First, They Came for the Gays, Then, They Came for the Sluts

Oh, y’all, I was reading over at Pith about the Family Action Council of Tennessee:

… [T]hose who say the Republicans need to concentrate on the budget, education, and jobs correctly note that these need to be priorities…. too. But to assume that the legislature is only limited to dealing with two or three issues is nonsense. Values voters just won’t buy that should the Republicans ignore their issues and concerns. [Emphasis Pith’s]

In fact, Republicans should move SJR 127 and some of the other issues early in the next session in order to be able to concentrate fully on economic issues once the revenue numbers come out in late April. Moving these issues early does not mean Republicans don’t care about the other issues or that these issues are their only priority. No, it will show that they want to be able to focus fully on the economic issues once the revenue picture is clear and they know what they have to work with. Republicans getting these “social issues” off the table when budgetary work is limited due to the absence of revenue numbers is showing that when it’s time to work on the budget, it will be the priority.

And I was sitting here wondering just how indeed the Family Action Council could call themselves the Family “Action” Council and support SJR 127.  I’m kind of with Mack at this point; let it pass and then let those “pro-life” people have to explain to their voters how it did nothing to decrease the amount of abortions in the state.  “Oh, we’re saving babies.  The babies of the future!!!”  Yeah, that should go over real well with your constituencies.

But then I went to their website!

And whoa boy!  I cannot wait to see this nonsense start flying.  Let’s check out their positions:

Where families are healthy, societies are healthy. If we take a sweeping look over the history of civilization, we will find that the family has always been the foundation of societies. Noted historians Will and Ariel Durant have said, “The family is the nucleus of civilization.” Families were designed to be led by one husband and one wife and comprised of their children and dependents. If anything is added to or subtracted from this natural formula, families suffer, children suffer and society suffers. Undoubtedly, bad things will happen to families: death, disease and divorce. But our goal individually and as a society should be to maintain the natural, time-tested traditional family—because this is generally best for the welfare of the greatest number of people. As research demonstrates, family structure does matter: A family headed by a biological mom and dad is the best for children, parents and society as a whole.

Of course, because the readers of Tiny Cat Pants also read the Bible, we know that this is A LIE.  Yes, folks, we’re one position in and already they are lying.  Biblical families were not one husband and one wife.

But also, look at this language “If anything is added to or subtracted from this natural formula, families suffer, children suffer, and society suffers.”  Added to?  Is FACT standing in opposition to having your parents move in with you?  Sounds like it could be construed that way–as an unnatural addition.

On to position two:

All orphaned, unwanted or unborn children deserve loving homes, and there is no shortage of married couples eager to adopt them. But in our relativistic age, where marriage is seen as passé and gender confusion abounds, some cohabiting couples want to adopt in order to create a family. When the state becomes involved in the “creation” of that family, the vulnerable children who cannot be cared for by their biological parents need as stable an environment as possible. A stable home environment is “in the best interest of the child.” Generally speaking nontraditional couples do not provide the stability and the basis for development of a proper gender identity to the same degree and in the same way as married moms and dads. Experience shows that while moms and dads aren’t perfect, they provide the optimal conditions for a child’s spiritual, psychological and personal development. With so many married couples today on waiting lists to adopt unwanted unborn children, there is no need to conduct a risky social experiment with children by placing them with two parents who have not made a marriage commitment.

Hmm.  Really, no shortage of married couples eager to adopt them?  This fails the sniff test.  If there are children in need of loving homes and if there are married couples eager to adopt them, then why aren’t those kids in homes already?  Why, instead, are they sitting in foster care?

And don’t think we won’t be talking about this “development of a proper gender identity” nonsense.  That’s just going to require its own post.

Three:

Right to Life

Every person has the right to live—not just those who can defend themselves or are likely to have a good quality of life. The value and worth of each person is intrinsic to them and does not depend upon their status economically, racially, physically, or mentally. Thus the strong persons of societies have a moral duty to defend and protect weaker persons like the unborn and the mentally and physically handicapped. Sadly, however, in America approximately 1.3 million unborn children per year lose their lives to abortion.2 And some are even calling for the “active euthanasia” of disabled and sick newborns.3 No person has the right to decide whether another innocent person should live or die.

Blah blah blah.  You know what I think of this.

On to four, where it gets really good:

Religious Liberty

Our founding fathers envisioned a nation that enjoyed freedom of religion—not freedom from it. This is why the Bill of Rights protects not only our freedom to peacefully express our beliefs, but also our freedom to live by them, even in public. Religious liberty was never intended to require elected officials to leave their religious convictions at the door of legislative chambers. In fact, Article 9, Section 2 of Tennessee’s constitution states, “No person who denies the being of God or a future state of rewards and punishments can hold any office in the civil department of this state.” In addition, religious liberty was never meant to give dissenting minorities “veto power” over moral standards that are based on the majority’s beliefs. As George Washington, our first president, declared in his Farewell Address of 1797: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”4 Yet there are some who oppose the free and open exercise of religion in the name of tolerance, not recognizing their own religious hostility as a religion itself imposed on others. It is naïve to assume that an America purged of faith can continue to stand as “the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.  I’m sorry, but I just love this.  We have to endure a whole paragraph about how much they love the United States while at the same time they’re advocating a position in direct contradiction to Article Four, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution and celebrate a part of the Tennessee Constitution that is in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution.  What great patriots!

Anyway, Conservatives, I’m eager to hear how excited you are to have a religious test for people holding public office here in the State.  By what guidelines will we recognize folks as being religious enough?

But, here’s the real doozy.  I mean, because it’s one thing to ask people to vote against the rights and privileges of their friends and neighbors.  But it’s quite another thing to ask folsk to vote against themselves.

So, I ask you, Tennessee Conservatives, have you ever had sex outside of marriage?

Sexuality within Marriage

Sex outside marriage weakens family ties, even among consenting adults. Since sex was designed to foster intimacy and trust between a man and a woman, unmarried couples are playing with fire, enjoying sex for a while but trapping themselves in a lifetime of relational and emotional insecurities. Sex was also designed to produce children. Sexually active unmarried couples are putting their children at risk as well since, statistically speaking, cohabitating couples are more likely to split, leaving the child with challenging emotional scars and wounds. As for the husband or wife who is unfaithful to the other—whether through an extramarital affair, addiction to pornography or even a lustful desire for someone else—pain and mistrust will follow, often destroying families. Infidelity is the cause of about 30 percent of divorces today.5 Living faithfully within the boundaries of marriage protects everyone: spouses, children and society as a whole. While government cannot dictate healthy sexual practices, it can encourage a healthy understanding of sexuality by taking steps like promoting abstinence and curbing obscenity and the proliferation of adult businesses.

And I don’t mean to be catty… Okay, I do a little, but come on!  You think there’s no one at FACT doing this stuff?

So, think about that, my friends.  In order to protect the children, we’re going to have to take steps to make it illegal for you to have sex with who you want when you want.

I do, however, wonder if David Fowler himself will be the one who stands in our bedrooms to make sure we only have procreative, married sex.

I, myself, volunteer to be the one who watches David Fowler watching you have sex, just to make sure he’s only looking on in disgusted, prudish judgment of others and not enjoying it at all in the least.

What could be worse than the nanny state?  How about the prudish busybody state?

28 thoughts on “First, They Came for the Gays, Then, They Came for the Sluts

  1. OMG, don’t make Bridgett and me go into the history of families all over again. Let alone history of religion.

  2. Actually, there are many times more women seeking to adopt than there are children in foster care. The WaPo did an article on this just a few weeks ago. There are even many times more people willing to adopt children of different races, children with disabilities, and older children than the number of children in those specific categories that are in foster care. The WaPo placed the blame on the foster care agencies for making the adoption process too unfriendly and difficult when explaining why the huge gap might exist.

    However, the study only surveyed women wanting to adopt, so there’s no way of knowing how many of those women also had a spouse. But it seems like maybe at least half of them would have, and that’s still more than the total number of children waiting to be adopted.

  3. Wow. Well, consider my mind boggled. I had no idea. It still doesn’t excuse this ignorant idea that kids should go to married couples, but it does indicate a large problem I was unaware of.

  4. If anything is […] subtracted from this natural formula, families suffer

    that’s right! the cause of all our ailments is that we no longer have patria potestas enshrined in law! heck, no wonder the youth these days are so unruly and out of control, their fathers can’t kill them at a whim anymore!

  5. It occurred to me today that the number #1 song in this country for a good chunk of this year was a girl singing about kissing another girl and liking it. I take that as a sign that these people have already lost the greater “Culture War”, even if they’ve won the latest round of skirmishes here.

  6. Consider me flabbergasted! And, living in Newly All-Republican Oklahoma, that’s saying something. You do realize I now have to drag out the state constitution to see if there’s some equally bone-headed article to permanently keep my (God-denying, Hellbound Heathen) husband from running for office out here. Damn. Homework…

    As for the rest, wholy backwards holy people, Batman! Where the hell to begin. Geez!!!

  7. Pixie, I’m not sure but what the demand for belief in a future reward/punishment doesn’t rule out Buddhists and Hindus as well as atheists.

  8. nm, also most of my Pagan friends, and a friend who refers to herself as “an idol-worshiping sinner.” However, my husband was the one that sprang to mind, as he WANTS to run for a state (or even local) office. He believes in service to country and Mankind; he believes in equality and mutual-consideration, so he probably would never be able to get elected out here, anyway LOL *sigh*

  9. Pixie, well, I hope he does run and I hope folks like him here have the courage to run, because lord knows we need some folks who are good and who are willing.

  10. ” Of course, because the readers of Tiny Cat Pants also read the Bible, we know that this is A LIE. Yes, folks, we’re one position in and already they are lying. Biblical families were not one husband and one wife.”

    While I am sure your readers are excellent Bilical scholars you may be condemning a little too quickly here. He didn’t say, “Biblical families were one husband and one wife.” He wrote,” Families were designed to be led by one husband and one wife.”

    The Biblical standard for marriage can be found in Matthew 19:4 – 6: “Haven’t you read,” he (Jesus) replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one.”

    Jesus was quoting & reenforcing Genesis 1:27 & 2:24

    In the Bible, when you find that someone strayed from that formula, even when it was a great hero of the Bible, it was a problem. The Old Testament Biblical patriarchs were far from perfect & many of their worst diffculties stemmed from relationships that were something other than “one husband and one wife.”

  11. Horse puckey. Abraham is polygamous and the only person that is exercised about that is Sarah (who changed her mind after giving Hagar to her husband); God specifically talks to Hagar about the situation and blesses her with great fecundity and convinces her to come back to Abraham after Sarah drives her away. (This hardly seems like a God who frowns on multiple marriage.) Jacob (a man beloved of God) had four concurrent wives and God, taking pity on Leah’s tears, is fairly instrumental in making that multiple arrangement happen. Again, this doesn’t seem like a God who punishes multiple marriage. David’s problem wasn’t his marital arrangements, but his willingness to abuse his power of kingship to commit murder to pursue the object of his desire.

    Leaving aside the obvious — that we are not a theocracy nor are Americans universally Christian and therefore the Bible is not a legislative source — your thesis (God punishes people who are in multiple marriages) is just demonstrably wrong.

  12. So I guess that no society was healthy until Europe in the 12th century CE or so, since that was the first time/place with heterosexual monogamous marriage as the genuine norm in practice. Wooooo. That’s so many, many thousands of years of sick societies just going back to the earliest recorded history. I wonder … how did those unhealthy societies manage to be so long-lasting, creative, stable, and healthy?

  13. I’m not sure but what the demand for belief in a future reward/punishment doesn’t rule out Buddhists and Hindus as well as atheists.

    I think the bit about “the being of God” (singular and capitalized as a proper name) would rule out Buddhists and Hindus more so than the future rewards/punishment part (though if I had to, I could make an convincing argument for why it wouldn’t). Since the statute doesn’t suggest that future rewards/punishment are something that must be strived for/against nor that such a thing would be permanent only that they exist, one could suggest that Karma might pass the test on that point.

    Not that I disagree with your point though.

  14. Two things that strike me as really, really ridiculous here:

    1. They mention “freedom OF religion,” yet go on as though everyone in this country is a Christian and should abide by Christian rules. What about the rest of us? Do our religions not count? Oh, right. They don’t.

    2. “Since sex was designed to foster intimacy and trust between a man and a woman…” Seriously? I thought the no-sex-before-marriage folks thought sex was designed for procreation only? Also, aren’t you supposed to at least trust the person you’re marrying, oh i don’t know, BEFORE you marry him or her? And if sex was designed to foster that trust, shouldn’t that make the case for gettin’ nekked BEFORE marriage?

    FACT is a great example of why I think fundamentalists are stupid.

  15. Again, you are reading more into what I said than is there. I never said God punishes people who are in multiple marriages. We manage to punish ourselves pretty well without God’s help. If Sarah was excercised about Hagar it was a problem for Abraham, because, “If Mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy,” which proved true for Abraham. Jacob sons from his wives & concubines caused a serious jealousy problem between the wives & the sons, so much that one of the sons was almost killed by the others. David’s most serious failing came when, after already having more than his share of wives, he coveted someone else’s wife . So he committed adultery, tried to stage a lie about it & when that didn’t work, committed murder & stole the wife, breaking at least five of the Ten Commandments for one extra wife. It is true that, out of God’s mercy, He blessed all these men & women. But this was done in spite of their weaknesses, not because of them.

  16. Ceeslouis, either I’m completely missing your point or you’re just not making it very convincingly.

    Group marriage in the Old Testament was not a sin.

    All the men you talk about were sinners. But they were not sinners because they had group marriages. Their marriage status had little to do with their sins expect for making them more complicated. They didn’t cause those sins in the first place. Any singularly married man could have had similar issues.

    So… you haven’t disproven that FACT is lying about marriage, which it clearly is, and you haven’t proven that group marriage is any more of a problem than serial monogamy. And you haven’t shown one way or another how this would apply to gay marriage.

    Plus, it’s just a way of inflicting Christianity on the rest of us, so who gives a shit? I’m sorry to have even brought it up.

  17. Again, I never brought up the word sin, although after your diatribe, I’m not sure where you would come up with a standard to decide what sin is.

    The quote you claimed was a lie was, ” Families were designed to be led by one husband and one wife and comprised of their children and dependents.” Then you went about trying to use the Bible to prove your point. I am happy to discuss that with you. I refer back to Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:4 -6. If Jesus quoting Genesis aren’t the Biblical standard then what is? If you refuse to except it, that is your perogative. But you might want to try a different angle to justify yourself.

    .

  18. Well, for me, for instance, Jesus quoting anything is no standard whatsoever. You are, I hope, aware that not all Tennesseans are not Christians. Which is why your religious standards, or mine, or anyone’s, are not a proper basis for legislation. And it’s why most of us taking part in this discussion here have pointed to the actual history of the family. You know, the one that deals with what actual families have been like in all the cultures that lead up to our own, not merely one or two of them. You, and FACTN, might want to try a different angle to deal with realities here in Tenessee — or at least come right out and admit that you are pushing a narrow, minority religious agenda.

  19. And for me, for a second instance, “what Jesus said” indicates that you aren’t a very deep student of the faith you profess. The collected words of wisdom as they have been received through numerous translations (and Matthew particularly is a Gospel section whose politics of creation bears scrutiny, as it came into being as a body of literature in competition with the more popular books of Mark and Luke) are a mediated result of emendations, outright suppressions, elisions, and contextualizations, all of which are open to interpretation. Scriptural interpretation merits a serious “fear and trembling” sort of reflection that has little in common with the bumper sticker theology you’re pushing.

    However, even putting all of the arguments contrary to fact that you’ve advanced thus far, I still don’t see what the heck it has to do with gay marriage or why you think that your religion (which many do not share) should be institutionalized into civil law (which we all are bound to follow). Surely you’re familiar with the story of Nebuchadnezzar and what God does to people who make worship of their own idols mandatory?

  20. Simply put, if you set aside EVERYTHING ELSE (and it’s alot to set aside), ceeslouis has not offered an (exclusive) biblical standard for one man/one woman marriage.

    If I said, “My parents wanted a dog, so for that reason, they bought a poodle.” Would one take from that that all dogs must be poodles? Hardly.

    If ceeslouis would read just a few verses beyond the one she cites, she’d see that Jesus actually explicitly notes that taking a wife isn’t for everyone, including three different types of eunuchs (which meant a man who did not have sex with women for any number of reasons, not necessarily due to castration, as we tend to define eunuch today), including eunuchs who “were born thus from their mother’s womb.” What kind of man is born in such a way that he will not want to sleep with women? Hmmm… Could it be… …a gay man?

  21. Boy, dolphin, that’s a stretch.

    But the reality is, for most of you anyway, you are not convinced because you don’t want to be convinced, “your hearts were hard.” as Jesus said in (apparently not as popular) Matthew. I appreciate nm & Sarcastro at least being honest enough to admit they reject the Word of God, rather than trying to make it something it isn’t.

    I get it though. You don’t want anyone imposing their standards on you because they are “religious”, but it’s O.K. to impose your standards on everyone else because they are not “religious”? I guess we should make murder & theft no longer a crime since those narrow minority religious commandments are in the Bible, oh, wait, I forgot, that’s already in the works.

  22. See? If you just wait long enough, the true colors show through.

    I can’t speak for Sarcastro, but I’m pretty sure NM doesn’t reject The Word of God, she may well reject your insistence that you get to determine what that “word” is…

  23. No, ceeslouis, I don’t reject the divine word. See, there’s your problem: you are so far inside your own belief system that you forget that there are others out here, and that — I don’t quite know how to say this gently — according to many others, it’s you who are mistaken and who misunderstand divine law. (You certainly misunderstand the history of marriage, but that’s another question.) So when you try to impose your own narrow ideas about marriage on the rest of us and have them enshrined in civil law, you are attempting to make an establishment of (one, your own) religion. And there’s this little document called the Constitution that says that you aren’t allowed to do that.

    Now, if you can show me that prohibitions of murder aren’t common to all religions and to all secular societies as well, that those prohibitions come only from religious teachings, your final argument might have some relevance. But since you can’t, without lying about the evidence, let’s just ignore it, OK?

  24. Boy, dolphin, that’s a stretch.

    Says you. But since we’re playing the “the Bible says” game. Jesus did say in that passage that it was a message not all would be able to accept, so your own belief system gives you a free pass on not understanding that particular interpretation. Which brings us to the point so many here are trying to get you to see. There is no single universally agreed upon interpretation of the Bible. So even if we’re talking “biblical standards” (which should not be the basis of the secular law to begin with), there is no universally agreed upon “biblical standard.” You might be wise to recognize that the same laws that prevent you from imposing your religious interpretation on others ALSO protect you from having theirs imposed on you.

    Which brings us to a third point? What exactly is being imposed on you with regards to gay marriage? As far as I know there have been no calls for compulsory gay marriage, or even compulsory gay marriage attendance. Nothing is being imposed on you at all.

  25. Gay marriage doesn’t even imposed anything on ceeslouis’s church, either, let’s make clear. His priest or minister isn’t going to be forced to marry gays, or use their building to let someone else do it, or to stop preaching to folks that gays getting married is wrong. They can kick people out of their congregations for disagreeing, if they want to. Whatever they want. They’re just not going to be able to stop gay people who want to marry from going down to the courthouse to get a marriage license, and from getting a judge or religious figure who is cool with it from performing the wedding. Which, again, points out that what disturbs the apologist-wannabee is not getting to impose a single religious idea on everyone else.

  26. I appreciate nm & Sarcastro at least being honest enough to admit they reject the Word of God

    I didn’t. The word of my god is, “Your…bible..is..a…lie.”

  27. I guess we should make murder & theft no longer a crime since those narrow minority religious commandments are in the Bible

    one wonders how humankind ever survived all the wanton murder and theft that must have been perfectly, totally legal and acceptable up until some deluded bronze-age sheepherder came up with the bible.

    except, of course, if one has a functioning brain. then one doesn’t confuse cause with effect, and might realize why the bible chose to coopt those particular obvious truths. wouldn’t have been a very long-lived religion if it’d adopted their negations… ah, but i can dream…

    (cees, try googling “code of hammurabi”. and that wasn’t even the first instance of law, not by a long shot. then again, don’t read too much about the ancient mesopotamians, or you might stumble on Gilgamesh. who knows what that might do to you…)

Comments are closed.