Churches Need To Shut Up About Gay Marriage ‘Cause Stone Cold Said So

April 24th, 2014 // 45 Comments
Stone Cold Steve Austin
LISTEN: Stone Cold Steve Austin Defends Gay Marriage
'Creationist Cosmos'
Creationist Cosmos
It's Exactly What It Sounds Like Read More »

Months ago on his podcast, Stone Cold Steve Austin blasted churches for trying to ban gay marriage which clearly doesn’t sit right with him (above), but apparently nobody heard it until yesterday and immediately made up for it by making it go viral as shit. So here’s Stone Cold going right the fuck off on religion and why it needs to back off the gays. Via Mediaite:

[H]e doesn’t “give a shit” about people’s sexuality, he just wants them treated equally. He said, “I believe that any human being in America, or any human being in the goddamn world, that wants to be married, and if it’s same-sex, more power to ‘em.”
He also found it stunning how churches get to lecture people about their sexuality being a lifestyle, asking, “Which one of these motherfuckers talked to God, and God said that same-sex marriage was a no-can-do?”
And beyond that, Austin’s not happy with the hypocrisy over sinful behavior and redemption in organized religion.
“Okay, so two cats can’t get married if they want to get married, but then a guy can go murder fourteen people, molest five kids, then go to fucking prison, and accept God and He’s going to let him into heaven? After the fact that he did all that shit? See that’s all horseshit to me, that don’t jive with me.”

Of course, this puts Stone Cold in stark contrast to the Ultimate Warrior who was a homophobic shitbag that thought it’s liberal bullshit to record words he said in public and report them verbatim. More importantly, somebody needs to update this pic and maybe add some beer cans spraying Gabriel in the face. Really make it something kids can look up to.

Macho Man Jesus

Photos: Getty

superficial

  1. Greg

    Well, when I look for spiritual enlightenment I always gravitate to a guy married & divorced 4 times, who is a known wife beater, and has years of ROIDs working on his brain……. no different that wacko Warrior and probably not someone one I’d want marching into battle with me….

  2. Nick

    I would pay out the ass (no pun intended) to see Stone Cold walk into the Westboro Baptist Church and just start stunin’ the hell out of the entire congregation like in that one episode of Monday Night Raw
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCtJpX329JU

  3. Cock Dr

    Thank you for proof that not all hairy faced redneck looking white men wearing baseball caps are homophobes.

  4. …says the man who used “stompin’ a mudhole” as one of his catchphrases.

  5. Steve has been hit in the head with a chair too many times to know the difference between gay marriage and say polygamy. There is a difference right? If marriage isnt defined as between a man and a woman, why stop at a number?

    I know 5 fine chicks that want to marry me and live in a group in Salt Lake City.

    Why not let me marry my horse? If I was gay it would be ok right? If I was black and gay, Id be on TV with my own reality show with my horse and our love on display(I know Tori Spelling patented this program but im just sayin).

    Its all about what is good for society when mopes like this guy or the Kenyan born foreign usurper define marriage. I mean Soetoro used to be for marriage between man and a woman until the social good and need for votes caused him to change his view because its truly his moral belief you know like saying hes a christian in between talking about his “muslim faith”. Just like all the self promoting brochures he put out on himself told the world be was “born in Kenya but raised in Indonesia and Hawaii”. None of it matters as truth is irrelevant. Its all about the social good and gay marriage is good, but polygamy is not just like marrying my horse is not.

    Progressive/liberal morality is always changing simply because it does not exist so today lets trot out a white redneck like Steve to show issues like gay marriage, as with global warming, are accepted by everyone from all walks of life.

    • Posts like this remind me that I’m not crazy, just depressed.

    • Pity none of your mom’s kids lived.

    • This essay is invalid because it was written by a ‘birther’. HAHAHA. Tell me Robert, is it hard to wear sandals with webbed feet?

    • Yeah, when gay marriage was unpopular and liberals championed it every conservative in the nation was a bulwark of morality, standing absolutely against it. Now that the polls have changed and show that a majority of America supports it?

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/23/republicans-gay-marriage_n_5197669.html

      Here’s the thing, Robby. Standing up for something when it’s unpopular means that you have morals. Using an issue to get the votes of…well…people like you until the numbers turn against you? That would be a lack of morals.

      Glad I could help.

    • I think you’re 100% right, we should stick to the definition of marriage that we’ve always had, not make up new ones to fit current social norms.

      Polygamy, wives AND concubines, child brides, arranged marriages, ownership of wives as chattle, forbidding marriage between religions, non-virgin brides stoned to death, widowed women should be required to marry their husbands brother, a rapist should marry his virgin victim and pay her father for his loss, soldiers should be able to claim enemy women as prizes, and of course…slave owners should arrange all his slaves marriages.

      You know, the traditional definition of marriage ONLY…like in the Bible.

    • There is one nugget of a reasonable point in all of this fiasco. Most slippery slope arguments are patently dumb – see marrying your horse, because how the hell does a horse give consent. However, the polyamory one does have some merit, since all the participants are presumably consenting adults.

      I would not be surprised if polyamory does become legal at some point. If you have a number of consenting adults that want to enter into a contractual relationship, why is the number 2 so special? There may also be (ironically) a religious freedom argument that pops up in favor of polyamory, since Mormons used to allow it, and some breakaway Mormon sects still permit it.

      • How does a horse give consent? Let’s ask Matthew Broderick.

      • I thought that I heard the anti-polygamy thing had something to do with taxes?

      • Some Mormon sects can “permit” it all they want, but since none of those extraneous spouses are recognized by either state or Federal authorities, your point is what, again? Consent isn’t the issue there, since adoption doesn’t depend on the “consent” of the party being adopted, and that’s a valid civil contract which changes the legal status of both parties – and it has been expanded to include adults adopting other adults, which is why the “ohmagerd, it has to be a man and a woman” position is so flawed. It’s that marriage, which affects a change in your legal status, is already clearly defined as a civil contract between two parties. And if both parties are of age and have no legal obstacles (i.e. existing marriages, insanity, family relationships prohibited by the state) that prevent them from entering into it, gender shouldn’t be an obstacle to entering into that contract.

        Legalized polygamy or polyandry is another argument altogether; since no one is demanding that the two-party marriage contract that exists now should be overturned in favor of multiple partners, it’s only a “slippery slope” to people like Robby who tend to be excitable because they lack two gray cells to rub together. The reason it doesn’t exist as a legal entity is simply because the tax, census and record keeping issues would be a nightmare; from a sociological viewpoint it’s a system that lends itself to major abuses. While most people would love to think of polyandry as a “good for the goose” version of polygamy, it usually translates to one woman having to service a bunch of men who are related to each other.

      • @justifiable – “permit” in the sense that it’s considered a tenet of the religion. It obviously doesn’t have any legal force. Mormon theology used to sanction polygamy until there was a convenient revelation that brought them into compliance with bigamy laws.

    • “I know 5 fine chicks that want to marry me and live in a group in Salt Lake City.”

      Having 5 women chained up in the basement and beating them into utter submission is not the same as them actually wanting to marry you, dude.

      • I think you’re actually being generous here. Robby has already admitted to having bestial urges toward his horse, so “chicks” probably means a bunch of Rhode Island Reds with really prolapsed cloacae.

  6. Austin 3:16.

    That’s all there is to it.

  7. Is it an example of a paradox that I agree with him but at the same time don’t give a shit what he thinks about anything?

  8. Austin is the fucking man.I’m glad he had the guts to say this. Gay people should have every right to get married.

  9. IME, it isn’t a gay/straight thing, it should come down to fairness under the law – in a secular society all citizens should have the same rights and responsibilities.

    Back to the gay/straight thing :

    A guy who made his money rolling around on the floor with big, sweaty, mostly naked men should understand gay relationship issues better than I do, for sure…

  10. kayk

    I just love that the guy whose wrestling persona was more or less “Cap’n Redneck” doesn’t give a shit about gay marriage.

Leave A Comment