‘Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!’

On Saturday, the National Organization for Marriage held its annual small gathering of bigots at its March for Marriage. And this year they were treated to an Orthodox priest delivering the single dumbest argument one can possibly give against gay marriage:

Father Johannes Jacobse, an Orthodox priest from Florida, set the tone at the National Organization for Marriage’s event when he warned that if marriage equality becomes law, “in the end, the state will be telling you how to live and you will lose your freedom and the family will be weakened and the society will crumble and might even be destroyed.”

“God created the family,” he added. “In the beginning, in the beginning, it was Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve!”

I agree with Jamie Kilstein, who says that anytime someone says this the response should be, “Shhhh. Adults are talking.” Seriously, how can anyone actually believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

"Straight out of the Bronze Age. But what do you expect from people who follow ..."

Pastor: Moore Liked Young Girls Because ..."
"Aren't the Orange One's tweets 24 carrot?"

Pastor: Moore Liked Young Girls Because ..."
"Ed has really stepped in it this time. Ouch."

Fox News Allows Judge Jeanine to ..."
"To be fair, they normally settle down around wife no. 3/snark"

Pastor: Moore Liked Young Girls Because ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • StevoR

    Wait .. was Father Johannes Jacobse there?

  • reddiaperbaby1942

    Actually, it was neither Eve nor Steve, but Lucy, aka fossil AL 288-1, found in present-day Ethiopia. And she probably wasn’t married in church. Fortunately for us (though perhaps not for other species, or for the planet), she evidently had lots of descendants.

  • John Pieret

    anytime someone says this the response should be, “Shhhh. Adults are talking.” Seriously, how can anyone actually believe in a literal Adam and Eve?

    But, but … if Adam and Eve didn’t exist and commit the Original Sin, then there was no need for JC to come to Earth and get crucified to atone for the Original Sin and all our sins since and, therefore, all of Christianity is a load of bollocks!

    Oh, wait a minute …

  • scienceavenger

    Actually, in the beginning it was Adam. Eve came along as an afterthough from a rib.

  • dingojack

    And what about Lilith?

    Dingo

  • http://onhandcomments.blogspot.com/ left0ver1under

    That garbage from a priest? He should clean up his own house first.

    it was Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve!”

    The buybull says “bless the children”, not “undress the children”.

  • eamick

    in the end, the state will be telling you how to live

    Every law is an instance of the state telling you how to live, genius.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    eamick “Every law is an instance of the state telling you how to live, genius.”

    The problem is that’s exactly backwards. It should be the State telling you how to freedom.*

     

    * Especially the freedom to get punished severely if you fail to act how Jesus wants you to act.

  • dingojack

    Orthodox Priest Johannes Jacobse stated: “… in the end, the state will be telling you how to live – and that’s not their job, it’s ours, OURS!!” Then he stamped his foot, and claimed he was going to “… take his bat and ball an’ go home! Or hold my breath ’till you do what I want! Or sumptin’ – so there!” Before throwing himself on the ground and rolling around, screaming and crying, for some minutes.

    Needless to say, all the adults in the room rolled their eyes and ignored him.

    Dingo

  • Childermass

    “I agree with Jamie Kilstein, who says that anytime someone says this the response should be, “Shhhh. Adults are talking.” Seriously, how can anyone actually believe in a literal Adam and Eve? ”

    How do I know you don’t live in Oklahoma?

    It is mainstream in Oklahoma to believe in a literal Adam and Eve.

    :-(

  • Larry

    It is mainstream in Oklahoma to believe in a literal Adam and Eve.

    It’s also mainstream in Oklahoma to have black lawn jockeys on your front lawn.

    Doesn’t make it right. Or tasteful.

  • eric

    I agree with Jamie Kilstein, who says that anytime someone says this the response should be, “Shhhh. Adults are talking.”

    Actually I think this bit of silly rhetoric is going to prove useful to the pro-SSM side. Consider the case of wedding photographers and wedding cake bakers. The point to be made is that while such people can limit the sort of service they provide to all customers (example: “I don’t write hate messages”), they cannot provide a service to some customers and not provide that same service to others. The Adam & Eve/Adam & Steve example highlights the difference. If you are willing to write “Congratulations Adam and Eve,” then you cannot refuse to write “Congratulations Adam and Steve,” because the message is the same; only the customer is changed. Likewise if you’ve photographed Adam and Eve standing against a backdrop, you cannot refuse to photograph Adam and Steve against the same backdrop*: its just the same service, different customer. (*This one is especially telling, given that at a straight wedding the photographer probably did photograph Adams and Steves together – groom and best man, groom and groomsmen, etc. Such photographers can’t even claim they don’t photograph men together, because they obviously do.)

    So, let’s keep this one alive. Not only does its “original use” create the St. Augustine problem for fundies, but the phrasing is a very pithy way of pointing out the difference between legal ‘limited service to all customers’ and illegal ‘service to limited customers.’

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    …if Adam and Eve didn’t exist and commit the Original Sin, then there was no need for JC to come to Earth and get crucified to atone for the Original Sin and all our sins since and, therefore, all of Christianity is a load of bollocks!

    I’m not amused at that joke, I’m amazed at the number of Christians who actually push it as a serious argument for a literal interpretation of Genesis. They really do think they can’t have a meaningful Jesus without that particular interpretation of “Original Sin.”

  • StevoR

    @11. Larry : Wait .. what the fuck? They do?

  • StevoR

    @5. dingojack : “And what about Lilith?”

    Maybe she was an Australopithecine or Neandertal or “hobbit” or Denisovan or something? We know there was interbreedingand some of us have their DNA after all ..

    As the old joke goes we all sprang from monkeys, some of us just didn’t spring far enough.. (Mea culpa.)

  • dingojack

    Stevo – you’ve never seen Nevilles, concrete ‘abos’*? (Not seen much nowadays, fortunately, but common in the 70’s).

    Lest we forget, indeed!

    Dingo

    ———

    * I apologise for the expression — it was the parlance of the time. The idea here is to expose the casual racism lurking, hidden, beneath the surface and kill it with the withering light of day.

  • StevoR

    @ ^ Dingojack : No I hadn’t actually. Thanks I guess.

  • dingojack

    Often it’s good to see these *things* and shudder, contemplating how far we’ve walked, and how far we’ve got to go…

    :( Dingo

  • Trebuchet

    Johannes Jacobse? So he’s from the Dutch Orthodox Church?

    Seriously, Google the guy. He’s a first-class wingnut. Among other things, Obamacare has already destroyed the country.

  • lofgren

    If you are willing to write “Congratulations Adam and Eve,” then you cannot refuse to write “Congratulations Adam and Steve,” because the message is the same; only the customer is changed.

    But surely the bakery could have a policy of “We don’t print messages that are contrary to (our interpretation) of the Bible” or “We don’t print messages that would offend (our interpretation) of God’s values.” In that case the message clearly would not be the same for the baker. If I have photographed children in Halloween costumes, does that mean that I am obligated to photograph Klansmen in their cloaks? The question of how messages are determined to be “the same” has to be based on something more than the literal words, right?

  • Grumpy Cthulhu (just woke up)

    Best response is still the one from George Takei:

    http://i.imgur.com/Uts6AC4.jpg

  • eric

    @20: I think your first example is a pretty clear case of a religious belief/interpretation telling them not to serve specific customers. This shouldn’t be legal, but of course that’s part of the question under consideration. Your second example isn’t a very good analogy because Klan meeting /= Halloween costume party. If we change it to make it more comparable, I think the answer becomes clearer. In an early episode of South Park, Eric Cartman dressed up for Halloween as a Klansman (after dressing up as Hitler). Would a photographer who regularly photographs kid’s Halloween costume parties and takes shots of each kid for each parent be required to take Cartman’s picture, even if his costume offended the photographer? Yes, IMO he would probably be stuck taking Cartman’s picture no matter how offensive he/she found it. Eric and Mrs. Cartman aren’t asking you for any service you don’t otherwise supply to others.

  • Dave Maier

    “And what about Lilith?”

    And what about Naomi?

  • lofgren

    @22

    I think your first example is a pretty clear case of a religious belief/interpretation telling them not to serve specific customers.

    That doesn’t seem remotely clear to me. They’re not refusing to sell the customer a cake, they are refusing to print a specific message. If not giving the customer the message that they want constitutes not serving them, then surely not printing a hate message for a hate group constitutes not serving them.

    Your second example isn’t a very good analogy because Klan meeting /= Halloween costume party.

    The two seem quite comparable to me, which is of course part of my point.

    But OK, how about this: If you have agreed to photograph an NAACP event, are you then compelled by law to photograph a KKK event?

  • naturalcynic

    … it was Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve!”

    He is from Florida and looks old enough to copy it from Anita Bryant.

  • birgerjohansson

    ‘Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!’

    .

    It was Noah and his daughters, not Noah and his sons.

  • dingojack

    But OK, how about this: If you have agreed to photograph an NAACP event, are you then compelled by law to photograph a KKK event?”

    No*.

    Next stoopid question.

    Dingo

    ——–

    * unless you’ve contracted to provide said service (photographing a KKK event) for the payment of money…

  • lofgren

    @27:

    And yet if you have photographed straight weddings you can be fined for refusing to photograph gay weddings. For some reason, most people seem to accept that this constitutes a violation of civil rights, yet you are telling me that this situation, which seems perfectly analogous to me, is completely different and even asking about is “stoopid.”

    I’m not opposed to civil rights protections. But a lot of these questions do seem exceptionally murky to me and I continually see liberals totally refusing to even engage them, the way that dingojack does above. The rule seems to be that if the person being discriminated against is a liberal cause, then discrimination is illegal, but if the person being discriminated against is not a liberal cause then you must be an idiot and a bigot to even consider the possibility.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    lofgren. “The rule seems to be that if the person being discriminated against is a liberal cause, then discrimination is illegal, but if the person being discriminated against is not a liberal cause then you must be an idiot and a bigot to even consider the possibility.”

    lofgren, so what about when the ACLU defends the KKK or the Westboro Baptist Church?

  • lofgren

    What about it? What bearing does that have on this conversation at all?

  • sigurd jorsalfar

    If Adam and Eve were married, who performed the ceremony?