Defining Marriage

In their talking points section, The National Organization for Marriage (or NAMBLA NOM) trains their people that “the most effective single sentence” to oppose gay marriage is:

“Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,
they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”

Then later in the section, they offer this pearl of irony:
“Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.”

To summarize: gays don’t have the right to define marriage for the rest of us, that would take away our right to define marriage for them.

I dont know about you, but My marriage is Defined by My committment to My wife and Hers to Me. It has nothing at all to do with my neighbors commitment to His wife, or Hers to him. Neither can it be of any consequence who is married to who, or the make up of their personalities or sexual/gender identities.

I think it’s a curious perspective on marriage to define it by who else is getting married or by what authority sanctions it and not by your own personal commitment to your spouse. I guess I could be called short sighted but only because my concerns about marital status only project as far as my own.

I reject the idea that I fulfil some societal duty by who I choose to marry. I believe the state has a right to define the terms of some things, but not our personal relationships. I can hardly imagine something more fascist. It’s no less so when authoritarian parents dictate the relationships of their adult children or anyone tries to impose their standard of personal relationship on another.

Usually this type of fascism is supported by sanctimonious ideals. It’s proponents claim that marriage is sacred and eternal in it’s “traditional” deinition. Never mind that it’s definition ranges throughout hitorical and cultural contexts: from property agreements, plural contracts, family obligations and romantic courtly obligations; they’ve all made an appearance. Why do we not see NOM protesting Kim Kardashian’s sham wedding spectical? Other reality shows that mock marriage i.e. the bachelor. Are the drive through wedding chapels of no concern? How about the divorce rate of 50%? Afterall, in Mark 10:9 Jesus himself says: Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.

The official NOM talking point: “High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it.”

Seems to me that the only experiment is letting the state decide the make-up of a loving family.

One might ask how exactly they are achieving their goal, other than dictating who can get married. Free marriage counseling? Addressing proven factors that increase divorce rates, like economic hardship?? Where’s the campaign to tighten divorce laws, protests outside divorce courts?

Absurd Slippery slope arguments abound. My favorite is the concern that if gay marriage is legalized then people who are against it will be labeled bigots and homophobes. This amounts to: If I take my boot off of your neck, you might stand up and call me oppressive. We can’t have that, now can we? Giving you rights might impair my right to make unsubstantiated claims about your character and your family.

Another unsubstantiated claim is the apparent negative affect same sex parenting will have on children. But study after study (while preliminary at this point) points to no difference in childhood development while no serious evidence of a negative effect has been discovered. And when you consider their silence on the myriad ways children are abused, neglected or otherwise fucked-up by straight parents all over the place… you really want to argue that simply being raised by 2 moms or 2 dads is the most unacceptable of all scenarios; The thing that you have to prevent at all costs?? It’s a assertion based on Chrsitian “intuition”, not science. They’d let a kid sit in an orphanage until adulthood before allowing two loving men to adopt.

Then there’s the red herring of under-population. As if the world might run out of people if some couples didn’t procreate. Even though the population just crossed 7 Billion and is exponentially increasing while we tackle every manner of resource crisis. Never mind that the rate of infertile and voluntarily non-reproductive couples dwarfs the rate of those of the same sex. And there is nothing stoping a SSC from reproducing via fertility treatments or surrogates, well, except more discriminatory legislation, that is.

All of this anxiety seems to stem from the unfounded belief that queer is contagious. All the worry about the kids and populations and society all seem to require the premise that a failure to suppress the behavior will allow it to spread like a disease until the whole world is gay and (ironically) the hetero minority is discriminated against.

The National Organization for Marriage should be called The National Organization Against Gay Marriage. These groups love to put a positive spin on what they are doing when in fact they achieve nothing positive. The word “for” has no business in the title. Their’s is a campaign against something, not for something. They aren’t out to strengthen marriages or protect children. If those were their ultimate goals they would see the mountain of work they could do that would directly achieve them. Instead, they’re spending countless hours and dollars focused on defining gay peoples’ relationships with nothing but worst case bible based speculation to justify it. Because lets face it, there are no fact based arguments to defend marriage discrimination. There’s only a conservative “feeling” that it’s wrong, supported by a selective reading of the Bible and a total willful misunderstanding of homosexuality.

Christians Must Take the Bible Literally

deconversionmovement:

Christians cannot interpret the Bible in whatever way they please.  They must take it literally.  Before I convince all Christians and Atheists alike, I will like to outline the initial requirements to be a Christian:

1. One must accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
2. One must believe that he died for one’s sins.
3. One must believe that he resurrected.
4. One must believe that he ascended to the right hand of his father and that he is the son of god.

Of course, there are many more requirements.  For example, a Christian that decides not to get baptized has fallen short — well, at least in the eyes of other Christians.  I’m sure Christians are fully capable of adding more requirements.  Nonetheless, these are the core requirements.

So, why did Christ die?  The best answer can be found in this passage:

¹² Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

 ¹³ To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. ¹⁴ Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

 ¹⁵ But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! ¹⁶ Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. ¹⁷ For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

 ¹⁸ Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. ¹⁹ For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

 ²⁰ The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, ²¹ so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 5:12-21

This passage is supplemented by 1 Corinthians 15:45.

In the modern day, there are many Christians who have chosen to cancel out the creation myth in Genesis.  However, I posit that they haven’t considered the implications of doing so.  If the first Adam didn’t exist, what reason do we have to believe that the second Adam existed?  If the first Adam didn’t didn’t bring sin into the world, for what reason did Christ die?  Can one conclude that Christ existed though Adam didn’t exist?  According to the “word of god,” such a conclusion cannot be made.  Therefore, all Christians must embrace the creation account.  Unfortunately, the account is a myth.  Hence Adam is a myth and it would logically follow that Christ is also a myth.

How does this all imply that they must take the Bible literally?  Well, Adam is the forefather.  If Adam didn’t exist, it logically follows that all the characters in the Bible didn’t exist.  The genealogies can be found throughout the Bible.  However, this chart has unified the genealogies of the Old Testament; this chart has simplified the genealogy of Christ.  This is what occurs when the Bible isn’t taken literally.  If one cancels out the creation myth, one cancels out Adam; if one cancels out Adam, one cancels out Christ and all of the other characters in the Bible.  In like manner, if one cancels out the flood myth, one cancels out a vital portion of the genealogy.  Who does one put in Noah’s place?  How would this new character be supported?  My suggestion:  take out a brand new scroll and draft a new religion.  The creation account is bunk; our modern understanding of Evolution effectively buried the account in Genesis.  I’m sorry to break it to you, but Christianity is dead.