Because- Look Over There! Is Not a Valid Argument

First of all, I can't see what's wrong with this picture. I'm fairly certain that legally, you can get married in a clown costume if you want to. I'm not sure what that has to do with equality. I also think a man can legally get married while wearing a dress or sporting a mohawk. I'm fairly certain a woman can get married while dressed like an extra in a Wagner production, too. As for the dog, I've seen pictures of weddings in which dogs performed the role of best man and ringbearer, so yeah . . . I dunno.

As for Simple Dollar: Who Do You Love, I would like to start with WHOM! WHOM do you love. "Who" is a subject, "whom" is an object. In the sentence "Whom do you love?", the subject is "you", you are the person doing the loving, therefore it is "whom", not "who". Grammar, people!

You see, when a reader asks me if marriage is about love, then why can't they marry the person they love? The answer is simple, marriage is about who is most deserving of that love -- who you are most responsible to -- then who you most conveniently love, or who you figure might give you the kind of romance you want most expediently. When you focus on your responsibilities, the love grows between you naturally. And as the love grows, so does your ability to recognize your responsibilities. It all ties back to the man and the woman.

That is an entire paragraph of wharrgarbl followed by "because- look over there!" That is not a valid argument. That last sentence has nothing to do with the preceding four. On Lawn may as well as have written four oddly constructed sentences on the proper way to prepare hummus* and then tacked on "it all ties back to the man and the woman". It would have made exactly as much sense.

If On Lawn is going to wharrgarbl his way through some bigotry, he could at least do me the great favor of doing it grammatically. Honestly.

*A blender, a lot chick peas, some garlic and some olive oil. Anything else you'd like to add is up to you.

Let's Define a Few Terms

Day after day after day I read blog posts and articles written by people who define their religion by their bigotries. "I'm not a homophobe, I'm a Christian." "I'm not a misogynist, I'm a Christian." "I'm not hateful, I'm godly."

For one thing, thank you. Thank you for making your entire religion so revolting I don't have any doubts. It's easier on me that way. The Slacktivist gives me doubts occasionally, so filled is he with generosity and love for his fellow man. He makes me think*. You do not.

You make me grateful for my atheism. Good job.

Good job to Chuck Colson, who can be counted on to make me feel good about my lack of ability to believe.

For the past year, we’ve talked a lot about the threat to religious freedom in America.

You've talked. I've been over here nattering on about equal rights for all the women and gays and atheists.

We’ve talked about Christian adoption agencies closing rather than being forced to place children with same-sex couples.

No, those are adoption agencies who decided it would be better to leave children in group homes and foster care than give them to couples who would love and raise them simply because of a burning hatred for those couples. Get it right. Gays didn't make anyone shut down adoption agencies, adoption agencies chose to hurt, or at least stop helping, children instead of giving up their hatreds. Don't mistake hatred for nobility.

We’ve talked about health care professionals having to choose between their consciences and participating in immoral medical practices.

No, those are doctors and nurses and pharmacists who have decided they know better than women- always women, never men- what those women should do with their own bodies. They know whether or not a woman can afford or wants to be pregnant, they know exactly what every woman should do with her body far better than she does. Don't mistake arrogance for professionalism.

We’ve talked about the Administration playing fast and loose with the notion of religious freedom-choosing instead to talk about freedom of “worship.”

It took me a second, but he's referring to Obama using the phrase "freedom of worship" instead of "freedom of religion", ignoring the fact that Reagan, Bush the Elder, Eisenhower and Lincoln all used the phrase "freedom of worship" and nobody clutched any pearls. Don't mistake sophistry for meaning.

But these threats to our first freedom pale in comparison to the threat posed by a single court case now before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

It's the gays again, isn't it?

The case is Perry v. Schwarzenegger, in which federal Judge Vaughn Walker overturned California’s Proposition 8 restricting marriage to one man and one woman. Judge Walker not only overturned the will of the people of California, he put all religious believers on notice: Their faith means nothing in the eyes of the law.

Actually, it’s even worse than that. The judge found as fact that “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”

If this judge’s decision is upheld by the Ninth Circuit and eventually the Supreme Court, the religious beliefs of hundreds of millions of Americans will be seen as harmful in the eyes of the law.

Yes, because the most important thing about Christianity is it's homophobia, just as Jesus said . . . wait, he didn't say that? He said the most important thing is loving your neighbor as yourself? Huh.

Why is it that I know that and Mr. Colson doesn't?

Judge Walker also concluded that, quote, “Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples.” End quote. So, according to Judge Walker, if you believe marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman, you are a homophobe and a bigot.

Well, yes, actually. I guess this is hurtful to you, but yes, that's exactly what it is. There's really nothing else I can say about that. The sky is blue, water is wet, you are a bigot.

Such legal reasoning not only charts the course for destroying religious liberty, it paves the way for societal chaos. Arguing against so-called same-sex "marriage" is not "gay bashing." It is an argument for preserving traditional marriage. I've spent 35 years ministering in prisons and have seen the tragic results of broken homes. I know the disaster that awaits if so-called same-sex "marriage" is allowed to further devalue marriage and weaken the traditional American family.

What do broken homes have to do with same sex marriage? Nothing, really, but Chuck has seen people in prison- prison!- and you should be afraid!

Fortunately, Chuck doesn't really have any answers, just a video and the Manhattan Declaration. I think we'll be okay on the Chuck front.

*I think Fred would be as good a person had he never heard of Jesus, but he does make belief attractive.