All I have been hearing about lately is the sinning homosexuals and the fact that the government has essentially "allowed" them to marry. No matter what you say, the fact that someone else is an apparent "sinner" is not affecting you in any way, the only way it affects you is if you allow it to. Using your religion to attempt some sort of justification of hate is neither holy nor peaceful. Hating in the name of god is not the answer. If you dislike that two people who love without restriction are able to get married, then keep it to yourself. It's actually considered a sin to both offend a child of god and to also reject them. It is also a sin to not be "meek and quiet", to express opinion or make an event of this world more important than god.

This is an endless argument, a pointless charade of my not understanding your innate hatred and your not understanding my disbelief. It has been my experience that incredibly religious people go against everything that their religion stands for. If you followed the bible properly instead of picking the sins that do not apply to you and complaining about them you wouldn't "technically" be allowed to so much as express an interest in anything that did not involve god. Yet you're the first people there to hold a sign up ridiculing atheists, homosexuals, and abortion clinics. It is true, you are so unlike the Christ in which you worship and pretend to follow.

The fact of the matter is, is that the intended nature of this government describes rather thoroughly in our constitution that the laws of this country are meant to be secular. Your religion is not supposed to control any government decision. Whether or not you disagree with the government's decision is pretty irrelevant because a) the law is not supposed to be dictated by religion and b) the religion you follow tells you that it is not your place to decide that their decisions are sacrilegious or unlawful.

The term marriage existed prior to the existence of the Christian religion. Therefore it is not Christianity's decision to declare how the term should be used and who is allowed to use it. A marriage license is not issued by a church, but rather the government. It is a legal binding contract between two individuals that does not have to involve religion in the slightest. If you are going to argue that gay marriage is sacrilegious then you must also accept that divorce and other incredibly mundane things are also sacrilegious. To pick and choose is to take sacrilege not for what is worth but for where is applies to you.

And it baffles me at the amount of hate you express while having the audacity to not only go against the religion you appear to be fighting for but also to use god as a means to express that hate towards apparent sinners. The bible in which you use to quote the abomination of homosexuality also indicates that not only is wearing gold a sin, but apparently so is engaging in a debate. There are nearly a thousand declared sins within the bible, several of which every follower of god is guilty of. Calling a homosexual a sinner is sort of like calling the kettle black because you are no less of a sinner than they. I would go so far as to say that you could be twice the sinner of a homosexual or in some cases even an atheist.

While I debate, have opinions I clearly put before god and am nowhere close to being meek and quiet, I cannot be labeled the contradicting hypocrite that you are. I do not believe in the bible and I would be letting myself down intellectually to even remotely pretend for a moment that the bible is as omniscient as you seem to think it is. I am not the one following a practice that preaches for me to not do the things that you also do, thinking for myself cannot make me anything but a freethinker because I am not the one standing behind a book and declaring it the "right path" while simultaneously not following it. I am not the hypocrite because the only person there to declare me that is the hypocrite himself who follows and pretends to stand by the religion that also invented hypocrisy.

Views: 72


You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by benevolent_sociopath on June 24, 2009 at 4:59pm
Well put, I live in Des Moines and the recent decision by the Iowa Supreme Court is debated for as an pudo-"intellectual" argument using the asinine slippery slope argument.

I often here people object as a point of influence on civil order "it will confuse the children"
(really - if you are not tended -you will not be 'tempted' - if you are grow-up and except yourself for who you are most people fall on a continuum.)

I hear from those against that marriage is sacred.
(i do not disagree directly - it is a sacred as any promise)

There even in the opposition is the idea that :"my coworker is gay and it is a shame that he/she is discriminated against but the "other" gays would ruin marriage as a institution with their loose lifestyle"
( asinine, asinine,asinine -if 'loose morals' destroyed credibility x-tians would have destroyed it long ago - and besides this is not representative of most/all homosexuals)

That said it may hearten you to know their is not the pitchfork reaction here that some smaller communities have on this subject. this is likely due to the mindset of my neighbors business - my neighbors problem.

There is an easy remedy to this (separation of church and state) the state should only issue permits of incorporation as a single legal unit to individuals be they of same sex opposite sex or containing multiple individuals.
Call it a "certificate of domestic partnership" and allow marriage to be religious pomp certified by the church of their choice in the same way as baptism or funeral rites.
Comment by Brad on April 13, 2009 at 10:54pm
Audacity's the problem! Excellent expression!
Comment by cj the cynic on April 12, 2009 at 9:04pm
Great essay!
Comment by Buffy on April 12, 2009 at 5:40pm

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service