Reflections From a Murky Pond

In the past I’ve made some sarcastic posts about DOMA and traditional aka biblical marriage. To continue in that vein here’s an instructional video by Betty Bowers on traditional marriage as defined by biblical precedent:

Betty Bowers on Traditional Marriage Per The Bible

Yes, the video is needlessly harsh, insulting, and sarcastic. It also uses some pretty far-fetched interpretation of biblical passages – e.g., there’s no theological basis for saying Eve seduced Cain; it’s far more likely that he took one of his unnamed in the Bible sisters to wife. That doesn’t, however, mean that it doesn’t contain a number of simple truths about what Yahweh supposed endorses by way of marriage.

Christians, you need to read your Bible; it is, after all, your holy book and, as such, more than worthy of individual study.

In it are many passages that show that Abraham’s God seemed to have little or no problem with many forms of marriage beyond “one man and one woman.” Indeed, nowhere’s in the Bible is monogamy ever explicitly described as a requirement.

Divorce, contrariwise, was expressly forbidden in both Old and New Testaments.

On the other hand, the Bible does maintain that same-sex marriage, along with a number of other acts now generally considered OK, is right out, forbidden, and an abomination to be treated with abhorrence and lethal violence.

Remember, God hates fags – though possibly not lesbians, multi-cropping / under-planting, poly-cotton blends, gaudy jewelry, and shellfish.

So, my dear Christian sometimes-allies, have some fun with this if you can. Think a bit on it though; there’s truth buried in any bit of humor, elsewise it wouldn’t be funny.

Related Reading:

Politics makes for strange bedfellows and war and Muslim Terrorism is just an extension of politics, so it’s unsurprising that Al-Qaeda’s “spiritual leader,” Osama Bin Laden would cultivate a relationship with North Korea’s yammering monkey, Kim Jong Il. Yet, who knew that it would take such a bizarre, depraved, and disgusting turn?

Strange Indeed! Most Believed Osama Preferred Goats

A leading Al-Qaeda cleric, Imam Abdul Al Akroot ibn Al Daa’reh Khanzeer responded to queries about Osama Bin Laden’s seemingly prohibited relationship with the North Korean dictator.

What Osama has done is permissible.  It is not the sin of homosexuality because Kim Jong Il is not a man; he is a monkey.  As Abdullah ibn Abbas narrated in the Kitab Al-Hudud, “There is no prescribed punishment for one who has sexual intercourse with an animal.”

Allah is merciful. Women of Islam are few and goats and such are many, and it is often hard for a man to tell them apart in the night. Allah knows this and thus it is halal.

Sadly, when questioned on the fact that the ayat immediately preceding the one that he cited (Book 38, Number 4450) called for the death of any man caught fornicating with an animal – and the death of the animal! – Imam Abdul Al Akroot went into a violent rage and became too incoherent to continue the interview.

The Civilized World just fervently and desperately hopes and prays that Osama Bin Laden and Kim Jong Il will not follow in the trend of celebrities couples and release a sex tape.

Related Reading:

It seems that various queer activist groups are having a hissy fit over the US Military’s new questionnaire regarding the possible repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT).

To these groups’ collective consciousness it’s wrong for the Pentagon to even ask the men and women serving in the military how they might respond to openly gay servicemen.

Given the nature of such agendists, this isn’t surprising in the least, but it’s certainly worthy of note and derision.

Gay rights organizations are up in arms over a Pentagon survey on the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” claiming that some of the questions put to U.S. servicemembers are “homophobic.”

The surveys, emailed to 400-thousand active duty, national guard and reserve forces includes questions like;

“IF A WARTIME SITUATION MADE IT NECESSARY FOR YOU TO SHARE A ROOM, BERTH OR FIELD TENT WITH SOMEONE YOU BELIEVE TO BE A GAY OR LESBIAN SERVICEMEMBER, WHICH ARE YOU MOST LIKELY TO DO?

* TAKE NO ACTION
* DISCUSS HOW WE EXPECTED EACH OTHER TO BEHAVE
* TALK TO A CHAPLAIN OR MENTOR
* TALK TO A LEADER TO SEE IF I HAVE OTHER OPTIONS
* OTHER

“IF DONT ASK DONT TELL IS REPEALED AND YOU ARE ASSIGNED TO BATHROOM FACILITIES WITH OPEN BAY SHOWER WITH A GAY OR LESBIAN SERVICE MEMBER…?_

* TAKE NO ACTION
* USE SHOWER AT DIFFERENT TIME

There’s also a question asking servicemembers if a gay or lesbian member moved into military housing with a same-sex partner, would they pick up their family and move out.

– Jim Miklaszewski
MSNBC’s First Read, July 9, 2010

That’s right; the agitators and professional grievance-mongers leading a large swath of the queer advocacy groups want people to believe that a questionnaire issued by the Pentagon to 400K+ members is homophobic because it asks military personnel how they might respond to the realities of living, serving, fighting, and dying alongside openly homosexual servicemen and women.

Yeah, I know; most claims of homophobia by queer activists are, like most claims of racism by Black activists or the claims of Islamophobia from Muslim vermin, something to be ignored.

Sometimes. though, ignoring such problems, like ignoring a growing tumor, just allows the cancer to spread unchecked. It’s sometimes necessary to cut or burn out the diseased flesh so that the body may survive.

Apparently our military, charged with defending the lives of the American people, isn’t supposed to be allowed to try to determine if repealing DADT will negatively impact national security and in what ways, if any at all, it might do so – or at least so these treasonous queer activists rant.

NOTE: As an American and a veteran I’m passionately and virulently opposed to DADT, as I’ve posted before on this blog.

[Sic] … Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be repealed. It is predicated upon unconstitutional ideas and, as such, should have been struck down by the Courts years ago. Sadly, they have to-date failed to do so, though the SCOTUS has not yet deigned to hear any case regarding it.

From the US Constitution, supposedly the highest law of the land:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

–- US Constitution, Second Amendment

That the right to “bear arms” was intended by our Founders to mean the right to bear arms in the common defense, i.e., serve in the military forces of America, can be deduced from the concerns over the original 2nd Amendment. The Constitution makes it quite clear that such a right exists for every American and it shall not be infringed.

Nowhere does it say, “except for sodomites,” which would have been the term used at the time.

– jonolan
Asking And Telling

That doesn’t mean that I’m going to turn a blind or forgiving eye to rabble-rousers and grievance-mongers from within the LGBT community who want to deny the military the right to determine how repealing such legislation and the underlying ban on openly homosexual people serving in the military it was meant to ameliorate will affect military discipline and operational efficiency.

Related Reading: