Just how many worms are in that can?
By Capt. Fogg
People who oppose same sex marriage will usually tell you it's unnatural. Evidence for this is that they don't like it, God doesn't like it, that it doesn't produce children, or that homosexuality, like religion, books, and rock & roll, does not occur in nature and therefore shouldn't be condoned by man.
In all probability, no one not afflicted with some form of idiocy, such as fundamentalism or a seat in Congress, would be unable to expose these arguments as unworthy of credence, but the credo so often expressed by religidiots who oppose homosexual relationships because our function is to breed, have argued themselves into a corner.
Enter the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance [stage left, of course]. The group, formed after Washington courts upheld a gay marriage ban, has filed an initiative in that state requiring married couples to produce children within three years or have their marriages annulled. Of course, they can't have any expectation that it will pass into law, but it will be interesting to see the believers wriggle out an explanation for rejecting it, if in fact they believe that marriage is only justified as a baby-producing scheme.
What of infertile couples who adopt children? Shall we annul their contracts? If not, then why not allow gay adoptive parents? You really can't argue God's will here, since God could produce a man from mud (and supposedly did) or impregnate an unmarried virgin (and supposedly did.) So if God wants Adam and Steve to have kids, he can handle it. You got a problem with allowing God some free will, preacher?
That homosexuality is observed in nature can't really be disputed. It can only be denounced as fraud from a position of religious evidence-blindness. If it is observable in animals, it cannot then be written off as unnatural behavior by definition nor denounced as an unnatural choice by religious conviction since animals are not capable of making moral choices: not having eaten a mythological fruit from a metaphorical tree. What occurs in nature is by definition natural.
As to whether God likes it or not, it all depends on your God and his or her (or their) forthrightness in expressing itself and the consequences of her displeasure. Since we can all agree that we have free will, I choose Rafafu, the god of a West Papuan tribe of tree-dwelling cannibals called the Kombai, and frankly my dear, Rafafu doesn't give a damn what they do in Washington. If anyone wishes to contradict my Rafafian beliefs, they're welcome to parachute into the jungle and discuss it with the Kombai.
Now, since the government is strictly forbidden by the Constitution to tell you who God is or wants or how God should be dealt with, I'm breathlessly waiting for the State of Washington to admit that its ban is illegal.
(Cross-posted at Human Voices.)
People who oppose same sex marriage will usually tell you it's unnatural. Evidence for this is that they don't like it, God doesn't like it, that it doesn't produce children, or that homosexuality, like religion, books, and rock & roll, does not occur in nature and therefore shouldn't be condoned by man.
In all probability, no one not afflicted with some form of idiocy, such as fundamentalism or a seat in Congress, would be unable to expose these arguments as unworthy of credence, but the credo so often expressed by religidiots who oppose homosexual relationships because our function is to breed, have argued themselves into a corner.
Enter the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance [stage left, of course]. The group, formed after Washington courts upheld a gay marriage ban, has filed an initiative in that state requiring married couples to produce children within three years or have their marriages annulled. Of course, they can't have any expectation that it will pass into law, but it will be interesting to see the believers wriggle out an explanation for rejecting it, if in fact they believe that marriage is only justified as a baby-producing scheme.
What of infertile couples who adopt children? Shall we annul their contracts? If not, then why not allow gay adoptive parents? You really can't argue God's will here, since God could produce a man from mud (and supposedly did) or impregnate an unmarried virgin (and supposedly did.) So if God wants Adam and Steve to have kids, he can handle it. You got a problem with allowing God some free will, preacher?
That homosexuality is observed in nature can't really be disputed. It can only be denounced as fraud from a position of religious evidence-blindness. If it is observable in animals, it cannot then be written off as unnatural behavior by definition nor denounced as an unnatural choice by religious conviction since animals are not capable of making moral choices: not having eaten a mythological fruit from a metaphorical tree. What occurs in nature is by definition natural.
As to whether God likes it or not, it all depends on your God and his or her (or their) forthrightness in expressing itself and the consequences of her displeasure. Since we can all agree that we have free will, I choose Rafafu, the god of a West Papuan tribe of tree-dwelling cannibals called the Kombai, and frankly my dear, Rafafu doesn't give a damn what they do in Washington. If anyone wishes to contradict my Rafafian beliefs, they're welcome to parachute into the jungle and discuss it with the Kombai.
Now, since the government is strictly forbidden by the Constitution to tell you who God is or wants or how God should be dealt with, I'm breathlessly waiting for the State of Washington to admit that its ban is illegal.
(Cross-posted at Human Voices.)
Labels: homosexuality, marriage, religion, religious right
posted by Capt. Fogg at
9:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home