Should the Religious Right Co-opt the Rainbow?


en Ham, the president and founder of Ark Encounter, wants to take back the religious significance of the rainbow.

As everyone knows, Noah built the ark. Fewer people know that Noah’s son, Ham, laughed at Noah’s intersexual genitals when Noah, foregrounded with the ancient grape vine, an intersexual plant bearing both male and female reproductive structures, lay drunk and exposed in his tent. Noah’s intersexual genitals became the prototype for the circumcised male who, after a slicing of his foreskin, became God’s wife. Evidently Noah did not like his girly-man parts ridiculed. To show just how much of a man’s man he was, he cursed Canaan. Why did Noah curse Ham’s son who had nothing to do with the exposure and ridicule of his intersexuality? The answer was obvious to those who understood the meaning of Ham’s name. Ham was all man; he was plenteously potent; his Hebrew name, Cham, means “hot,” “hot” as in generative power–to be red with vital blood–the blood of life. Ham was the virile father of the Egyptians whose genitals were of horse-like size and potency. Noah was a girly-man, being intersexual, and Ham was all male, therefore Noah lacked the potency to curse Ham. Ham, of the modern day ark, takes offense that the rainbow represents gay marriage as exemplified in the White House’s display of lighted rainbow colors to commemorate the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage, yet the rainbow has always signified gay marriage since God loved Noah, and Noah’s epicene genitals inspired the gay marriage between God and his covenantal homoerotic relationship with circumcised men. Something tells feministsatire the zealous Ham is harboring guilt for the original Ham who mocked Noah, thus to compensate he erected a massive ark built to biblical dimensions.

Please follow and share us:

Leave a Reply