Michael Savage’s Big Gay Apocalypse

3 comments November 26th, 2008at 05:51pm Posted by Eli

I have this theory that Michael Savage’s primary purpose in life is to make Rush Limbaugh look tolerant and sane. Here, let me show you what I mean:

Well, socially, we’re far worse — more degenerate than Weimar Germany. At least in Weimar Germany, men couldn’t marry men and women couldn’t marry women. So we’re probably 10 leagues below the degeneracy that brought about Hitler. We’re probably 50 leagues below the degeneracy that brought about Hitler. We are the sickest, most disgusting country on the earth, and we are… psychotic as a nation.

It’s a psychotic nation when the attorney general of the state of California, when the senator from the state of California named Dianne Feinstein, when the governor from the state of California who posed as a strongman gets up there and says that homosexuals have a right to marry that’s equal to a man and a woman, they’re insane. They are fundamentally insane.

Got that? The fact that there was opposition to Prop 8, that there are actually people who – gasp – believe that gay people should have the same right as everyone else, means that we are the most degenerate country in the world, and that the moral backlash from righteous people like Michael Savage will almost certainly lead to the second coming of Adolf Hitler. Awesome.

In fact, gay marriage is so terrible that it’s actually the single biggest problem that America has, and all our other problems are merely a symptom of our horrific amoral gay tolerance:

[Y]ou may say, “Why should we care about homosexuals trying to destroy families through the mock marriage that they perform in order to mock God, the church, the family, children, the fetus, the DNA of the human species? Why should we care about it while we have a financial meltdown?” Because the spiritual side of the downturn on Wall Street is directly related to the moral downturn in the United States of America.


[T]he government has no right to force people to accept homosexual marriage. It is why the West is dying. It is why we’re melting down as a nation.

So that’s the root cause! And all this time I thought it was the Bush administration and its enablers’ total disrespect for human decency and the rule of law! I am so glad there are superior intellects like Michael Savage around to set me straight and remind me what’s really important.

Entry Filed under: Media,Republicans,Teh Gay,Wankers


  • 1. Cujo359  |  November 27th, 2008 at 2:58 am

    I was going to guess that our decline as a country would probably have something to do with our declining educational system and the fact that we’ve shipped much of our manufacturing base out of the country. Oh and maybe electing leaders so stupid and feckless that getting us into unnecessary wars seems like a splendid idea to them.

    So, it’s actually because we let 2 to 5 percent of our citizens get married even though they’re the same gender?

  • 2. Interrobang  |  November 29th, 2008 at 12:07 am

    I’m trying to parse that question (“Why should we care about homosexuals trying to destroy families through the mock marriage that they perform in order to mock God, the church, the family, children, the fetus, the DNA of the human species?), since it seems to be about the clearest answer I’ve ever gotten from any wingnut about why they’d even care whether a couple of gay people get married at all. My right-wing Canadian mother says, “Why do I care? How does it affect me?” and I’ve been wondering the same thing all along.

    I can’t do it. I can sort of get the idea that someone who’s really heavily invested in sex-role stereotyping the way wingnuts are might think that same-sex marriage mocks opposite-sex marriage, but the rest of it just confuses me. A lot. I think I’m going to have to go back to reading about Syrian lingerie or something.

  • 3. Steven  |  December 14th, 2008 at 9:49 am

    It’s pretty simple actually, ‘gay marriage’ isn’t a civil rights issue. It’s about gay men and women gaining the same benefits as heterosexual couples- it has implications for Social Security- retirement and disability benefits, for employer-based health coverage, and other State and private programs.

    The traditional family is the building block of the State, but the State has absolutely no interest in the gay family. A gay couple might benefit from the State, but the reverse is not true. So, the investment really has a less than zero return. That’s why it is destructive.

    Gays have never been denied the right to marry- they can marry at any time, to anyone, in every State. They simply cannot benefit from the legal recognition of their marriage- nor should they.

    That being said- I think the rights of individuals to engage in anything that is non-violent should prevail. This doesn’t mean recognizing gay marriage, paying benefits, and so on- but it does mean respecting wishes when it comes to wills, hospital visits, and so on.

Contact Eli



Most Recent Posts




November 2008
« Oct   Dec »

Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter

View My Stats *