Quantcast

Bam Bam’s Laws of Moral Physics

By pams
Thursday, February 5, 2009 17:20 EDT
google plus icon
 
  • Print Friendly and PDF
  • Email this page

I’m really starting to worry about fundnut Matt “Bam Bam” Barber. Ever since the election his columns have gotten increasingly hysterical, more homo-focused than ever before. I know the BFF of The Peter has an unnatural fixation on the evils of man-on-man sex, but you have to take a look at “Homosexuality and the Laws of Moral Physics.” The man is off the chain.

Case in point: Within minutes after swearing in, President Obama had the White House web site updated to declare his unconditional support for every demand of the politically powerful and very well-funded homosexual lobby (a.k.a., “Big Homo”). By announcing to the world his pro-“gay” agenda, Obama has thrown gasoline on smoldering culture war embers, generating a firestorm of controversy.

…And so, in an effort to marginalize the so-called “religious right” and diminish its influence in society, evangelicals are pejoratively stamped “fundamentalist” by those who fancy themselves among the enlightened and view the world, instead, through delightfully murky and accountability-free shades of gray.

But despite the best efforts of “gay” activists, secular humanists, and religious leftists to muddy the moral waters, absolute truth – like a nautical buoy pulled below with rotting rope – has a way of heaving to the surface with a profound splash once the tenuous line snaps. It’s a matter of moral physics.

Barber’s brain simply cannot comprehend the divide between church and state. How is civil marriage a matter of biblical concern? It isn’t, but no matter to Bam Bam, it’s his security blanket. The insanity continues below the fold.

Homosexual behavior, like adultery, fornication, incest and bestiality is, under no uncertain terms, classified as sexual immorality in both the Old and New Testaments. The historical and biblical records are unequivocal.

In order to reach a contrary conclusion, people like President Obama, who rationalize that the Bible somehow affirms homosexual behavior – or at least remains neutral on the subject – are forced to cast aside any pretense of intellectual honesty and engage in gold medal mental gymnastics.

So, for the sake of national unity, let’s clear up any confusion about marriage and sexual immorality once and for all, shall we? And afterward, I expect all you leftists who’ve been badmouthing us “fundamentalists” to apologize, ‘kay?

First of all it was God, not Jerry Falwell, who both created and defined the institution of marriage. Conversely, pro-homosexual extremists are the ones who wish to radically redefine it.

…Despite fairly successful attempts by self-described “gay” activists to equate behaviorally driven “gayness” to immutable and neutrally defined qualities such as race and gender, the reality is that being “gay” has absolutely nothing to do with what someone is, and has everything to do with what someone does.

This is painfully deranged. I wasn’t the only one who noted this. David Hart:

I am surprised that he did not go off on his “there is no gay gene” rant. Of course, there is no race gene either. What is coming down the pike from the religious right is the acceptance that sexual orientation is, indeed, biological in origin but “it’s all about behavior.” Should gays be “hornier than though?” Then we’ll be asked to endure comparisons to incest and pedophilia without considering that those are not lawful activities by consenting adults.

However, what is most offensive about all of this is that it is in the context of civil law. This is not exactly what our deist founding fathers had in mind. Ultimately, people need to understand that the religious right wants to control far more than just who we can marry. They would like to control what we can read; what TV shows we can watch; what music we can listen to and what movies we can watch. There is, indeed, a very fine line between the Iranian theocracy and the imposition of the Barber crowd’s idea of morality. The oppression of a minority due to the fact that they were born with different sexuality is immoral. Moreover, it represents a simplistic expression of prejudice and bigotry born of ignorance.

 
 
 
 
By commenting, you agree to our terms of service
and to abide by our commenting policy.
 
Google+