Sex With Ducks!

Sorry, there's no "other" option here...


  • Total voters
    7

Byron In Exile

Frederick Fucking Chopin
Joined
May 3, 2002
Posts
66,591
Pat Robertson came up with this strange analogy in discussing gay marriage.

"What if you had someone who liked to have sex with ducks?"

In two days these girls had this video up on Youtube.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXPcBI4CJc8

Pat Robertson once said
It's a long downward slide
That would lead to legalizing sex with ducks
If two men could stand side by side

God, I hope he's right!
'Cause if gay marriage becomes lawful
I'm gonna find myself a duck
And legally do... something awful

Ducks! Sex with ducks! We'll do it in the rain
Ducks! Yeah, ducks! Got those web-feet on my brain
We'll find a pond, we'll find a puddle
Put your beak in mine and we'll cuddle

It's a feeling I can't name
When sex with ducks and gay marriage are one and the same

...
 
Pat Robertson came up with this strange analogy in discussing gay marriage.

"What if you had someone who liked to have sex with ducks?"

In two days these girls had this video up on Youtube.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXPcBI4CJc8

Pat Robertson once said
It's a long downward slide
That would lead to legalizing sex with ducks
If two men could stand side by side

God, I hope he's right!
'Cause if gay marriage becomes lawful
I'm gonna find myself a duck
And legally do... something awful

Ducks! Sex with ducks! We'll do it in the rain
Ducks! Yeah, ducks! Got those web-feet on my brain
We'll find a pond, we'll find a puddle
Put your beak in mine and we'll cuddle

It's a feeling I can't name
When sex with ducks and gay marriage are one and the same

...

Sex with ducks? :eek:

That's quackers.
 
Sex with ducks? :eek:

That's quackers.

No, Pat Robertson is quackers.

If this incongrous analogy takes hold, then I suppose we can expect EVERY inbred cretin with a 50 IQ to start his own televangelism/media empire.
 
No, Pat Robertson is quackers.

If this incongrous analogy takes hold, then I suppose we can expect EVERY inbred cretin with a 50 IQ to start his own televangelism/media empire.

Count me in, I've always wanted to start my own televangelism/media empire.

Damn, my IQ is 49

:D
 
But what the moron fails to understand is that same sex marriage is not about what one person likes to do to another person/being/object, but rather what two consenting people, whom the state has agreed are competent to enter into legally binding contracts with others, choose to do.

This is why Robertson's Regent Law School is such a joke. Now, while a duck may have the same critical thinking skills as your average Regent educated lawyer, no government will acknowledge that a duck can enter into legally binding contracts with others (even other ducks!) If they did, just think of the housing mess we'd be in now if all the ducks bought houses, took out home equity loans to put in swimming pools, and then couldn't pay their mortgages because, well, they are DUCKS and can't get jobs. I guess they could all move to Virginia Beach where they could work as prostiducks since evidently Pat Robertson knows alot of folks there who'd be willing to pay for duck sex.

This non-starter argument applies when they talk about pedophiles demanding the right to marry kids as well, or women just marrying their favorite vibe.

Frankly, I'd like to see how similar the arguments are from when people demanded that laws prohibiting interracial marriage be repealed.

HEY PAT ROBERTSON, DUCK YOU!
 
No, Pat Robertson is quackers.

If this incongrous analogy takes hold, then I suppose we can expect EVERY inbred cretin with a 50 IQ to start his own televangelism/media empire.
Well, at least he's not being housed in a mental institution somewhere at the taxpayers' expense...
 
It's a silly analogy for sure, but the sexually conservative (and our politicians are always OUTWARDLY sexually conservative :rolleyes:) often use scare tactics like this to demonstrate that allowing sexual things to be accepted in society will lead to the downfall of society- absolute chaos. Sex is dangerous because it causes chaos and the breakdown of the ultra-conservative society... according to them, of course ;) It's the whole "slippery slope" argument, albeit a little perverse ;)

What he doesn't understand, as Nathan pointed out, is that it's not a matter of sex, it's a matter of personal legal rights.

But as long as we don't have to worry about predatory ducks... or perhaps as long as the ducks don't have to worry about predatory people! :eek:
 
It's a silly analogy for sure, but the sexually conservative (and our politicians are always OUTWARDLY sexually conservative :rolleyes:) often use scare tactics like this to demonstrate that allowing sexual things to be accepted in society will lead to the downfall of society- absolute chaos. Sex is dangerous because it causes chaos and the breakdown of the ultra-conservative society... according to them, of course ;) It's the whole "slippery slope" argument, albeit a little perverse ;)

What he doesn't understand, as Nathan pointed out, is that it's not a matter of sex, it's a matter of personal legal rights.

But as long as we don't have to worry about predatory ducks... or perhaps as long as the ducks don't have to worry about predatory people! :eek:
Yes, he's combining two separate issues. Gay sex isn't illegal, and even then, comparing it to sex with ducks is ridiculous (which is what makes the song so delightfully amusing). As for gay marriage, most opponents of it base their argument on what the word "marriage" means. A viable solution would be to allow for "civil unions" between same-sex couples which are legally identical to marriage. Then the Christians get to keep their word, and everybody's happy.
 
Yes, he's combining two separate issues. Gay sex isn't illegal, and even then, comparing it to sex with ducks is ridiculous (which is what makes the song so delightfully amusing). As for gay marriage, most opponents of it base their argument on what the word "marriage" means. A viable solution would be to allow for "civil unions" between same-sex couples which are legally identical to marriage. Then the Christians get to keep their word, and everybody's happy.
*nods* Everyone has the right to experience a drop in their sex lives and live with someone who makes them miserable for years and years :D
 
There is only one sane solution. The right argues that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman, and I agree in as much as I can't tell others what is sacred or not. But, if it is a sacred ceremony, then that makes it a sacrement -- like baptism or the last rights, which no gov't should have the right to control. So, the solution is simple. If marriage is sacred, it's a religios institution and has no business being recognized much less controlled by gov't. Therefore, allow civil unions between any two adults but reserve "marriage" for religious institutions to perform and recognize.
 
the blonde girl is very cute. i wouldn't mind if she liked to dress up like a duck. or anything. hehe :)
 
There is only one sane solution. The right argues that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman, and I agree in as much as I can't tell others what is sacred or not. But, if it is a sacred ceremony, then that makes it a sacrement -- like baptism or the last rights, which no gov't should have the right to control. So, the solution is simple. If marriage is sacred, it's a religios institution and has no business being recognized much less controlled by gov't. Therefore, allow civil unions between any two adults but reserve "marriage" for religious institutions to perform and recognize.
That's an even better idea. A heterosexual couple would be "married" as far as their church was concerned, but a civil union in the eyes of the state.
 
Duck Fuck

Here's a poem I wrote about duck fucking a few months ago that Lit refused to put on their site:


Dirty Dr. Seuss: Duck Fuck

Fucking fucking fucking fuck
I think that I'll go fuck a duck.

Floppy feathery flying swimmers
How lustily they squawk when their coat shimmers.

On the water they rest and lie
Before the penetrate the sky.

And if I have any luck today,
The sky will not be the only thing treated this way.

One approaches me by the lake
Flaunting her wares, but not at a drake.

“Squawk! Squawk!
I want to suck your cock!”

My ears perk.
My cock jerks.

Did I just hear a feathery friend say
that she would like to suck my cock today?

In response, she only stares,
But not at me—at my downstairs!

“Would you like to see something?” I propose,
Reaching down to my lower nose.

Down goes my fly,
And up, to the sky

Pops my cock.
Responds the lovely lady, “Squawk!”

Nearby, a boisterous mallard protests,
“How can I compete?! Mine is dwarfed by insects!”

But the sensuous empress ignores the horny inferior
And, gaping in astonishment, I can see her soft interior.

Sensing an opportunity, I act fast.
Plunging my cock inside her, she cannot even gasp.

One hump, two hump, three hump, four
I can feel my cock knocking at her back door.

Wildly she squawks, but in glee or misery?
I care not: I'm getting duck fucked for free!

A beak chomps my head, a wing swats my rocks
Does this bitch not know how to suck cocks?

Harder, faster, more forcefully I thrust
I must finish before maimed by this bird of lust.

At last! Liquid spews from my cock
But it's as red as my wife, standing next to me in shock.

Though I bleed, my wood is still more rigid than a tree
Her nubile form enticing all blood to the tip of me.

Ruefully, I allow my mind to usurp my heart
From my beloved, my cock does depart.

At that instant, my agonizing joy overflows
Seamen showering my feathered (girl) friend, who knows

That though my heart is hers despite her flaws
My cock is not, because

God made a mistake when he made ducks:
They're so damn sexy, but they're lousy fucks.
 
Back
Top