Internal Memo To Anti Gay Marriage Groups: We Must Never, Never Admit We’re Wrong.

When an anti gay marriage columnist writes an essay about what the U. S. will be like in 20 years, I have to read it.  The essay reveals the log in the eye of those who think they are so right in opposing gay marriage.

He predicts that in 20 years, being against gay marriage appear as odd and out of place as being against interracial marriage does today.  That seems like a pretty accurate prediction.

And, this is appalling  to him.  He and some of the commenters that followed find that the small branch of the faith that will inevitably hang onto the old view will by martyrs.

He predicts, as well, the next battleground will be what kinds of marriages pastors will be allowed to turn down.

This is all very interesting, but lacks much introspection.  It seems obvious that if a comparison is to be made with acceptance of interracial marriage, one should ask if opponents of interracial marriage, then and now, were right.  My guess is he would agree they were wrong.

How could it be they were (are) wrong when the basis for believing interracial marriage to be wrong is “history” itself, including the Bible?  If God made the world and put people of different races on different continents, when would it then be OK with God to mix them all up?

The argument that God meant for marriage to be between a man and a woman in no stronger than that which said races were not meant to be mixed.

49 Responses

  1. Candyman

    Honestly? Let me ask you? who instituted the first marriage? man or God? or do you believe you came from a glob of gue that morphed into you?

    1. Candyman 10:55 “Who instituted the first marriage? Man or God?”

      Man, for sure.

      “Do you believe you came from a glob of gue that morphed into you?”

      So far as I know, that’s where we come from. If you have some real information to the contrary. (the Bible will not be good helpful to those of us who think it was written by ordinary people.)

      1. entech

        The gob of gue would need something extra to be a predecessor, it would need to be capable of reproduction, there would need to be reproduction with modification, there would need to natural selection but you know where I am going.

        People that say things like that do not know what they are talking about, no one believes we came from nothing or that a blob of nothing suddenly became something that was us. It is a lot more complicated than that and we should not answer seriously, gives them credibility they don’t earn or deserve. It is much easier to think that the creator poked his finger it it and gave it life and form and an immortal soul and dominion over the universe (forget to mention that it was also injected with an ego that is almost as big as the universe).

      2. Candyman

        if you want to believe that you came from a glob of gue, from a pile of poo, maybe you should ck into the zoo if that’s where you believe you came from. You would see the male animals mounting one another. On the other hand, I think you maybe interested in all the different types of animal hair samples they found petrified in a core sample from the Noah’s Arc? The sulfur from the ash from the city of Sodom and Gamorah still ignites after 4000 yrs serves as a testimony to those who choose that lifestyle and think God approves of it.

        1. Candyman 3:04 I’ve never heard of a peer reviews university level verification either the Ark nor Sodom and Gamorah have been found. Such stuff is on Christian websites–no where else.

          1. Candyman 2:02 Others have posted that site here before.

            There is nothing on that website that substantiates “Noah’s Ark”, certainly not that an agency who job it is to bring in tourists named it “Noah’s Ark Park.” You mentioned an “academic view”. If there were important people in the field of archeology who thought there was something legitimate there, they would have grants to dig and it would have been unearthed decades ago.

            Sorry to learn you were taken in by that chicanery.

    2. Wolfy32

      Marriage was man made, pre christianity, it was a pagan ritual. Easter happens to be in spring, around the time of May day and spring festivals where mating rituals would begin.

      Christianity took the the concept of marriage over and adopted it as it’s own, but, was a combination of rituals and community events far before christianity.

  2. entech

    What I see as the irony of it all is that in 20 or 50 years or whatever in the future, is that our successors, that is the future Jon’s and his fellows in free-thought organisations, will be out there defending the rights of people to have religious beliefs.

    1. Adam Heckathorn

      Freedom of religion and freedom from religion (separation of Church and state) freedom of speech including the right for anyone to knock on My door and tell Me their opinion about anything. and My right to speak My opinion or say I’m not interested. are precious and add tremendous value to ones Life. It’s interesting that some Congressman recently approved of threats of violence against the Smithsonian because of an exhibit on Atheism. I don’t think He’s a deep thinker because in doing so He’s throwing the Baby out with the Bath water. Why should the rights of His denomination be respected if He has no respect for the right for others to believe something different? I believe in freedom of conscience. I also believe I should have the right to point out Why Your beliefs are ridiculous but I do not have the right to coerce or penalize You for Your beliefs as long as Your Beliefs don’t coerce or penalize someone Else’s beliefs. (for example African Americans or Gays).

      1. entech

        It often seems to come out, very shallowly disguised, as “it is depriving me of my rights if you take away from the right to deprive those that don’t agree with me of their rights”.

        You more bluntly, “I am the only one with rights and everyone else has an obligation to recognise that as fact.”

    2. Wanna B Sure

      @ 1:15 so- – – do you then see that in 20 or 50 years… people will have to be defended to have religious beliefs? (I’m assuming you mean in the US and possibly Australia). I have not considered that to be possible. You seem to say there will be those who would do so. By your words, they would naturally be those of non-belief.

        1. Wanna B Sure

          Adam; I agree completely. I would defend/ fight for anyone to have their own belief, be they JW’s, Mormons, Muslims, atheists, Freethinkers, non-belief etc. even the WBC people in spite of how repulsive they are. I would also defend/ fight for the right to disagree privately and publically.

      1. entech

        That shows your complete lack of comprehension. Just as all Christians are not Trinitarians, all non believers are not free thinkers.

        1. entech

          You are taking it too narrowly, even now the main opponents of religious belief are those with different beliefs, Muslims against the Jews, you against the JW.

          1. Wanna B Sure

            Those you mention all have religious belief. You simply said “religious belief”. By that, I’m assuming everyone with religious belief. Just who are those you refer to would those with religious belief have to be defended from? You must have some in mind. You brought it up.

          2. entech

            Then you assume too much. Even now interdenominational strife is rife, just look at the spitting, scratching, petty backbiting that goes on when you and Fr,James get on the same thread a virtual cat fight. Or your self when you express implacable and irreconcilable differences with Jehovah’s Witnesses. With the JW, I don’t mean the way the hierarchy act and makes demands and all of that, that is common in religious organisations, Catholics, Mormons, Scientologists all have horror stories told by escapees.

            So there are many varieties of religious belief, some would even have that atheism is religious belief. I am sure you know all this and a re just being argumentative for the sake of it.
            As to who I would have in mind that would need defense, I can only project from historical evidence, Anabaptists from Luther and Calvin perhaps; Sunni from Shia or vice versa and more especially some of the small groups considered heretics by both; liberal Jews from the Ultra-orthodox; and of course practically everyone from the inquisition.

            Merriam-Webster says:
            freethinker : a person who forms his or her own opinions about important subjects (such as religion and politics) instead of accepting what other people say.
            There is nothing to say that a free thinker cannot have religious belief, the essence would be to question the possibility that it could be wrong, if you admit you could be wrong it would be difficult to persecute someone else on the basis that you were absolutely right and they were totally wrong and must be punished. So the free thinker, whether atheist or of religious belief would need to defend other religious beliefs against religious belief that was on the attack.
            The whole basis of the Danbury letter.

          3. Wanna B Sure

            What you say is irrelevant. Infighting between people that believe, I believe always has, and will continue. Yet they all believe. If one would kill all the others, there would still be the remaining winner that believes.
            It’s a simple question to a simple statement. Who are these people that people who believe need protection from?

          4. entech

            If you don’t want to be part of a dialogue never mind, just keep on with your own monologue.

          5. entech

            @ 7:34 I tried to give a complete answer here, it is a bit long but the basic was that religious people often need protection from other religious people.

          6. Wanna B Sure

            Your @1:15 said; …”the rights of people to have religious beliefs”. Your words. No qualifiers. At least, in the US, we have that now. Have the Freethinkers sent a delegation to the Middle East and Africa to stop some from being such “meanies” to the Christians? Haven’t heard of it.

          7. entech

            I wonder why I bother, you ask for an answer, I give it you deny that it is an answer, I try again and you go of to the beginning. Most of what has been said has been to explain the shortcomings of that brief statement.
            I give up. You win.
            To be a Christian, you must “pluck out the eye of reason.”
            You are successful.

          8. Wanna B Sure

            Oops, I forgot. the Freethinkers will kick into action in 20-50 yr. from now. In the meantime, business as usual in the Middle East and Africa. I understand you now. Sorry.

          9. Wanna B Sure

            @ 3;10; “The shortcomings of that brief statement”. Thank you !! See? that wasn’t so bad.

  3. Michael Ross

    “He predicts that in 20 years, being against gay marriage appear as odd and out of place as being against interracial marriage does today. That seems like a pretty accurate prediction.”

    For what it is worth, I will make my prediction: 20 years from now the world as we know it will not exist. There is now no such thing as gay “marriage” and will not be in 20 years. People who now think there is will know better. There will be no such thing as “interracial marriage” because there is not now and never been more than one race, Adam’s race, the human race.

    1. Adam Heckathorn

      Michael 2:44 One point I certainly agree with is that there is one Human family. At the risk of boring everyone I’ll mention My family tree which My Sister has done so much work on. In thinking about it mathematically We all have to be related to an astounding number of People. It supports The way I like to think of Human beings, as part of My extended Family.

      1. Adam 2:55 “It supports the way I like to think of human beings, as part of my extended family.”

        Alex Haley (Roots) said the world is made up of nothing but a series of families.

  4. There will probably always be a small group who cling to their original beliefs on marriage, just as there remains a small group with segregation beliefs; women not working outside the home; specific dress codes for men and women and so forth.

    Personally, I think we’re almost at the point where almost everyone has 100% completely made up their mind, and the point of further discussion is moot.

  5. Fr. James

    So homosexuals are a different race? That’s is something many African Americans reject and it offends them.

    Homosexuality is a behavior, not a race. Homosexual activists demand not mere tolerance or even acceptance. They demand applause for their lifestyle. By deft use of their allies in the media, education, and government they are working very hard to make it de facto illegal to oppose or disagree with their behavior. They fully intend to persecute anyone who is guilty of the thoughtcrime of disagreeing with them. We already see it happening.

    Not long ago they assured us that if they got what they wanted nothing would change for Christians. They were lying. I knew at the time they were lying. We may already have our first martyr.

    O merciful and loving God, you made your servant Mary Stachowicz pure of heart and devoted to chastity; listen, we ask you, to our prayers and, if it is in your divine plan that she be glorified by the church, show us your will, granting us the graces we ask of you, through her intercession, by the merits of Jesus Christ, Our Lord. Amen.

    1. Michael Ross

      What boggles my mind is that a few years ago no one ever heard of gay “marriage” and now if you hold to the traditional belief that marriage is a man and a woman you are an extremist, bigot, homophobe, hatemonger, you name it. Also never before in history, with one notable exception:, has gay “marriage” been officially recognized by a society. We are on uncharted waters as was the antediluvian world.

      1. Fr. James

        When one reads 1984 it comes as no surprise. History goes down the memory hole and we go to the “ministry of love.”

        1. Michael Ross

          As I stated above, there is no such thing as “interracial marriage.” Years ago when we saw an interracial couple it would turn heads. Now it is, for the most part, well accepted. I believe that is true progress. ” Interracial marriages” have a higher divorce rate but that is from differences in culture or subculture and not a racial issue.

          1. entech

            Where does Jon say that?
            Your interpretation of that is suspect, just as your interpretations of everything else are.

          2. Fr. James

            He compares homosexuality to a race, not me. He is the one talking about interracial marriage, not me.

          3. entech

            As usual you are making your own interpretation. Drawing your own delusions.
            Unwarranted and unsustainable statements for the sake of attack.

          4. Fr. James

            Okay, READ what he wrote. He compares interracial marriage to the issue of homosexuality. Now…THINK…does that not compare homosexuality and race?

          5. entech

            No, comparing two separate issues and drawing a parallel in that religious belief was/is being used as an excuse for prejudice

          6. Fr. James

            It is that “parallel” with which he joins the two separate issues that I object too and which proves me correct. HE relates race and homosexuality, not me.

            Homosexuality is an act, a behavior, not a class or a race.

          7. Wolfy32

            I somewhat agree with James here, I know I’ll regret that statement, but, there is a difference between hetero attraction and homo attraction.

            However, the action actually breaks Jame’s arguement as well.

            Another way to think of it is.

            Interracial was a sin because you’re diluting the blood / genetics of mankind that God created. It was evil to mix the races. The lasting impact on interracial marriage is way more permanent than homosexual. Homosexuals can’t reproduce and therefore are unable for the most part to bring their own genetics into the world. there’s obvious ways around that, but, for the issue at hand the attraction between two men or two women is about the attraction.

            The interracial sin was the sin of attraction to a different race. A white person being attracted to a black person. How is that attraction any different than the attraction to the same gender?

            Some people may be attracted to people with leg amputations, others may be attracted to super models of either gender. When you boil the arguement down to attraction the sin of interracial marriage and homosexual marriage is identical issues.

            They both have a common denominator of: A sinful attraction that could ruin the human race.. One sin is by corrupting the blood genetics of the races of humanity that God had created to be pure. The second is as far as I know the sin of being unable to reproduce. I’m not sure what else about same sex attraction makes attraction evil and vile against the world.

            In fact it is thought in many psych circles that everyone has a certain level of attraction to the same gender. One could possibly fall in love with a same gender person for who they are and how they treat others and what they stand for, even though one may not be of the gay preference.

            The problem with humanity is that it is afraid of this possible inner conflict and therefore makes it a sin.

          8. Fr. James

            Wolfy, the Church did not have a prohibition in our law over interracial marriages. It was not a matter of genetics or racial purity. It was primarily an issue in the American South.

            Race is not a behavior. Homosexuality is.

Comments are closed.