Galling naïveté and outright hatred from the followers of NOM. Including mostly new faces.

Now, we all know that the Bible contains parts in it ordering it’s readers not to question it for it is the one, the only truth. Even though there are dozens of versions of said ‘truth’. We all know that are contradictions upon contradictions in the Bible that the more fervent theists refuse to even acknowledge, let alone explain. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see that there are inherent fallacies with the Bible and as such it cannot be used in secular law-making, nor as a tool to control the secular freedoms of others.

Unless you are a NOM supporter, that is. Several studies have found that, on average, theists are 4-6 IQ points worse off. Believe us, those points count. The studies can be seen here, and explained more simply in this link. Here we see some new faces to NOManiacs show their apparent lack of comprehension abilities, or even an capability to display knowledge of correct facts.

I apologise now for this is going to be a VERY long blog post. We’ll look at each of the highlighted points in turn, and inform each individual as to the correct, verifiable facts. ReadyHere we go…

NOManiacs 160113a

This one is pretty easy to dismiss. The Bible, for reasons listed above, is not the first and foremost law on everything. For reasons of space we are forgoing the normal practice of listing the people who actually like these posts. We’d be here until the summer. Next…

NOManiacs 160113b

Fact One. Marriage is not an institution of the Church. It is a legal concept blessed by the relevant religion in a ceremony known as a ‘wedding’. Fun fact – Pagan rituals pre-dated anything the Bible writes about the topic. In a Handfasting, a blessed rope is tied and knotted around both parties’ wrists using a hitch knot. Hence the current idioms of ‘tying the knot’ and ‘getting hitched’. Moving on to some real hatred…

NOManiacs 160113c

Gordon, we hate to break this to you, but it really, really isn’t. The fact that there is nothing in any marriage vows that promises to rear children appears to have passed you by, as has the fact you seem to think that infertile/old couples, as well as those who choose not to have children, now cannot marry. You said it, pal. I can also quote reams of studies NOT financed by religious organisations that are inherently on the side the LGBT community. See this one for starters.

As for Ryan, his outright insults are duly noted, and the link he offers takes you here – it is basically an argument against homosexuality mainly based on sex. Honestly, they’re fixated by it more than we are. Next hatemongers…

NOManiacs 160113d

Note to Andrew – we support the right for a woman to choose what she wants do do with her own body, you raging misogynist. This has also no relevance to a legal marriage argument, nor any credence to equal rights. Kudos for a shameful effort to label all pro-SSM people as rampant baby-murderers, but we, unlike you, are not that stupid to be taken in by it.

Kevin, see the above point about not requiring procreation for marriage, and vice versa. It’s not all about sex and babies. You might want to realise the fact that unmarried couples have children, as do single parents. Maybe you should focus your attention on them if you feel so strongly about the subject instead of inhabiting a page that openly admits to wanting to discriminate against gays.

Ronald, people get married. Not genitals. Get your nose out of our bedrooms. You utter pervert.

Daniel, the blue comment says it all. See the above arguments for why. Then take pride in the fact that you support the legal discrimination of other human beings, you despicable cretin. Next…

NOManiacs 160113e

Shirley, we have already covered the procreation argument. As for brainwashing, see the linked studies at the top of the page and realise that it’s not the educational establishments doing the brainwashing, darling…

NOManiacs 160113f

Andrew, seems you have difficulty grasping the concept of Nature. This link here shows that homosexuality indeed DOES exist in Nature, ergo it must designate it as Natural, ergo your point is moot. You can find many more studies that show the same result. Ditto about ‘God’. See the first paragraph.

NOManiacs 160113g

We’re not self-hating. We’re entirely happy with who we are and don’t have to take to public forums to voice our dislike for another section of society based on something that, and let’s not play dumb here, is an entirely private part of someone else’s life. As for promiscuity, I think that, gay or straight, promiscuousness is simply an inherent human condition. Don’t even get us started on the oft-debunked myth about homosexuality/AIDS/HIV etc. The second you take lesbians, who, by definition cannot spread it, your ‘facts’ and ‘figures’ are, simply put, utter bollocks.

Daniel, you think the LGBT community should be legally discriminated against. See the above points before realising any you make are irrelevant.

NOManiacs 160113h

Gary’s circular logic aside, marriage does exist outside of the Bible. Otherwise, non-Christians couldn’t get married. This is a whole new level of ridiculousness. Also see earlier notes on Handfasting.

Daniel, really, this is bordering on the extremely perverse. Can you stop intruding into our bedrooms – it’s not healthy. Nor is an obsession with male rather than female gay sex from someone supposedly straight…

Amy, we agree. Regardless of whether it is opposite- or same-sex couples. Children do well raised by two parents. Thank you for agreeing.

Jared, who has been featured here before, again is using the concept of ‘sin’, which is solely a religious concept and cannot be proved to exist in any tangible or intangible form. The irony of you talking about valid arguments was not lost on us.

Marty, your irony of saying diversity matters while arguing against equality for diverse sections of society is not also not missed, but also risibly inane. Oh, and there ARE laws that allow same-sex couples equal recognition under the law. They cover about 20 percent of  your country. The fact a Brit had to tell you that should be quite embarrassing.

NOManiacs 160113i

Robert, it was good enough for my Mum and Dad too. Seeing how happy it made them only reinforces my belief that I should be afforded the same protection and rights as they were. They think that too, because they aren’t so insecure about their own union that they worry allowing gay people the same rights might destroy it

Elena, there are already 7,000,000,000 people on this planet. The need to rampantly procreate and populate the lands has already passed us by, dear…

NOManiacs 160113j

Andrew, if we ‘get our way’ – I prefer the term, ‘be afforded equal treatment under the law’ – the fact that gay marriage is allowed will not make it compulsory. Nor will everybody stop having children. Nor the fact that we are LGBT makes us in any way infertile. And what the FUCK were you smoking when you came up with that comment about murdering children* Honestly, I’m concerned for your sanity.

Michele, we have featured you before, yet you persist in posting messages in a known hate-group. So we will happily tag you again and inform you that the above point about the population of the Earth at this time still stands. It hasn’t changed in the 15 minutes it’s taken me to get this far.

NOManiacs 160113k

The above was made in response to someone who used the phrase ‘gay couples and their families’. NOM doesn’t foster hatredNOM isn’t a hate groupTwo words. Fuck off.

NOManiacs 160113l

Michele, we are dealing with facts and very real scenarios. Not something that will never, ever happen. Nice hyperbolic hypothetical attempt at distracting from the point at hand to avoid having to answer it, but we are aware to your tricks. Where you later made excuses not to answer was also noted.

Jamie, the law of the land says that it IS about tolerance. It says it IS about equality. It also IS that civil law you cite that you feel is beneath you. Try citing ‘God’s decisions’ if you ever fall foul of that law yourself. And Jack, no, it isn’t. See the first paragraph.

NOManiacs 160113m

Now this is just a whole heap of hatred right here. Hasani, you might need to realise that one, fornication is OK. It’s called having sex. It’s allowed. Two, you also need to realise that allowing two adults of the same sex will NOT pave the way for paedophilia – simply because that children are not allowed to enter into legal contracts like marriage due to their age, development and intelligence. Three, nor will it lead to beastiality. I have yet to hear of any animal give its consent to marriage vows.

Now, this admin has come across Jason Salamone, gay-hater extraordinaire, on a few occasions before. This is actually mild by his standards. He has parroted these arguments time and again and has been refuted, time and again. His grasp on the genetics of homosexuality is basic at best. He trumpets having both mother and father present for children yet remains stoically silent on single-parents until questioned. He has no plan for them. He still cannot grasp that homosexuality has not been classed as a mental disorder or forty years, nor the fact it is as much a ‘behaviour’ as heterosexuality is. His statistics on homosexual coupes an domestic violence come from a flawed study that used a poor sampling for comparison. When I mentioned those IQ points earlier, I sad 4-6 was an average. Jason appears to be 40-60 off. His stubbornness to believe anything other than what he says is unfathomably endless.

NOManiacs 160113n

Again, Jared, the slippery-slope, straw-man argument will not hold up under any scrutiny. See the above point. Or, if you need a very simple way to remember it, if it can’t physically say vows or isn’t old enough, it isn’t gong to happen. Maybe you should follow your Bible, and stop making these false judgments.

NOManiacs 160113o

It seems like Jason would happily allow gay people to marry the opposite gender even though he knows that they would be having sex with the same gender. And he thinks that it’s gays that are destroying marriage…

NOManiacs 160113p

Funny how people were talking about marrying appliances, and George uses an appliance analogy. They must be the ones who are advocating for human/appliance marriage. Clever sods.

Michele pops up again with her own brand of bigoted hatred. Michele, darling, homosexuals already contribute to this world in ways that are beyond counting. To say they don’t is at best ignorant and at worst outright evil. The institution of marriage exists to bond two people who are willing to dedicate their lives to each other and reap the benefits it brings. The courts are beginning to realise that, and the only argument against allowing SSM is religious in nature. Laws are not based on religion, Michele.

NOManiacs 160113q

How about not needing to PROCREATE TO MARRYAnd attempting to make your point by using UNNECESSARY CAPITALS?

NOManiacs 160113r

Tammy Sorenson displaying not only inconceivable belief in Creationism but also apparently support for incest. Those grandkids came from somewhere, Tammy…

At this point, Jason Salamone started posting lengthy entries that claimed gay marriage had wrecked marriage in Spain and The Netherlands. Not only were these false claims, he failed to cite his ‘facts’. I would have capped it and put it here but I don’t want to concentrate too much on one raving homophobe.

NOManiacs 160113s

Margarita, please see the oft-repeated point about marriage vows and the current population.

NOManiacs 160113t

Not only every debunked argument ever offered by NOM, but some good old fashioned gay-bashing thrown in for good measure.

NOManiacs 160113u

Wow, this is a whole boatload of bullshit right here. Chris, your ‘scientific’ results came from theological organisations who fed them to you knowing you wouldn’t question them because they, like you, hate gays. Marriage IS a legal contract. The ‘as long as you both shall live’ part of the civil ceremony must have passed you by, genius. As for the slippery slope argument, see the earlier points. Religions are attempting to curtail women’s rights all the time via secular laws. Please go moan at them.

NOManiacs 160113v

We aren’t sure if this guy is genuine or not, but the fact remains that NOM are still allowing hate speech like this on their page. Either their admin is incompetent, or they actively endorse comments like this.

So ends another long – I did warn you – blog about the rampant homophobia fostered by NOM and participated in by everyone, new to their page or old. This has taken me four hours to compile and after seeing such douchebaggery, hatred, obnoxiousness, stubbornness and idiocy I now need to go bathe in sulphuric acid to cleanse myself.

Brightest Blessings x

6 thoughts on “Galling naïveté and outright hatred from the followers of NOM. Including mostly new faces.

  1. Jason S

    Thanks “x”! When I see this kind of stuff, it makes it all worth while. Your so-called “refutations” to my comments are short-sighted. For example, it’s interesting you claim the sources I cite are “flawed with poor sampling” without even telling people what the study is. Overall, you seem to have made the assumption that I know as little as you know. But hey, thanks for props “x”… I’m sure writing this blog was a lot of fun for you.

    Reply
    1. culturecheck Post author

      Jason, my name is not ‘x’. The ‘x’ at the end of the post is akin to how you might sign a letter to a loved one. It is a little polite gesture that I make to all of my readers to thank them for their diligent support. I don’t doubt that you were already aware of this and trying to be a funny troll, but you were as bad at that as you are of being a compassionate human being.

      As was referenced in the post, the author, as well as myself – there are a good number of us – have had dealings with you on other pages before in the past, where you have posted the same ‘facts’, the same links, and the same rhetoric ad nauseum, ad infinitum. And every time, we have refuted your claims, highlighting how your ‘proof’ was always written by an organisation with a vested interest in castigating and demonising homosexuals. To wit, religious institutions. Which is where the vast majority of your thinking comes from, if your most recent post on the quasi-racist NOM post about black marriages is anything to go by. Pretty much everything in it smacks of Biblical morality.

      We didn’t make an assumption that you know very little. We made an analysis and a very solid conclusion that you know very little, other than how to be exceptionally stubborn and what you’ve been force-fed by people a lot more cunning and intelligent that yourself.

      I will concede you were right on one point though, writing this blog is a great deal of fun for me. Especially as it pulls in about 4,000-5,000 hits per month. It makes highlighting your outright and overt hatred all the more worthwhile.

      Have a nice day, and try be nice to someone x

      Reply
  2. Jesop Ash

    Um, I know Jason Salmon at least online personally. You can rant at him all you like but he does cite the facts. This is his consistent MO. The fact that you deliberately cut him out on those links and left only a small bit of name calling without posting his material in full proves you a liar sir.

    Reply
    1. culturecheck Post author

      Jesop, Jason has not referenced any empirically valid studies, posted links to any empirically valid studies or backed up in any way, shape or form, his claims that homosexuality is a choice, behaviour, or in any way a non-immutable trait. As mentioned in the blog post, Jason posted a lot more than what we covered, none of it in any way linked, and the reason we didn’t cover more is not only that we didn’t want to concentrate on one homophobe but also for reasons of space. We do have limited space in regards of pictures and screencaps and have to plan for future posts. Jason, as you will see, has already attempted to provide his own defence, which I will address in due course.

      Reply
    2. culturecheck Post author

      Also, if you do know him, as you claim to, you might actually know his name and not get it wrong…

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s