Marriage Equality Slaps the Face of Jesus

Marriage Equality Slaps the Face of Jesus September 20, 2012

Two of the most ridiculous bigots in the country came together when Peter LaBarbera interviewed Rick Scarborough on his radio show. LaBarbera declared same-sex marriage to be “blasphemous” and Scarborough said allowing it slaps Jesus in the face. Oh, and it will lead to rounding up Christians and throwing them in prison.

LaBarbera: Tell us the significance of America, the American institutions, our government getting behind what I call the blasphemous idea of homosexual so-called marriage. What is the significance of that for our country and for our people spiritually?

Scarborough: Well, we have literally slapped the face of the only hope we have and that is the Lord Jesus. We officially have taken positions now as a country that are [antithetical] to the Bible and [antithetical] to a God who gave us our liberties and guaranteed our rights. If we don’t hasten to repent of that, then the God who gave us freedom is also the God who will allow tyranny to take it away from us. God is our greatest hope, but He’s also our greatest threat. And God help us if we forget that…

Had you twenty years ago said homosexuality would become commonplace, people would have said you were crazy. If you’d have said five years ago we would legalize homosexual unions and homosexual activity in our military, people would have said no way. But now all of those things are the norm and you and I and what we believe are becoming increasingly marginalized and soon we will be imprisoned if this trend continues. We’ve got to stand up, speak up and refuse to shut up.

Homosexuality is, of course, no more common than it was 20 years ago. The changes in society over the last 20 years haven’t magically created more gay people than there ever were. They just aren’t being cowered by bigots like this and they’re no longer accepting their attempts to deny them equality.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • dingojack

    “Well, we have literally slapped the face of the only hope we have and that is the Lord Jesus”.

    Literally? Really?

    Dingo

  • Error 442: Lower bound of stupidity too high. Please revise expectations of humanity and attempt to reprocess statement.

  • Eric R

    Get back to me when we’ve literally kicked Jesus in the nuts.

  • you and I and what we believe are becoming increasingly marginalized and soon we will be imprisoned if this trend continues.

    It’s another case of projection. They’ve tried hard to marginalize and imprison gays and, for a long time it worked. Now that they see their own views marginalized, they can’t imagine that others won’t try to imprison them.

  • baal

    I’m pretty sure the amount of face slapping Jesus is getting hasn’t really changed much since his turned to dust some 2000 years ago (oh you mean its a metaphor? I heard Ash used one of them in his battle against another metaphor in “Challenge of the Samurai”). LaBarbara might want to cross the following list of countries off his vacation plans: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden.

  • daved

    If we don’t hasten to repent of that, then the God who gave us freedom is also the God who will allow tyranny to take it away from us.

    Freedom being taken away from us is indeed a danger, but it’s got nothing to do with gay marriage and everything to do with the so-called “War on Terror” and the growth of the Security State being done in its name.

  • OverlappingMagisteria

    Well, the guy keeps turning the other cheek. It’s like he wants to slapped!

  • matty1

    I literally wish some people knew the difference between literal and figurative.

  • lofgren

    You know Jesus likes it.

  • DaveL

    “Well, we have literally slapped the face of the only hope we have and that is the Lord Jesus”.

    Literally? Really?

    Well, since you live in Australia you naturally missed out on the National Christ Slapping Festival that happened over Labor Day weekend. Jesus stood out on the National Mall and everybody lined up to slap him in the face. A good time was had by all*.

    *Except possibly Jesus.

  • Loqi

    We literally slapped the face of Jesus? Where is Rick hiding the Jesus? There are tons of people who would be interested in seeing this literal Jesus.

  • This gay guy I know, Miguel, cock-slapped Jesus in the face last week in the restroom of El Picador. I understand everyone enjoyed it.

  • Pierce R. Butler

    And Jesus, as a proper traditionalist, insisted on meeting America near the riverbank the following dawn, with pistols at 20 paces.

  • lofgren

    This gay guy I know, Miguel, cock-slapped Jesus in the face last week in the restroom of El Picador. I understand everyone enjoyed it.

    I think if you cock slap Jesus and he shows you the other cheek, it’s fair to consider that “enthusiastic consent.”

  • fastlane

    But, did they use a fish?

    …I’ll get my coat.

  • “If I don’t see it, it’s not happening” sounds like an accurate description of their view of history. It was easier to hide injustice from the public and easier to keep stigmatized minorities from forming communities. It’s not as easy in the information age.

  • Loqi

    Does one have to be involved in a gay marriage, or is being an ally enough for the non-proverbial Jesus slapping? If necessary, I’m willing to do a convenience marriage in order to get in on the literal Jesus slapping action.

  • cptdoom

    We officially have taken positions now as a country that are [antithetical] to the Bible and [antithetical] to a God who gave us our liberties and guaranteed our rights.

    No, we did that when we passed the First Amendment and not only legalized, but protected as a Constitutional Right, blasphemy and heresy. If we hadn’t, we wouldn’t have to deal with Scientology, or Mormonism, or the Assemblies of God, or the Southern Baptists or any of the other fake religions that have been created out of whole cloth since the beginning of the country.

    If that’s not good enough for you, we also took anti-Biblical positions when we allowed divorce and remarriage, and when we allowed slaves to be free, and when we accepted women as leaders.

    All of these things happened in our past, when God was allegedly smiling down on us and protecting us. Clearly either God is ok with change or LaBarbera and Scarborough are full of sh*t (or possibly both).

  • I thought our only hope was Obi-Wan Kenobi….

  • Michael Heath

    That explains in the stinging sensation in my hands.

  • “Well, we have literally slapped the face of the only hope we have and that is the Lord Jesus”.

    ALL:

    Schlip! Schlap!

    MAYOR:

    Schlip-a-schlap-a vay

    ALL:

    Schlip! Schlap!

    MAYOR:

    Schlap away all day

    ALL:

    Schlip! Schlap!

    MAYOR:

    You simply can’t go wrong

    Vith traditional Christ-schlapping song

  • TGAP Dad

    Marriage Equality Slaps the Face of Jesus

    Good. Now keep slapping until he submits.

  • Jim

    It seems to me that a Jesus who’s slapped in the face by the notion of all being treated equally is probably a Jesus who needs to get slapped more often, until he remembers who he is.

  • Abby Normal

    I think Scarborough may be confusing marraige equality with the lady who “restored” that fresco in Spain.

  • Chiroptera

    Had you twenty years ago said homosexuality would become commonplace….

    lol wut?

    It is interesting how a significant number of politicians and political activists (and a distressing proportion of the electorate) are losing the notion that words have meanings.

    Doubleplus good duckspeakers.

  • The (insert expletive of choice here) deserves to get slapped. He says he loves us, but where’s the love? He never calls, never writes, never even says “Hello” when he deigns to show up on tortilla.

  • d cwilson

    ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

    Welcome to the Looking Glass world of Planet Wingnuttia.

  • tbp1

    #8: Al Franken had an amusing bit about literal and figurative in the aftermath of his being sued by Fox News after one of his books was published. It was something along the lines of “You know how when people say that ‘the case was literally laughed out of court’ but they really mean it was figuratively laughed out of court? In this case when I say it was literally laughed out of court I mean it was literally laughed out of court.”

    It’s one of my pet verbal peeves, too, along with the well-known “I could care less” for “I couldn’t care less,” and the more obscure “building to a crescendo” (a crescendo is the buildup itself, not the climax or arrival point).

  • Chiroptera

    Maybe they think that Evil Obama really did go to heaven and slap Jesus in the face?

  • lofgren

    Had you twenty years ago said homosexuality would become commonplace, people would have said you were crazy.

    Incidentally, 20 years ago was 1992.

    I don’t feel like doing a ton of digging, so I’ll just check Wikipedia. Their article unfortunately reports only individuals who have had a some-sex experience in 1992 (2-3%) and individuals who self-identify as gay or lesbian in 2010 (7-8%), but a study from 1994 pegs those who experience same-sex attraction at 7-8%. In other words, homosexuality was about as common then as it is now.

    Fifty-three percent of Americans reported a close relationship with an openly homosexual person.

    By the time I entered high school (1995), conservatives were howling that homosexuality was not only commonplace, it was rampant amongst teenagers, and “trendy.” Ellen had come out. Spin City had a popular gay character. Northern Exposure featured a married gay couple. Roseanne’s mother was gay. MTV broadcast a gay marriage ceremony. Anybody who thought you were crazy for predicting greater acceptance and visibility of homosexuality in 1992 had their head in the sand.

    If you’d have said five years ago we would legalize homosexual unions and homosexual activity in our military, people would have said no way.

    Five years ago was 2007. By that time, Mitt Romney had already been a supporter of openly gay servicemen and women for 13 years.

  • tbp1

    Every single Christian I know is a cafeteria Christian. For one thing, you have to be, since the Bible is wildly inconsistent on any number of topics. But mostly it’s a matter of convenience.

    As others have pointed out above, Christians routinely ignore all kinds of things in the Bible.

    Relatively few churches care much about divorced and remarried people any more. Almost none require women to cover their heads in church or refrain from wearing jewelry; many churches permit women pastors and teachers, something clearly forbidden in the NT. We’ve outlawed slavery. Basically people just ignore any Biblical stricture which is inconvenient or embarrassing.

    Usually they don’t even bother with a rationale (or rationalization); it’s as if the Bible verses never even existed. I think that within 20 years homosexuality may well be one of those things. The Bible will still have those appalling verses in it, but people will just ignore them, and bringing up the subject will be considered tacky.

  • This is so tame. We literally fisted him when we started wearing poly-cotton shirts and planting two types of crops inthe same field. After all, he (or should that be He?) had as much to say about those abominations as he did about homosexuality.

    But what would I know, coming from Scotland where we’ve had legal Civil Unions for years and are about to remove the final ‘phoney’ distinction between it and marriage? I’m damned already!!

  • NitricAcid

    #28- “I could care less” is sarcasm. It’s the same reason that a wise guy is not the same as a wise man.

  • I’ve always been into women, but I may consider marrying a dude if it means that the crazy fundies will be put into prisons, well, at least insane asylums where they belong.

  • Our failure to bow down before Lord Jesus will result in tyranny and loss of freedom.

    OK, got it.

  • tbp1

    @33. I’m absolutely not convinced of that. You may be right in some cases but I think lots of people just really don’t understand what they are saying. My entirely anecdotal and possibly snobbish reasons are that hardly anyone I know says that at all, and the people I do hear saying it often use other substandard English as well, and not ironically.

  • dave

    Had you twenty years ago said homosexuality would become commonplace, people would have said you were crazy.

    Incidentally, 20 years ago was 1992.

    As someone who worked in the East Village at the time, I can assure everyone that, at least in certain places, homosexuality was quite commonplace in 1992.

  • lofgren

    The British version is “I couldn’t care less.”

    The American version is meant to be used like: “Well, I guess it’s remotely possible that I could actually care less about this.”

    As in:

    Man: Madame! Your dog is peeing on my rhododendrons!

    Woman: I really don’t much care about your rhododendrons.

    Man: My rhododendrons have won best in the county at the fair for three years running! What do you intend to do about this?

    Woman: Well… I suppose I could care less

  • I have a sneaking suspicion that this guy doesn’t know what “literally” means.

  • Red-Green in Blue

    Rick Scarborough:

    We’ve got to stand up, speak up and refuse to shut up.

    Ah, the lovehate that dare notdare speak its name…

  • ArtK
  • J Myers (no relation)

    The American version is meant to be used like: “Well, I guess it’s remotely possible that I could actually care less about this.”

    I’ve never heard the phrase used like that in the US; I’ve only ever heard people (many, many people) say “I could care less” when they clearly meant that they couldn’t care less. I even saw an attempted justification of this misuse in an online discussion, in which it was explained that “if someone asked me to care less about the matter, I could.” (The explainer did not seem to realize that this caring-less process would necessarily terminate, and that the termination would occur at the point of maximum effectiveness–when one couldn’t care less–which is why one should just say as much in the first place.)

    Yes, I have the same pet peeve as tbp1.

  • Don’t forget that these sort of idiots usually believe that being gay is a choice. So it’s entirely possible they do believe there are more gay people now that 20 years ago, that the increasing acceptance of homosexuality is encouraging more people to become gay.

  • sunsangnim

    I love how they cry about freedom at the exact same time they want to take freedom away from some people. I don’t think the word means what they think it means.

    J Myers at 42 is right. It drives me crazy when people say that.

  • lofgren

    I’ve never heard the phrase used like that in the US; I’ve only ever heard people (many, many people) say “I could care less” when they clearly meant that they couldn’t care less.

    Right, that is exactly what it means. It’s sarcasm.

    It is saying, “Yes, I suppose it is remotely possible that I could care less… but that’s about it.” I.E., the distinction between how much I currently care and how much less I could potentially care is trivial enough to be irrelevant.

    Compare to:

    “It could happen!” = “It almost certainly won’t happen.”

    “I should be so lucky!” = “I will never be that lucky.”

    “Tell me about it!” = “Don’t tell me about it, I already know.”

    “Well aren’t we quite the little (man/woman)!” = “You are still a child.”

    “Listen to Mr. Expert over there!” = “This person has no idea what they are talking about.”

    “Bless his little heart!” = “This is the only nice thing I could possibly say about this person, and only because my faith demands it.”

    “Of course, anything for you!” = “You are a selfish ass.”

  • dingojack

    See here.

    But, otherwise, *meh* I couldn’t care less.

    Dingo

  • dingojack

    ‘I should be so lucky’* is used here more like this:

    Person 1: Oops I just crushed my foot under this half-ton car.

    Person 2: I should be so lucky!

    [my situation is so bad, I’d consider myself lucky to have that level of misfortune].

    Dingo

    —–

    * notwithstanding the Singing Budgie

  • dingojack

    Loqi (#17) asked: “Does one have to be involved in a gay marriage, or is being an ally enough for the non-proverbial Jesus slapping”?

    Well that would be giving Jesus a literal ‘wedgie’ (an ‘atomic wedgie’ if you actually go to a gay wedding without a ‘god hate fags’ sign).

    d cwilson (#27) – at least Humpty Dumpty pays them for the extra work done, rather than treat them with contempt.

    As in the link posted above. Since caring is a vector, then ‘I could care less’ is simply stating that your ‘vector of caring’ is not-zero, which is trivial.

    If you say ‘I couldn’t care less’ then you’re stating your ‘vector of caring’ is zero, that is, you don’t care in any way about something, you’re completely uninterested (possibly and/or disinterested) in it.

    Dingo

  • tbp1

    Sorry, I just don’t think MOST people are being sarcastic or ironic when they say “I could care less.” I think they just don’t understand that they’re really saying the opposite of what they mean.

    I could be wrong, but that’s what my own experiences lead me to believe.

    FWIW when I lived in Mexico, one of my friends there said that one of his favorite phrases in English was “I couldn’t care less.” He loved the directness of it, the depth of scorn implied. It doesn’t really translate very well into Spanish, either, because Spanish doesn’t have a verb for “to care about.”

  • fastlane

    I think in ‘the industry’, this is referred to as a mushroom stamp. Or something like that. I’m not going to look it up on urbandictionary from work…..

  • lofgren

    I think they just don’t understand that they’re really saying the opposite of what they mean.

    If somebody says “I could care less” in order to say “I couldn’t care less,” it’s inherently sarcastic.

    You’re basically saying, “Sorry, I don’t think people are being sarcastic when they say that. They’re just being really sarcastic when they say it.”

  • J Myers (no relation)

    If somebody says “I could care less” in order to say “I couldn’t care less,” it’s inherently sarcastic.

    I don’t see how this could be true; it’s only inherently sarcastic if they intend it to be sarcastic. If they simply don’t understand what they are saying, it’s just plain wrong. And it’s much more likely to be the latter, as “I could care less” utterly fails as sarcasm; if they wanted to be sarcastic (and in parallel with your other examples), they might say something like “That is so important to me!” or “I couldn’t care more!” But they don’t. They say “I could care less,” which is trivial, as both dingojack and his video explain.

  • lofgren

    And it’s much more likely to be the latter, as “I could care less” utterly fails as sarcasm;

    Then you fail at sarcasm.

    Sarcasm does not require an extreme opposite statement, it only allows for it. If you say “Yeah, that’s… nice,” and intend “That’s dumb,” it is sarcasm just as much as saying “WOW THAT IS SO AWESOME.”

    If you say “I could care less” while clearly and obviously conveying the meaning “I don’t care,” that’s sarcasm. Since it is clear that you do understand that when somebody says “I could care less,” what they mean is “I don’t care,” the sarcasm is obviously coming through loud and clear.

    I think you are underestimating people here (a bit snobbishly, to boot). Not once have I had a conversation on this topic – and it comes up surprisingly often – where somebody was like, “Holy crap I never realized that this is literally the opposite of my intent!” The reaction is always, “Yeah. Duh. Are you just realizing this? Are you going to bitch about driving on parkways and parking on driveways next? Did you just learn English last week or something? How can you not already understand this?”

    Next time you are talking to one of those people who you presume “don’t understand” four incredibly common, single syllable English words that they have probably known since they were three years old, I would suggest simply asking them what they mean.

  • lofgren

    That video is dumb for another reason: if you want to be intentionally obtuse about metaphors, “hold the fort” makes no more sense than “hold down the fort.” For some reason, Mitchell is comfortable with using the word for “grasp and maintain” in order to convey “defend,” but insists that the words for “grasp and restrain” must be intended literally. That’s just willfully dense. I could just as easily argue that “hold down” makes perfect sense but “hold” is ridiculous. You want me to “hold” the fort for you? Why? Does it require two hands, and you have to scratch your nose or something? Are you fingers getting tired? Is somebody calling on the other line? HRFDURF I CN B PAINFULLY LITERAL 2 CUZ M SO SMAHT.

  • here’s a discussion of the video by Language Log and also follow the links to earlier posts on its usage. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2345 (In one of the other posts, they note that in English

    The process has been generalized to give with a variety of MSOs (“minimal scatological objects”):

    I could give a {damn|shit|hoot|(flying) fuck|crap|rat’s ass}”

    The analysis suggests it has become a perfectly acceptable phrase in contemporary English.

    There is also a debate among linguists about whether the phrase is still meant sarcastically these days, and I do agree with those Language Log authors who argue that it isn’t, at least in most cases. But that’s ok because etymology does not determine synchronic usage, after all.