Xtian "Thinking" and Gay Marriage Politics

Homepage Forums Politics Xtian "Thinking" and Gay Marriage Politics

This topic contains 1 reply, has 2 voices, and was last updated by  JadeBlackOlive 3 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
  • #5089

    Dang Martin

    I just saw a story about a man who is suing the state of Alabama for not recognizing his marriage to his laptop.

    Chris Sevier is a man who is lawsuit-happy, to say the least. He sued A&E for “religious persecution” because they dropped Phil Roberts from a program for anti-gay comments. He sued Apple because his device did not have pre-installed pornography filters. He has taken others to Federal court, including Google, BlackBerry, Android, Microsoft, Motorola, Hewlett-Packard, Planned Parenthood, Samsung, Verizon, xBox, A&E Networks, his ex-wife, several state governors, the U.S. government as a whole, and former President Barack Obama specifically. Most of these suits have been dropped, but some are still pending.

    Mr. Sevier is a Christian who cannot keep it in his pants. The laws, processes, procedures, products, and other elements of society must conform to his beliefs.


    While Mr. Sevier does not represent all Christians, he is representative of the Christians who do things to bring Atheists out of the woodwork. If he were a live-and-let-live kind of guy, then Atheists would have nothing to say. Start messing with things like human rights, the law, and education, and then it’s go time.

    With regard to gay marriage, a topic that has been HIGHLY politicized for quite some time now, I’ve noticed some strange things that just don’t add up when it comes to their “logic.” There are three points in particular that I’d like to address, and then leave any other points open for submission and/or discussion.

    1. The move to marry animals or inanimate objects: I’ve heard the arguments before. “If we allow the gays to marry, then what’s next? Will we be marrying our pets? Our cars? Where is the line drawn?”

    Most people reading this can break it apart and understand the difference. Why do these objecting Christians make this argument?

    My suspicion points to something that is rather dangerous: They do not view gay people as being human. This is dangerous because, when a group of people are dehumanized, it then becomes easier and acceptable to the group engaging in this act, to harm or even kill people in that group.

    When “In God We Trust” was put on our money in 1957, it was during a point in The Cold War, where a distinction needed to be made between “god-fearing Americans” and the “godless Commie heathens.”

    “In these days when imperialistic and materialistic communism seeks to attack and destroy freedom, we should continually look for ways to strengthen the foundations of our freedom”.
    — Representative Charles Edward Bennett of Florida

    The purpose of this is to soften the general public, so that in the event of a declaration of war, or even a nuclear attack, it will be easier to get the buy-in of the general public.

    2. Being gay is a choice. As a man who has always been heterosexual, I can honestly say that I never reached a crossroads in life where I felt compelled to make a choice between being attracted to women, or being attracted to me. My attraction to women has been automatic, to the point that it almost never comes up in discussion.

    A friend in college told me that he “made the choice to be straight.” It was a topic of discussion in the dorm, for everyone could tell that he was gay. But he was also raised Christian, and so he suffered a great internal conflict, because he was attracted to men. Meanwhile, his pastor told him that it was a choice, and that he had to choose based on whether or not he wanted to go to hell for eternity.

    He ended up leaving school after being caught with another man by the floor monitor. I really felt badly for him, because he would probably never be allowed to be himself.

    Anyone who declares that being gay is a choice probably has something that they’re trying to hide.


    I have to wonder if there isn’t an objection to gay marriage because it would throw a wrench into the money-maker that is divorce.

    In a divorce, there is little in the way of a fair hearing. The MAN is the bad guy, the perpetrator, by default. This is because of his genitalia. The WOMAN is the helpless victim who can neither defend herself nor take care of herself. As a result of the fast-paced nature of divorce, it has become a major cash cow.

    There is a divorce in America every 36 seconds. That amounts to about one million divorces per year, at a cost of $50 billion. That’s a lot of money.

    A Judge or Commissioner presiding over a gay marriage would not have the luxury of determining perpetrator and victim status by whether or not they stand up to urinate. This would force them to actually listen to people. What a concept!

    Mr. Sevier and people like him feed the beast when it comes to politicizing something as ridiculous as gay marriage. In all fairness, I consider all forms of marriage to be ridiculous, because there is nothing “holy” about marriage, as is evidenced in our booming divorce law sector. It has been broken down to nothing more than a legally-binding contract, where two people may or may not have a religious ceremony before they have sex after signing the contract.

    But let two consenting adults do whatever they want, so long as there is no physical or psychological harm. It’s really none of my business, and I don’t care.

    Yes, my view of marriage is cynical. You can tell that I lost everything in my divorce.

    If I were as wacky as Mr. Sevier, then maybe I could sue the Commissioner who presided over my divorce for the crime of assuming my gender. I think that talk is insane, but I’d not put it past someone like him.



    A#1 jerk by the look of it.

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.