The Bible according to Cinie - and me too!

No one I know can put this whole debate over Gay Marriage versus Civil Unions more clearly than fellow blogger extraordinaire, Cinie - over at Cinie's World. If you've not been to her site - go!!!

Her May 28 post was one of the most succinct, tongue-in-cheek, splayings of the Bible-based opposition to gay marriage that I have ever seen. Rather than link to it, I asked if I could reprint it here in it's entirety (If her reference links don't copy here for some reason, you must follow the link below to her site and read them - particularly if you plan to question her research. But I don't advise it).

"The Case Against Gay Marriage"
Gay people should not be allowed to marry each other. That goes without saying. They cannot breed, and the things they do in their bedrooms, and in public restrooms, and under gaudy mirror balls on sweaty dance floors, are unnatural, and, just plain icky. Therefore, they should be forced to marry straight people or be banished to the fringes of society. If not, and they are allowed to marry each other, and worse, adopt, or otherwise have and raise children, they will soon infect our society with their depravity, and open the door to those who wish to marry children, animals, multiple partners, and even whole families.
Everybody knows this. God’s Holy Rule Book and Instruction Manual for Humans is very clear on this. Why, on its very first pages it clearly states that God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, or Adametta and Stephanie. There is no ambiguity whatsoever in that story. One must consciously, and deliberately, reject God’s word to argue otherwise. Got it?
The sanctity of one man, one woman marriage is constantly reiterated in the Bible, with rules for proper behavior within the institution clearly delineated. All holy humans profiled in its pages behave in a manner mandated by God with regards to marriage and childbearing. Take, for example, Jesus, God’s Only Begotten (pp. beget, i.e, the Begats) Son. Though he was not married, per se, according to the Bible, history has proven beyond all doubt that He was, because, since all Jewish males of His day were, He must have been. The evidence strongly suggests that His wife was most likely Mary Magdalene, who was either a demonically possessed, former prostitute, or, an apostle, and the true inheritor of His mission, and, it is only a matter of time before definitive proof is uncovered that there is indeed a young Caucasian descendant living in Britain, or L.A., as portrayed in the Da Vinci Code. Those who suggest that God’s not marrying Mary, Mother of Jesus, wife of Joseph, before the Child’s birth invalidates the marriage sanctity argument are merely heathen heretics, or just being silly. Either way, they are unworthy of debate or entry into Heaven, not to mention Starbucks.
The case for marriage between one man and one woman is more clearly made in the Old Testament, however, as is the burden of propriety borne by women. Let’s face it, women are by nature, temptresses (sluts) and unclean, (nasty) and must be made pure before God’s Chosen Gender deigns to dally with them and sully themselves in the first place. Thus, isn’t it better for a man to limit his exposure to them one at a time? Unless of course, he is a soldier in battle and not required by God to kill the women along with everybody else. In that case, he may have as many of those conquered virgin females as he wishes, and do with them as he pleases. The Bible is very clear on this.
Adultery is an abomination before God, this too is clear. A woman is only allowed to engage in sex outside of marriage if she and her sister are convinced there are no available men of their kind with which to procreate. They are then allowed, nay, required, to get their father drunk and rape him in his sleep on successive nights. If a woman’s husband dies, her brother-in-law is required to impregnate her; if he refuses, or only pretends to do so, she is free to fake out her father-in-law by pretending to be a prostitute and become pregnant that way, and insure her and her child’s inheritance. Unmarried women are to be offered as substitutes for unwilling visiting males to Sodomites, with no stigma attached, if the visitors claim to be angels. If the Sodomites reject the offer, they are to be blinded by the visitors so that they may not find the door to enter into their host’s home. This is clear.
A man is allowed to marry his half-sister as long as they are related only on their common father’s side. It is then okay for him to offer his wife to foreign heads of state, only to have an angel beat the king about the head to prevent relations, or reveal the truth to the king in a dream, or, for the couple to reveal their true relationship by having public relations within the foreign head of state’s view; the goal being to extort funds from the transgressing king’s coffers, or, save one’s hide. The Bible is very clear on this.
Men who win wrestling matches with other males by touching their shrinking “sinew” are God. The loser’s resulting limp is proof. “He who pisseth against the wall” is granted many other privileges and rights in regards to marriage/sex. If a man who enjoys dancing with abandon in the streets, clad only in a linen apron in celebration of his God. has his fancy taken by a bathing foreign temptress, he may take her, impregnate her, and have her husband killed. Though this sort of behavior is apparently frowned upon, if the man repents, the couple’s child will die and his other children from other marriages will one day rise up against him. However, he may then marry the new widow and one of their next offspring will become king.
If a man becomes enamored of the younger sister of an unmarried woman, her father may trick him into marrying his firstborn first. After having children with her, he may later marry the woman he truly loves and have children with her, too. Sometimes, if a woman’s husband dies, she is encouraged to follow her mother-in-law into the land of her birth and seduce a rich man as per her mother-in-law’s instruction, in order to marry and carry on the family line. Women are also allowed to tempt rulers to capital punishment on the advice of their mothers.
While some may quibble with my Biblical interpretation, I have made every effort to insure that each incident is Biblically documented. For example, though Moabites, descendants of Lot and his daughters, were indeed considered infidels, it is worthy of note that it is through Ruth, the converted Moabite who secured her inheritance through the seduction of a wealthy man at the instruction of her Hebrew mother-in-law, that Jesus is said to be descended of David, nearly naked dancing celebrant. Also in the line are Tamar, the woman driven to pretend to be a prostitute, Rahab, supposedly an actual Caananite prostitue, and Bathsheba, foreign (Hittite) wife of David and mother of Solomon. I have tried to find reputable references, pro and con, whenever possible, in this post, and have avoided linking to sites like this one, which is not to be viewed by the faint of heart. I have also purposely avoided skeptics and other atheist sites to the best of my ability, though one or two may have snuck in. The devil, you know?
With these few examples it is no mystery why Christians and other true believers must denounce gay marriage as a threat to their sacred institution. I mean, come on, clearly, the Bible has always intended for marriage to be a union of one man, and one woman, most of the time. Though the Bible mentions the word “adultery” waaaay more often than “homosexuality,” and “thou shalt not commit adultery” is the seventh commandment, while there is no commandment against homosexuality, that’s easily explained since, throughout history there must have been far more lying, cheating spouses to throw stones at, than deviant, depraved queers.
No follower of God’s most sacred rule could ever accept marriage equality for homosexuals. That’s just silly. Almost as silly as believing that I could ever buy into such nonsense. Or, believe that anybody else does. Like, most people, I just believe the parts of the Holy Human Owner’s Manual that I like. Unlike most people, I’ve actually read most of it.
And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? {26} He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? {27} And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. {28} And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. (Luke 10:25-28)
TAPPER: You oppose same-sex marriage.
OBAMA: Yes.
TAPPER: Do you think that the fact that this is now going on in California, does that cause you to re-think your pledge to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act?
OBAMA: No. I still think that these are decisions that need to be made at a state and local level. I’m a strong supporter of civil unions. And I think that, you know, we’re involved in a national conversation about this issue.

(see other video on original post placed here, because even though she gave me the link - I can't make it work!!)




Much like issues affecting the Black community, the Changeling has side-stepped Gay community issues as well. But then again, he never promised them much of anything either.