Skewering the Religious Right: Not Another Word on Gay Marriage Until They Execute an Adulterer
Ouch. Cenk Uygur has a point, I must say:
The religious right picks and chooses which parts of the Bible they want to apply. And they choose based on which outsider group they would like to hate next. First, they emphasized slavery in the Bible when they wanted to hate black people. Now, they emphasize the parts condemning homosexuality so they can hate gay people.
They are completely and utterly disingenuous. They don’t mean a word of it. They don’t give a damn what the Bible says. They just want to use it as an instrument of hate.
The Bible says eating shellfish is an abomination. Yet there are no Red Lobster Amendments. The Bible says you shall not wear two different types of cloths at the same time. Yet there are no Propositions against cotton and wool combos.
The Bible says you should leave your family and join Jesus Christ. The religious right pretends that Jesus was about family values. He wanted you to abandon your family. Read the Bible.
The religious right pretends that the Bible says marriage is between one man and one woman. But that is a bald faced lie. Have any of these people ever read the Bible? The Bible is full of men taking on second wives, servants, prostitutes and concubines. And all the while, God heartily approves. How many wives did King David have? Eight? Twelve? Let alone his possibly gay lover, Jonathan.
Now the Bible says that a man shall not lie with another man. That is true. But it also says, in the same exact book, that adultery is an abomination. And the just punishment for this sin is execution. So, who will execute the first adulterer? Please step on up. May the one without any Biblical sin cast the first stone…
Is he wrong?
December 22nd, 2008 16:22
Yes, he is wrong.
These gay marriage posts are tiresome. Marriage is a religious ceremony that really has no business in secular society. The state should stop recognizing all marriages performed within a church, and require state sanctioned civil ceremonies in order garner the “rights” of a legally recognized couple.
Why is it so important to homosexuals to be “married” and approved by the church…civil unions should be the only topic up for discussion regardless of sexuality.
December 22nd, 2008 16:24
So he is wrong but then you don’t say why. Why is he wrong? Why does the Religious Right (RR) pick and choose out of the Bible what it wants to condemn others for?
December 22nd, 2008 16:25
He is wrong because the religious right doesn’t pick in choose in the sense that he portrayed it….gays are welcome in churches, just as divorcees, adulterers, and everyone…because all are sinners.
December 22nd, 2008 16:28
You really think gays are welcomed in Churches? What makes you say that? Do you think it makes gays feel welcomed when they’re told that what they’re doing is an abomination and they’re going to hell? Doesn’t seem all that welcoming to me…
Further, you still haven’t refuted his point. Why is there no proposition from the RR against Red Lobster?
December 22nd, 2008 16:30
way to quote jack black
And absolutely, gays are welcomed…whether they feel welcomed or not often has more to do with one’s own perception.
You are talking Old Testament v. New Testament now. There are a lot of things in the Old Testament that just doesn’t line up with the laws and rules of today.
December 22nd, 2008 16:32
So did Jesus speak out against gays? Is that why the RR likes that particular prohibition?
December 22nd, 2008 16:37
I wasn’t there, so I can’t say with certainty…but when asked, he emphasized that God created man and woman.
December 22nd, 2008 16:41
So, as a learned scholar of these things, it is your contention that the reason the RR is so adamant about the gay thing is because it came from Jesus himself, whereas all these other prohibitions are from the OT? Is that your claim?
December 22nd, 2008 16:46
I’m not making a claim…I’m simply saying that this fella is wrong. Gays aren’t being singled out. That’s their own perception.
December 22nd, 2008 16:47
Who said anything about being singled out? The author made the point of showing how slavery was argued by the religious as being ok because it was in the Bible.
You mention you can’t say with certainty, why? I thought the Bible was the inerrant word of God, no?
It strikes me that you have no good retort to the criticisms levied in this piece.
December 22nd, 2008 16:55
the “can’t say with certainty” was written sarcastically, genius….
right, so he’s claiming that blacks were singled out at one point, now its the gays. He’s wrong about that. The only reason that this is even being talked about is because of stupid prop 8. Christians and non-christians alike voted it down. The fact is, all are welcomed at church…but not all activity is welcomed within a church…if you aren’t okay with that, fine. But quit crying about it.
Gay marriage is a misnomer,because marriage is inherently religious…the state has done everyone a great disservice by using that term for its own purposes.
December 22nd, 2008 16:58
You’re so close to getting this… so close.
“not all activity is welcomed within a church” –> If the RR simply stopped there, we wouldn’t have a problem. But they don’t. They want their ethics and morals, given to them by God, to be imposed on others who don’t believe what they believe.
That, my friend, is the problem. Believe whatever you want in Church. But don’t push your views on people that don’t share them.
Your claim that “marriage is inherently religious” is nothing more than your belief based what you have been taught in church. In fact, marriage was around long before Christianity, chief.
December 22nd, 2008 17:32
wow, that’s wrong. wasn’t there a time when liberalism stood for diversity of ideas? Where did that go? Christians, like everyone else, can make their voices be heard and vote with an agenda.
gay marriage was up for a vote…people voted, and yet only Christians are taking the “heat.” It’s liberalism today…diversity of opinion only matters when they agree with yours.
December 22nd, 2008 17:34
And in liberalism one gets to ridicule ideas that one finds hateful and discriminatory.
The RR’s push for banning gay marriage is based not on a political argument for what is good for society, but based on a religious argument about what God says is right and wrong. That is the problem people have with these ideas: it’s hate being legislated in the word of God.
December 22nd, 2008 17:34
[...] Search « Skewering the Religious Right: Not Another Word on Gay Marriage Until They Execute an Adulterer Suggestion for a new sticky thread in JC [...]
December 22nd, 2008 17:38
haha…opposing gay marriage isn’t hateful, and that’s something you are just going to have to come to terms with.
December 22nd, 2008 17:39
and before you try to correct me, with which you are just going to have to come to terms
December 22nd, 2008 17:39
Well, I think discrimination based on what a dude in the sky says is kind of hateful.
But how about you address some of the points made earlier. How can religion claim marriage when it was around before religion???
December 22nd, 2008 17:39
LOL, I knew you were full of it with your grammar police crap.
December 22nd, 2008 17:41
marriage was around before a belief in God?
December 22nd, 2008 17:42
Um, your claim was about religion, not belief in God. “marriage is inherently religious.” No it’s not. It is inherently social, around way before religion ever was.
December 22nd, 2008 17:48
the term marriage…when was in introduced and in what context?
December 22nd, 2008 17:54
I could look it up, but how is that relevant, counselor? If it had a secular origin, would that convince you of anything? You’d still claim it as a religious concept, even if the name doesn’t reflect that, no? The fact of the matter is that marriages, the union of two people, has been occurring since (and probably before) the Greeks. And likely well before there was a word for it. But it does exist in the Greek and Latin, for sure. It wasn’t until around the 15th century that the religions started getting in the mix.
December 23rd, 2008 08:50
No response to religion not having a monopoly on the marriage concept?