To our poor little bigoted para-illegal David42.

[EverwonderWhy]

Um yeah, David42 is really obsessed with procreative aspects of marriage and trumpets the ‘heterosexual accidental pregnancy argument’ as justification to exclude same sex couples from marriage. Cause yanno, the problem is not the accidental/unintended pregnancy. Nope, it’s that heterosexuals who will inevitably suffer an accidental pregnancy (despite comprehensive sex education, contraceptives, abortion or adoption alternatives) will not marry because same sex marriage severs procreation from marriage. Yes, ‘responsible procreation’ is a shot-gun wedding - not preventing the ‘oopsie’ to begin with and planning your children to ensure they are born into stable emotional and financial environments.

After reading that nonsense in the “Predict how the Supreme Court will Decide the Same Sex Marriage Cases” thread, I decided to do a search on David42’s posts before responding and found this little gem.

@David42

Particularly, it is highly offensive when gays compare their sex act as the equivalent of the act of making life. You draw comparisons between my child and your frothy mix of lube and feces and tell me it’s equal.
…

There’s not a single thing I do that I would deny to you, nor a single thing that I would allow people to do that I would deny to homosexuals. You want to do something that I would deny to all, namely, mock the creation of life in marriage.

If I were ever to be persuaded, it wouldn’t be because you convinced me that a “frothy mix” is the equivalent of a baby.

He goes on to post that equating same sex relationships with heterosexuals is essentially saying “the shit on your dick is the equivalent of my son.”

Aside from his disgusting homophobic rhetoric; apparently, if you have sex without intending to procreate you are “mocking the creation of life in marriage.”

Back to the “Predict how the Supreme Court will Decide the Same Sex Marriage Cases” thread:

@David42

Two proposals, and one of them is actually serious. One of my two casual girlfriends is bisexual and has been following the thread as I write and watching me work.

She says she is extremely impressed (after reading Bricker’s Jones thread) that the exact words I used arguing there were used by a Supreme Court majority in taking the law in a new direction.

She also says that she had previously never understood what marriage is about–and was not ever interested in being married. She says I illuminated the whole thing for her and made it actually interesting–marriage as the idea of iondividual rights didn’t seem to take her anywhere–but understanding it as a societal duty gives her a reason to want to do it.

She weeps over her abortion at 17 years old and says I have done what no man even gave her a hint needed doing before.

I am mindful that if I were addressing her instead of the board, this may not have happened.

One young person’s (she is 19) mind was greatly changed today.

Huh? Delusional. Societal duty to marry? And he keeps tooting his horn about this Jones and Bricker thread, where apparently SCOTUS used his same argument in their ruling. Seriously dude, join MENSA or something. Going on and on about that makes you look pathetic.

It is quite obvious what a vile creature David42 is and engaging with him in an attempt to ‘fight his ignorance’ is futile.