Skip to main content

Tamara Scott of the Michele Bachmann campaign lays claim that gay marriage will lead to people marrying objects

Just when I thought the Michele Bachmann team, and the right-wing in general, couldn't get any crazier, I read this article (and saw the video clip). Michele Bachmann's Iowa Campaign Chair, Tamara Scott, stated that the legalization of gay marriage would lead people to marry objects, such as women marrying the Eiffel Tower.

I'll let you watch the clip for yourself. Watch it a few times, as I know when I first watched it, I couldn't believe what I had just heard, so I had to watch it again. Here it is - http://www.towleroad.com/2011/11/tamarascott.html

So, how was it for you? Can't determine whether it's real or a joke? I thought the same thing at first, but given Bachmann, Scott and Bob Vander Plaats' record of anti-gay statements, I think it's safe to say this video is legit and the speakers are wanting to be taken seriously.

There is such a thing as "object sexuality," where a person is sexually attracted to an object, but this has nothing to do with homosexuality or the legalization of gay marriage. This is the classic informal fallacy known as the slippery slope, which attempts to claim that due to A (the legalization of gay marriage in this case), it would lead to B, C, D, etc. (polygamy, object sexuality, etc.), when there is absolutely no connection between A and the rest.

Let's try thinking about this in rational terms. How would an object ever give consent to marry anyone or anything? How would it give consent for sex?  How would it engage in sex? How would it travel for the honeymoon? How would it reproduce? In the off-chance that it couldn't reproduce and the couple had to resort to adoption, how would it parent? I really wish I didn't feel the need to ask such silly, stupid questions, but Tamara Scott and her like make it appear as if it's necessary, sadly.

I wonder what the wedding and reception would be like. Who would the object invite to the ceremony? Would its parents be supportive of the marriage and the man/woman it was marrying? How magical of a dance would be on display between the newly-married couple? Would there be a limousine large enough to occupy the couple or would a woman be able to simultaneously ride in the object she married while riding it for her own pleasure? Since the object has no way of giving consent for the sex, would it then be classified as rape? Could the object press charges?

"You, sir, are charged with 1st degree sexual assault of a vehicle. If convicted of penetrating said vehicle with your shaft without its consent, you will spend up to 10 years in prison."

Not understanding how one could fall in love with or attempt to have sexual intercourse with an object, I thought it might be fun to lay down some lovely lines attempting to depict a person's true love for an object.

Charlize (speaking to a desk): "Your wood is so hard. I want to feel you inside me. If only you weren't so flat."

Jim Bob (speaking to a gun): "You shoot quicker than I do. You make me feel so good about myself. Will you be mine to have and to hold, in bed, in church and in the sh***er till death do us part?"

Sandra (speaking to a candle): "I blow you time and time again and it never gets old. I don't even have to think about whether to spit or swallow. Even though you burned me when I tried to... Oh, nevermind, I still love you."

John Paul (speaking to a robe): "I feel you along all parts of my body morning, noon and night and it's never enough. Please don't leave me. I don't know what I'd do without you. My mitre would be the only thing keeping me from being completely naked."

Felicity (speaking to a lamp): "I love how I can turn you on whenever I want. It's simply incredible to feel so much control and power on something. I haven't felt so powerful since the time I tried to fly with my swimming flippers."

Judas (speaking to a car): "You and I have been through so much together. The sexual chemistry we have can't be matched. You can go fast or slow or right in between. You can be turned on whenever I'm in the mood. When it's a little chilly, I can warm you up like no one could possibly imagine. Even though my doctor advised me not to do it, your gas guzzler feels so good, baby."

Brianna (speaking to a spoon): "Whenever I want something nice and creamy entering my mouth, you provide me with that. I'm always left so satisfied. The way you repeatedly go in and out of my mouth leaves me feeling a sense of euphoria unknown to anyone else. Enough talking. Let's do it again. Feed me."

Jeb (speaking to a door): "Don't you dare tell me you don't feel the same way. You love it when I turn your handle just right and slide you open. You always make this little noise signifying the satisfaction my fingers bring to you. Don't worry, honey, if anyone knocks on you or rings your bell again, they'll have to answer to me. I also promise to never break you again. That first time another man rang your bell, I thought you had been cheating on me. It'll never happen again. Here, let me make it up to you. I'm going to ring your bell a few times."

Lois (speaking to a rollercoaster): "I can't begin to describe how you make me feel. The way you bring to me excitement, joy, fear, warmth, this funny sensation at the pit of my stomach. Not a day goes by where I don't think about riding you and I think it's safe to say you enjoy my riding you just as much as I do. It's already been a full day. I'll be there at four. Wait for me?"

Keith (speaking to a basketball): "It's incredible how perfectly you fit in my hand. You're a little big at times for me, but I don't mind. I only wish I had two of them, so I could keep both my hands occupied at once. No, no, I don't want you to think I'm being disloyal. Come on. Haven't you ever wanted to experiment a little? You, me, another ball? I'm going to head to the store, get us another ball, a camera and let's just see what happens. You're a 34 DD, right?"

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"