Douches of the Week: Nick and Sarah Jensen

I haven't handed out a douche-of-the-week award in a while, but upon reading an article today, I think it's about time I hand out another, two of them as a matter of fact.

In an op-ed for the Canberra City News, Australian Christian Nick Jensen wrote the following:

"[My wife Sarah and I would] as a matter of conscience, refuse to recognize the government's regulation of marriage if its definition includes the solemnization of same sex couples. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman before a community in the sight of God. And the marriage of any couple is important to God regardless of whether that couple recognizes God's involvement or authority in it. ...For us, fundamentally, when we got married we signed a contract with the state and that contract was around the current definition of marriage and all the things that comes with it. Man and woman for life, for the sake of children. If it came to be that the definition of the contract was changed, the contract is now null and void."

After receiving the inevitable backlash regarding the op-ed, Jensen responded by saying this:

"This has been a big decision for my wife and I. Some will accuse of us being bigoted or too hateful to share. But this couldn't be further from our intentions. The truth is, 'marriage' is simply too important. It is a sacred institution, ordained by God ... Any attempt to change the definition of marriage by law is not something in which we are able to partake."

Interesting... So even though there are seven other types of marriages discussed as being legitimate in the Bible outside of the "traditional" one-man-and-one-woman union and the Bible talks about and frowns on divorce more than gay marriage, Nick and Sarah Jensen feel it's their duty, as Christians, to divorce if gay marriage is legalized, because you know, it's what God would have wanted?

While there's a growing chorus of scholars whom now believe the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was that of inhospitality and not homosexuality and the fact the Bible doesn't mention gay marriage, there is no debate that the Bible mentions multiple types of marriages, which include:

1) Man + Woman

2) Man + Wives + Concubines

3) Man + Woman + Woman's Property

4) Man + Woman + Woman + Woman

5) Man + Brother's Widow

6) Rapist + His Victim

7) Male Soldier + Prisoner of War

8) Male Slave + Female Slave

In other words, the legalization of gay marriage wouldn't be the first alteration in the definition of marriage, not by a long shot. So for this couple to threaten divorce if same-sex marriage gets legalized due to it changing the "sacred" status of marriage when there are eight different types of marriages recognized in the Bible, gay marriage isn't discussed in it at all, and divorce gets talked about and frowned upon more than homosexuality in the holy book, I think that's enough to warrant Nick and Sarah Jensen with my Douches of the Week award! Congratulations, you two! Oh, and by the way, I hope you two have a very long and happy marriage, I mean, oh, whatever...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/11/couple-divorce-marriage-equality-australia_n_7558506.html

http://www.upworthy.com/the-top-8-ways-to-be-traditionally-married-according-to-the-bible

http://www.ranker.com/list/top-20-bible-passages-to-use-against-fundamentalists/ivana-wynn

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Family/Marriage/divorce_is_a_sin.htm

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"

The Kind-Hearted Smart Aleck

Search This Blog