January 30, 2008

Protestation Elation

Filed under: humor, pictures and videos — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — skeptisys @ 3:05 pm

If you are like me, the most convincing argument is a humorous protest sign. Like all of us, the only reason I don’t hate homosexuality and homosexuals is the anti-gay groups have unfunny protest signs. Oh sure, love between consenting adults is something to be cherished, but who wouldn’t be drawn to hatred by a well composed sign. Just look at some of the signs put out by these hate groups.


Apparently, God also hates long words. These aren’t funny at all. Well, the last one seems to say that anal sex equals a pirate – that is a little funny, I guess. The guy holding that sign has a purse, er um – fanny pack, so he is just trying to balance the scales a bit. Anyway, these clashing colors won’t convince me.

On the other end of the argument, you have this guy:


Now there is a convincing argument. Puppets and a cool cap do it for me every time. Without a doubt, I am now 100% for homosexuality, and I didn’t waste too much time learning details about the discussion.


Some people can’t afford cardboard, so they use their skin.


This argument always convinces me. For example, some people dislike PETA because they destroy valuable life saving research, or engage in other horribly destructive behavior. Not me. Not after I saw this:


Naked women? No time to worry about human suffering, I have made up my mind. Total time elapsed: 12.4 seconds.

Many people ask me about my stance on the war in Iraq. They want to know if I am concerned that hundreds of thousands of people, including children, have been brutally killed by our overpriced military. Am I concerned that Americans are suffering because of the trillions of dollars in tax dollar gifts awarded to military companies with no oversight? Let’s look at some signs and find out what I believe.


Um, the Romans? Oh wait, I know this: Jesus would bomb fags? This is getting complicated.

I couldn’t find too many pro-war signs. Most likely it is because they have more war than they even expected. Then again, Christians have all the power in the United States, and nobody protests more than they do. Here is the best pro-war sign I could find:


War brings peace? Counter arguments, please. (opens up to the pic. The sign contains a word that some people consider a naughty word)

1-protest1.jpg1-protest1.jpg I got that wrong on the SATs. I chose: bombing is to peace as a taco is to my colon. I like her shades, so I am leaning against this war.




Enough! Now I see that this war is wrong! Now that I have seen the cute doggie, unprovoked deathly attacks are unacceptable.



  1. really nice one and keep it up! for indian matrimonials

    Comment by indian matrimonials — February 2, 2008 @ 6:51 am

  2. Even when my ADD won’t permit me to read SkeptiSys, I always look at the pictures. Give your photo editor a big, fat…


    Where I come from, gays are called butt pirates.

    How could you hate ’em, though? I admit I used to, but that was before I found out that dead Dodgers moho invented the high five.

    Comment by Glenn Burkha — February 3, 2008 @ 7:09 pm

  3. Thanks, Glenn. I liked reading the Burke articles. Far too many people hate homosexuals, or are intolerant in general. I don’t know why they hate. If you believe the signs, religion is a leading contributor. ‘God hates fags’ means ‘our religion doesn’t tolerate homosexuality’. Wish I could solve that problem.

    Comment by skeptisys — February 6, 2008 @ 8:26 pm

  4. hey thats great i love this it is very intertaining hahahahah keep up the good work

    Comment by fhgjhglkjthres — March 21, 2009 @ 8:17 pm

  5. There’s an interesting post at Atheist Ethicist, The Source of Hatred, where the author explores the question of why theists hate homosexuals.
    Religion is not the cause. It’s the excuse. It’s what bigots use to rationalize their bigotry: ‘the Bible says it’s an abomination.’
    But…Leviticus also says that eating shellfish is an abomination! Yet most Christians eat shrimp, and there was never any persecution of shellfish-eaters.
    So, why is one sentence taken as ‘God’s law’, and another just as ‘ancient dietary recommendation’, when they’re both forbidden in the same book?

    Comment by Bishop Nikki — March 23, 2009 @ 11:14 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: