msbsod #fundie

msbsod #fundie infowars.com

The definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman before God and in accordance with church procedure and God’s blessings.

How can the church condone homosexual marriage when the bible says it is an “abomination in the eyes of God”?

How can you perform ANYTHING but blasphemy and an assault on God by FORCING a church to commit blasphemy?!?!?

Now if you are a member of the church of Satan, THEY may have no issues with performing such an insult and foul ceremony—.but NO-ONE has the right to tell any preacher or priest or holyman that THEY must abandon THEIR faith and prostitute their beliefs so that the devil can join two perverts in a church and thus defile it and destroy it’s sanctity.

If this is allowed to go on, then it should become common-practice to enter a gay couple’s house and take a dump on their supper-table.

Turn-about is fair play.

73 comments

old comment by Creedence Leonore Gielgud

"How can the church condone homosexual marriage when the bible says it is an “abomination in the eyes of God”?"

A better question is, how can I give a fuck what you think that your non-existent god, who dreamt up by savages thinks?

"If this is allowed to go on, then it should become common-practice to enter a gay couple’s house and take a dump on their supper-table."

It should be allowed provided you have their permission beforehand. Some people are into that sort of thing--it does seem like fundies are the most into it per capita of any group, because every discussion normals have regarding homosexuality with you people, ultimately gets steered towards an in depth discussion on the many ways one, if so inclined, could play with, or eat shit for sexual gratification, by the fundie. Just go post an ad on Craig's List, and leave those of us not interested in it, out of your personal fantasies and kinks.

old comment by Doubting Thomas

The definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman before God and in accordance with church procedure and God’s blessings.

Or one man, a dozen wives, and a few concubines like in the bible.

How can the church condone homosexual marriage when the bible says it is an “abomination in the eyes of God”?

Maybe they're not all intolerant and bigoted like you, and leave it up to God to decide if he's really angry with it or not. I don't see anyone running around all upset at people eating shellfish, yet it's also an "abomination in the eyes of God," as well as other mundane things like working on the sabbath or wearing clothes of mixed fibers. Why is it you Christian homophobes always focus on just that particular one "abomination?"

How can you perform ANYTHING but blasphemy and an assault on God by FORCING a church to commit blasphemy?!?!?

No one anywhere is going to force any churches to do anything. The First Amendment says that the government can't.

NO-ONE has the right to tell any preacher or priest or holyman that THEY must abandon THEIR faith

And NO-ONE has the right to tell any gay person that THEY must abandon THEIR rights.

If this is allowed to go on, then it should become common-practice to enter a gay couple’s house and take a dump on their supper-table.

You have a very strange fetish.

old comment by BlackWolfe Coyoten

The definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman before God and in accordance with church procedure and God’s blessings.

mar·riage [mar-ij] noun
1. a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.
b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.

How can the church condone homosexual marriage when the bible says it is an “abomination in the eyes of God”?
The same way they can condone eating shellfish, sleeping with your wife when she is on her period, or any of a number of other things that were considered abominations in the Old Testament.

How can you perform ANYTHING but blasphemy and an assault on God by FORCING a church to commit blasphemy?!?!?
An assault on God? I'd love to see the court documents on that one!

Now if you are a member of the church of Satan, THEY may have no issues with performing such an insult and foul ceremony.but NO-ONE has the right to tell any preacher or priest or holyman that THEY must abandon THEIR faith and prostitute their beliefs so that the devil can join two perverts in a church and thus defile it and destroy it’s sanctity.
No one has.

If this is allowed to go on, then it should become common-practice to enter a gay couple’s house and take a dump on their supper-table.
...

...

HOW DO YOU REACH THIS CONCLUSION? Are gay people coming into your house and shitting on your supper table? If so, maybe you should make sure you don't have a classified ad out asking them to.

Turn-about is fair play.
No, you see, turn-about would be allowing churches to choose to marry opposite-sex couples... which we do.

old comment by John

How can the church condone homosexual marriage when the bible says it is an “abomination in the eyes of God”?

Same way they condone eating shrimp when the bible says it is an "abomination" in the eyes of God: just come up with their opinions first, then cherry-pick the Bible until they find something that can be twisted to agree with them.

Churches don't have to perform same-sex marriage. You're confusing that with various laws that say if they rent space to the general public for non-church related functions, they can't pick and choose who they rent to. They can probably get around this by making it a private facility and renting only to church members or using it only for church-related function.

old comment by fmitchell

Religious definition of marriage =/= civil definition of marriage.

Churches are free to forbid same sex, interfaith, or interracial marriages to their hearts' content. That has no bearing on whether two men or two women can enter into a lawful agreement that makes each partner the others' next-of-kin, defines who inherits in the absence of a will, and makes the assets of both parties common property (among other legal rights).

Honestly, I'd prefer if we used the term "civil unions" for gay AND straight couples, and made the church wedding a separate and unnecessary step in addition to registering a civil union. It would confuse fewer tiny minds.

old comment by Oh My Dog!

The definition of marriage is whatever the state says it is, and that can be changed. Your god's approval is not needed.

Not even all Christians see gay marriage as an “abomination in the eyes of God”, that is how.

I know, I know... they're not true Christians, am I right?

Not all Christians see it as a blasphemy either, nobody is going to force you to do anything, get over your persecution complex.

The churches that want to marry same sex couples will continue to do so; the churches that don't, won't have to do so. And since that's what the churches are already doing, nothing will change.

And finally, who actually is the vile person? The one who wants equal rights or the one who takes a dump on someone's supper table?

old comment by Osiris

If this is allowed to go on, then it should become common-practice to enter a gay couple’s house and take a dump on their supper-table.
Why?

No seriously, why? This comment implies that gay marriage affects your life in some deep, negative and personal way. But it doesn't.

@TB Tabby: Actually to these people it is. You see they don't understand the definition of freedom. They only understand cohersion and force. That's why back in March when Obama said he wanted to give everyone in America the opportunity to go to college, fundamentalist Catholic Rick Santorum interpreted it as "Obama wants to make everyone go to college."

And it makes sense. They live in a world where freedom doesn't exist. Either you live your life doing what God says, or you live your life doing what Satan wants, but at no point in the fundamentalist Christian theology do human beings ever have free agency, we are always just doing what we are told. Sure they say we have free will, but that's only there to abdicate God of responsibility for the existence of evil.

This is why fundies view the government only as a vehicle that either outright prohibits something, or outright forces something.

old comment by Paler_Face

The definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman before God and in accordance with church procedure and God’s blessings.

Yeah, that's why atheists can't get married. *facepalm*

How can the church condone homosexual marriage when the bible says it is an “abomination in the eyes of God”?

By ignoring the bible. We can make better laws for ourselves than the ones described in your bronze age texts.

How can you perform ANYTHING but blasphemy and an assault on God by FORCING a church to commit blasphemy?!?!?

No one is forcing your pastor to marry gay people. People can get married without a religious component to their union.

If this is allowed to go on, then it should become common-practice to enter a gay couple’s house and take a dump on their supper-table.

WTF!

old comment by Doubting Thomas

@Osiris

I think you're totally right. They ALWAYS claim that if you make something legal, it means that people will be forced to participate. Just look at their claims over the abortion debate, and now with gay marriage. I expect that if drug legalization becomes a big topic they'll be claiming that the government will force people to smoke pot.

Look at how they act when it comes to enacting laws. They always either want to ban something or force people to do something. They just can't understand the concept of making something legal and leaving it to the individual to decide whether or not to do it. I do think that Christianity has everything to do with this mindset, since everything in the religion is a bunch of "do this, don't do that" rules.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"The definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman before God and in accordance with church procedure and God’s blessings.

How can the church condone homosexual marriage when the bible says it is an “abomination in the eyes of God”?

How can you perform ANYTHING but blasphemy and an assault on God by FORCING a church to commit blasphemy?!?!?"

Y'know who was at the forefront of what would become modern-day Protestant Christianity as you fundies know it today? Holland's King William of Orange.

image

"Turn-about is fair play."

You said it, I didn't. As a result, not only your argument, but the right of your so-called 'religion' to exist, is invalid.

The above example renders your right to resort to 'Argumentum ad Populum' invalid in perpetuity. 85% of people can't be wrong.

old comment by Xotan

I fail to understand how religious types cannot distinguish between the civil contract which is legal, and the church ceremony, which is not.

Here is France the position is very clear. You go before the Mayor of the town/city village, or whoever is delegated in his place, and make civil promises, If one is a religious/believer, afterwards one goes to a church for a religious ceremony.

Do try to get this clear!

It is the civil marriage that is the important one from the point of view of being legally married.

I suppose the confusion arises in that in some countries the state delegates the signing of the civil documents to the charge of clergy. This, however, does not in any way derogate from the civil and legal aspects of signing the register of marriages, although it does perhaps muddy the water a bit. Nor, so far as I am aware, is there any country that requires clergy to officiate at same-sex marriage.

So the churches can define and pontificate on what they see as marriage till the cows come home. It means nothing, except to a believer.

The civil marriage is the legal one, and this is the one that has to be overturned in a divorce case. The religious marriage is, in such a case, meaningless.

So, the state can define legal marriage as it wishes to.

And Ms Bod, you can take your bible and shove it for all the practical significance it has. It even approves of bigamy, trigamy, quadrigamy, quinquigamy and more - count how many wives and concubines Solomon had - presumably with Biblical approval. But marry more than one at a time and you are in legal trouble!

So let the churches butt out of legal matters.

old comment by tmarcl

The definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman before God and in accordance with church procedure and God’s blessings.

No, it's not. It's not the legal definition and it's not even the biblical definition. What is the biblical definition - well, there really isn't one. Sure, there are biblical rules for how a marriage should be conducted (one spouse, only do it if you can't keep yourself from having sex, etc), but there's no real definition of what it is.

The legal definition (at least in this country) has been one man and one woman under a legal contract with the State in order to receive certain legal benefits (lower taxes, for example). One does not need the consent of any religious institution in this country to become legally married.

What homosexuals want is to extend the legal definition to include same sex marriages.

old comment by tmarcl

How can the church condone homosexual marriage when the bible says it is an “abomination in the eyes of God”?

How can you perform ANYTHING but blasphemy and an assault on God by FORCING a church to commit blasphemy?!?!?

There is, to my knowledge, no legislation pending that would require anyone other than the State to approve of same-sex marriage. Your church is welcome to continue hating gays all they want, no one will stop you.

If this is allowed to go on, then it should become common-practice to enter a gay couple’s house and take a dump on their supper-table.

Turn-about is fair play.

Except this wouldn't be "turn-about." If there were truly legislation pending to force churches to approve of same sex marriages, then "turn-about" would be requiring everyone to be Christian - in both cases, it would be a denial of religious freedom. What you're suggesting here is just stupidity.

msbsod #fundie infowars.com

73 comments

Confused?