I See You Have a Knee. Do You Jerk it? Part 2 of 2

This is a continuation of this post.

To briefly overview, I was briefly involved–because I can only take so much opinionated dumb–in a conversation on Facebook. The post concerned how LGBT marriage could tear the same cloth fabric of the sacred marriage. Panic ensued, misconceptions ran amuck. Onward, shall we?

Rtard #3

Ah the argument of separation of church and state. Because, you know, marriage=church always. How does one have an adult conversation with a person running around a pool of water screaming they’re on fire but refuses to believe that anything but the fire department can put out the flames? Let’s breakdown why equating the SCOTUS decision to your rights as a Christian being violated holds no merit. With, you know, facts. This is also going to cover this ignorant statement though considering the source ….

Rtard #4

Yes. Very scary that you hold this hack in any high regard.

The Constitution has been changed from it’s original drafting (read: Amendments). Strange concept, I know. Just like the Bible, it’s open to interpretation. If there’s a dispute between state and federal, it’s generally settled on the federal level. Whereas the Bible remains unchanged with the exception of bad translating from the original language of Hebrew. The Constitution, however, was written in English. While some bemoan the addition of LGBT rights to the Civil Rights side, there’s others you might want to consider that people wailed and gnashed about in the past. In 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery or involuntary servitude. This lead to the Jim Crow laws in 1896 that stated that segregation was just fine so long as the facilities were equal. We all know how that worked out. Finally in 1964 we got it right. Again, this wasn’t popular to everyone. Women’s voting rights anyone?

How quickly we forget where we’ve come from as a nation while we point our finger and scream the equivalent of “That’s not fair!” to the world. The astounding fact that people can’t draw parallels between discrimination then and now. Even if we argued the procreation part, can we not also see all the children in the foster care system or the overpopulation of our planet? We’re not in danger of dying out as a species–until we kill the planet we live on but let’s stay on the current subject, shall we?

It wasn’t until 1563 that the church got involved in marriage. Thanks, Council of Trent! Let’s not mention the whole thing between 1545 to 1563 was because the Protestants rubbed your robes wrong. Yet according to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. So, again, we see evolution in the way marriage is regarded. Feel like I’m beating a dead horse here? This is much the same feeling I had during this conversation. We, in western culture, practiced monogamy more than anyone else in the earlier years.

The origin of the word ‘marriage’ comes from the Latin marītāre which means “to provide with a husband or wife” and also from the word marītāri which means “to get married”. Notice how it doesn’t say husband and wife? Sure you could inject your opinion here to say that the translation is meant to pertain a man taking a wife or a woman taking a husband. Just as I could twist that love has nothing to do with marriage. Somewhere around the 17th or 18th century, people wanted to marry for love not status or land deals daddy had set up. Forward thinkers perhaps? That compounded between the 19th and 20th century when women decided they weren’t property.

That is what we should do as a people. Evolve. Have forward thinking. We are allowed our opinions.

Rtard #6

Again our lovely person from the original post is claiming that the government is butting in on marriage. Please believe me that you will not sway this person into any other type of ‘opinion’. The point I finding amusing is “there needs to be a way to separate the religious aspect of marriage from the legal aspect of marriage” and then goes the rambling of forcing churches to marry LGBT people. I can’t even begin to explain that ridiculous statement. As history proves, marriage isn’t a religious institution, just one the church decided to buy into. I’ll get into the rights to refuse service on a later date. This post is getting looong.

The last statement in that last graphic says it all for me. That’s what kind of society we’ve morphed into. For all our forefathers want to break free from tyranny as they saw it, we continue to move toward that same state. We can talk about our religious rights, our personal beliefs, but none of those should devalue the human life. Before you start bible thumping again, remember there’s also the Vedas, Quran, Kalpa Sūtra, Torah, and so many more. This country had founding principles of liberty. I’m going to quote one:

Principle 6 – All mankind were created equal. The Founders knew that in these three ways, all mankind are theoretically treated as: 1. Equal before God. 2. Equal before the law. 3. Equal in their rights.

*mic drop* I’m out.


3 responses

  1. Oh, that person. . . it makes me shake my head how separation of church and state only works when it comes to the government doing something like this yet not when they want to remove a sign of religion from a public school or a court house, etc. At that point they bash anyone that speaks about separation of church and state. And then the comment about the tax exempt status. *facepalm* Yes, churches actually should. Know why? Cause it makes no sense especially when so many violate the ruling of their tax exempt status by doing stuff like discussing politics, welfare, etc. during service and then there was that whole church scandal that everyone stopped talking about where politicians were selling lands worth millions of dollars to churches for a DOLLAR. That’s right: $1 for land worth millions of dollars. And don’t get me started on the nonsense of megachurches or milking followers for money to pay for jets, and so on. Basically: There’s a lot of corruption that goes on in churches, but these types never have an outcry about that and if you bring it up they’ll ignore it/harass you for it. . . Yet somehow legalizing same-sex marriage is what is going to hurt marriage/religion.

    Anyways, sorry for that long rant, but last thing I wanted to say was what some people who bring up the whole violating states rights thing: There wasn’t any choice. Every single time there was a win, there were states that found some loophole to shutdown that win. Not necessarily in every state, but in enough that it was getting out-of-hand. Plus if we want to set an example that we’re not going to do this or that with countries that violate human rights, and I swear I remember one about gay rights specifically a long while back, then we have to start by setting that in stone on our own doorstep.

Comments are closed.