Frank Turek, Christian apologist and decidedly homophobic author, published an opinion piece in The Christian Post.( And, it doesn't take a great deal of investigation to determine what that rag promotes). The article is entitled "Same Sex Marriage: Stealing Rights From God."  Yes, we've heard the same, tired, BS arguments over and over ad nauseum from the christian fascist camp. Rights are from God. Without acknowledging god, there can be no rights whatsoever, blah, blah, blah.

Normally, I wouldn't bother posting this, as there is nothing new from his camp that we haven't heard before. However, I was intrigued by the comments section at the end of the article. Not one, single, solitary person agreed with him. Each and every one I read was critical and dismissive of him. Turns out there's good news here. The bibble thumpers are actually getting push back on their own sites.

I suppose if all rights under the Constitution emanate from God, this would include the 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms. Which begs the question WCWJU (what caliber would Jesus use). And, for a great video of where rights come from, I would reference the late Mr. George Carlin starting at time marker 4:20.

As an addendum, Frank Turek is one of the theistic apologists who got his ass handed to him by the late Christopher Hitchens. 

Views: 161

Replies to This Discussion

So ... are we also stealing rights from god when we go out to dinner a Red Lobster?  Or maybe when we wear that warm woolen top coat with the satin lining, or when the guy next door has us over for his most excellent Kansas City-style barbecue pork?  Are we stealing his putative rights when we fail to stone a woman who was raped in the city and didn't cry out (likely because the rapist had a hand over her mouth) or when we don't do the same for a juvenile delinquent who rails against his parents?

It never fails to amaze me how much the fundamentalists lean on those two lousy verses in Leviticus and can't be bothered with all the others.

In answer to you inquiries about the eternal and unchanging laws of YHWH, yeah, I guess we are ripping him off. My response to Turek, or anyone else who subscribes to this inane idea is is the same as I received from my company sergeant in the Army when I felt I wasn't getting a fair shake. "Soldier, go see the Chaplain and get your 'Tough Shit' card stamped. Then, report back to duty."

I don't see why he should be concerned about being ripped off here and there.  If YHWH is the creator of the universe, all knowing, all powerful, etc, he really shouldn't need so much from us. What a greedy guy.  And he is always asking for handouts in churches.  Can't he manage his own affairs?  Why does he worry about ours?

Things are changing.  How about when Tim Teabag scored a touchdown in a big game, knelt down, made the sign of the cross (like a gang member making hand signals) and started praying on the field for all he was worth.  The next day newspapers and the Internet were filled with scorn and disapproval.

On the other hand a gay defensive end Michael Sam was offered a contract and started making out with his boyfriend in front of the cameras and everybody started cheering for him. 

I’m sure Mr. Turek felt slighted and offended, but he feels relieved that it’s the Right of God to punish abomination. 

 

Sure ... god has the right to punish abomination (though he has to work himself into existence first!), Frank Turek has the right to express his hurt feelings and decry humankind's dismissal of his god.

And we have the right to tell Turek to take a long walk off a short pier.

Please note, the "g" in lgbt stands for gay, not god. The gods have had their own social movement for a long time now. If they are going to get their panties in a bunch over other people being given equality, they need to get over it.

If the gods do feel like they are being deprived, they can have their own gods pride parade. I would love to see Jehovah, Baal, Athena, Zoroaster, Zeus, and Allah all in a marching band together. "we're here! we're holy! Lets have some guacamole!"

Gay marriage brings up the question - why is a private relation the business of the government at all?  Why have a legal institution of marriage at all?  Why have the government regulating it? 

The tax benefits of marriage discriminate against single people.  Why should single people be discriminated against?  Life is more expensive as a single person anyway - why is the government making it even more expensive with taxation? 

One thing opponents of gay marriage bring up is the idea that it's a "slippery slope" - if same-sex couples can get married, then why not several people, etc.?

People can form a marriage-like contract, whether gay or straight, two or more. 

Maybe the government should get out of the marriage business in general. 

You hit the nail on its proverbial head. Marriage is not even conducted as a religious ceremony much of the time; in Texas, any elected official can marry you. The vehement objection of heterosexual people to same sex marriage is religious in origin and primarily Catholic-evangelical. I would like to believe that proponents of "one man, one woman" actually see some potential for abuse, as for example, two women or two men marrying for some tax or other benefit. But now that Obama has told the IRS and other agencies they must recognize same sex marriages, this can no longer be the motivation (if, indeed, it ever was, though homophobes made much ado about "special rights," a code word to them and an obscenity to anyone who supports human rights).

The government may want to get out of the marriage business, but they remain in the rights-insuring business, particularly where there are multiple groups, mostly religious, determined to impede access to those rights because their holy books tell them to.  In addition, the fact is that marriage of any sort is a civil contract, which has attached to it multiple rights and privileges, among which being those related to inheritance and issues regarding medical treatment or withholding of that treatment based on input from a spouse when the patient isn't competent to indicate his/her preference.  These are the two I regularly cite, though there are (so I'm told) over a thousand others.

If the day should come when individual rights are NOT under near-constant attack, then maybe government could divorce itself from marriage (!) ... but until such time, it remains the primary means to keep the bigots at bay.

Seems to me the ideal solution is a couple (consenting adults) walk into the local county clerk's office and sign a document acknowledging their legal relationship. No need for a rabbi, priest, imam, witch doctor, soothsayer, or governmental official to "approve" it. Insurance, government benefits, property inheritance, custody of children, etc., are automatically established. If the relationship ends, then the couple goes back to the clerk's office and in a large red pen, writes CANCELLED on the document. If they cannot agree about division of property, custody of children, support, etc., then - and only then - do you bring in an arbitrator to make decisions.

Seems simple enough to me.

It cost my partner and me a couple thousand in legal fees to draw up a partnership contract 10 years ago, with wills, living wills, property issues, ability to speak for each other when needed.

Last year when we got married in the county courthouse, by a judge, no "wedding", it cost $50.  And all of those rights were the same as we originally paid much more for.  Except a lot more.

A builder's permit for our kitchen remodel was a few hundred.  So was the bathroom remodel builder's permit.  The house title insurance was a few hundred, and missed an easement.  Our easement dispute came to a couple thousand.  The $50 is an incredible bargain with amazingly wide ranging repercussions.  Now I feel my partner is secure, and I am secure, from family interference, inheritance issues, medically, insurance, etc.

Yes, or there could be options as to what one wants included. 

You are closely and long-term associated with another person, and you want them to receive your inheritance and be able to participate in your insurance benefits.  So you check those boxes "yes".  You aren't comfortable with them making medical decisions for you in an emergency, so you check that box "no".  You don't want to share property, so you check that box "no". 

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service