Satire: Tanner from ZelphOnTheShelf insists his photos of underdressed young girls have nothing to do with why he left the church

 <satire>

Tanner from ZelphOnTheShelf insists his photos of underdressed young girls have nothing to do with why he left the church

"Actually, I love children," explained Tanner as he tossed a thumb drive labeled ages 10-11 into an industrial shredder next to his desk and wiped beads of sweat off of his forehead.  "It's the church of Jesus Christ that's really responsible for sexualizing young kids..."

"I mean, a real pervert would be the one to tell kids something like you should wear a shirt or your shorts are too short.  I'm completely comfortable when boys and girls wear less...  in fact, it makes me... happy... when children are comfortable enough to change in front of me...  IT'S NOT SEXUAL!  WHY ARE YOU LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT?  ARE YOU ASSOCIATED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT?  BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO TELL ME IF YOU ARE!!"

Tanner contributes to a group called "Zelph on the Shelf" which is dedicated to attacking the Church of Jesus Christ.  He and his cohort have amassed a large following of ex-mos who talk about how much happier they are after having left the church before crying themselves to sleep.

"If you want to see real child predators, you definitely won't find anything suspicious in my browser history," added Tanner as he tightened the locking mechanism of a tall safe on the far side of the room and spun the combination dial.  "Instead, you should look into average marriage ages of women in the 1800's.  I mean, not everyone, just for members of the church of Jesus Christ... because that makes them seem weird."  

When asked about why he had left the church, Tanner tore down posters of the young cast members in Disney Channel's Bunk'd and stuffed them behind a dresser.

"I didn't leave because I wanted to sin!" shouted Tanner.  "And I'm sick of people thinking that just because I appreciate girls before they fully mature, that there's something wrong with me!  Love is love, you know, and if you disagree with me, then you must be motivated by hate!"

After wiping the spittle off of his mouth, Tanner took a breath and smiled.

"Fairness is the reason I left," he said.  "It's not fair... that I can't live my truth within 2 miles of the daycare on main street..."

</satire>

Satire: Heartwarming - Lonely man who turned against his church finds genuine connection with porn video

<Satire>

Evan was about twenty years old when he decided to turn his back on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  He said that it was really hard to leave an organization that invested heavily in his growth and development including fun activities including delicious meals, camping excursions, spiritual instruction, and leaders that volunteered their own time and resources to help him.

"I was really lonely after I told them that I refused to be brainwashed into their cult," explains Evan.  "I've gone through a lot of depression, and sometimes, it seemed like I couldn't drink enough to dull the pain..."

That's when a miracle happened for Evan.  He found a new porn video on his computer!

"Yeah, it's totally different than the ones I was watching last week!" exclaims Evan.  "I feel a real connection to the star, even though I don't know her real name, or anything about her life, and there's no chance of actually meeting her, let alone having a conversation with her."

Evan explained that, unlike the stars of the other videos, he is actually in love... and with so much anger, aggression, and apathy on social media, it's nice to see genuine affection for a change!

</Satire>

Satire: If you truly love someone... an open letter to a woman who claims to follow Jesus

<Satire>

Dear Controlling "Christian" Woman,

We need to talk about how to treat other people... especially people who you claim to love... because it's not the way Jesus would treat them...

Can you not tell how destructive it is when you push your standards and morals on others?  We've seen how you force people to attend your worship service even though they don't want to; and if that's not enough you force them to wear "Sunday best" clothing while forcing them to stay quiet during the sacrament that they might not even understand or believe!  Unacceptable!

We all see the look of judgment and frustration on your face when you see a girl take something at the store... but what if she's starving?  And who are you to tell that girl that the outfit she wants to wear is "inappropriate" because it's "revealing"?  Why is it your business!?!

I thought members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believed in agency, but you obviously have no problems stripping it away from others so that you can maintain your absolute authority.  And not only that, but while ruling with an iron fist over others with your oppressive requirements, you have the gall to tell these people that you love them!

If you truly love someone else, you can't control them.  You have to let them make their own choices.  Sometimes you might not agree with those choices, but you have to let them be themselves.

Jesus didn't force people to do what he wanted... he just loved people!  He taught that we shouldn't judge!

And I know that you think you've got good excuses for all these examples... the boys you force to church are your own children ages 4 and 6, and that you can "love" your children and still demand good behavior...  Or that the girl who's taking things is your 3-year-old who doesn't know any better, and that the outfit she wanted to wear wasn't the inappropriate thing, it was that she was taking off her clothes in the middle of Wal-Mart to try it on that was "too revealing."

Let me tell you something though... just because they're too young to make independent choices about everything or understand the consequences of their decisions doesn't give you the right to push your morals on them!  They have the right to do whatever they want!  And if you truly loved them, you would let them be themselves!

I realize this may be hard to hear... but I'm publicly shaming and manipulating you in this letter to try and control your behavior because I care about you and love you!

So please change everything about your life that doesn't conform to our progressive vision.

Love,
Jessie
President of the Orem Oracion Association

</Satire>

What Type of Marriage Discrimination Will Gay Marriage Advocates Continue To Support?

I have seen many rainbow picture profiles on Facebook and many "love wins" sentiments after the 5-4 ruling by the United States Supreme Court in which they used the 14th amendment to discover a "right to marry."  There are numerous legal reasons why this move represents a dangerous precedent, and how wrong it is for justices to find "implied rights" are more important that explicitly stated rights (such as in the 10th amendment).  For those that have interest in the legal side of this (or those who claim that defense of traditional marriage is indefensible), reading the dissents of the four justices who did not support this finding is illuminating.

I am not going to repeat the legal reasons that this supreme court ruling was bad.  I want to focus on something more emotional, and far more common.

It is no secret that I have vehemently opposed gay marriage.  In response to the points that I have made, I have been told the following:

• That I "probably don't have a lot of gay friends"
• That I have a phobia of homosexuals
• That I am a bigot
• That I am hateful
• That I don't understand the Bible
• That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
• That I might be gay myself if I am "threatened"
• That I am fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
• That I am encouraging (or even inciting) violence
• That I am being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell

The list is not comprehensive, but it never ceases to amaze me how many accusations are made about any person who believes in traditional marriage.

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have a right to be married, the question I have for gay marriage advocates is whether they plan to extend these rights to everyone.  (This is a rhetorical question, I don't want you to tell me about it, I want you to actually open your mind to the consequences of "love" "winning.")

Take for example the polygamous group.  (Now before you say that this is a straw man argument, and no one is advocating for it, read this article)  So if seven people decide that they are in "love", how can a person say that they should be denied the right to marry?  Obviously not because we adhere to a standard of traditional marriage.  If you are opposed to polygamy, let me suggest the following reasons:

• That you "probably don't have a lot of polygamous friends"
• That you have a phobia of polygamists
• That you are a bigot
• That you are hateful
• That you don't understand the Bible
• That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
• That you might have polygamous desires yourself if you are"threatened"
• That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
• That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
• That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell

Take for example the biological brother and sister that have fallen in love, but that the state will not issue a marriage license because they are related.  If marriage is a right, then who are you to say that being related should deprive a person of this right?  If you still disagree that incestuous relationships should be able to have legal recognition in the form of marriage, may I suggest the following reasons that you believe this:

• That you "probably don't have a lot of incestuous friends"
• That you have a phobia of incest
• That you are a bigot
• That you are hateful
• That you don't understand the Bible
• That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
• That you might have incestuous desires yourself if you are"threatened"
• That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
• That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
• That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell

Take for example the man that has fallen in love with his pet dog.  They would like to make their love officially recognized in the form of marriage.  Who are you to say that the dog doesn't love its owner.  I have spoken to many vegetarians who insist that animals have all the same feelings that humans have, and that the most important of those feelings is love.  Who are you to say that this type of relationship is "not natural."  For thousands of years the majority of civilization believed the exact same thing about homosexuality (and many still do.)  Just because Leviticus 18:23 says "Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion" doesn't mean anything.  After all, the Bible also forbids eating pork or women speaking in church, so you can't accept everything in the Bible... right?  Certainly this form of "love" may not be traditional, but the man has a right to be married, and if you try to discriminate against the form of his love, it can only be because:

 

• That you "probably don't have a lot of animal-loving friends"
• That you have a phobia of human-animal relationships
• That you are a bigot
• That you are hateful
• That you don't understand the Bible
• That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
• That you might have bestiality desires yourself if you are"threatened"
• That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
• That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
• That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell

Take for example the forty-year-old man that has fallen in love with a twelve-year-old boy.  The boy says that he is happy with the man, and who are you to say their relationship is taboo?  Of course, the boy may not be an adult, to which traditional marriage relationships typically are limited, but tradition is not the basis for love anymore, right?  It's only love.  Nothing else matters, right?  And who are you to say that the boy is not capable of being in love?  If young people are not capable of love, then are you advocating banning relationships in high school between students who are under the age of eighteen?  No more "cutest couple" in the year book, right?  Your "girlfriend" or "boyfriend" is not allowed.  There are no gay teens, right, since they are too young to understand or participate in sexual activities, right?  Or perhaps you truly believe that "love" should win?  Perhaps the pedophile is just another "non-traditional" relationship that has been negatively stereotyped by society.  No?  Then perhaps you say this because:

• That you "probably don't have a lot of pedophile friends"
• That you have a phobia of pedophilia
• That you are a bigot
• That you are hateful
• That you don't understand the Bible
• That God just wants people to love each other (and that sin does not exist)
• That you might have pedophilia desires yourself if you are"threatened"
• That you are fighting against "civil" or "human" rights
• That you are encouraging (or even inciting) violence
• That you are being judgmental, and therefore will burn in hell

If you are a gay marriage advocate, you may be tempted to let me know about how these ideas are totally different than those of gay marriage.  You may be tempted to shout "slippery slope" or "no one is going to advocate that" or "straw man" or whatever else makes you feel better about the fact that you believe (as I do) that there should be some discrimination in who we permit to marry.  Please, before you begin sending me messages about how awful a human being I am... consider for just a moment that perhaps gay marriage advocates are not so very different from the traditionalists, cake bakers, and people of faith that many of them tend to demonize.

If the reasons for why you might be opposed to bestiality, pedophilia, incest, and other unnatural relationships are not accurately represented by the bullet point lists... then consider for a moment the possibility that the reason I am opposed to homosexual marriage may not be accurately represented by these things either.

Additionally, if you have thrown "traditional marriage" out the window as a valid reason to discriminate against other unorthodox types of unions, consider for a moment the actual reasons that you are opposed to them.  Examine why you believe that some types of unions are not good, and should not be condoned by society.

It is my earnest hope that perhaps, in the moment when you struggle to define why it is OK to discriminate against some marriages, that you will see that advocates of traditional marriage are not the demons they are painted to be.