Stating the Fucking Obvious

There are some times when, very briefly, the light of reason shines in a dull fundamentalist mind. These moments are ephemeral, and quickly yield to the tide of insanity, ignorance and authoritarianism that normally engulfs every thought a fundamentalist thinks, but they are real. The title of this piece from the American (non)Thinker is a perfect encapsulation of this phenomenon.

Why We Will Never Win the Argument Against Gay Marriage by Quoting the Bible

Jay Haug

No shit, Sherlock. I’ll even take your epiphany a step further: You can’t win any argument by quoting the Bible, unless the person you’re arguing with is already an indoctrinated fundigelical chowderhead. This fact is bloody fucking obvious to all human beings except those on the far, far right wing. Or those who are genuinely mentally retarded (at least they have an excuse).

But, I do commend the title for stating something rational and evidence-based. It’s all downhill from here, though.

Is marriage God’s idea?

No.

Yes, of course.

No! It’s not God’s idea. God can’t have any ideas, because God IS an idea, and nothing more. Marriage is a human idea, and the only people who want us to think it’s god’s idea are humans who want to control other human’s private lives.

We are 7 words into this article, and already it's pure, babbling nonsense.

We are 7 words into this article, and already it’s pure, babbling nonsense.

Besides, if marriage really is God’s idea, then shut up and let him handle it, and leave the rest of us alone.

Will we win the argument by quoting Scripture or arguing marriage as a religious institution? I doubt it. Why?

Isn’t the answer, as I said, bloody fucking obvious? If there is a God, and he’s really omnipotent, then he doesn’t need you or anyone else, because he could handle his own problems. If you have to thump your Bibles and shout at people, then obviously your god doesn’t exist and a fortiori can’t do anything. It’s really fucking simple. If there were a god, there would be no need for religion. Only a godless universe could contain religion.

People rarely put much thought into what the word “omnipotent” means. If there were a god, and he were really omnipotent, then everything religion does–all the prayers, all the scripture, all the proselytizing, all the rituals–is utterly pointless.  This world is exactly the way he wants it, if he exists. Or, more likely, he doesn’t exist, and that’s why so many people constantly call out to him in vain.

Because marriage is not a religious institution.

You’ve actually said something reasonable again. Good for you!

In the past I have heard a lot of Christians defending previous behavior in prior marriages by saying that they “were not in a Christian marriage.”

If they put it that way, then they weren’t defending it, per se. Think about it for, like, eight seconds.

But God expects faithfulness from us whether our marriage is Christian or not.

That doesn’t make sense. But why would anyone expect sense from a god-humper?

Marriage is a legal and binding contract that applies to all who enter into it regardless of faith.

Again, no shit. And this is why gay marriage should be legal. Not everyone follows your bullshit belief system. Marriage is about law, and law should be about equality. Equality of genders, equality of races, equality of religions, and equality of sexual orientations. Anything else is injustice.

The truth is that marriage both pre-dates the writings of all major religions and has applied to all people everywhere, religious or not. For centuries many marriages have been performed with no religious undertones at all. Marriage is a universal institution, not a religious one. Secondly, in the west, marriages were performed in secular contexts, often then blessed by the church, until around the 16th century.

Subsequently, secular authorities allowed churches, synagogues and other religious institutions to perform them. These religious institutions still had to conform to secular laws and turn in paperwork to account for these marriages. In a court of law, marriages could be annulled based on never having been consummated.

Holy mothercuntfucking shit, this guy’s actually making sense. He just stated actual facts. Can he now practice rationality–taking evidence based premises and, using logic, deriving true statements from them?

Often property and other matters depended on the fact or lack of consummation, another embarrassing historical fact to advocates of gay marriage, which is an artificial arrangement that can never be consummated.

Nope! He immediately plummets into the shit-strewn depths of mental depravity.

Setting aside the fact that consummation is no longer required by any law in this country, I can’t help but laugh at the fact that he spent two paragraphs basically admitting that marriage is a human construct, and then turned around and condemned gay marriage for being an “artificial arrangement”. Hey, numbskull! Read your own words. Those two previous paragraphs are just one long way of saying “All marriages are artificial.” They are a secular institution created by humans. We make them. We determine how they work. We set the rules for them. They are, by definition, artificial, in that they are the product of human artifice.

There’s nothing embarrassing to gay-marriage advocates about the fact that the rules for marriage used to be different. In fact, that is entirely our point. Yes, it used to be the case that, in some places, marriages were invalid if not consummated. We changed that rule, just like we changed rules about polygamy and treating women as property and child marriages and forced marriages. We can change the rules to marriage if we want. We’ve done it numerous times. Gay marriage is just another instance of changing the rules in order to make marriage more fair and just. It’s that simple.

The radical left pushing gay marriage has two tactics when it comes to ‘religious” arguments about marriage.

Gay marriage is a moderate position. But when you’re as far to the right as this jackass is, everything left of Pat Robertson looks “radical”.

The first is to dismiss any argument that has religious constructs as being out of bounds. In the eyes of many, arguments against gay marriage can be easily dismissed by appealing to “the separation of church and state.”

Obviously. Really. Fucking. Obviously. The church doesn’t control this country. The constitution prohibits that. You can’t make laws based on your religion. Laws must have a secular purpose, or they won’t stand up in court. It’s that fucking simple.

The second is a kind of under-handed appeal to compromise. In this approach, gay marriage proponents argue that “religious marriage” and “secular marriage” are two different matters. One should be governed by the church and the other by the state.

Okay, 1) That’s not a second argument. That is, in fact, exactly the same as the previous argument. And 2) It has nothing to do with “compromise”. Separation of church and state is not a compromise. There’s what the government does, and there’s what the church does. Never the twain shall meet. No compromise.

This is the “half a loaf is better than none” argument.

What’s true of loaves is not always true of brains, unfortunately. This guy might actually be better off as a vegetable. At least he wouldn’t embarrass himself.

Leftists want to govern all “secular marriages” in hopes of returning later to claim the “religious” ones.

No. Liberals don’t want to govern people’s marriages. And honestly I don’t give a fuck about your religious marriages. We want people to be free and equal. We want gays to have the same legal rights as straights. We want the government out of people’s bedrooms and out of women’s wombs.

It’s sanctimonious busybodies like the people at the American (non)Thinker who want to govern marriages by telling consenting adults that they’re not allowed to marry just because they’re the same gender.

Remember that the Obama administration already attempted to compel churches to hire gay clergy, a notion that was shot down by the Supreme Court 9-0 in the Hosanna-Tabor decision in 2012.

This is an outright lie. Here’s what happened in the Hosanna-Tabor decision:

The ruling came in the case of Cheryl Perich, a teacher who complained that Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Mich., violated the Americans With Disabilities Act in 2005 when it fired her after she received a narcolepsy diagnosis.

Got that? Disability, not homosexuality. Haug is lying through his fucking teeth when he says the Obama administration tried to force a church to hire gay ministers. No such thing ever happened.

Our response should not be to argue what the Bible says, though we believe it with all our hearts, but to appeal to the universality of marriage. In other words, we argue on our opponent’s ground, not our own.

On our ground you have nowhere to stand. There is no secular, evidence-based reason to deny gays the right to marry.  The “universality” of marriage is irrelevant. Yes, all societies have some marriage concept. But the concept changes from one society to the next and from one time period to the next. We can change it if we want to. Society does this all the time. It’s only universal in the sense that, in general, there is always SOME concept of marriage at work, regardless of which concept it is.

The key to winning is to keep our arguments to the universality of marriage and not play the religious “half-a-loaf” game with the radical left. Anatomy, history, culture, child development and family health are all on our side.

That shit is so fucking stupid, I think I just had an embolism reading it. Let’s address these items one by one.

Anatomy: What the fuck does anatomy have to do with marriage? Seriously, since when has anyone made anatomy a determining criterion for marriage? Oh, wait, I can think of an instance. They used to ban interracial marriage. So that’s a marriage law based on anatomy (skin). But we changed that and told the racists to fuck off. We can do the same here. There’s no obligation to define marriage in a genital-based manner. In fact, when you think about it (which I know the god-humpers won’t do) defining it that way is actually kinda creepy.

History: History affords numerous examples of the definition of marriage changing to fit contemporary norms. Haug said so himself just a few paragraphs before. Changing marriage won’t cause human civilization to crumble. In fact, we just keep right on going regardless of how marriage is defined. History fucks you in the ass, gay marriage opponents.

Culture: What the fuck does that have to do with anything? That’s such a broad term as to be meaningless in this context. He might as well have said “Things that involve stuff.”

Child development: Numerous psychological studies have found that children raised by gays do just fine. Moreover, even if gays were somehow worse at raising kids, since when have we told people that they can’t be married because their kids turn out bad? Has any marriage EVER been annulled in this country due to child development? I’m not aware of this ever happening. Even if someone goes to jail for how they raise their kids, they still remain married. Child development is just simply irrelevant to the legal question of whether such marriages should be recognized.

Family Health: Once again, there is no evidence that gay families are any worse off than straight families. But evidence isn’t exactly something that god-humpers care much about, which is why they keep regurgitating this tired, falsified argument.

If we stay consistent, informed, humble and resolute, this is an argument we can win.

If you stayed consistent, informed, humble and resolute, you wouldn’t be a fucking fundamentalist.

But remember, our opponents want to fight this on religious grounds. We cannot let them.

No. Abso-fucking-lutely not. I do not want to have this or any legal argument on religious ground. My position is that you can take your Bible, shove it up your tightly puckered asshole and fuck off. Religion should have no bearing in law. None whatsoever. I grow infinitely frustrated with the fact that religion keeps putting its bumpy dick in the law’s pudding. Religion is a waste of time and utterly irrelevant to legal matters. The last thing I want is to have this or any argument on religious grounds.

Ugh. At least I’m done with this guy. Let’s take a look at a few comments on that article, shall we?

commonsensealready

If we can’t use the Bible to defend marriage then by what authority are we going to be able to use to defend children from pedophiles?

The Bible says nothing about pedophiles. But keep using that “common sense” of yours. You might blindly stumble onto something true someday.

bullit56

I’ve run into the “marriage pre-dates religion” argument.

This reminds me that same sex marriage is nothing more than a fad that will never stand the test of time.  If it had any value or usefulness to society it would have been put in place by humans a long time ago, as opposite sex marriage was.

You do realize that that same argument could have been made against ELECTRICITY a hundred years ago or so, right? But keep typing away on that computer of yours…

Manuel Manjarrez

all marriages even in hedonistic societies like the Roman Empire and Greece and pre tokugawa Japan would call gay marriage blasphemy against the gods like Christians say that is also against god’s law in every culture even the promisive ones this would be against societal rules and norms it has always been understood that marriage is between a man and a woman

LOL.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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