Finally! Someone Explains The True Meaning Of Marriage & Why Homosexuals Shouldn’t Have I
It wasn’t until I became an outspoken atheist blogger, that I spent so much time writing about sex. In response to endless, blathering blog posts and articles by Christians and Catholics who seem beyond obsessed with the act, I have written dozens upon dozens of rants on the topic. Prior to Godlessmom.com, I hardly ever wrote about sex, because, well, you know us atheists and our preference to actually have sex over chatting about it, and not having the need to get up in everyone else’s sex life. These past few months have been like working in the porn industry. No matter where I turn to read blog posts or news articles from believers, they are all yammering on about sex, and how other people do it. It’s almost as though the church is one giant, worldwide support group for folks who aren’t getting any.
Last week, I told you guys about a couple who were barred from communion after getting married, simply because they were both men. Well, ladies and beards, this week we have a whole new Catholic on about these two men, with a whole new diatribe about how other people like to do the sex. It appears that yet another Catholic can’t get her mind off other people’s penises.
Yeah, you know me!
Sure, it sounds like a dream to some men, to find a woman who thinks and talks sex 24/7, but miss Jennifer here is not that kinda fun, gents. Jen-Jen’s sex obsession only applies to how total strangers do it. Unfortunate, I know. It’s a strange fetish, but deffo not one we haven’t seen before in the Catholic church, right?
Jennifer tries to explain why gay marriage (or ‘marriage’ as us book-learnin’ types like to call it) is a “no-go for the Catholic church”. I like to refer to Jennifer’s reasoning as more of an explanation as to why the Catholic church will continue to wither away into antiquity, until it’s nothing more than a footnote in an anthropologist’s paper about historical hatred.
She starts by explaining that marriage is about sex:
Marriage is so fundamentally about sex that failure to have sex (ever) is grounds for annulment, and the inability to have sex is an impediment to marriage.
Oh, doll. How precious your understanding is. Yes, not consummating the marriage is grounds for an annulment, but it’s not mandatory to annul a marriage that has not been consummated. People who do not fuck after taking their vows, are not required to dissolve their union. It is a choice, put there to protect, in the past, men from not being able to sire an heir, and both men and women from being used for profit or other gains. This has shit all to do with sex, honey dove. That’s why men and women who are physically incapable of performing the act, can still get married! I mean, unless you’re against some paraplegics and quadriplegics getting married, too. Are you, Jenny?
Without the sex part (ever), you aren’t married, you’re just very good friends.
So, you just have to do it the once to be truly married, Jen? Just trying to understand here. Technically you can be married for 50 years and so long as he plugged your hole the one time, you’re married… but without that, you’re not? Even though there is immense love. A couple who have been in love, and have supported each other for 50 years straight are not technically married if they haven’t played hide the baloney pony. Not like, say… Britney and Kevin were. Am I reading your mail, Jenny? Am I picking up what you’re laying down? To recap, 50 years of sexless love and adoration: not marriage, but 72 days of rocky roads between Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries: pure, Christ-like marriage.
You know, Catholics and Christians, you like to ask me where I get my morality from but judging from your own, I am not sure you understand the meaning of the word.
By “sex” what we mean is the real thing, not the cheap imitations. It’s the intimate act between man and wife that is the means by which new human beings with eternal souls are brought into this world.
So the infertile should also not be able to marry?
Even when no baby results, the act retains its sacredness and its deeper meaning.
Oh, I see, so gay sex lacks a deeper meaning? The sort of deeper meaning found in the sex between Kid Rock and Pam Anderson?
Think of intercourse like a love letter to the universe.
I.. I… I don’t know what to say to that
I mean, really, what do you say to that? Can you drink too much of Jeeby’s blood at communion? I think Jen may have sucked back a bit too much He-Be-Jeeby.
Jenny-doll then explains,
The trouble with Catholics is that we don’t hate people who experience same-sex attraction.
No, Jenny, the trouble with Catholics is that you do hate homosexuals. You see, just saying that you don’t hate them isn’t enough. You must live and act that way. Excluding them from the act of sealing their love in their own church or within their State’s laws, is an act of pure, unadulterated hatred and no amount of explaining that away will change it. You, Jenny-bear, are a hateful Catholic witch. Jenny, this tip may come in handy for future blogs posts: those who truly do not hate, don’t need to tell everyone all the time. Sort of like when someone starts a sentence with, “I’m not racist, but…”. We see through you, Jenny, and your attempts at appearing wholesome and loving: so far we have you on total and complete sex obsession and being a hateful little whiner. Starting to wonder what really goes on in a Catholic Church…
There’s no moral law against friendship. There’s no moral law against a pair of bachelors rooming together. Indeed there’s a longstanding and noble tradition of unmarried or widowed siblings and close friends providing support and companionship for one another in old age. This is good.
They are not friends, Jenny. They are not the Odd Couple, either. They are not just providing support and companionship for each other in old age, Jen! They are in love!
With regard to this particular couple, they wanted to be married to protect each other in the event of death. You do understand what happens to an unwed same-sex couple when one of them passes away, don’t you Jenny? If the house they lived in for 20 years belonged to the deceased, the living significant other must vacate with no monetary compensation. If the deceased was supporting their surviving significant other, none of his money or valuables can be claimed by his surviving other half. The significant other cannot claim life insurance for the deceased. The legal and bureaucratic consequences of being unwed are many, and can and have left many wonderful, committed, loving gay people penniless, homeless and without the love of their life.
Attempting marriage with a person of the same sex, however, is a public proclamation of at least one thing: I reject the Church’s teaching on sex and marriage. We pass therefore from the realm of private doubt and struggle into the land of open rebellion.
There are other Biblical teachings about marriage that you conveniently overlook, like the requirement of a man who rapes an unwed woman to marry said woman, or that a widowed woman who has not had a son, must attempt to do so with her brother-in-law. You don’t follow those rules, do you Jenny? So, why stick to just some and not all? There’s only one reason, and deep in your black heart you know what it is Jen-Jen: hatred.
I’d like to put this on the table: the next time a Catholic wants to pick apart how other people get down, he or she must submit a sex tape to Porn Hub for our scrutiny. Only once the vast majority of viewers have declared that he or she does in fact, fuck the right way, should they be allowed to comment on other people’s sex lives. Does that sound fair? I think it’s totally fair. Can’t remember where I read it, but there’s a saying, “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone”. Shit, where did I read that? Oh, well. It’ll come to me.