Religion and Marriage

 Like most good Christian, it appears that ex-Miss California, Carrie Prejean, is able to read minds and have a special divine lock on what is true. It was recently reported that she will continue to profit from her claim to fame, the stumbled answer to the gay-marriage question.

In their warped minds, people like her consider tolerance and forgiveness evil unless approved by the religious. This is very evident in the way they treat homosexuality, if really a sin, compared to criminal behavior. They treat murderers better than they do gays. Who among them was empow­ered to play God and decide which sin is bigger and re­quires more punishment than another?

 Propaganda is very evident as the religious charlatans try to invent things to help support their false sense of pre­ferred treatment in the eyes of God. Some, who believe “mar­riage” is a status symbol they alone deserve, claim that it is defined as being between a man and a woman and that definition, which exists only in their hate-filled minds, needs to be defended. So another disguised discrimi­nation practice against gays was started to oppose their union be­ing called “marriage.”

 Their opposition is really borne out of the need to help per­petuate a false sense of superiority. The strange thing is that the act of forming a homosexual union in it­self is not the problem, because they are willing to give “gays” basically all the same rights, but they just don’t want that kind of partner­ship to be called “marriage.” The bottom line is that this dispute is all about a word; it is OK as long it is called something else! 

 You will hear the claim that using that word diminishes the marriage between heterosexuals, but you will notice also that strangely enough in their eyes things like divorce and infidelity have less of an impact upon marriage than al­lowing two gay people to get “married.” So, the baseless “It demeans our mar­riage” argument, which we all know is not true unless it is meant in a class of citizen context, causes one to correctly ask, “Except as a status symbol, how does someone-else’s marriage affects yours?” and “Why is it that you are not up in arms in a corresponding way against divorce, which affects approximately fifty percent of the married population?” Why does one not even hear as much as a whim­per out of these protesters defending the so-called sanc­tity of mar­riage?

 Instead you hear such silly arguments as that from one “anti-gay marriage” Catholic priest, “If we let this hap­pen, then what is there to stop people from marrying their pets? They love each other, don’t they?” If marriage is so sacred, why was a loophole known as “an annulment” created for the members of Catholic Church to be able to get out of it? Amazingly, these same opponents have no objection to letting even the most evil criminal marry a woman. So why shouldn’t the innocent crime-free-loving gay have a similar opportunity?

 Even though they conveniently chose to ignore it, the oppo­nents are also aware there is a religious as op­posed to a civil aspect to marriage and each serve different pur­poses. In a civil context it is just like any other con­tract, still they want to combine the two uses and pretend they are one. Another reason why they are so vehement in their oppo­sition to the concept of “gay marriage” is because us­ing that term confers a lot of legal rights that the oppo­nents want to reserve for themselves, thereby discriminating against gays as a subtle form of punishment and show of disapproval.

 All this is a reflection of the in­herent evil of any relig­ion that permits a doctrine in which one’s beliefs can be used to form different classes of hu­mans and make some more equal than others. The propaganda and deception behind the claim that their actions are in the defense of marriage is very evident when they do noth­ing to protect marriages against other things, such as adultery among their ranks, that repre­sent a true and bigger scourge.

 (Reference – “Then Man Created God: The Truth about Believing a Lie”)

SINCE LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION

In order to counter the idea that it is OK to have abortions done in the first trimester of pregnancy, some anti-abortion people have come up with a brilliant strategy. They think it is more beneficial to their cause to declare that life begins at conception.  They have decided that in reproduction the development period does not matter so, a tadpole is a fully developed frog, an egg equals a chicken, and a human fertilized egg is a person. I am surprised they did not claim it begins when one first thinks about having sex with his/her partner, because the idea was a divinely inspired one!

 As usual, they have no proof and need none for a very malleable audience. Their idea presents several problems that they, of course, have not bothered to properly consider. For one, it telescopes the development period for human life, much-less a viable one.

To support this nonsense, some point to the equivalent of heart beats at 21 days signaling life. To demonstrate the importance of these tissues, compare how insignificant the presence of one poorly developed organ is relative to being a fully developed human life. There are people who have parted company with whole organs such as, a kidney, lung or spleen, or that even had various ones transplanted at the same time. So that nonsense is nothing but a cunningly contrived red herring.

But let’s follow their logic. Since life begins at conception the critical timeline is at that point, not when a woman first becomes aware that she is pregnant. According to the religious, anything she does that negatively affects the fertilized egg, even if ignorant of its existence, is considered sinful or criminal. That means it is very critical that women have some means of telling immediately the second that fertilization happens. We have no such ability and as a consequence, sexually active women have to take necessary precautions and cannot, for example, indulge in things like drinking alcoholic beverages, eating certain foods, and so on!

The government has to now start drafting laws to declare the fertilized egg a person, and so on. Just so those who are against a woman’s right to choose can have their way, this way. What do you think?

Concerned people everywhere have to immediately start a crusade to save the billions of “lives” lost because the female bodies in the world, for whatever reasons, naturally dispose of fertilized eggs. Since that number far exceeds that of abortions, I believe this should be given a greater priority.

In a related way, some anti-abortion religious nutcases and others have claimed that pharmacists have the right, based on their religious beliefs, to refuse to dispense certain reproduction related drugs to customers, irrespective of the customers’ beliefs.

If pharmacists truly believed that life begins at conception, they must also believe the chained truth that there are thousands of medications that are not abortion-related that they must also not fill for women of child-bearing age and who are sexually active! This would require them to question the clients about their personal and private matters and depending on the answers act accordingly to fill the prescriptions or not. What happens if the woman exercises her rights to privacy and refuses to answer these inquiries? In a similar fashion, religious bartenders too need to exercise caution in serving alcoholic drinks to women and should question them accordingly; under this theory they certainly do not want to run the risk of serving alcoholic drinks to someone who just conceived this morning!

A pharmacist refusing to prescribe contraceptives is like a religious person taking a job as a hangman and then refusing to do the executions. If they feel that strongly about it, they should not have taken the job in the first place because they know ahead of time what it entails. To turn around and protest after the fact is an indication the individual is trying to use a nefarious way to impose their religious beliefs upon others, and that process in itself smacks of evil and a violation of the constitutional rights of others! By the same token, should the Christian accept a job in a gun shop and then refuse to sell guns or bullets because they may be used to kill? What about a waitress who refuses to serve patrons meat because her religion teaches that animals also possess a soul? Do they now see how ridiculous their argument is and how it lacks any merit?

Where would it end, what other jobs should give people the same right of refusal? Does a librarian have the duty to prevent adult readers from accessing books with adult topics? It is not a part of such an individual’s job in any circumstance to control the morality of others, just as it is not the duty of a gun salesperson to prevent the gun purchaser from committing a crime using a gun just purchased, or refusing the sale because the gun may be used for wrongdoing.

The proper solution in all of these cases is that these individuals should either do their jobs or quit immediately if they feel that strongly about opposing the situation. Failing that, anyone who espouses that kind of theory should be fired immediately for being a complete idiot. The public needs to be protected from such a person, and action should be taken to prevent these folks from affecting other people’s lives.

www.denjenpublishing.com (Reference – “Then Man Created God: The Truth about Believing a Lie”)