There is No Same-Sex Marriage Debate

Introduction

Most people are proud to be born in whatever nation they were born. Patriotism and nationalism are strongly ingrained in most people from an early age. So it takes an awful lot of stupidity, ignorance, and misconduct to pry the effects of that propaganda away and turn someone's pride into shame. At times I am ashamed to be an American. A place where a majority of the population doesn't even accept the theory of Evolution and where creationists fight and sometimes SUCCEED, at getting religious propaganda into public tax-dollar-funded schools.

Perhaps most shameful of all is the bigotry and ignorance of the population regarding an issue that seems really divisive on the surface but when you apply any thought to it the solution becomes obvious. That issue is, of course, same sex marriage, and the solution is, of course, to make it legal in all 50 states.

No Country for Good Arguments

Most perplexing of all in the so-called debate over same-sex marriage is the fact that those opposing same-sex marriage have yet to make a single compelling argument for why gays should be forbidden from marrying each other. They argue that gays wouldn't make good parents, but I know plenty of people who were raised by straight parents who were abused, mistreated, neglected or otherwise wronged. The fact is that being a good parent has NEVER been a requirement for being a parent and neither has being a couple. Single-parents can both raise and, in most places, ADOPT children.

The merits of someone as a parent does not come from who they want to marry and neither does the merits of them as a person.

Arguments against same sex marriage are often eerily similar to those made against interracial marriage. Claims that gay marriage is unnatural, non-traditional, or somehow infringes upon the will of God himself are commonplace. Perhaps the most ridiculous argument I hear is the claim that, in fact, gays ARE just as free to get married as heterosexuals. The catch, of course, is that gays are only free to enter into heterosexual marriages, something they wouldn't want to do anyway.

Let's go back to the analogy of interracial marriages and make a similar argument. Blacks can marry blacks, whites can still marry whites, everyone is free to marry WITHIN their group. Blacks are just as FREE as whites are because they can marry their kind. Does anyone else see the problem with this mentality? It's the same argument, often known under the moniker of SEPARATE but EQUAL, that kept blacks in the South segregated for decades. In this case homosexuals are prohibited from marrying who they want to BECAUSE they are the same gender, rather than because they are different races, either way it makes NO sense.

The sad truth is that those who oppose same sex marriage are falling back on the same arguments that racists used to discriminate against African Americans. The next time you hear some moron arguing that gays are demanding so-called “special rights” remember that what they are saying is akin to “I don't see why Black people are complaining, they get to ride the bus like everybody else”.

If they both get fountains then it's equal right? Why complain when they can drink water like the rest of us?
If they both get fountains then it's equal right? Why complain when they can drink water like the rest of us?

Traditional Marriage?

One of the subjects brought up by bigots and morons is that somehow gay marriage conflicts with so-called “traditional” marriage. These ideas are often based upon an OPENLY biased Biblical view of marriage as being between “one man and one woman” and demonstrably false claims that marriage has been that way for thousands of years are often thrown around.

Once upon a time I took a college course called Intro to Anthropology and we talked a lot about all kinds of subjects. One of the subjects that this very broad course covered was that of marriage within a great many cultures. Traditions regarding marriage VARY GREATLY amongst the cultures of the world both modern and ancient. Polygamy is commonplace throughout human history and human culture and there are even some cultures that practice polyandry, where one woman has multiple husbands. The idea that marriage can be boiled down to “one man and one woman” is just embarrassingly stupid on the part of those making these arguments.

In fact the Bible never defines marriage as between one man and one woman exclusively, polygamy is almost as omnipresent in the Bible as God is. The Bible treats women as property to be owned and exchanged. Fathers are permitted to sell their daughters into sexual servitude, women can be taken as plunder during war and if a woman is raped her captor pays a fine and then MARRIES her for life (now that she is a tainted a devalued piece of property). The assertion that somehow the Bible has wisdom to share with us about the matter of gender relations and marriage is INSULTING in the highest degree.

The last fact I want to bring up that demolishes claims of traditional marriage is the fact that heterosexual couples married today engage in all kinds of acts that these bigots wouldn't condone as part of traditional marriage yet which are perfectly legal. There is an entire subculture of married folks who call themselves “swingers”, couples who allow sexual escapades outside of their marriage. This is adultery, a deed punishable by having rocks hurled at you until you're bleeding, bruised, broken and finally buried, in the Bible.

So does a married man who likes being sodomized by his wife wearing a strap-on while dressed as a Priest qualify as being part of traditional marriage? Would you folks who oppose same-sex marriage with such fervor walk into the bedroom and tell them to stop? Would you presume to exercise your control over them? Of course not. But because homosexuals are the minority, because they are already in control, you think you have the right to lecture them about what sexual activity is permitted and what marriages are considered “traditional”.

The Bible, full of WONDERFUL traditions
The Bible, full of WONDERFUL traditions

The Problem is Choice?

Even if homosexuality were a choice it would not be okay to deny gays the right to get married based on that choice. Let's say, for instance, that the same married couple mentioned above choose to engage in bi-sexual activity. Is their marriage now invalid because of that choice? Let's say they engage in said activity BEFORE they get married, before they even meet, is their choice now suddenly going to prevent them from getting married? Is anyone going to stop Julie and James from getting married because a year ago Julie was sleeping with Erica while James was dating Dale? Or is their choice to go back to heterosexuality make their marriage suddenly a viable option again?

Does anyone have the right to tell two consenting adults who they can or can't marry based on choices regarding sexual preference? NO. Therefore even if homosexuality were a choice that still wouldn't be good reason to oppose it.

There is no "Debate"

If same sex couples could get married it would do nothing to hinder the lives or happiness of straight people. I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over knowing that now two women or two men could marry each other. The political nature of this issue means that, for no reason at all, it is often portrayed in the media as some kind of balancing act, as if both sides have good points to make. This isn't some debate where both side have a good point however, this is an issue where no real debate is taking place. There is no rational or legal reason to deny homosexual couples the right to marry, none.

So there is no debate, there's only those who care about equality and freedom versus the discriminators, the bigots and the politicians who play to those bigots for political gain.

Conclusion

I find it amazing that so many of my fellow Americans oppose gay marriage. Many of them were just raised that way and grew up in a society that seemed very anti-gay. Growing up even I found the very idea of homosexuality grotesque and because of my Christian upbringing I was initially against gay marriage (but was, at least, in favor of civil unions with all the same rights). In school heterosexuals often bullied each other with accusations and slurs relating to homosexuality and later in high school these included almost light-heated jests amongst friends. Because to us straight folks the idea of homosexual activity is seen as unattractive (often termed the ICK factor) it can be hard for straight men (I can't speak for women) to be openly sympathetic towards gays and their cause and this exacerbates the prejudice that comes from (often religious) parents and is passed on from generation to generation. This is the unfortunate nature of the culture and it will take a concerted effort to educate the public and get this kind of thing to decrease in prevalence.

For now it seems Americans are content to take baby steps regarding the issue but hopefully it won't be long before opinions begin to shift and reality and equality surpass prejudice and stigma.

More by this Author


Comments 48 comments

Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 4 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

Here's a thought, what are the bigots going to protest once equality for gays is achieved? Will we regress into stigmatizing Mongoloid children again? Will it be "morally wrong" for people of low intelligence to marry and have children?

Why can't we all just get along?


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 4 years ago from back in the lab again Author

Thanks for the comment Austinstar, good to hear from you as always.

The thing is that even though it's not institutionalized racism is still a problem, so even after we achieve gay equality anti-gay sentiment will still be unfortunately prevalent just as racism still is. We can do our best to keep the darker aspects of human nature on the down-low but it seems that there will always be some people in our society that cling to hate and irrational fear of those who are different from them.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 4 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

I can't imagine what is inside us that causes so much hate and distrust of anything that is "different". I look forward to the day when mankind has evolved to the point of acceptance. Too bad I won't be around to see it.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"Here's a thought, what are the bigots going to protest once equality for gays is achieved? Will we regress into stigmatizing Mongoloid children again? Will it be "morally wrong" for people of low intelligence to marry and have children?

Why can't we all just get along?"

My wild guess, but perhaps we can't all just get along because some folks insist on labeling those with a different viewpoint as 'bigots.' Just a hunch.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 4 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

touche' nicomp


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 4 years ago from back in the lab again Author

@Nicomp

There are two kinds of people arguing against gay marriage, morons and bigots.

The morons don't seem to understand the basics of equality and can't recognize when they are guilty of discrimination. They are either misinformed, ignorant, or base-level stupid. I was once in this category, I was once misinformed about gays and gay marriage and my position was based on this misinformation.

The bigots tend to know the difference but willfully deny the rights of the minority.

This issue isn't one where the "differing" opinions on the subject are all valid in some way. Or shall we also consider white supremacist groups among the category of those that simply have "different viewpoints"? There are no arguments against gay marriage that aren't based on some level in prejudice or ignorance.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

@Titen-Sxull: Good luck convincing people of your opinion by calling them morons and bigots. Eventually you'll learn that you can badger folks to behave a certain way but you can't use the same hammer to change their thinking. It's a tough lesson.

It's certainly fashionable to embrace modern liberalism and insult those who differ. You've got that figured out.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 4 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

nicomp, I think you are being a bit obtuse here. Or are you defending your Republican litany?

Why not call a spade a spade? If the shoe fits and all that...


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 4 years ago from back in the lab again Author

@Nicomp

In the end it will not be me that convinces others of my opinion. I myself was a moron on this issue at one time and you know people making arguments critical of my position DID in fact help me. Posting a hub about a subject is hardly badgering anyone, I'm not seeking these people out to harass them Nicomp, they have to wander all the way to my hub to see me insult them and even then they have to witness me insult my own past-self in the process.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

@Titen-Sxull: Now you're back-pedaling. Read your own responses to comments, above. When they affirm, you receive them positively.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 4 years ago from Heaven

Equality is just another word for equal enslavement. The problem is not really about morons or bigots. Buy why should the majority determine someone pursuit of happiness?

But then again we also turn individual problems into collective problems don't we Abortion,War On Drugs, Gay Marriage, Tobacco, Alcohol Drinking Age, etc.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"nicomp, I think you are being a bit obtuse here."

Nope. Just providing a little depth to the discussion.

"Or are you defending your Republican litany?"

I'm not a Republican.

"Why not call a spade a spade? If the shoe fits and all that..."

That's called intolerance, of which Progressives claim to be intolerant. It's all very confusing...


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 4 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

Oh carp, I AM confused ;;-0

But I really don't care who marries who. I'm not the one that has to live with them.

And as for the suggestion that gays are trying to change our culture and traditions, well, that's just TRUE and there is nothing wrong with that. Our traditions NEED to be changed - a LOT!


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 4 years ago from back in the lab again Author

@PrometheusKid

"Buy why should the majority determine someone pursuit of happiness?"

The majority isn't supposed to be able to trample the rights of the minority, that's why we made came up with rights to begin with. Right now the gay minority wants to be able to get married and their right to do so isn't being recognized as a legitimate concern or is being actively suppressed (as in the case of North Carolina's recent state constitutional amendment).

Really it shouldn't be as big a deal as it is, the issue is a no-brainer, of course they should be able to get married but ignorance and cultural bias against gays and in some cases religious bigotry, get in the way of seeing just how obvious the answer is.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

@Titen-Sxull : perhaps you should define 'marriage.' We bigots and morons need clarification.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 4 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

My definition of marriage is: Two people that want to make a social and legal promise to each other. To form a bond. To raise a family. To be there for each other. To enjoy each others company. To pursue life, liberty and happiness. To help each other to avoid loneliness and despair. To share love.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

@Austinstar: Good definition. Now explain why the government has any role in these activities, except the legal promise.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 4 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

The government tends to over control everything. It's the nature of the beast. The government is there to settle legal claims over human rights, military defense, land and water rights, infrastructure and the public welfare. (I wish they could stay within their bounds)

The only reason government should get involved with marriage is to settle legal rights of the individuals involved. That's it, end of story.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

@Austinstar:

"The only reason government should get involved with marriage is to settle legal rights of the individuals involved. That's it, end of story."

Yep. I agree. Marriage is a social institution and the government has no business interfering. A legal union is a different issue.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 4 years ago from back in the lab again Author

@Nicomp

"Yep. I agree. Marriage is a social institution and the government has no business interfering. A legal union is a different issue."

I would also agree with this, however governments role in marriage is not really within the boundaries of the topic of the hub so I never mentioned it. Whether we like it or not marriage exists both as a social rite and as a legal contract and that shows no signs of changing.

No one should be telling consenting adults that they cannot get married and right now only the government can make equality a reality. Whether to split apart the social, religious and legal aspects of marriage is another topic entirely.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"Whether to split apart the social, religious and legal aspects of marriage is another topic entirely."

Actually it's the entire topic. If you refuse to define marriage in social, religious, and legal terms, your points are meaningless. You demonstrate no understanding of how the US Constitution was designed to function if you insist on combining social, religious and legal aspects of any activity, especially marriage.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 4 years ago from back in the lab again Author

@Nicomp

"If you refuse to define marriage in social, religious, and legal terms, your points are meaningless."

Pretty much everyone familiar with the gay marriage debate is aware of the meaning of marriage in this context. Marriage is a combination social rite and legal contract between two individuals. In a sense it makes them an official permanent couple both in their own eyes, in society's, in whatever religion they might practice (if they choose a religious wedding) and in the eyes of the government (thus bestowing certain legal marriage benefits).

"US Constitution was designed to function if you insist on combining social, religious and legal aspects of any activity, especially marriage."

It is the legal aspect that is under the Constitution, obviously no one should be able to force a religion to perform any rite they feel uncomfortable with, even if their reasons are dubious.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

@Titen-Sxull:

Nor was the Constitution designed to enforce or regulate social contracts. See 'freedom of association.'


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

@Titen-Sxull:

In all seriousness: according to your perception of marriage, should three men be legally permitted to marry? How about two men and one woman?


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 4 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

Oooh, Two men out making money for me to spend sounds kind of fun! If I were mad at one of them, I could still have a good time with the other one.

Sheesh, the down side of having morals though. Stops me from doing a lot of things.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

@Austinstar: will you answer the question?


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 4 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

The answer is that whomever wants to marry whomever is of no concern to me. If a whole commune of men (or women) want to be group married, it is their decision.

In a sense all humans are married to each other. We must live together and support each other.

If you want to define marriage as a "special" commitment, then do so according to your own rules and be done with it.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

@Austinstar: So you are OK with a legal union between three men or four women?


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 4 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

Yes. 3 men, 3 women, 2 men and a dwarf, whatever.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

@Austinstar: So the government should require companies to provide health insurance and other spousal benefits for any number of people who claim to be married to each other?


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 4 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

The government should definitely NOT require businesses to provide insurance of any kind.

If worker's want insurance they should buy it themselves.

It is reasonable to expect an employer to provide a safe working environment, but that's it.

If the companies employees want to demand insurance, they should negotiate that with the employers in advance of becoming an employee as part of the work agreement.

The government needs to get its big fat ass out of private industry and private affairs, including marriages.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

@Austinstar: yep.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 4 years ago from back in the lab again Author

Personally I don't see a problem with polygamy either as long as all the parties involved are consenting adults. Of course it might confuse the legal aspects, as far as who gets what benefits, but I don't see a problem with it.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 4 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

Negotiation is the key.


Lybrah 2 years ago

I don't think it is fair to call people names because they believe something different. I've made that mistake before, too. God created marriage as something sacred. Absolute truth: http://www.bubblews.com/news/2035391-my-thoughts-o...


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 2 years ago from back in the lab again Author

Please show me evidence that God even exists, let alone is capable of creating something. Oh, that's right, you believe based on faith, not evidence. You're absolute truth is indistinguishable from primitive BS a bunch of people made up.

Also, marriage exists in many different forms, in many different cultures and emerged that way all over the world at various times throughout human history. People who have never even heard of your God, who worship totally different deities, still have marriage in one form or another. To say that God created marriage is like saying he created birthday parties and barn raisings, marriage is a social convention defined by human beings, Gods need not apply.


Lybrah 2 years ago

Marriage has become a social convention redefined by human beings. God was always there from the beginning, and he created Adam and Eve, and they were the first married couple. As you know, Cain's lineage went one way and Seth's another, so people may have strayed and done their own thing, but God was there from the beginning to create the marriage bond. So you cannot say that marriage was invented before God.


Lybrah 2 years ago

How can you not see a problem with polygamy? Would you want to share your wife with someone else?


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 2 years ago from back in the lab again Author

"How can you not see a problem with polygamy? Would you want to share your wife with someone else?"

Its none of my business how a bunch of consenting adults want to configure their relationship, so if they want to get married what right do I have to deny them that? Simply because I personally wouldn't want to marry more than one person has nothing to do with whether or not it should be legal for others. I wouldn't outlaw Brussels sprouts just because I find them disgusting.

"So you cannot say that marriage was invented before God."

Are you admitting that God was invented?

Your only evidence for marriage being defined by God is the same book where its okay to own slaves, stone people to death for working on Saturdays, and yet BACON and SHRIMP are both FORBIDDEN. We're talking about primitive people who thought that God was commanding them to slaughter animals.

Think about how assbackwards that is in the 21st century, sprinkling blood on an altar, arranging the intestines just right, burning grains. And you really think this is the one true religion?

Your one source for moral truth is a book that encourages you to murder your family members if they turn to another religion. A book that depicts God returning to slaughter millions, leaving the streets running with rivers of blood and gore, only to then damn most of humanity to burn forever in a fiery lake. Think about that. That's your heroic triumphant God, that's your source for morality.

And in the meantime you say you'd never bruise a child, never really hurt them.

You are more moral than your God. You are more moral than the people who followed your God in the Old Testament. They went out by the thousands, razed cities to the ground, and ran through children with the sword.

The real insult, the real stupidity you and others like you display, is in not realizing how much BETTER, how much more MORAL, you are than your fictional God.

The real reason I am such an "enemy of God" is because I know, deep down, most believers are smart enough to escape this bullshit religion. I'm just trying to push people to question what they believe, to study what they believe and to hopefully one day realize that they are better than what they believe.


Lybrah 2 years ago

God IS and always WAS. You call yourself an "enemy of God." Don't you know what God promises to do to His enemies?

All of the people God had slaughtered were BAD people. You'd be surprised at how ancient Romans lived and the things they did. Sexual orgies, homosexual sex, burning people alive in public and using their corpse as a lamp in the night. People of the past were BAD. There were hybrid angel-giant things walking around in the time of Noah. God had no choice but to destroy these people, who were godless. Yes, even the children were being brought up to defy God. I'm sorry you see that God appears to have killed innocent people, but the bible tells us they were not so innocent, and a few history books will tell you the same thing.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 2 years ago from back in the lab again Author

"All of the people God had slaughtered were BAD people."

Who made them that way? And who, in all the cosmos, would have the power to persuade them to become good? Nah, best to just slaughter them. Do you even think before you type or are you just copy and pasting these from "terrible apologetic excuses.com".

"but the bible tells us they were not so innocent"

So why don't you go out and slaughter Muslim children? Oh that's right, because your a decent moral person, not a sadistic murderer like your God.


Lybrah 2 years ago

Do I think before I type? Why do you have to insult me? Can we not have a decent conversation? No, I am not cutting and pasting from other websites! God didn't make anyone bad, they chose to do wrong. You know God gives people free will--you wouldn't want someone to love you because you gave them a love potion or put a spell on them--you'd want them to choose to love you. That is what God does. They choose to be bad, God does give some of them time to get themselves in order, even His chosen people backslid a couple of times and were punished. All sin must be punished.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 2 years ago from back in the lab again Author

"God didn't make anyone bad, they chose to do wrong"

But wait, you just said that those children were brought up to be bad. Well that means it wasn't their choice, it was part of their culture. Well then they were still redeemable. In fact with a good God with infinite mercy who is also perfect there is no such thing as an irredeemable person. To claim that a human being can be so wicked that God's only choice is to slaughter them makes no sense. Its a ridiculous excuse for a barbaric book of myths.

"That is what God does."

No it isn't. Free will to love God would mean "you can choose to love me, or you can choose not to love me, as long as you're happy". That's what human beings do when they are in love with someone who doesn't love them back and who they haven't been able to win over. Your God is more like "love me, or you will face the most unfair and agonizing punishment imaginable". That's not free will, thats a hostage situation.

The real insult is the stupid excuses and bad logic being employed here in your attempts to defend the indefensibly immoral and nonsensical contents of an ancient book of mythology. I understand your beliefs make it very difficult to see through the bullshit, I've been there before myself, but at some point you have to put actual in-depth thought into it.


Lybrah 2 years ago

I'm sorry that you have no respect for my religion (or for me). I'm sure when Bill Nye had that creationist/science debate, that although he disagreed with the other guy, he was RESPECTFUL and professional in his debate, and did not demean the other guy, and was not hateful towards him. So what are you saying, I have "stupid excuses" and "bad logic" and that I'm insulting you with my stupidity (note the sarcasm) because I believe something you don't? You really must think I am unintelligent, when in fact, I have a Masters degree. I am sorry if I have ever come across as insulting to you, that was not my intention. I guess I wanted to understand where you were coming from.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 2 years ago from back in the lab again Author

Go back and re-read what I said. I didn't say you were unintelligent, in fact I said you were too moral and too intelligent to believe in what you believe in. That's the point. I didn't escape religion because I'm intelligent, I escaped it because I actually considered that I might be wrong, explored what I was being told to believe, began to seek the truth no matter where that road might lead, whether it led to the God I already believed in, some other God or none at all.

And I know that YOU know the excuses are stupid. We were talking about genocide, about how the Israelites were sent out to wipe out entire cities and run through children with swords, leaving none alive. God condoned these actions, he blessed them in battle. And your excuse is so pathetic that it sounds like something the Nazis would have said. The Nazis' DID believe they had God on their side, their belt buckles read "Gott Mit Uns" GOD WITH US. You brush off the most impossibly evil actions laid at the feet of your God as "oh those people were bad, even the babies."

I'm sorry but that is a response not worthy of my respect. You're not insulting me with your stupid responses so much as you are yourself. Why is it so hard to just disown those parts of the Bible? To just say "well they believed God was with them but really the Israelites were putting words into the mouth of God and never actually had his blessing to commit such atrocities". Instead you defend the indefensible and obscene and brush it off without a second thought.

I guess you ought to be glad you weren't born in Jericho, because you would have been raised to worship a strange God and then when the Hebrews arrived and the walls fell you would have deserved to be killed. Do you admit that? Because that is what you are advocating. That if you had been born there you would have deserved to be killed? Now imagine a loving God, HELL anyone with an ounce of empathy and love, commanding that it be done and declaring you a bad person because of WHERE AND WHEN you were born.

Your God is meant to be MORE moral than you Lybrah, yet why is it that time and again in the Bible he is the most wicked and evil person depicted in the entire book. The only kids that Satan kills in the entire Bible are Jobs kids, and he goes to God and GETS PERMISSION FIRST. It doesn't take a Masters Degree to see through bullshit that obvious, just a little human decency (which I KNOW YOU HAVE) and the admission that maybe you could be believing the wrong thing and just assuming its true out of, idk, fear of Hell, cultural reinforcement, personal emotional comfort, blind faith, etc.


Lybrah 2 years ago

There has to be a valid reason why God would allow people to be killed. I'm going to do some research and then I am going to come back here and tear your arguments apart, piece by piece!


Norine Williams 14 months ago

Did anyone consider GOD KNEW from the beginning of creation of man, that man's heart was evil and HE would have to come and redeem us from our sins by manifesting Himself in the flesh and dying for the remission of our sins? Since HE KNEW, and that was His Ultimate Plan, why do you think HE would not REMOVE "ANYTHING," that impeded HIS PLAN?

Who are you (a creation) to question WHY God does what He does? Least you forget, HE is GOD and not WE "ourselves!" Now, if your brilliant study has exceeded GOD, that's your problem!

GOD created ALL and when "Impeding Plan" or unrighteous, MOVE!

Look at the "OVERALL PICTURE" - GOD'S PLAN - for Scripture WILL BE FULFILLED whether 'creations' like it or not!

Your "opinion" of right or wrong, moral or immoral, good or bad is just that - "A creation's opinion," and does not come close to the WAYS OF GOD or HIS THINKING! GOD does not look upon "things" as "mere man" does, HE is ABOVE all of our minute thinking!

Either one accepts HIM or not! It's your "free will!" Do as you please! Continue to rely on "self" and your "brilliant thinking," but the end is inevitable and see what all of that "self taught" knowledge will buy you in HELL! Don't come across with "hell is scare tactic," either GOD is REAL and what HE said or not! It's up to you!

Good "luck" with all that knowledge! Let's see where it gets you "On the Other Side!"


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 14 months ago from back in the lab again Author

"Who are you (a creation) to question WHY God does what He does?"

I'm a living sentient being with the ability to reason, love and suffer. I also don't believe that God exists, all I'm questioning is a manmade concept of God written down in an ancient book.

"that's your problem!"

I can say with confidence that I'm smarter than the people that wrote the Bible, perhaps I lack the talent for creating such a bizarre and monstrous character as the God of the Bible but when it comes to knowledge of the world around me and how to think rationally I definitely outpace them.

"Good "luck" with all that knowledge! Let's see where it gets you "On the Other Side!""

Congrats for just preaching at me Norine. Thank you for asserting that I am the property of your disgusting celestial dictator. Please make sure your next comment is actually ON TOPIC to the hub you're commenting on.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working