A Redneck’s Marital Musings on Bill O’Reilly, BibleThumping, Nature and Statism
According to Bill O’Reilly, pundits cannot appeal to the Bible any longer for public policy regarding homosexuals that want to get married. At least I think it’s just in regards to homosexual marriages. Hell, I don’t know when and where we can use the Scripture any longer. Can we still use it in church? Does anyone know?
Well for now, I think it’s just in regards to homosexuals who want to get hitched that we’re: verboten: to bring the: Verbum Dei: into the discussion.
Geez, it’s getting tough keeping up with what we can and can’t reference anymore, eh? I wish someone would keep me in the loop regarding whom and what I/we can source. Please email all politically correct changes to me at: [email protected]. Gracias. Back to O’Reilly.
Yep, as of March 26th: 2013, if you believe Bill, then going forward we cannot cite the colossal lawgiver Moses, the erudite Apostle Paul, the sage Solomon or even that know-it-all Jesus lest we be deemed a “Bible thumper”.
By the way, who thumps the Bible? Isn’t that rude? I thumped the crap out of this kid the other day who dropped the F-bomb on his mom, but I’ve never thumped the Bible. Anyway …
So, let me get this straight, even though Jesus Christ said marriage is solely a union between a man and a woman (Mat.19:4-6), according to Mr. O’Reilly, we can’t inject that stuff into the mix or we’ll be discounted as a Bible thumper? Incidentally, I don’t think Bible thumper was meant as a compliment. It sure didn’t sound like praise when he floated that term the other night. Matter of fact, it kind of sounded like he called those who do appeal to the Scripture as uneducated rubes.
But I might be reading too much into that expression because surely … he doesn’t think the vast majority of our nation’s founders and framers were hayseeds because, OMG, did they appeal to the Scripture for our nation’s political and societal glide path. If you don’t believe me click here.http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755
Y’know, before I became a Christian in 1983, I knew diddlysquat about the Scripture. I never read it and never wanted to read it. And yet I noticed, via nature, mostly while hunting, without the aid of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, that for the propagation of species and the stabilization of the natural order, it seemed, at least to this redneck, that everything was stemming from males’ and females’ bumping uglies — verses male and male or female and female. Nature was screaming at me … male and female. Weird, eh? Can we reference nature any longer?
Yep, before I ever read the Bible or watched Cecile B. Demille’s famous flick, being completely in the dark regarding what the Bible had to say on the subject, what I noticed as a dippy kid was the fact that the penis and the vagina were made for each other; and that the anus was an exit and not an entrance; and anything to the contrary was atypical. Or queer. Ah … the good old days.
Lastly, after O’Reilly chastised those who make their appeal for policy based upon the wisdom of the ages, I wondered if there was, indeed, an argument that didn’t cite Jeremiah that might give credence for upholding the traditional definition of marriage as that which is between a man and woman; and I stumbled upon this nugget by Robin Phillips.: http://instantanalysis.net/afa-blogs/2013/04/02/five-gay-marriage-myths#: . Enjoy.
If homosexuals and heterosexuals are really “equal” before the law, then logically heterosexual marriage must collapse into being little more than a legal construct as well. Indeed, marriage and family become mere adjuncts of the state after the removal of the: de facto: conditions that make the traditional family a pre-political institution in the first place. No longer is family something that, in the words of Douglas Farrow, “precedes and exceeds the state.” No longer is the family a hedge against the totalitarian aspirations of the state because no longer is the family prior to the state.
This is not mere hypothetical speculation about what “might” happen if same-sex marriages are legalized. Canadian theologian Douglas Farrow has shown that after Canada legalized same-sex marriage, even traditional marriage began to be spoken about as little more than a legal construct. In his book: Nation of Bastards, Farrow criticized warned that by claiming the power to re-invent marriage, the Canadian state “has drawn marriage and the family into a captive orbit. It has reversed the gravitational field between the family and the state … It has effectively made every man, woman, and child a chattel of the state, by turning their most fundamental human connections into mere legal constructs at the state’s disposal. It has transformed those connections from divine gifts into gifts from the state.”
Most people are not aware of how gay marriage will undermine the traditional family because it does so in ways that are subtle and ubiquitous. However, once gay marriage is introduced into a nation, it undermines the integrity of: every: family and every marriage in the nation. It does this by rearranging the family’s relationship to the state. The state, which legalizes gay marriage, is a state that has assumed the god-like power to declare which collections of individuals constitute a “family.” But by this assumption government declares that both marriage and family are little more than legal constructs at best, and gifts from the state at worst. In the former case, marriage and family lose their objective fixity; in the latter case, we become the wards of the state.
Doug Giles is the Big Dawg at: ClashDaily.com. Watch him on: ClashTV. Follow him on: Facebook: andTwitter. And check out his NEW BOOK,: Sandy Hook: When Seconds Count, Police Are Minutes Away.
Even though my father, brother, uncles and grandfather were in the military, I seldom handled guns growing up. That’s because unlike many of the other people in my family, I’ve...Read More
When you were a kid, do you ever remember your mother asking you, “if your friends jumped off a bridge,
Yesterday, I ran across an article in USA Today that should have created a firestorm of controversy. Apparently, Congress has