewise, my gay and lesbian friends take an equally dim view on child molestors. Do you find that surprising? You see, I’ve read your comment a few times and I just can’t escape the sense that you equate child molesters with gays and lesbians.

    It is, of course, possible I am simply misinterpreting your thesis, as you make contradictory statements. First, you say same-sex relationships shouldn’t be legal, but at the end you seem to be OK with it as long as it’s between adults. Make up your mind, or explain it better.

    Lastly, I disagree with fundies 100% of the time, so saying you’re on board with their insanity only 10% of the time is not going to impress me.

  12. Syldoran Says:

    Gay marriage is not a slippery slope. It is a staircase.

    I’ve never heard anyone praise gay marriage and adult/child relationships at the same time. Or adult/dog relationships, for that matter. The marriage of two consenting adults simply can’t be equated with anything else and I honestly don’t get why people attempt to anyway.

  13. Ron Britton Says:

    Syldoran:

    Were you quoting me? I made almost that exact statement over three years ago. Rather than quote myself (because I might not do myself justice), you should just read what I wrote then.

  14. OtherRob Says:

    What is so hard to understand about “consenting adults”? Or is it that people like that just don’t want to understand because then they might have to give up all of their pre-conceived notions about right and wrong?

  15. sue blue Says:

    In the eyes of the law, marriage is not a sacred pact ordained by the Sky Daddy. It is a legal contract between two people. Stop beating the old, dead “slippery slope” horse, Roddma. No one can enter into a contract with minor children or dogs, pigs, or any other animal, so your “OMG!!! Gay marriage will lead to a sexual free for all for all kinds of perverts!!! Pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia will run rampant and America wil be DESTROYED!!!” argument is not just as dead horse, it’s bloated and starting to really stink. It ain’t gonna get up again, so just leave it alone already.

  16. sue blue Says:

    Furthermore, the slippery slope argument seems to be the only non-religious (sort of) objection these people can come up with when asked why they are against gay marriage. It doesn’t stand up to scrutiny any more than the religious arguments, but when all your legs have been shot out from under you, you’ll hop around frantically on the one that’s left to keep from falling flat on your face.

  17. Syldoran Says:

    I wasn’t attempting to quote anyone. :x The line was in my head and I knew it came from somewhere, most likely a blog Now I know where!

    You can have the line back. I’m not sure I’m doing justice to it by accidentally stealing it.

  18. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Yes, adult-child sexual relationships are vile, reprehensible acts that demand the full punishment the law allows.

    There’s a difference between a 40 year old with a large white van preying on 12 year olds and a 19 year old consensually fucking a 15 year old. Not to stray off from your point too much, but one of my pet peeves is the ridiculous punishments that statutory rape incurs on some people railroaded by the justice system because of society’s paranoia about sex offenders.

    I’ve never heard anyone praise gay marriage and adult/child relationships at the same time. Or adult/dog relationships, for that matter. The marriage of two consenting adults simply can’t be equated with anything else and I honestly don’t get why people attempt to anyway.

    Minors and non-humans animals (and flora, for that matter) cannot, by legal definition, give consent. Marraige requires consent between the two parties entering the contract. Ergo, no slippery slope is possible.

    Now, there is a slim chance of a slippery astroglide lubed slide down to polygamy with my above legal definition as you might have multiple consenting adults wanting to form some sort of three (or more) way marraige. But, really, who cares? How would that hurt anybody? But that won’t happen for a variety of other reasons, not the least of which is that marraige forms only have room for two applicants.