Is what seems to be the general mentality these days regarding gay marriage.

POINT 1-The best offense is a Gay defense.
Why do you care if gays get married? It may violate your religion, but it doesn't violate your personal life. With that mentality, you should actually be far more offended that I, a heterosexual atheist can get married. It could serve as some consolation that many of the gay Americans that would like to get married are at the very least spiritual. I absolutely hate the idea of organized religion and find spirituality a bunch of idealistic, superstitious humbug. Yes, I said it. Humbug. You should be completely livid that I, a pro-abortion, god hating skeptic could walk in to a courthouse today and walk out legally married. I've only ever had premarital sex. I say things like "jesus h. christ" and "goddamn" every goddamn day. I haven't so much as stepped foot in a church for anything other than a funeral in the last 20 or so years. You should be absolutely blinded by rage over the fact that I can get married and soil the "sanctity" of your archaic concept of what marriage is. I am hedonistic, self-centered, sacrilegious, sinful, and evil (all by their standards), yet I can have a wife. But try as I might, I just can't seem to out-sacrilege homosexuals.

POINT 2-Sanctity shmanktity
sanctity ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sngkt-t) n. pl. sanctities
Holiness of life or disposition; saintliness
If the religious right wants to ban gay marriage solely on the "sanctity" argument, we shouldn't be having this debate. As you read in the above paragraph, I, and many "straight" people, would pretty much soil the "sanctity" of marriage in a way that no normal person, gay or otherwise, could even imagine. I can assure you that I have pretty much violated all ten commandments in some religious nutbag-interpreted manner.
When speaking of sanctity, who's sanctity is the proper sanctity? Which religion's definition of marriage is the right one? A religion that includes homosexuals is not protected by the constitution? Homosexuals have alienable rights?
Sanctity is an exceedingly gray area, much like "ethical". What is sanctimonious to one is not always sanctimonious to another. To put in action a law that defines that would mean that the government would have to strictly and stringently agree to one religious doctrine that a measurable part of the population doesn't agree with. In order for one to make constitutional amendments that define the sanctity of anything, one would blatantly violate one of the most important principals of all, the one our country was basically founded on and the one that likely bears more weight than any other: The division of religion and state. The government is not allowed to endorse any particular religion.

POINT 3-Leviticus: pick 'n choose morals.
Leviticus. The book that forbids homosexuality. Or does it?
Here's the thing. The passage that refers to homosexuality is the ONLY passage in Leviticus the religious right deems valid.
What "preachings" don't they practice? Let's take a look at the best ones.
This book has detailed information on the price of slaves, including men, women, and children. It also says that it is ok to sell your own wife and kids. Leviticus states that you must kill children when they misbehave, and says that stoning is the best way to dispatch them (hey, you can always have more). There's a passage in there that says you have the god-given duty to murder your wife if you even suspect she is cheating on you. It goes on to mention that burning a bull on the altar is a great way to make friends with god, which completely contradicts other parts of the bible (Sodom and Gomorrah anyone?)
Then there's the gay part of the bible. In many versions of the bible, the passage literally says nothing about sex or homosexuals; it simply states "a man is not to lay with a man as he lays with a woman". I've heard interpretations that have been everywhere from "A man can't have sex with a man while married to a woman" to "A man can't have sex with both a man and a woman at the same time". The bible isn't inherently clear about it and we've lost so much in translation that it's uncertain what the original meaning was anyway. The bible also forbids long hair. Anyone seem to remember that one main character in the New Testament that had long hair?
Bear in mind, this is all beside the fact that I personally think the bible is no more than just some poorly written assortment of superstitious, misogynistic, xenophobic bullshit written by people who had very little understanding of the world around them.

POINT 4-A new covenant with Chuy.
So Jesus (or "Chuy" as I like to call him) came around sometime down the road with some new ideas. One of the main points he wanted to make was that what he was saying was "a new covenant with god", and that all that was said in the past was to be left behind. In this "new covenant", there was no mention of homosexuality, masturbation, or a good chunk of the ten commandments. So all you Chuyans out there need to take heed of what Chuy said and start worshiping based on his teachings. Teachings that include showing love to all "god's" creatures and making no reference to being gay.

I am sure that this editorial will not change any of your minds, but maybe you should take out that damn bible and see if you can find something in there that I missed. Read it, then how about you make a new covenant with god that you will try to be less of an asshole.

Views: 81


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

Join Atheist Nexus



Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service