Creationist Ken Ham argues that people will abandon clothing if a literal interpretation of the Bible is rejected and same-sex marriage is accepted as the law of the land.

Right Wing Watch reports Ham joined the Point of View radio program last week to discuss his worries that younger generations of Christians no longer believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Ham warned that losing a literal interpretation of the Bible could threaten not just Creationism but also the concept of marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, and even the wearing of clothing.

Ham wants pastors and others to drop the phrase “Bible story” and instead “emphasize that it’s a book of history because Christianity is based in real history, it’s a history you can trust.”

Ham said:

The doctrine of marriage is based there upon the literal history of Genesis. But if that history is not true, if there was no literal Adam and Eve, then what is marriage, why is it to be a man and a woman? It’s only a man and a woman because God invented marriage, and he invented marriage when he made the first marriage, Adam and Eve.

Ham added that “the origin of clothing is right there in Genesis,” so “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?”

Ham’s reasoning makes no sense, but that is nothing new. Previously the confused and sometimes perverse creationist argued that without God, he would feel no moral prohibition against raping animals or children.

Indeed, for Ham it seems the only thing that prevents him from raping children and farm animal while running around naked is a literal interpretation of the Bible.

This strange and perverse idea that if creationism and a literal interpretation of the Bible is false, then everything and anything is morally permissible, including the rape of animals and children, is a common theme among Christian creationists and other Christian fundamentalists.

For example, recently, another leading Christian creationist, Eric Hovind, argued that if evolution is true, it wasn’t wrong for Josh Duggar to sexually assault little girls, “because what one evolved bag of molecules does to another bag of molecules just doesn’t really matter.”

The simple minded moral arguments (if they can be called arguments at all) made by creationists like Ham and Hovind are absurd obscenities that reveal a profound poverty of both intellect and character.

Bottom line: There is nothing wrong with being a nudist. However, there is something wrong about suggesting that nudism will follow if a literal interpretation of the Bible is rejected. Such assertions reflect a much deeper problem concerning the moral reasoning of Ham and other Biblical literalists.

(H/T Right Wing Watch)

Listen to the conversation below: