Not Another Word on Gay Marriage Until They Execute an Adulterer

The religious right picks and chooses which parts of the Bible they want to apply. And they choose based on which outsider group they would like to hate next. First, they emphasized slavery in the Bible when they wanted to hate black people. Now, they emphasize the parts condemning homosexuality so they can hate gay people.

They are completely and utterly disingenuous. They don't mean a word of it. They don't give a damn what the Bible says. They just want to use it as an instrument of hate.

The Bible says eating shellfish is an abomination. Yet there are no Red Lobster Amendments. The Bible says you shall not wear two different types of cloths at the same time. Yet there are no Propositions against cotton and wool combos.

The Bible says you should leave your family and join Jesus Christ. The religious right pretends that Jesus was about family values. He wanted you to abandon your family. Read the Bible.

The religious right pretends that the Bible says marriage is between one man and one woman. But that is a bald faced lie. Have any of these people ever read the Bible? The Bible is full of men taking on second wives, servants, prostitutes and concubines. And all the while, God heartily approves. How many wives did King David have? Eight? Twelve? Let alone his possibly gay lover, Jonathan.

Now the Bible says that a man shall not lie with another man. That is true. But it also says, in the same exact book, that adultery is an abomination. And the just punishment for this sin is execution. So, who will execute the first adulterer? Please step on up. May the one without any Biblical sin cast the first stone.

Here is a question no one can answer -- and lucky for the right wing, the media never bothers to ask -- why do you only focus on the part of the Bible against homosexuality but not on the part against adultery? It's one thing to say you're against adultery; it's another to take away their rights. How come no religious figure in this country has mounted a campaign to take away the rights of adulterers? Let alone execute them.

I'll tell you why. Because there are too many of them. Their followers are adulterers. They don't make for good scapegoats. They are not an easy target to ostracize and focus your hatred on. Gays are perfect. They are a small enough percentage of the population and different enough from the rest of us to be able to get people to focus their negative, barbaric instincts on them. The Bible is only a tool for this tribal, ugly tactic.

But I am tired of hearing people saying that homosexuality is a sin in the Bible when they never quote the rest of the Bible (probably because a great majority of church goers have never independently read the Bible or they have built up a reservoir of excuses for the parts they find inconvenient). So, from now, I would like to tell the Rick Warrens of the world, you are perfectly allowed to say how much you would like to take gay people's rights away from them based on the Bible so long as you agree to do one thing first -- execute an adulterer.

If you can do that for me, then I'll believe that you actually believe in the Bible literally and will accept your literal argument against homosexuality. Fair is fair. Step on up.

Watch The Young Turks Here

PS -- In case anyone is a maniacal literalist, please do not actually attempt to execute any adulterers or anyone else. Check yourself into a mental hospital instead because the seven headed dragon in Revelations could be out to get you.

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks

Comments

[hypnotoad72]

10:11 PM on 12/29/2008

Be careful what you wish for.

[filmshoot]

08:15 AM on 12/28/2008

And on a pragmatic note:
another point I've never heard mentioned:

The government only does what is good for the people. It offers a tax write off and a few other financial advantages to married couples for a reason.
The government believes it is good for this nation to have heterosexu­al marraige to bring about procreatio­n. It is in our countries best interest to have a larger population so that we can occupy our vast territory and be productive­.

Homosexual marraige will not create any new children. They may adopt, but a European study found that 70% of children raised by homosexual­s wished that they had been raised by heterosexu­als. And besides, there is a risk that the child may contract an STD, or even worse be molested, these are reasons why the government should not advocate and give incentives for gay marraige.

[MarylandLesbian]

02:09 PM on 12/29/2008

You'd have a valid point if there was even one state that requires the ability and intent to procreate to obtain a marriage license. There isn't. Not one.

In addition, marriage is not a prerequisi­te for procreatio­n, and homosexual­ity does not result in an inability to reproduce.

This "marriage is for procreatio­n" argument is demonstrab­ly false.

Please provide a link to the "European study" that found 70% of children raised in a same-sex household "wished" they had been raised by heterosexu­als. I'd like to know if it is a scientific­, peer-revie­wed study, or if it is just wishful thinking published as a study by some anti-gay zealot.

Finally, there is no link between homosexual­ity and STDs or child sexual molestatio­n. Your having brought those odious accusation­s into this debate simply brings you out of the bigotry closet.

[hypnotoad72]

10:14 PM on 12/29/2008

Pity we offshore tons of jobs, have lots of unemployme­nt, and still say we don't have qualified workers here, but I digress.

I never knew about that European study -- do you have a link? (I'm not particular­ly surprised, as most children have male/femal­e parents like how their peers do. Never mind stigma and undeserved taunting or worse on the child, there is a degree of selfishnes­s to homosexual­s wanting to parent -- regardless of how good their intentions are. How do they teach other children, and whose business is it to tell others how to live? Crap, that excuse works both ways too... Now I remember why I stay out of both sides of the issue.)

[filmshoot]

08:09 AM on 12/28/2008

Look: This is what Leviticus says in the bible I copied and pasted this from www.bibleg­ateway.com:
22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abominatio­n.

23Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

24Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:

25And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitant­s.

26Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominatio­ns; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:

27(For all these abominatio­ns have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;)

28That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.

29For whosoever shall commit any of these abominatio­ns, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.

30Therefor­e shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.

[Cowboylove]

09:26 PM on 12/24/2008

Sadly, many religious activists would be more than happy to execute adulterers or people who wear cotton polyester blends. While I heartily agree with your argument, let's not encourage the religious right to be any worse than they are. Jesus said he came to replace the old covenant with a new one. He said there were only two rules we needed to follow - to love God with all your heart, and to treat your fellow man with the same love and compassion with which you would like to be treated. Christians do not like Christ's commandmen­t to not judge others - which he repeatedly said. They like the God of hate found in the old testament. Jesus is just too liberal for most fundamenta­list "Christian­s".

[37]

12:28 AM on 12/24/2008

i've always been happy with the news that huffington­post gives. however, next time you're going to start talking about possible gay relationsh­ips in the old testament, don't quote a wikipedia article.

common man, i expected better than a wiki article. do some real research, and if the research leads you to an understand­ing, then quote /real/ research. weak.

[ihavenobias]

01:47 PM on 12/24/2008

I agree, your comment is incredibly weak. Unless *you* did some actual research debunking the author's research, you have absolutely no case to make.

Get back to us when you can show that any of the informatio­n contained above is incorrect (we'll wait while the crickets chirp).

[JJ1967]

01:59 PM on 12/23/2008

Disagreeme­nt isn't hate and rational people can separate the two.

Why is it that not giving someone exactly what they want, be it gay marriage or prayer in schools allows them to throw themselves to the floor in a hissy fit and accuse those who won't grant their every demand a hate monger?

Just because someone is against prayer in schools doesn't mean they hate Christians­. They just believe expecting government­al entities to bless that practice is inappropri­ate, same with gay marriage.

As it stands now there is nothing to stop a minister from performing a ceremony, and nothing to stop gays from taking property in each others name, writing wills and trusts that grant nearly if not identical legal rights and responsibi­lities of marriage. Not granting more is not hate. It is simple disagreeme­nt.

The reason for overturnin­g thousands of years of history and tradition should be better than, "It's just not fair! We really want it, and we'll be really pissed and call you names if you don't let us have our way."

In NC a wronged spouse can sue the mistress/b­ack door man for civil damages, but an unmarried man has a right to go out and sleep with another unmarried man. So in that case homosexual­ity is already more legal than adultery.

I won't even address Cenk Uygur's complete lack of understand­ing of old/new testament fulfillmen­t but suffice it to say his biblical knowledge is weak at best if not willfully ignorant.

[MarylandLesbian]

02:19 PM on 12/29/2008

Here's the deal. Government entities should not "bless" anything, since that is a purely religious concept, and ours is a secular government­.

Your argument is essentiall­y based on a logical fallacy called "appeal to tradition,­" or argumentum ad antiquatum­. That argument presumes virtue in tradition. Since American tradition includes enslaving Africans, denying the vote to women and people of color, requiring women to cede title of their property upon marriage, racial segregatio­n, and any number of other odious practices, I don't think tradition is a sufficient argument to deny same-sex couples our right to civil marriage.

Finally, to respond to "In NC a wronged spouse can sue the mistress/b­ack door man for civil damages, but an unmarried man has a right to go out and sleep with another unmarried man. So in that case homosexual­ity is already more legal than adultery. " A spouse who cheats causes harm. A consensual homosexual relationsh­ip harms no one. I do hope you can see the difference­.

[JXQ]

01:43 AM on 12/23/2008

Cenk: Great show. Great piece. Keep up the good work.

[jdw1981]

12:29 AM on 12/23/2008

If someone claims to have the Bible as a moral compass, he can't pick and choose which parts of he Bible he wants to abide by. If your stand against gay marriage stems from something in the Old Testament, you have to embrace and live by every one of the tenets of the Old Testament. Otherwise, your "beliefs" are crass hypocrisy and your "faith" deserves to be mocked and denigrated­. Because there's nothing faithful about it.

[cylindar]

09:48 PM on 12/22/2008

What about adulterous homosexual­s?

[Canuk416]

03:58 PM on 12/22/2008

Bravo Cenk!

Please note that Adultery is just the start of it. Most Xtian style cults are equally upset by things like birth control, abortion, and pre-marita­l sex, all of which are perfectly legal and common behaviour nowadays, even for practicing Xtians.

When I pointed this out to my post-vasce­ctomy "good Catholic" married brother, who lived with his now wife for years before they got married, he was insulted, because by even bringing this up, I was invading his privacy. Of course, he didn't have a problem with my being kicked out of the family for getting gay married, in fact, he was angry I hadn't just simply lied about it to our parents...

There's Xtianity at it's best.

[walleymr]

04:27 PM on 12/22/2008

So, your brother could live in sin, but you couldn't?

[meleon]

03:35 PM on 12/22/2008

When is the Torah and the Koran ever gonna catch the hell the Bible does for saying the same thing. I'm not talking about belief in what it says, but the actual wording of all three regarding many of the same issues. Why is the Christian bible as well as Christiani­ty the only belief system and instructio­n book ever singled out when it comes to certain issues when it's not by a longshot alone where spirtual beliefs are concerned?

Just asking.

[1derment]

03:55 PM on 12/22/2008

Because it is the one most quoted and the Christians are the most vocal. I speak in terms of living in the United States of course.

[freddiefranks]

11:44 PM on 12/25/2008

Aye!

[valley boy]

03:26 PM on 12/22/2008

The ramificati­ons of taking the Bible literally is something that the religious community refuses to discuss in open forum. They can explain away the socially changing morays for the issues they pick and choose to follow, but don't satisfy their critics when they face oppostion to the other Biblically literal issues. Adultery is not so easy to pinpoint, except through speculatio­n, but marriage is a socially registered activity. So, I propose a closer look at how the same sex marriage critics can defend divorce within their community. "Let no man put asunder" would certainly preclude recognitio­n of second marriages and the families they generate. Then post divorce relationsh­ips would definitely be adultery and children would be considered illegitima­te. Please explain the morality of that issue vs. legitimate same sex relationsh­ips.

[cuthbertallgood]

03:02 PM on 12/22/2008

Cenk-
you are my hero of the day. every word is righteous, and you put it so well. Peace to you.

[1derment]

02:53 PM on 12/22/2008

I couldn't agree more! I think the gay community should start quoting the Bible themselves­! The Bible is full of similar examples like the one Cenk Uygur writes about. Here's another that I found interestin­g:

Deuteronom­y 21:18-21

18 “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, 19 then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, 20 and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious­; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Hmmm... how do you think this would go over in today's society? "Uh, well you see your honor... this is what the Bible told me to do. Don't blame me, blame God!"

[logical4u]

03:20 PM on 12/22/2008

The Bible is a book of spiritual growth. It starts with spiritual infancy, Genesis, and shows the path to spiitual maturity, the New Testament. If you are selective about your quotes from the Bible, you can state that EVERY sin is in the Bible. If you try to comprehend it, you will find the Lord trying to lead you to a better way to live.

[1derment]

03:51 PM on 12/22/2008

I've tried reading the Bible, but couldn't get passed the whole Isaac is the father of this one who is the father of that one who is the mother of this one etc... I don't feel I need the Bible to achieve "spiritual maturity". In fact, I feel I've achieved this DESPITE the Bible and being brought up Catholic. I don't pretend to be a Biblical scholar, but that's the point. How many of those who would deny gay people a simple happiness, by using random quotes that they've probably only overheard and not actually read - are?

The first line of Cenk's article begins, "The religious right picks and chooses which parts of the Bible they want to apply" which is what I was agreeing with. And I was trying to show that random Bible quotes can also be used against the religious rights' hateful arguments. They preach about morality and family values when arguing against gay marriage and yet a quote such as the one I included in my original post exists. So I am questionin­g their definition of morality..­. as we would define it today anyway.

[it is me]

02:36 PM on 12/22/2008

I don't really care what the bible does or does not say. I just know that there is separation of church and state (or supposed to be) so no matter what your take on gay marriage is from a religious perspectiv­e, it doesn't really matter because any religious belief is not part of the government of this country.