Saturday, January 06, 2007

You keep saying that word…

… it does not mean what you seem to think it means.

I have discovered something. I like reading the ravings of Jon Qwelane. It is both uplifting and depressing.

I say uplifting because he exists of a shining example that all people are truly created equal. Due to my origins I rarely have social contact with others far outside my own “cultural space” hence the absolute raving racist homophobic morons I encounter are mainly white and male. It tends to skew my thinking about certain groups. So it does me good to realise that the fun that is
stupidity knows no racial boundary.

But they are depressing, because indeed the stupid is pervasive and it is deep.

Which of his rants has attracted by roving eye now?

Same-sex marriages 'illogical'

In a way Jon reminds me of the Pastor Swank who so often comes under the sights of the satirists at Sadly, No!

So let us begin the fisking of Mr Jon-I’m afraid of the buttsex-Qwelane

I may as well admit that my stand will, needless to overstate, place me in the firing line for being allegedly “backwards” and “homophobic”. But I will not mind the inevitable vitriol and condemnation as I have weathered much worse in the past, and this is a point I stand by.

Mr Kettle, Mr Kettle please answer the phone Mr Pot would like to speak to you. I think we have found proof that the truth does not hurt.

My arguments in objection to same-sex unions are a repeat of what I have said countless times before

Perhaps if you had an actual argument you would not have to repeat yourself so much, Jon.

To date, I have not encountered logical and sensible counter-arguments by those who maintain that a woman should be allowed to marry another woman, and a man be allowed to marry another man.

Jon, Jon, Jon. If we are to argue you first need to have an argument. Should I call you a Waaaaaahmbulance?

All that I have been subjected to so far by these people has been emotionally-charged arguments which often degenerate into personal vilification and insults, but with nothing worthwhile to argue.

Calling you stupid is not an insult, it is a description. Much like saying you are melaninly gifted or have a deep tan. And why would people be upset with you, its not like you call them unnatural or try to discriminate against them or anything Jon.

My starting point on this matter is that everyone, including gays and lesbians, is a biological consequence of male and female intercourse. And such intercourse is itself therefore the logical consequence of how nature behaves. In other words, male is meant to mate with female for the procreation of the species.

So what you are saying Jon is that simply because I am a man I should mate with every single women I meet? Woot! Woot! Lots of SEXS. It is my biological destiny! Oh wait, are you saying we should only have sex when we want to breed? In which case I would recommend you engage in some Onanism.

From this simple point and observation, it is rather illogical for same-sex unions to exist, as such arrangements fly in the face of nature.

Even die-hard lesbians and homosexuals will be hard-pressed to contradict that statement. I have often heard attempts by gays to justify their homosexuality as being repeated elsewhere in the animal kingdom, to “prove” that nature tolerates homosexuality.

I have heard of certain rams within a type of breed of sheep, and some birds, that do this sort of thing, but this is unnatural and it is not what our constitutional court should be wanting parliament to legislate.

Well Jon, it is also natural for people to live naked and kill their food with their bare hands and die of one a host of ailments before age 25. You know, using the internet or a computer also “fly in the face of nature” that is if nature actually you know, had a face, or if humans could fly “naturally”.

“Die-hard lesbians and homosexuals” Are you calling Bruce Willis a pussy or a fag? I mean he is after all the Die-Hard. Or is this some type of projection on Jon’s part? Jon thinks of Homosexuals = Jon uses the word “hard” or perhaps the thought of being "hard-pressed" is what brought on this little rant. Paging Dr Freud, Paging Dr Freud, Emergency! Emergency!

Jon might have heard of “certain rams within a type of breed of sheep”, but he most definitely has not heard of proper sentence construction, or even of “Google”. Here is what Google kindly delivers to my screen. The Gay Animal Kingdom. Sure 450 vertebrate species are certain rams and some birds. Sure, Jon, sure. By the way, I know this gentleman from Nigeria, he sent me an e-mail telling me how I can become rich? Would you also like to become rich Jon, I am sure the Nigerian would not mind you sharing the wealth.

What, animals doing each other in the ass is unnatural? But, but, they are animals, they, like, live in nature and stuff, how is that not natural? Mr Jon –wearing clothes and driving cars-Qwelane tell us exactly what is “natural” then.

The second argument against this type of thing is scriptural: not a single religion anywhere condones and accepts homosexuality.

Some Christians will, obviously scraping at the bottom of their scriptural barrels, meekly point to the tale about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to “prove” that homosexuality was practised even in biblical times, but the story will not be complete if they end it there

Lot actually did what I doubt any sane and normal father would do. However, so great was his fear of God’s retribution if his visiting male guests were to indulge in homosexuality in his home that Lot offered his virgin daughters to the men to ravage at will. There’s no guessing what common decency, and especially our learned judges of the constitutional court, would rule if they were confronted with a case such as Lot’s, but it does also show how great a sin homosexuality is in God’s eye!

Right, the old God hates fags! Argument. That is a good one Mr Jon. Perhaps you would like to meet Mr Phelps.

Did you also know that God hates you for wearing clothes made from synthetic materials, cutting the hair on the side of your head, eating calamari or ingesting blood. Wait, you want to pick and choose from the Bible Jon? Are you saying you don’t want to do what god tells you to?

Kinda says a lot that God would reward award a man for offering up his daughters for rape. Tells you all you really need to know.

All this in no way says I do not like or respect homosexuals and lesbians as individuals; on the contrary, I do.

Wait a minute, you get off on thinking about how God hates fags and then you like them as individuals. Well you know Jon, all those racists you rave on about. They are not racists. They like “black people”, indeed some of their “best friends” are “black people”.

Emotional rubbish such as: “Ja, but what would you say if your son or daughter turned out to be gay? Would you condemn them?”

My answer is that my offspring are not gay and, so far, neither are any of my nephews and nieces. And a big YES, I would condemn and disown them if they turned out to be homosexuals.

Sorry Mr Jon-hypocrite-Qwelane you are okay with other people being gay but would cut off your own children or relations for daring to be gay?

A very interesting question was asked in one of the letters in the newspapers the other day: “Would married homosexual men be allowed to adopt a girl child, as the law wants them to be accorded every single right enjoyed by heterosexual couples?” Would this girl child be deprived in some way?

The parliamentarians of South Africa must have enough balls to stand up to this sort of nonsense, and refuse to pass such a law.

Gee Mr Qwelane, sexist much? I am sure there are some people in parliament without testicles so perhaps if you wish to refer to courage, you could use the proper word. Tell me Jon, do testicles have some type of magical power? Do they carry some gift of deep and serious thought? Inquiring minds want to know.

The separation of powers enshrined in the constitution ensures that parliament is a distinct entity from the judiciary; so the lawmakers can at least tell those justices to go fly kites, or indulge in homosexual unions of their own - but leave the rest of us alone.

I must admit I a somewhat confused how other people having rights buggers with Mr Jon Qwelanes world. I am also interested to know how the justices could indulge in “homosexual unions” without the Civil Unions Act.

So let us look at how Mr Qwelane understands the words he uses

Logical and sensible counter arguments = If someone disagrees with me they are not logical or sensible

Natural = The way things are in nature, until the way things are in nature disagrees with how I want them to be then they are unnatural

Like or respect homosexuals = If any in my family are dirty dykes or filthy fags I will never speak to them again.

Indeed Mr Qwelane, those words do not mean what you seem to think they mean.

Daily Tally
Weight = 100kg
M = 3


Misty Rockchild said...

thats hillarious!

Let's toast to the freedom to love who one wishes!

LiberalDirk said...

To freedom to love