Skip to main content

The day the gay marriage slippery slope officially died

The slippery slope is a fairly popular fallacy used by far-right conservatives when attempting to delegitimize the concept of gay marriage. It usually goes something like this:

"Marriage should be between one man and one woman. If we allow gay people to marry, then what? Why not make marrying more than one person at a time legal? Why not make marrying an animal legal? If gay marriage becomes legal, pretty soon polygamy and bestiality will be legal!"

Well, GOPers may now want to exclude that bestiality bit from their fallacy, because as a recent story suggests, bestiality doesn't follow gay marriage's lead at all - quite the opposite.

Allow me to introduce Ruben Chance James Fox and his wife, Amber Nicole Fox. The fact their last name is the same as that of an animal is merely a coincidence. They're both 23 years old and living in North Carolina. So, what does the young couple like to do in their spare time? Apparently, Ruben enjoys recording his wife having sex with dogs, and then posting the videos online. They now both face multiple charges, including: Bestiality, conspiracy, and disseminating obscene materials. In addition to that, Amber Nicole faces a charge of soliciting a crime against nature.

So, there we have it. Gay marriage apparently doesn't lead to bestiality. But watch out, straight couples! Dogs may be gay couples' best friends, but they could be a friend with benefits for some straight couples! As for Ruben Chance and Amber Nicole, it appears they'll have to settle for having sex with Foxes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/dog-porn-north-carolina_n_3940844.html
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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...
2 comments
Read more

Mentioned on Crooks and Liars and Hinterland Gazette!

Due to some tweets of mine, I got mentioned on the following two sites (all my tweets can be viewed here -  https://twitter.com/CraigRozniecki ): https://crooksandliars.com/2019/04/trump-gives-stupid-advice-george https://hinterlandgazette.com/2019/03/istandwithschiff-is-trending-after-donald-trump-led-gop-attack-on-adam-schiff-backfires-spectacularly.html
Post a Comment
Read more

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...
2 comments
Read more