Let’s Clear This Rainbow / Pride Flag Thing Up for Once and For All

The other day, I made mention, on an online friend’s page, that marriage equality (and thus America’s entry into the 21st century, as far as basic human rights go) would be one of the legacies of Obama’s term in office. Silly me. This was an American online friend and true to form, it took bare seconds before the dribbling, batshit insane bigotry was on show:

Marriage initially meaning a covenant with God between a man and a woman that is all but completely ignored and mocked by those who want nothing to do with God and after everything was said and done, flashing the symbol God used after he flooded the earth as a symbol of pride mocking Him.

Oh yeah, I also mentioned the Affordable Care Act, which was met by:

And all this health care crap is a cover-up and people don’t realize it or understand it for what it truly is because they’re not doing their research!

So yeah – raving religious bigotry and wingnut (but non-specific) conspiracy theories (complete with “do the research” mantra)… in the space of two comments after my own. And this wasn’t even on a wingnut site… so it really does kinda enforce my attitude of constantly looking at America and going, “What the fuck is wrong with you people?”

Still I’m going to ignore the conspiracy theorist and focus my attention on the religious bigot with his love for the rainbow and how precious his definition of marriage is. Of course, in his righteous outrage, what he doesn’t realise is that

  • he is still perfectly entitled to believe whatever he wants to believe, regarding his definition of marriage;
  • giving people the same rights you enjoy, in no way diminishes the same rights you enjoy;
  • denying those people the rights you currently enjoy, purely on the grounds of “my imaginary friend doesn’t like it” makes you a terrible, terrible human being. Or, as I like to call them, “a Christian.” Nobody is forcing you to marry somebody of the same gender, nor attend their weddings, and it’s certainly not going to make you and your wife suddenly divorce.
  • The irony being that you’re so fucking upset that gay people can marry and “mock the covenant with God between one man and one woman,” but you probably have absolutely no problem with divorce between straight couples. Just like the bigots who won’t issue marriage licenses to gay couples, but will to people who have committed adultery – and take a guess which sin is mentioned in the 10 Commandments kiddo…
  • The other important thing is – it’s absolutely none of your fucking business. End of story. You carry on with your little Bronze Age mythology, and at least try and keep your bigotry to yourself and not com across as an awful human being, and we’ll carry on with ours. Deal?
  • Oh yeah. It’s probably worth pointing out that, in America, this bigot’s parents and grandparents were using the same religious arguments to protest the SCOTUS lifting the ban on interracial marriages… in 1967. But some people are just doomed to be on the wrong side of history.
  • And finally, and if you think allowing gay marriage is going to lead to people marrying children, or their pets, they you don’t understand the concept of consent, and should not be allowed out in public, without a minder.

But enough of your petty bigotry, let’s get down to you being so horrified that the rainbow has been used for the Pride movement, and not to commemorate God killing everybody on Earth, except 8 people, who then indulged in some wholesale incest, in order to repopulate the Earth. But more on that later.

Firstly, if this little bigot can put his righteous indignation to one side for a moment, I’d like to show him two pictures:

UntitledYes, the first is what’s known as the Rainbow Flag, or the Gay Pride Flag… and the other is a rainbow. My bigoted friend is too bus wallowing in outrage to notice that there’s one small difference between the two… the former only has 6 colours, as opposed to a rainbow’s 7, so technically it’s not a rainbow. It’s also worth mentioning that the rainbow flag has been around since at least 1913, as a symbol of peace and world unity… but again, those aren’t things my bigoted friend would be interested in.

There is, of course, one other significant difference between a rainbow and the Pride Flag: the latter is a bit of coloured cloth, whilst the former is a big, huge representation of the electromagnetic spectrum found between the near infrared and ultraviolet, curving across the sky and caused by the refraction of light through water droplets (h/t to the author of this post for pointing that out to me). It just goes to show how great your persecution complex must be, if a multi-coloured flag looks like a rainbow to you. Getting offended by the Rainbow Flag, is much the same as getting offended by Photoshop’s colour wheel.

So, yes, the Rainbow Flag might look like a rainbow, but it’s not technically the same rainbow that Christians see as this awesome shiny that their God gave them… right after committing the greatest act of genocide ever seen. But don’t take my word for it, here’s Ken Ham:

hambowNow, I’m not going to go into the technicalities of just why it is an absolute scientific, physical impossibility for God to have “invented” the rainbow only after the flood… or alternatively, for there to have been anything alive to see him invent it, if he had. The reason I’m not, is that it’s already been done by a good friend of mine, who even uses small words that Christians can understand.

So, now that we’ve ascertained that God couldn’t have “invented” the rainbow post Flood (all this, of course, based on the premise that these people see the Bible as a history book and not a fantasy novel), thereby promising humans that he’d behave and wouldn’t ever do it again… unless it was to send floods and earthquakes and tornadoes to various places… usually as punishment for the gays doing something… miles away from the area that the disaster actually hit.

Genesis 6:11 starts off the drama: “Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence.” The italics are mine, because it highlights a very important point. At no point between Adam & Eve being told not to eat the fruit and Moses on Mount Sinai, does the Bible give any indication at all that Man has been given any kind of divine behaviour guidelines. None. Zero. Zilch. And you’d think that a book  that goes into pages of genealogies and the dimensions of a boat, would mention something as important as a few “Guys, don’t do the things” comments from the Almighty.

But there aren’t, so in essence, Man has no idea that he’s being “corrupt and full of violence” because  – and here I get to use the wonderful “no morality without God” argument people like Ray Comfort and Ken Ham like to use – they have no yardstick against which to measure their behaviour.

In other words, the Flood happened based on a solely subjective decision by God to wipe out Man, because they were pissing him off… and yet, they had no way of knowing they were pissing him off. So, after deciding to save one family… and ignoring that the world would be populated via incest for a second time… God drowns everybody in a giant megalomaniacal, genocidal clusterfuck… and then says to the stunned survivors, “Yeah, sorry about that. But look – something shiny!! Of course I totally just made it. No, you didn’t see something like it before the Flood. No, you didn’t… look, how long can you tread water, motherfucker?”

So yeah, in essence, not only are you a terrible person for thinking that some people don’t deserve the same you do, but if you think rainbows are special and come from your imaginary friend… congratulations of worshiping a mass-murdering madman.

About PsyGremlin

PsyGremlin is a former Conservapedia sysop (although the position was earned nefariously), stand up comedian, DJ, and is currently a self-employed financial adviser, who impersonates a responsible adult at least 5 days a week. However, highlighting and poking fun at the crazies out there remains his first love. Well besides pork crackling. And custard. And cricket.
This entry was posted in Homophobia, Homosexuality, Marriage Equality, Religion and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Let’s Clear This Rainbow / Pride Flag Thing Up for Once and For All

  1. Mick McT says:

    You could always suggest that your friend reads ‘The Ark Before Noah: Decoding the story of the Flood’ by Irving Finkel (reviewed very briefly here: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/feb/13/ark-before-noah-irving-finkel-review) but I suspect it’s too late for him/her. On another take…the voices in my head suggest that the colours in the visible light spectrum are 7 (Violet, Indigo, Blue, Green Yellow ,Orange, Red) – if you are anywhere other than France, since for some reason ‘Indigo’ isn’t considered to be a separate colour there. ( I can’t be arsed to Google it ’cause it might only spoil a lovely story.)

  2. David Samuel says:

    On your point 2 as to why people want to prevent equalty. Not just for the love of God. You missed that there is a love of money motivation. Anyone in a desperate situation can be exploited in employment. In many states a person can be fired for being gay. Those people can be paid less because they don’t have the same employment protection as non gay. “accept less pay or i’ll fire you for being gay” or illegal or any other unprotected person status.

    • PsyGremlin says:

      That is a good point – it doesn’t really help being allowed to marry somebody of the same gender, if you can then be fired from your job for doing so. Sadly, the “land of the free”has a long way to go.

      • Know Kname (@Know_Kname) says:

        “it doesn’t really help being allowed to marry somebody of the same gender, if you can then be fired from your job for doing so.”

        So, if that job is at a church or a Christian non-profit organization, I guess you’ll be gleefully behind any and all lawsuits to force those churches and organizations to employ homosexuals and provide benefits for their sex partners.

        • Mick McT says:

          So why should churches or Christian run businesses or not for profit organisations be above the law of the land?

          • Know Kname (@Know_Kname) says:

            Apparently the only not for profit outfit that is allowed to be above the law of the land is Planned Parenthood.

            Hey, let me know when you start going after fundamentalist Muslim mosques, m’kay? M’kay. I won’t be holding my breath because I know you value your head remaining attached to your body.

            • PsyGremlin says:

              Yeah, there’s one very simple reason why – at the moment – I don’t write about Islam: I don’t know anything about it… and neither do you. I write eloquent paragraphs about just how bizarre it is for them to believe a golden horse rides across the desert once a year and leaves all the good children a suicide vest, and you’d be all “See! They indoctrinate them from childhood.”

              But that’s mostly because besides being a bigot, you’re also an Islamophobe.

              Oh, and you do know that that PP video that conservatives are all climaxing over, is a hoax right? Or are you really as stupid as you appear to be?

        • David Samuel says:

          Your favorite form of entertainment doesn’t absolve you from the law and taxes.

          • Know Kname (@Know_Kname) says:

            The law says otherwise, fool. But I’m sure your side is already working very hard towards changing that. And when you do, churches will be free to endorse political candidates, campaign, and donate gobs of cash to them. And then you’ll bitch and whine about that and want to change things back, but then you’ll realize that would mean not being able to force churches to employ, benefit, and marry homosexuals. Oh, decisions, decisions… What do do? What to do?

            • David Samuel says:

              Given equal rights for gays your church can probably evade marrying gays claiming the private club loophole. But then they lose non profit status and have to pay taxes. That’s ok with me. But publicly operated buisness, including private clubs, discriminating in employment, and services, has to be stopped. It will be. You think you have moral ascendency because you are less repressive than the taliban? You don’t and that’s a hell of a standard to measure yourself by. But whoever wants to come at my head, I’m a southern boy with a chainsaw and know how to use it.

            • PsyGremlin says:

              I, for one, can’t wait for people like Creflo Dollar, TD Jakes, Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen and their fraudulent ilk start paying taxes on the ill-gotten gains they keep fleecing off their gullible flock. After that, I don’t care who they endorse, or give money to. The fact remains that they’re trying to get away with it now, and keep their tax-exempt status, and they can’t have their cake and eat it too. Because, trust me – given the way these guys hang on to their money, they aren’t going to be giving much away to political campaigns.

              And yeah, if you’re a member of a church that actively promotes discrimination against another group of people… then a) you’re not a Christian denomination – as much as you’d like to think you are, and b) you’re the same as the Muslims you claim to hate so much. Actually given the way you treat women, women’s rights, political ideas you don’t like, education, etc, etc, you are America’s Taliban. Only dumber and drunker.

  3. Know Kname (@Know_Kname) says:

    Same rights? You mean the same right to marry exactly one person of the opposite sex that I have? Oh, wait….

    • PsyGremlin says:

      Firstly, thank you so much for your replies – Firstly, for proving that people like you actually do exist, and secondly for reminding me that I should thank my lucky stars every day, that I’m not a Christian and thereby have to be associated with people like you. Now, on to your comments.

      “You mean the same right to marry exactly one person of the opposite sex that I have?”

      Actually, most normal people would describe it a “marrying the person you love,” but hey! If you want to be specific, then just remember that if you lived in pre-1967 America, and you were white and the “person of the opposite sex” that I assume you love, is black – you DIDN’T have that right? And guess what? The people advocating again SCOTUS allowing that, were using exactly the same arguments you idiots are using against marriage equality now. So congratulations for choosing to be on the wrong side of history.

      But I’ll be generous and assume that you were referring to the Biblical definition of marriage – one man and one woman. Although, as I’m sure you know from reading your Bible (and not just cherry picking verses that suit you bias) Biblical marriage isn’t quite so easy.

      After all, it can just be a man and a woman. Or it can be a man, woman, and goodness knows how many concubines. Or a man, a woman, and any slaves she owns. Or your brother’s widow – but be careful with that one, because failing to get her pregnant caries a death penalty. Then again, you could rape a girl, and marry her afterwards, as long as you paid her father some money. Maybe you fought in Iraq – hell, then could could marry any female POWs you captured. And while you’re at it, why stop at one wife – there’s plenty of polygamy in the Bible.

      So yes, where the only criteria for your right is to “marry somebody of the opposite sex” – everybody else now has the right to marry the person they love… and your right hasn’t changed at all.

      Oh, and let me head you off at the pass before you come with the “oh, then that means they can marry their pet, or a child” – because that implies that you are a sociopathic motherfucker, who doesn’t understand the concept of consent, and shouldn’t be allowed out in public, without a minder.

  4. Know Kname (@Know_Kname) says:

    “Nobody is forcing you to marry somebody of the same gender, nor attend their weddings, and it’s certainly not going to make you and your wife suddenly divorce.”

    But they will sue your business into closure and force you and your family into bankruptcy if you don’t make a damn cake and will someday soon sue churches that don’t host their weddings just like they did in Denmark. And you are going and will go along with it all very happily because of your bigotry against Christians.

    • PsyGremlin says:

      Ok, you do realise that if you are running a business, you aren’t allowed to refuse to serve somebody based on their sexual preference, any more than a fast food store can refuse to allow a black man to sit at the counter (even if it’s owned by a Klansman), or Costco can refuse to serve you, on the grounds of you being a gigantic asswipe. That’s not how business works. You’d be the first to run wailing down the street because a Muslim refused to serve you, because you are a Christian bigot.

      And there’s another very simple test of this, using your cake example. If the only people they refuse to make a cake for are homosexuals, then it has nothing to do with their religious beliefs and everything to do with their unChristian bigotry. They would have no problem making a cake for me, an atheist, or for somebody who stole something, or for somebody’s 2nd, or 3rd wedding, even if the divorces had happened because of adultery. Which is strange – because if they’re so goddamned hung up on their religious principles, then they shouldn’t serve people who’ve broken the 10 Commandments… and you know what isn’t in the 10 Commandments – homosexuality. So yeah, if you are going to run a business that refuses to serve somebody, be they gay, black, disabled, whatever, then they deserve to be put out of business. What that’s thing libertarians always chant? Oh yeah, “The market will adjust itself.”

  5. Know Kname (@Know_Kname) says:

    You do realize (probably not) that according to Christian beliefs, God is responsible for 10 out of 10 deaths no matter how they happen, right? Why does God sending the flood to cause the deaths of a large number of people make him a “mass-murdering madman,” but the immensely greater number of deaths due to “natural causes” don’t?

    • PsyGremlin says:

      “God is responsible for 10 out of 10 deaths”

      Yeah, thanks for reinforcing my point that you’re a member of a death cult, worshiping a mass-murdering fuckwit, whose idea of testing somebody’s faith is to give an 8-year-old leukemia.

  6. Gustav says:

    I find this whole discussion fascinating. I am a Christian who belongs to a denomination which has fully supported gay/lesbian rights, including marriage, for more than a decade, indeed it campaigned FOR gay/lesbian marriage.

    In those countries which have legalized same sex marriage none of the evil things predicted by the religious bigots have come to pass. No one has married a child, or a pet, or a sibling — although there have been many marriages with many women [mostly by devout cultist-psuedo-christians who say ‘the Bible says I can’.

    Haters got to hate and will never learn to be true Christians. [Yes, I know as a sceptic who believes I may be in the minority here. LOL]

    [I also always question those who interpret the Bible literally “Have you ever eaten a bacon cheese burger, or lobster, or pork?” Usually they say yes and are astounded to learn they have violated “God’s” law by doing so. It is really fun to watch them try to squirm their way out of that one. Try it, it is good for a laugh.]

    • PsyGremlin says:

      Hi Gustav – thanks for your reply. That’s a good point you raised about Biblical literalism – and an argument I’ve had on more than one occasion. There are several ways they do squirm out of it.

      The most common is to say that the laws of the Old Testament no longer apply (apart from the one about killing the gays, of course), because with Jesus came a new covenant. Of course, the problem with this, is that in Matthew Jesus not only specifically says that he didn’t come to change the laws of Moses, but also endorses the law about having your unruly children dragged to the town gates and killed.

      The other arguments I’ve heard include Ray Comfort saying that dietary laws don’t apply to us, because they were only meant for Hebrews, and that there’s a difference between the dietary laws and the moral laws, and we can ignore the dietary laws (I remember coming across some minister saying that we can now eat pork, because God invented the fridge), but not the moral laws. Because the latter allows you to kill gays.

  7. Scott DeLong says:

    You sir, have done a good job writing about these maniacs on the Right

  8. David Samuel says:

    The reason those pretend “straights” who also minister church, coach little league, and run boyscouts, and are cops, uncles etc. is because many of them are child molesters who go to gay bars to pick up young gay boys. They don’t want gay bar patrons to recognize them in their church, and in their town. Might queer their action of molesting the children available in their church, and town.

Comments are closed.