Well, you see, “if you abandon Genesis’ literal history of marriage and say marriage can be two men or two women or whatever you want, well why not abandon clothing?”
Umm, it might be a bit of a false parallel, but I’m thinking some naturists would be in favour of abandoning clothing, yes? (Winks)
And they’re not all gay, are they?
The open quotation in an Edge Media Network article comes from a member of the right-wing fundamentalist fringe (see how polite I was there when I could just as well have saved space by saying ‘a member of the lunatic fringe’).
It seems “creationist” Ken Ham feels that allowing same-sex marriage might lead to people abandoning clothes. (Don’t ask. It’s a convoluted rabbit hole.)
Ham points out that God created clothing. It’s right there in the book of Genesis, he says.
But Ham failed to mention that God also reportedly (in the same book) created naked people, because people are born nude! Shudders! It’s shocking!
As one of my Twitter sources points out (thanks, Stephanie), Ham’s ridiculous assertions could lead to “a slippery slope . . .”
In other words, don’t be surprised if more members of the, umm, aforementioned fringe trot out the public nudism issue in their exclusionary arguments of how mankind should be made in their image.
ALOHA….. that is main stream media liberal bias; people are NOT born naked…. they are born with clothes ….. it is only the left-wing radical fringe who “claim” that people are born naked…. it is in the first book of seymour…… “and god said, let people be born with clothes…. and they were”…..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you ever get just so tired of God being dragged into anything and everything to either justify doing something or not doing something? Frankly, I a heartily sick, sore and tired of it and am totally done with it. Bring it on.
Ya. Funny that God never speaks for itself, eh?
I distrust anyone who speaks TO god, and I can’t believe the hubris of those who claim to speak FOR god. The latter scare me.
I stopped believing in invisible friends when I was around 4 or 5 years old.
“They were naked” is horribly translated into nude or unclothed. The term “naked” meant at the time, without protection. A Roman soldier without his shield was “naked”. Even today “naked” is the term in the insurance industry for those who don’t buy insurance to protect themselves.
Naked meaning without clothing is a Western invention.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Before the industrial revolution clothing was scarce and expensive, and public nudity was common during warm weather. People didn’t wear their clothes when they felt it was unnecessary in order to minimize the need to clean and maintain their garments which were difficult and time consuming.
I don’t nderstand why so many people don’t realize that there is no rational reason to wear clothing when they aren’t needed for protection or warmth. Lots of energy being used to air condition homes and offices could be saved by people living clothes free.
I recall reading some years ago a reproduced Victorian newspaper report of the well-meaning attempts of passers-by to rescue a would-be suicide from drowning, after he had been seen going into the sea in his clothes. It was actually the first recorded sighting of a bathing costume in that part of the world (England’s south coast, I think). Before then anyone going into the sea had done so naked, though admittedly sea bathing wasn’t the popular pastime it is today.
Wow! Cool story!