# Why Phil Gingrey can kiss my gaytheist arse (another gay marriage thread) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 27, 2004, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504 "2004-02-27T18:53:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504/41 "2004-03-01T23:03:59Z")
> [@Twin](#): > > Gill’s commentary deals with this issue, so I will let him speak here: > > "To lie with one in so near a relation is exceeding criminal, and for which the law curses a man, Deu\_27:22; and to marry her is not lawful; for though it was necessary for the propagation of mankind that a man should marry his sister, for who else could Cain and Abel marry Forgive me if I’m wrong, but didn’t God demonstrate that he could create people out of anything from dirt to shortribs? Why not just presto-zappo create some unrelated females for perpetuating the species? > [@Twin](#): > > He didn’t change the rule, he added for a special case Currently we (gays) are asking for a special case, not changing the rules. (Changing the rules would be saying “a man and woman CAN’T marry” or “a man MUST marry a woman from his hometown”.) Again, you’re admitting that even God changes the rules of marriage- it’s not a static institution. Since “God” has been silent on the issue for a few thousand years, I say we play by our own rules and use logic/ration/reason instead. > [@Twin](#): > > II Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” I agree, many Christians are way too quick to toss out the embarrassing rules of the OT, but nevertheless they do. > [@Twin](#): > > You’re not gonna like this: I neither like nor dislike it; I just see it as what it is- a quote from the Gospels. But I’ll cut off here for now and just say this: We’re gonna have **FUN** with [Matthew 19](http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=matthew+19&search=&version=NIV&language=english&optional.x=0&optional.y=0). ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504/42 "2004-03-02T00:29:15Z")
> [@Twin](#): > > You’re not gonna like this: > > Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, > Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? > Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Yessir, Jesus sure nuff said that. What else did He say, reckon? Ladies and Gentlemen, the Straight Dope Message Boards is proud to introduce the Light of the World, the Redeemer with the Mostest, the Elvis of the New Testament, in His continuation of the verses quoted by Twin: > [@](#): > > 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." > 7"Why then," they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” > 8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” What’s that? Jesus himself explicitly condemns remarriage except when there’s adultery? Why then I guess that’s why the same people crowding every statehouse on Gay Marriage Ban day are lobbying just as hard to have remarriage outlawed. What’s that? They’re not? What’s that- DOMA sponsor Bob Barr himself remarried even though **HE** was the one who committed adultery? Well at least he’s the only one. What’s that-- there are _OTHER_ remarried divorcees who are in Congress who are sponsoring this bill as well? Why that don’t seem hardly right… > [@](#): > > 10The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” > 11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[3] because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” So Jesus not only thinks that marriage is purely an Earthly measure, but should if possible be avoided altogether? **THIS** must be why so many conservative politicians tout celibacy as the ideal form of life. What’s that? They don’t? They claim that marriage is the moral BEDROCK of society? But doesn’t that contradict Jesus? So let’s get this…ahem…straight. Jesus himself says that remarriage is a sin unless the divorce was adultery, and that it is better not to remarry at all, and Jesus also admits that God himself has changed the rules about marriage to suit the norms and mores of the times. But conservative politicans, using the Word of God™ as their basis, argue that marriage is a holy institution that is the basis of society, and they “labor like Aquinas” to ban gays from marrying even though God and Jesus were both harder by far on adultery and divorce than they were on gays? Then why isn’t the emphasis on moves to ban divorce, jail adulterers, and forbid remarriage (unless it can be proven the **wife** committed adultery) instead of trying to forbid recognition of Rosie O’Donnell’s marriage? Will Britney Spears and Jared Leto be called “Whore! Blasphemer!” long and loud in every city if they try to remarry other spouses? Will remarried men (whose wives did not commit adultery) be denied the right to hold office? Again, not that it particularly marries other than in the here and now, because in spite of all the promises by ministers through the centuries that we’ll all be reunited in heaven, it really is, according to Jesus, til death us do part, after which contract’s over- play ball. > [@](#): > > God condemned homosexuality as sin. This precludes Him from saying that a same-sex marriage is OK. He didn’t have to “write it in stone” to make it a law. Then why didn’t it make the short-list (the Big Ten)? What’s the significance of the Ten Commandments- was it just a prologue? And again, why do we recognize **some** of God’s “laws” as sin in the imagined “religious basis” of our morality and legal code but not others? Why don’t adulterers go to jail? Why was slavery illegalized when the Bible never explicity condemns it? Why do women become ministers when Paul clearly says for them to shut their pita-holes in church? Why do fools fall in love? Why do birds sing… oh why… > [@](#): > > Different cultures have different laws. But we call ourselves (by and large) a Christian nation, and our laws (for the most part) seem to abide by the Bible. Cite? Here’s one of mine- Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli, considered by some historians (though not by others- it devolves into semantics) **the first treaty entered into by the United States** , read before and ratified by the Senate on 7 June 1797 and signed by President John Adams on 10 June 1797. (Context: the fledgeling nation was entering a treaty with an Islamic potentate and wished to assure him that they would not go back on their word due to religious differences- some European powers did not consider themselves bound by contracts with non-Christians.) > [@](#): > > ARTICLE 11 > > As **the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion** , as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. And even within our “Christian” nation, laws have changed many times. Miscegenation was once the rule of the land but now it’s not (in Alabama in 2000 it was decriminalized by a whopping 51% majority) and, surprise surprise, it turns out not it really wasn’t the goal of every black folk to marry a white person (though some did, and it didn’t seem to cripple same-race marriages). I won’t go into polygamy since it never was the norm, but first-cousin marriage was practiced everywhere in the nation at one point yet it is now illegal in many states. Divorce and remarriage were both very difficult in the nation, requiring trials (sometimes by jury) for every instance, yet now divorce is automatically granted in almost every state and the only real province of the courts is in settling disputes over money and custody. Things change. They’re changing again. > [@](#): > > God did not change His mind on the subject of same-sex marriage. Cite? He hasn’t said much of anything in 2,000 years- how do you know? > [@](#): > > In conclusion, there is a great number of errors in your post. There was a very bad typo that completely changed the meaning of what I intended to say in one portion- that I acknowledge- but as for the errors, I honestly don’t think so. There were errors in your postings that I pointed out. Dopers aren’t notoriously shy creatures so I hope they’ll give opinions as to who is/n’t right. **And it is a mistake to try to use the Bible to support same-sex marrige.** Agreed. But I think it’s a mistake to try to use the Bible to support any form of legislation, and the First Amendment would seem to agree with me. ---
**Author:** ![Denis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5e9695/32.png) [@Denis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Denis)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504/43 "2004-03-02T02:50:30Z")
**Sampiro** is right, **Twin** is wrong, _wrong_, WRONG! ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504/44 "2004-03-02T03:35:36Z")
> [@Twin](#): > > The Bible doesn’t mention cats, either. I guess they don’t exist by your logic. > [@Twin](#): > > You really must believe that cats do not exist. First, it’s not my claim that the bible is the factual truth, it’s yours. Second, the example you keep beating into the ground is totally inaccurate. I direct your attention to Genesis, Chapter 1, v23-25, KJV: > [@God](#): > > 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. > 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. > 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Since cats are beasts of the earth, I would suggest they are covered by those verses. Would you care to try again? ---
**Author:** ![Twin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/85f322/32.png) [@Twin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Twin)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504/45 "2004-03-02T04:19:09Z")
Quoting Genesis 2:24 > [@](#): > > Adam was God? (That is Adam talking, you do realize? Not God. And how exactly did he know what a father and mother were, I wonder.) Adam is speaking in verse 23. It is not clear if he is speaking verse 24, but let’s assume you are right. Jesus validates these words in Matthew. Jesus is God. Therefore, God is in agreement with this statement. As concerning the posting about Jacob and Shechem, you are correct that I was mistaken in saying Jacob had a part in it. > [@](#): > > Adam (aka God, by your definition) seemed to disagree with you: > > Quote: > Originally Posted by Genesis 3 > > 11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? > 12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. > 13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. > 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; > > Adam clearly believes that he wouldn’t have strayed had he not been “married”. God seems to agree. As I’m sure Adam reminded Eve many many times in the 900 years to come, things were paradise when he was single. > > An aside: as part of their Punishment Package, God tells Eve: > > Quote: > I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. > > Based on these verses, should a woman still be submissive to her husband? Do you think it is sinful for a woman to take painkillers when she gives birth? (There was a MAJOR debate over this in the 19th century, one that quieted down significantly in England when the often pregnant Queen Victoria basically said “Screw fundamentalism, knock me the hell out” with her fifth child.) I think Adam was blaming his sin on Eve. It’s easy for us to shift the blame to others, but he was ultimately responsible for his own decision. As for the question, should a woman be submissive to her husband? That’s a touchy issue. I would say that in some issues the husband has to take the lead, but the wife should always be consulted (us guys just aren’t that smart). Women can definitely take painkillers during childbirth. Even when medicated, I can only imagine childbirth is no picnic. Referring to Abram and Sarai’s marriage: > [@](#): > > Obviously it was permissible; I hardly think God would have chosen as the parents of the chosen people who were living in Sin. However, by making this comment, you’re admitting my point: even the Bible and even God himself are inconsistent (or at least mutable) on what does and doesn’t qualify for a valid marriage. We’re right back to Euthyphro: does God permit it because it’s right or is it right because God permits it? And if it’s the latter (which it would seem to be), how can we know that tomorrow God might not decide that we should ONLY marry our near relatives or ONLY wear clothing that is orange and made of nylon? I don’t beleive God is inconsistent in that he allowed a marriage necessary for the population of the species and by then disallowing this type of marriage later. In my opinion, it is irrelevent as all marriages in the Bible mentioned are between a man and a woman. > [@](#): > > WRONG. ENNNNXXXX… THANKS FOR PLAYING. He had to serve Laban seven more years for Rachel, but he married her the same week that he married Leah. You’re right. My bad. > [@](#): > > Please don’t condescend; it’s very rude. Besides, it seems to me you’re the one whose reading comprehension is lacking. I honestly wasn’t trying to condescend. It’s hard to convey emotion with text, and I think you’re looking for something that isn’t there. Sorry for the offense. Quoting Genesis 2:24 again > [@](#): > > Again, that is NOT God speaking; it is a quote from Adam followed by a quote from the author of Genesis (traditionally Moses, though it’s doubtful; whoever wrote it was even by Fundamentalist standards writing many many centuries after the events and after the Flood, so it’s odd to imagine that exact words traveled that far down the road anyhow. It is believable that the words were preserved, as God promised to preserve His word. And as I mentioned above, Jesus himself validated the words (they must have traveled all the way down to His time), so they can be taken as approved. Regarding Cain and Abel marrying their sisters: > [@](#): > > Forgive me if I’m wrong, but didn’t God demonstrate that he could create people out of anything from dirt to shortribs? Why not just presto-zappo create some unrelated females for perpetuating the species? It’s possible God did just that. The Bible doesn’t clearly state. I’m just stating the most widely accepted theory I have heard. > [@](#): > > Currently we (gays) are asking for a special case, not changing the rules. (Changing the rules would be saying “a man and woman CAN’T marry” or “a man MUST marry a woman from his hometown”.) Again, you’re admitting that even God changes the rules of marriage- it’s not a static institution. Since “God” has been silent on the issue for a few thousand years, I say we play by our own rules and use logic/ration/reason instead. But the argument can be made that you(gays) are asking for a rule change. God may have changed the rules as you claim (though I don’t believe he did, only adding special cases for the hardness of His people’s hearts.) But one rule he never changed was that marriage was between a man and a woman. > [@](#): > > What’s that? Jesus himself explicitly condemns remarriage except when there’s adultery? Why then I guess that’s why the same people crowding every statehouse on Gay Marriage Ban day are lobbying just as hard to have remarriage outlawed. > > What’s that? They’re not? What’s that- DOMA sponsor Bob Barr himself remarried even though HE was the one who committed adultery? Well at least he’s the only one. What’s that-- there are OTHER remarried divorcees who are in Congress who are sponsoring this bill as well? Why that don’t seem hardly right… I don’t support divorce. I personally don’t believe that there is a valid reason for divorce. We have laws against divorce on our law books, but in God’s eyes, a promise has been made between the party and God. Divorce still exists because our hearts are hardened to this rule. And anyone who divorces and remarries is committing adultery in God’s eyes. People aren’t fighting this issue for reasons I will list below. > [@](#): > > So Jesus not only thinks that marriage is purely an Earthly measure, but should if possible be avoided altogether? THIS must be why so many conservative politicians tout celibacy as the ideal form of life. What’s that? They don’t? They claim that marriage is the moral BEDROCK of society? But doesn’t that contradict Jesus? Jesus did not call marriage an Earthly measure, did He? He called the need for divorce a necessity because of our hard hearts. > [@](#): > > So let’s get this…ahem…straight. Jesus himself says that remarriage is a sin unless the divorce was adultery, and that it is better not to remarry at all, and Jesus also admits that God himself has changed the rules about marriage to suit the norms and mores of the times. But conservative politicans, using the Word of God™ as their basis, argue that marriage is a holy institution that is the basis of society, and they “labor like Aquinas” to ban gays from marrying even though God and Jesus were both harder by far on adultery and divorce than they were on gays? Then why isn’t the emphasis on moves to ban divorce, jail adulterers, and forbid remarriage (unless it can be proven the wife committed adultery) instead of trying to forbid recognition of Rosie O’Donnell’s marriage? Will Britney Spears and Jared Leto be called “Whore! Blasphemer!” long and loud in every city if they try to remarry other spouses? Will remarried men (whose wives did not commit adultery) be denied the right to hold office? > > Again, not that it particularly marries other than in the here and now, because in spite of all the promises by ministers through the centuries that we’ll all be reunited in heaven, it really is, according to Jesus, til death us do part, after which contract’s over- play ball. I don’t see the rule change here. I see God adding for a special case, called divorce. That still doesn’t change the marriage rule. The rule of marriage between a man and a woman has not been touched, nor will it be touched. As for heaven, husbands and wives will be reunited in heaven. Just not as husband and wife. On homosexualtiy in the Bible: > [@](#): > > Then why didn’t it make the short-list (the Big Ten)? What’s the significance of the Ten Commandments- was it just a prologue? There are a lot more murderers, liars, thiefs, people who dishonor their fathers and mothers, idol-worshippers, coveters, etc. than there are homosexuals. The Ten Commandments had the broadest scope and dealt with fundamental laws that should be obeyed in our daily lives. > [@](#): > > And again, why do we recognize some of God’s “laws” as sin in the imagined “religious basis” of our morality and legal code but not others? Why don’t adulterers go to jail? Why was slavery illegalized when the Bible never explicity condemns it? Why do women become ministers when Paul clearly says for them to shut their pita-holes in church? Why do fools fall in love? Why do birds sing… oh why… As promised, here is why the issue of divorce is not being fought. Some laws aren’t recognized because our modern society has deemed them unpalatable. Men are not perfect, and men choose which laws to enforce and which laws not to. As I mentioned, just because we aren’t enforcing the rule doesn’t mean God doesn’t disapprove, as there is nothing in Scripture which would assume He is happy about the pitifully high divorce rate. > [@](#): > > Different cultures have different laws. But we call ourselves (by and large) a Christian nation, and our laws (for the most part) seem to abide by the Bible. I’ve already partially retracted/corrected this statement in an earlier post. On God not changing His mind on the subject of same-sex marriage. > [@](#): > > Cite? He hasn’t said much of anything in 2,000 years- how do you know? What evidence would I have to consider that He has? All He has left for us is His Bible, which He has instructed us to study so that we can learn more about Him. This is all I have to go on. > [@](#): > > Agreed. But I think it’s a mistake to try to use the Bible to support any form of legislation, and the First Amendment would seem to agree with me. And (hope you’re sitting down) I agree with you on this point. I don’t believe the government should be interfering in any way with the issue of marriage. In conclusion, I’d like to apologize for the original post that I put. After review, I was snarky in some places I could have been showing the love God has commanded me to show. I think I may go back into lurk mode for awhile (hey, when you have barely over 100 posts in over 4 years, you are a professional lurker). I would like to say that I (at least partially) understand your frustration at the hypocrisy of the lawmakers holding to one tenet of marriage while abandoning inconvenient ones (divorce), especially when thumping the Bible while doing it. Oh, and WeirdDave, you got me. Cats do exist. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504/46 "2004-03-02T14:36:36Z")
I was a snarky smartass in some posts also and I apologize for that. This is a bit of a tetchy issue with us both. (Isn’t it a shame everybody can’t be as right as we are 😃 ) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-phil-gingrey-can-kiss-my-gaytheist-arse-another-gay-marriage-thread/231504.md?page=2)