A union of gay love

Religion is slowly dying in the developed world, and much of the progress toward secular morals is probably the result of right-wing extremists, like Westboro Baptist Church.

Twitter is explosive. People from all the corners of the world and all along the political spectrum gather to participate in the vast, global chat. It's not uncommon for tweet fights to occur; they may be totally unexpected, like how masses of people totally demonized a certain Richard Dawkins for his tweets about "rape", perhaps because they suffer from a logic deficiency. Scientists should invent a logic pill that people can take—like vitamins. At any rate, it's also not uncommon for theist versus atheist battles, and these may or may not be partly about LGBT rights. That's where this blog post comes in.

There are Christians who are truly intolerant, fucking assholes, who strictly oppose homosexuality and any similar "sin", perhaps because they see it as a perversion or simply because their God said he doesn't like homos for some reason. Then there are the self-proclaimed "tolerant" Christians, of whom I will write in this blog post. Thirdly, and hopefully the vast majority, there are those Christians who actually are nice people; you don't see many of those online, but that's, hopefully, because people who complain are louder than those who don't.

The root of many LGBT problems, or rather Christians' problem with it (I mean the intolerant ones, not everyone), is derived from the Bible. And I get it: they think it is the literal word of God. What I don't get it why they can't see through the Bible and why they'd want to worship such a vile deity, but that's another issue altogether, and one I doubt we need to worry too much about; religion is slowly dying in the developed world, and much of the progress toward secular morals is probably the result of right-wing extremists, like Westboro Baptist Church. Right-wing extremists don't seem very smart. For example, if one advocates gun rights and wants to show people that arming everyone (even children?) is the right way to go, it's a good idea to NOT scare the shit out of everyone. That said, I can't imagine why anyone would want to go back to the Wild West, but this is off topic, so let's go back to the beaten path.

So the "tolerant" Christians I mentioned basically say that they are not against homosexuality, but "do not want to redefine marriage." Think about that for a few moments. It is wrong on so many levels, I don't know where to begin.

Slavery is nowadays seen as horrific and Christians seem oblivious of the slavery in the Bible, so why do so many cling on to their bigotry of homosexuality?

I suppose we'll begin with the Bible. How many translations and, more importantly, interpretations are there of this malicious killer of a book? Hundreds? Thousands? In fact, there should be just as many interpretations as there are Christians. I doubt that's true, because if every Christian actually read the Bible, we'd probably have fewer Christians. But let's assume there have been a few billion interpretations of the Bible. Who's to say which is correct, assuming the Bible is the word of God? To me it's plainly obvious the Bible is bad and that it does condemn homosexuality, which is partly why I think it's complete garbage, but theists have throughout history and definitely today found ways to put a spin on what they read; they somehow find a way to justify it, no matter how vile it is. Slavery is nowadays seen as horrific and Christians seem oblivious of the slavery in the Bible, so why do so many cling on to their bigotry of homosexuality? And most importantly, what makes them think they have the right interpretation? What makes them think they understand God, whom they say we cannot understand? Arrogant pricks.

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
— The Bible, Ephesians 5:22-23

Let's move on to the definition of marriage. So what is marriage? I'm not looking for a strict definition, but to me, in a contemporary meaning, it is merely a union of love and legal assets. I don't see it as having anything to do with the spouses' respective genders; that's what sexual preference is about. Some (not all) Christians regard this as a redefinition of their precious fucking covenant with their precious fucking god. So what's their definition? I'm assuming it's the same as mine, with the addition of "under God" and "no fags". But isn't this a redefinition in and of itself? Can we still sell our daughters into marriage (sexual slavery)? Do rape victims have to marry their rapist? Do we stone non-virgins to death? Can men still have multiple wives? Is the husband the owner of his wife? Is the husband the lord of the manor, who votes for both himself and his wife? Is the wife a sinner if she does not submit herself to her husband whenever he wants her? Can we not get divorced? Marriage has constantly been redefined through the ages, especially with the rights women have been rightly granted. If you are against homosexual marriage, you should also be against any rights society may have given your wife. I hope you aren't.

Marriage has constantly been redefined through the ages, especially with the rights women have been rightly granted.

Now, I realize that this may be argued to be a straw man, because they don't actually say anything about women's rights, when talking about this issue, although the ones who advocate a no-gay policy seem to be against certain women's rights, too. But being against homosexual marriage is so ridiculous that the issue and people who think like this do deserve to be ridiculed. Because there are different interpretations of the Bible; there are Christians who support LGBT rights; and the ones who admit there's slavery in the Bible say that those were the times. Well, God's perfect fucking word doesn't seem so perfect, does it? And people today realize there's nothing morally wrong about LGBT and that it's not a choice. And since it's not a choice, then there are a few options:

  1. God knowingly created LGBT people and is okay with it. If this is true, persecution of LGBT is a one-way ticket to hell.
  2. God knowingly created LGBT people, but is not okay with it. If this is true, God cannot be considered good.
  3. God unknowingly created LGBT people. He still recognizes they can be good people, so persecution of them is a one-way ticket to hell.
  4. God unknowingly created LGBT people. He thinks they're inherently evil, even though the mere fact that one is gay does not cause anyone harm. If this is true, God cannot be considered good.
  5. God either knowingly or unknowingly created LGBT people, but has since moved on and doesn't give a shit about humankind, which means persecution of LGBT is arbitrary, pointless, and immoral.
  6. God does not exist, which means persecution of LGBT is arbitrary, pointless, and immoral.
Either one thinks homosexuality is a choice, in which case one would be wrong, or one must concede it’s not a choice, in which case persecution is pointless and vile, especially since LGBT in and of itself doesn’t harm anyone.

Either God is good, evil, doesn't care, or doesn't exist. I am leaning heavily toward the last one. But God's dislike of LGBT is totally unfounded; it has no logical basis. Either one thinks homosexuality is a choice, in which case one would be wrong, or one must concede it's not a choice, in which case persecution is pointless and vile, especially since LGBT in and of itself doesn't harm anyone. Another Christian said the Bible is against homosexuality because it spreads diseases. I've never seen that in the Bible, but let's say it's in there. It's a promiscuous lifestyle that is the leading cause of STDs, not a gay lifestyle. And I highly doubt all gay people are promiscuous, which means the argument is against promiscuity, not homosexuality. Furthermore, I agree diseases are a problem, but it's a risk two (or more) consenting adults seeking cheap thrills will have to deal with; it's not a sin and it's entirely their business, not someone else's.

But let's further explore the main argument I'm countering: the redefinition of marriage. These Christians suggest that LGBT people can get "married", but not in a church and without the Bible, because a real marriage should be between a man and a woman. They suggest a legal union, and then say it is their right to exclude LGBT people, as part of religious freedom, sort of like the Mormons excluded black people because they weren't favored by their god or whatever bullshit. But they have it the other way around. Religious freedom—not to mention basic human rights—is for everyone, including LGBT people, and it just so happens that there's probably AT LEAST ONE homosexual couple with a Christian faith. Should we deny them faith because they are gay? Would Christians deny them God? And would they really be so arrogant as to say they, and only they, know what God wants and thinks?

Religious freedom—not to mention basic human rights—is for everyone, including LGBT people, and it just so happens that there’s probably AT LEAST ONE homosexual couple with a Christian faith. Should we deny them faith because they are gay?

Denying anyone marriage is to treat them as a second-class citizen, and proposing a legal union seems like a patronizing "solution" to get LGBT people to back down. Religion or non-religion is a choice for anyone, and to exclude people for some arbitrary reason is against religious freedom, especially when the Bible has so many conflicting interpretations. These conservatives, even non-Christian conservatives, complain that LGBT people try to shove their lifestyle down everyone's throat, but if they were given the same level of respect and the same rights as everyone else, they would quiet down. Believe me, LGBT people don't want their lives to be anybody else's business. And that's sort of the point, isn't it?