Below is a demonstration of how to explain the issue of same-sex marriage in much simpler terms to some people anti-gay people who might not be very smart. We understand that after reading this many will still not understand however. AGFC tries its best.

We credit the blog for creating it. It can be found here:




  1. Paul R says :

    This is a bit too complicated for many to understand. I get the logic but anti- gay extremeist like the very infamous miss Shirley Bitchards will not understand such a simple complex. Because Jamaica has gotten to comfortable with the church controlling the population and not so concerned as the church hasnt taken away most of the rights of heterosexual people, they do not see a need why gays should get rights from a human rights perspective.

  2. Logic says :

    If Steve owns the toaster why can’t he give consent? It is his property, and believe it or not but many people find sexual attraction to objects.

    Also why can’t the corpse give consent in their will?

    • antigayfactcheckbulletin says :

      Why would a toaster or corpse need legal benefits of marriage? Eg. Tax, insurance, inheritance, immigration, hospital visitation rights. Can a toaster live up to the responsibilities of marriage? Eg. Take care of your children, support you financially, decide whether or not you stay alive if you’re in a coma

      • Logic says :

        Why should they need to be married in order to get these benefits? Surely the most sensible thing would be have a new type of legally recognised relationship which isn’t marriage but confers its benefits, this would make both parties happy (assuming the reason for allowing gay marriage was about the benefits rather then as a recognition of their love, if love is the reason then why should human-appliance relationships be worth any less then human-human relationships).

        And there are no legal responsibilities in a marriage, thus a toaster would be able to fufil them. And to answer your original question a toaster would need them as much as any other loved one in a similar situation.

      • antigayfactcheckbulletin says :

        Because there isn’t anything heterosexuals can do in a marriage that homosexuals can’t do. If marriage is about love, a toaster can’t love u back and neither can a corpse. Therefore, love wouldn’t mutual in the marriage, only the living human being. Also, in many countries taking care of the children in the marriage is a legal responsibility.

      • Logic says :

        I would say that homosexuals cannot naturally conceive a child which in definition herteros can. When people feel attracted to objects they believe the objects communicate with them, and thus they believe affection is returned to the point where brain chemistry is the same between humans. Now we may know that toasters cannot express themselves but the person in love with the toaster will feel identical emotions that a “normal” human would feel. So their love is identical whether actually returned or not. And imagine a marriage between a man and a woman only capable of making toast, if the man died then the woman would be seen as unfit for raising children but I haven’t heard any calls to ban marriage for people who are unfit to raise children, because it would limit personal liberties unnecessarily.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: