AN ANSWER FOR SIRIUSBIZINUS: AN UPDATE

The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, John Martin, 1852. (from here)
The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, John Martin, 1852. (from here)

I got the following question from siriusbizinus as the first comment in my last post, WE ARE WHAT WE ARE.

siriusbizinus says:
May 28, 2015 at 12:21 am

Maybe you can clarify, Tom. How can Colorstorm “guarantee” that disastrous results will transpire for Ireland by legalizing same-sex marriage? Where does the underpinning in Christian thought justify that part of the simile the original author used?

My Response

I don’t claim to be a prophet. I don’t know exactly how Ireland will suffer for legalizing same-sex “marriage.” I just know that when people cannot figure out that homosexuality refers to immoral and unhealthy behavior that is a bad sign. I also know that when a people proclaims that homosexuals have a “right” to “marry” each other that is an extremely bad sign. It indicates that the people will call what is bad good and what is good bad. It indicates that the people will punish those who reject homosexual behavior as sinful.

Proverbs 17:13 Good News Translation (GNT)

13 If you repay good with evil, you will never get evil out of your house.

As far as I can tell, you think marriage is essentially whatever you want it to be. That’s absurd. If marriage can be any kind of relationship, then anything is a marriage. We can put two coconuts together, pronounce them nut and nut and call them married.

What I thought especially hypocritical in your post are the two paragraphs you placed before this subject heading: Eventually my deity will have its revenge on all of y’all.

If denying people equal access to the rights and privilege of other legally recognized couples is generous, I’d hate to see what would be considered as being miserly. In the same vein, I’m failing to see how it is compassionate to insist that someone’s rights can’t exist because an old book declares it to just be that way. That same justification has been used to promote many a social institution and injustice prior to this (slavery, coverture, and indentured servitude for starters).

This is by and large the biggest non-starter for any discussion about marriage equality. By conflating religious belief with the state of the law, people are unreasonably opposing something that doesn’t even affect them. There is literally zero harm to anyone who has access to having a relationship recognized as a marriage. Saying that it is loving doesn’t make it loving, just as claiming compassion doesn’t make it compassionate.

What you are calling a “right” is the majority’s “right” to impose your religious beliefs upon others. Since there is no such thing as same-sex “marriage,” the belief it exists qualifies as religious belief, in this case the worship of sexual pleasure.

Marriage is not a right. Traditional marriage does not exist to impose a “right to marriage” upon anyone. What baker, florist, or caterer has to be threatened to provide services for a traditional wedding?

Traditional marriage is not based upon the worship of sex or even a religious belief. The reality of traditional marriage is self-evident. Only the insane need to be convinced that when a man and a woman bond with each other the usual result is a child. Therefore, to ignore the reason for marriage, we have to blind ourselves to the obvious (the fact of life).

Traditional marriage exists to protect the right that children have to the care and protection of their mother and father. The fact you refuse to understand that is truly a pity.

AN UPDATE

Right after I posted this, I got a pingback from  at this post, WE ARE WHAT WE ARE. Mildly curious, I checked it out.  Apparently God’s Revenge Is Subtle is more of the same.

  • Supposedly, I have been tardy in replying to ‘s question.  Sorry, but I have job.
  • Supposedly, I did not did cite scripture to refute his graphic on biblical marriage. Actually, I did. What ‘s graphic lacks is scriptural support. The Bible tells a story, and it tells some stories that involve various sexual arrangements. That’s means the Bible supports all those arrangements? No. For example, the Old Testament condemns homosexuality, but Jesus clearly did not approve of stoning adulterers — because we are all sinners. The Israelites could not obey the law perfectly, and we cannot either. The best God could do for the Jews with the Mosaic Code was ameliorate some of the worse elements of their behavior.
  • Supposedly, what marriage is depends upon how the government defines it. This post already answers that tripe.
  • Supposedly, the sacred polls say the majority supports same-sex “marriage.” What that shows is the benefit of putting politicians in charge of our education system. It is difficult to imagine better proof that that is an awful idea. The problem is getting the beneficiaries of that awful education to recognize how badly they have been educated.
Advertisements

8 thoughts on “AN ANSWER FOR SIRIUSBIZINUS: AN UPDATE

  1. Maybe you can clarify, Tom. How can Colorstorm “guarantee” that disastrous results will transpire for Ireland by legalizing same-sex marriage? Where does the underpinning in Christian thought justify that part of the simile the original author used?

    My Response

    I don’t claim to be a prophet,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.

    Tom,
    You do not have to be a prophet to grasp that disastrous results will transpire.The evidence of what happens has been around for a long time. No one in the mass media ever seems to relate health risk data to this subject, only rights. In other words, people have a right to choose to risk their health by engaging in same sex. See below of the known the well known health risks facts..

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/gender/msm/facts/index.html

    I personally do not care what sexual preferences people of legal age decide to engage in with consenting adults. Wise or foolish, is their choice………… or whatever,

    However,two things do bother me about the subject

    The first is children in public schools are reading books in second grade about princes marrying princes. In other words, children are being indoctrinated to believe homosexuality is purely a result of nature and not nurture. Pedophiles prey on impressionable age children..

    The second is being aware that I have to pay higher insurance and taxes to treat the diseases.caused by their choices. Fortunately, the percentages of homosexuality is still low in relation to the overall population. In the future though, after the Supreme Court gives their “blessing” we won’t need a prophet , just the facts and percentage statistics to determine the answer if homosexuality is really a result of nature or nurture.

    On the plus side, if homosexuals marry, perhaps their health risks will be lowers,for HIV. However, if you study the health risks, there are still a lot more health risks associated with homosexuality, and perhaps that answers the disastrous result question.

    Regards and good will blogging..

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I don’t think the health risks have much impact on homosexuals. Homosexuality is innately self-destructive. What I want people to realize is that its advocates are lying, that to participate in that lie that not involve love, just hatred of the truth.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. If you look at the age group of the health statistics, you see the highest risk is for youth. There are plenty of articles as well as songs written about being young and foolish. Sad our legislators and courts are more interested in polls and votes than social health issues and costs being dumped on sll of us because of choices made by others.

        Also very sad, in my opinion that legislators and judges do not recognize how vulnerable and impressonable youth really is. to their decisions. When you are young, you seem to believe that if something is lawful, it is okay.

        In ancient times a person was considered wise if they lived to an old age. I agree with the ancient belief. wish the CDC would report the statistics on life longevity comparisons of gay vrss straight sex life decisions and teach that in second grade after they make a child read a book about princes marrying princes.

        Wise or foolish decisions we make in life do matter.

        Regards and goodwill blogging.

        Like

  2. Sarah

    Talk about walking around an issue to suit yourself. Marriage is a made up concept. Made up by humans. It came about long before Christianity, actually. And even included homosexual unions way way back in ancient times, for all kinds of reasons, including political ones, the same types of reasons the spurn on heterosexual unions. Yes a man and a woman together can join their bodies and create a child. No, that man and woman do not always make the healthiest fit to raising and protecting any children that come from that union. Sometimes those children are best with one or the other parent, or shared duties, or being adopted by others, even same sex married couples. Two people who are adults and love one another, not just in a sexual way, but in every way, have no reason in the world NOT to be together. There is no reason to hate people who love one another. There is no reason at all to think it isn’t a marriage for two people in love who want to live their lives together. It’s pretty arrogant of you to come along and think you can tell other people who they are and how they can live their lives based on YOUR beliefs.

    You don’t have to LIKE their lifestyle, their beliefs, their thoughts and opinions, but nor do they have to like yours. But if you try to stop them from living a life that is doing you NO harm whatsoever other than you dislike how they live, then that makes you a bigot, an oppressive person, a dictator and WRONG. The same way I would be if I came along and said you know what, how you’re living right now goes against everything I belief is right and true so I’m gonna have to say it’s not happening and not real and isn’t right and can’t be so you can no longer live that way. So stop now. In fact, lemme go lobby congress to make sure you stop and live by MY morals and standards. So there. How would you feel then?

    You think you have a right to oppress others. You think you aren’t twisting things around by saying they don’t have a right to marry and to love who they want to (As long as it’s a consenting adult)? How?

    People like you, who think you have the right to judge someone for loving another, don’t even understand your OWN religious beliefs as it is. I mean, if you’re going to go around spewing (and cherry picking) bible quotes, at least be intellectually honest enough with yourself to realize that your bible and god has a LOT more against a LOT of other things than homosexuality and that you should be out there crusading against divorce a LOT more or at LEAST as much! And how about lying. And murder. And all the other ‘sins’. You have any daughters? Well, go on, do the ‘moral’ thing, according to your ‘good book’ offer them up, if they are virgins, to some homosexuals out there, and whore them out to them. That’s how the god of the bible works. He’d rather see you whore your young virgin daughters out to all the men in town, rather than see two guys kiss each other or have some butt sex (A thing that, by the way, straight guys like to do with their wives too…a LOT of them like that….Someone should be on their pulpit about that, aye?). But yeah, if you wanna get all right and moral, then you must think like your good book tells you. Whoring out = Good. Love between same gender = Bad. Yeah…That sounds moral to me. Not at all.

    Until you address all other ‘sins’ in your ‘moral and just and good’ book as equally and with as much contempt for the ‘sinners’ as you do about gay people, then you should be ashamed, because it really just means you’re not even representing the belief system you claim to be standing on your moral high ground to hide behind to represent. In reality, like I said, I suspect you’re actually just a big, fat bigot hiding behind that belief system to spew your own narrow minded brain washed thinking.

    Like

    1. It has been a long day, and I am too tired to untangle the angry stuff you wrote from what might be worthy of a response. God willing, maybe tomorrow.

      I will just leave you with some questions? I think you need to reconsider who is the oppressor.

      You insist upon attacking me personally. Who is being hateful? Have I said anything hateful? I have said two people of the same sex cannot really marry each other. That is either self-evidently true, or obviously false, not just my opinion. If I am wrong, I deserve your pity, not your hate.

      I have said it is wrong to use the law to force people to pretend that two people are married when they are not. Are people being forced to participate in same-sex “marriage”? Is that right? Where is the overwhelming need to force bakers, florists, and caterers to participate in same-sex “weddings”?

      If homosexual rights activists are using the legal system to force private businesses and institutions to participate in (and thereby endorse) same-sex marriages, who is being intolerant? When we force people to accept our beliefs — in the name of tolerance — isn’t that still intolerant? Who is using the law to bully their neighbors? Who is the oppressor?

      Like

Comments are closed.