Thursday, October 23, 2008

The Religious Right’s obsession with YOUR morality explained.




What’s with the far right Christian obsession with other people's sexual behavior, reproduction, and "morality"?


In short: That THEY live by rules and "commandments" they believe are divinely established isn’t enough. We MUST ALL abide by their concept of right and wrong or the shit will hit the fan for EVERYONE.


Why? Because the all knowing God thing sees everything that man does. He peeks into bedrooms; he evaluates your sexual practices. He assesses your decision to have an abortion or to give birth. He knows when you are masturbating. No doubt his sensibilities are offended by your conduct. And if God thing's sensibilities are offended...well... you know how "He" can get. He has a history of smiting entire populations, civilizations, and indeed complete species when offended.


Hence the insane behavior and ranting of Fred Phelps, Pat Robertson, the Right Wing fanatic politicians’ adamant demand that women be forced to give birth, that homosexuality be demonized, and push for a Constitutional amendment to prohibit homosexual marriage. To these people, and their sheep constituents, duty is to the God thing first, the country second, individual civil rights last. They are God's agents.

It's not enough for THEM to practice what the "good book" tells them. They have a vested interest in making sure YOUR genitals are applied to the appropriately opposite genitals, your reproductive processes controlled, and that in all things we fit their interpretation of their bible’s definition of morality... lest God thing get His thong in a twist and vent His wrath on us all.

But my Republican friends and acquaintances are unmoved by, blind to, this peculiar obsession of their religious Republican brethren… the same brethren who forced Palin’s nomination as VP. They are mostly too old to have abortions, and none are homosexual (or don’t admit to being such), and thus could give a fiddler’s fuck about governmental repression of civil rights by theocratic fanatics. To them it’s all about their taxes.

“…then they came for the homosexuals I remained silent; I was not a homosexual. And when they came for the Jews I remained silent; I was not a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.”

4 comments:

crazydad™ said...

I think the "real" reason marriage is being 'defended' is because of money. Tax code, insurance etc, it is usually beneficial to be married rather than single, but Ins companies and the IRS will see a bite if a mess of singles marry their partners.

Maybe "married" should be strictly a church thing and symbolic, and "domestic partnership" should be all encompassing and legal.

BTW, today is my 16th Anniversary.

DromedaryHump said...

No..the tax and Insurance thing is simply a way to avoid dealing with equal rights without invoking religious doctrine. Its a fallacy.

Lets face the facts: You're not worried about how many hetero's marry and its impact on Insurance rates and our Federal Tax revenues, are you? Then how is it a concern to you if 15% of the population (est homosexuals), of which perhaps 50% might marry, (thus 7.5% incremental marriages) might some how cripple our economy worse than it is, and/ or drive up your insurance costs?

The argument is absurd at face. All it is is a way for non-religious people and atheists, who were raised in the precepts of the Judeo-Christian morality, to deal with their indoctrinated discrimination without using religion/ the bible to justify it.

Here's a thought ...why don't you do your part for the IRS and Insurance costs and divorce Mrs Crazydad, and make room for a homosexual couple to marry. Then the net change is zero. It would be very "christian" of you.

Or is your relationship just more moral and ethical than theirs? If so...by what code and doctrine is it so?

Happy anniversary.
Hump

DromedaryHump said...

Ive rethought that comment about your getting divorced to allow a homosexual to marry without it effecting our federal tax revenue and health insurance costs.

Heres a better idea:
why not just revoke African Americans' right to marry, like during the slave era? I mean, what gives THEM more of a right to marry and inflate our insurance costs, and degrade our treasury than homosexuals?

Heck, we could really improve our economy if Asians, and Hispanic minorities were likewise forbidden to marry.

If these minorities, who are minorities by virtue of their biology through no selection / choice of their own, are allowed to marry why should we incur those costs and lost revenues any more than homosexual couples?
Hmmm?

Hump

Tracey said...

Something that's always disturbed me about Phelps...the illustration on those "god hates fags" posters is borderline porn and yet those inbreeds think nothing of handing them to children to wave high in the air. Meanwhile, this same group of people wants to regulate and restrict what my children see and read. I think that the "leaders" of these packs are so sexually repressed by the directives of their absentee landlord invisible skydaddy that they're all mad as hatters. They not only need to get laid, they need to get over the idea of thinking that getting laid is nasty and sinful.

Oreo