Skip to main content

Polish Satire on Gay Marriage



The cartoon was drawn by Andrzej Krauze, a Polish cartoonist living in the UK. Upon learning of the threats from the pro-homosexual groups, he laughed, saying, “This only proves that the cartoon message was correct and that I was able to represent the whole absurdity of so-called civil unions.”

He also pointed out that many countries have registered associations of zoophiles and pedophiles that wish to have their perversions legalized. “I am sure that in coming years, some of these groups, especially animal lovers will achieve their goals,” Krauze said.

The reference may be to a registered Dutch political party called PNVD, a Dutch acronym that translates into "brotherly love, freedom and diversity,” whose party planks consist of working towards the legalization and acceptance of pedophilia, pornography, bestiality and easy availability of soft/hard drugs.

The party also lobbies for private possession of child pornography, the right of children to smoke, drink and vote at the age of 12, to use "soft" drugs like marijuana at 12 and "hard drugs" like cocaine and heroin at 16. (see: A Look Into the Future?: Dutch Party Pushes Pedophilia, Pornography, Bestiality, Soft/Hard Drugs)

LifeSiteNews.com has also reported in the past on the encroachment of the approval of bestiality into the mainstream, and the rise of bestiality in jurisdictions that have embraced homosexual "marriage." Bestiality has in recent years been explicitly endorsed by well-known Princeton "bioethicist" Peter Singer and by PETA.

Related Link: Polish Zoophilia Cartoon Spoofing Homosexual “Marriage” as First Step to Extraspecies “Marriage” Lambasted by Pro-Homosexual Groups ~ LifeSiteNews

Comments

  1. Oh Lucia Maria!
    It's not dogs that people want to marry but ducks.
    The great televangelist Pat Robertson made the connection a few weeks ago.

    Enjoy the video

    http://fairfactsmedia.blogspot.com/search?q=duck

    ReplyDelete
  2. FFM,

    it's a goat!

    I'll look at the video after dinner.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So it is.
    Does that mean the guy is muslim :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's been a while since I was genuinely offended by this blog.

    It's good to know that people can still hide behind religion to justify their prejudices.

    Consenting adults =/= animals.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It’s interesting that people mock this sort of thing as the bizarre idea of Pat Robertson. In fact if one looks at the published defences of liberal views of sexual morality such as those of Raymond Bellotti one finds things like this seriously defended. Bellotti comes to the conclusion that because (a) any sexual activity between consenting adults is permissible and (b) people can give posthumous consent about how their bodies will be used post mortem ( i.e such as in cases of organ donation or cremation). it follows that Necrophilia can be permissible. ( see his “Sexual Intercourse between Consenting Adults is Always Permissible.” In The Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature, ed. Louis Pojman, 681-89. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.)

    Now (b) is true, the conclusion follows from (a) and (b) so liberals who accept (a) seem rationally committed to endorsing necrophilia. Ridicule laughter and threats do not change the fact that they are staring a reduction ad absurdum in the face.

    ReplyDelete
  6. David, if you define man as a type of animal, I'm not sure what you are going on about :-)

    Of course, a wagging tail may not mean consent. Apparently, that doesn't stop some groups for advocating for some pretty strange things, or are you in denial over that issue?

    As for redefining marriage between a man and a women, to simply "between two consenting adults", well then that works doesn't it? Of course, what is a consenting adult? A nine year old in some societies.

    And I note you were vague on your definition of marriage in that you simply used the plural of adults, possibly meaning three or four or seven.

    Which again, redefines marriage into a relatively new term to some people. So, if marriage can be redefined as consent between two or more adults, why cannot the discussion be extended to wonder just how far this effort to redefine the meaning of marriage go? Do you think it's going to stop at just two consenting "adults"?

    ReplyDelete
  7. PS David - I agree the joke is in poor taste.

    Perhaps the joke would have been funnier if there had been a long line of different candidates for marriage? They could have had the Mormons lined up, a Muslim with a few ground sheets covering who knows what, a couple of 12 year olds, some tax dodgers or benefit fraudsters (although being divorced and living apart tends to yield more money) all the way to a goat. How about an arranged marriage between two test tubes? Personally, I'd also throw in some-one being married to their car. That cannot be far away, and how could such a thing make a mockery of marriage when it's not about defending the institution of marriage, it's all about one's own marriage. To suggest people have a right to defend the institution of marriage is to suggest that that person is some-how threatened by redefining marriage as between a man and has most prize possession (because we all know marriage is a male institution designed to oppress and control women....)

    Interestingly, gays are now so mainstream that they are getting just as offended as Christians can get with the typical satirical "jokes" such as the "priest off" cartoon that caused a feeding frenzy on DPF's site a while back, plus the "piss-take" of Christ and the menstruating virgin Mary of South Park (gee, what wit)

    I noticed the other day some famous?? lesbian singer outraged that a hetero female singer had a hit with the song "I kissed a girl and I liked it". Hah! That's just soo funny a lesbian could take offense at that. She probably needs to line up behind a few others, but that's the way it goes.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh, and Lucia's Borat post too, where he has made a few gay folk "uncomfortable"

    ReplyDelete
  9. "It's been a while since I was genuinely offended by this blog."

    How sad.

    Can you do something to ensure this pissant is offended a bit more frequently please?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well, I was going to do a review of Ian Wishart's book "Air Con"...

    ReplyDelete
  11. The cartoon is in fact inaccurate. It'll be the polygamists lining up next.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Do you think it's going to stop at just two consenting "adults"?"

    Based on the "consenting adults" reasoning, it cannot, you'd have to allow brother-brother, brother-sister, mother-son, father-daughter, mother-son-father, mother-mother-son, mother-father-daughter-son-son, man-man-man-woman etc There is simply no end to the depravity.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "It's been a while since I was genuinely offended by this blog."

    Well, I'm sure that you can go back to fake outrage soon enough.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mark, all but one of the blog writers here, are followers of a superstition called Catholicism (a brand of Christianity available at any good retailer)

    Be kind and understanding of them, the Catholics have a long established history of this sort of thing.

    And remember, they became Catholics because their parents made them one.

    They are good Christians merely following the teachings of their holy book and their holy-father in Rome.

    Hard fought for laws in this country allow The Catholic Church to their legally discriminate against homosexuals.

    Let them have their ‘fun’ (in the context of burning books in large groups of drunken German-speaking men in brown-shirts)

    Come back later in the week.

    They’ll be on about legalised child beating, justifiably killing doctors, harbouring pedophile priests from prosecution, and Muslim baiting thrown-in for good measure.

    Nice chatting to you.

    Paul.

    PS; Zen, where the pope resides, they approve of 12years old having sex, so not a good analogy buddy.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Paul, what's this about not attacking the man and playing the ball? Or is it different when an atheists effectively call Catholics brown shirts, child beaters etc...

    You read what you want to in to anything said here, and take the worst interpretations.

    Pity it doesn't coincide with truth.

    PS: Where the Pope resides, they don't approve of 12 year olds having sex. As you know, the teeachings of the Catholic Church don't approve of sex outside marriage.

    The fact that the Vatican inherited the laws of Italy, which include the legal age of marriage doesn't make your case. Apart from the inconvenient fact that the population is in the hundreds rather than thousands, the Pope has put plans to repeal the Italian laws and adopt their own set, precisely to set a better example given some of Italy's outdated laws.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Paul,

    Any more comments such as the one above will be deleted.

    It is one thing to make a comment about the post, it is another to reel out the same tirade full of inaccuracies and slanders.

    It is typified by how you spin the laws in the Vatican, making out there is some sort of approval of sex with children in a state where very few (if any) children live, where the reality is that the laws have been inherited from Italy.

    This has been pointed out to you previously, yet you continue to insinuate some sort of perverted reason for such a law.

    For this reason, I will delete all of any future comments of that nature.

    Think hard before you post here in future.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Think hard before you post here in future."

    Come on Lucia, what makes you think that he can think, let alone think hard.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "And remember, they became Catholics because their parents made them one."

    So, what's your excuse for your small-minded atheist fanaticism?
    Your parents were the same? Stupidity?
    You're not complicated Paul--offensive, graceless little creeps are a dime a dozen.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "And remember, they became Catholics because their parents made them one."

    Actually, he's not even right on that point.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Actually, he's not even right on that point"

    Correct Zen, these people never are.

    Congrats by the way on your ability to disinfect this blog from that other notorious, politically motivated Christian hater - Fugley aka Billy Borker aka MyNameIsJack.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Paul, I'm getting a little tired of your slanders.

    If you want to re-post your comment, please remove the baseless accusations.

    For your information, my parents were not Catholic and I was not brought up in a religious household. I made the decision to become Catholic later in life.

    I do not believe Gay people are evil. Get over yourself with your strange fantasies. And then your other accusations (I hate gays because my parents told me blah blah blah) is rubbish.

    I use to think that way, so I have been where you are in terms of hating people.

    Just because you used to think that way, doesn't mean everyone thinks like you.

    I was not wrong about the Vatican age of consent laws - they were inherited from old Italian laws. Also, age of consent in Vatican is 15. It's only 12 when the parties are the same age. Again, not that this matters because as far as I know, no children actually LIVE in the Vatican City. Your point, as usual is irrelevant.

    Re-read your first comment. What makes you think you "used to hate"? From what I can see, you haven't changed. You just shifted your focus.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Updated: Investigated the age of consent laws in the Vatican, and it is not 12.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.