29 March 2013

I've had it...someone has to say these things, so might as well be me...

a. The stupid use of the equal sign on facebook.

For those of you that aren't up to speed on this, the other day, in support of so called "same-sex marriage", many people put up an equal sign demanding so called "equality" with the supposed "right" of marriage...Since I'm quite frankly sick of left wing (and for that matter right wing) idiots and their lack of ability to comprehend basic understandings of things, let's get started.

  • The first thing, an equal sign does NOT, let me repeat this DOES NOT make two things equal in so far as the people on the issue are trying to make you understand equal. What it DOES do is take two things that are physically NOT THE SAME THING, and mathematically equate them to one another. 
  • There actually is a symbol to make things physically the same thing, it's the triple bar which stands for defined as..It's a more honest symbol of what is trying to be done...define marriage as a union between anyone regardless of gender. 
Marriage has restrictions here are some, but not all of them (they vary depending on country):
  • Age, not everyone is allowed to get married, a certain age must be reached (varies by country or by state)
  • relations, brothers and sisters are not allowed to get married in the vast majority of places, in some places this extends further to first cousins and various other derivatives. (parent, child, etc)
  • number, in many places polygamy is illegal
  • surname, in some places, people with the same last name are discouraged from getting married. 
  • gender, in some places, people of the same gender can't get married.*
Now the point in listing restrictions is to realize that marriage is NOT a universal right. The conditions for marriage must be met. If they are not met one can't get married..the questions to ask are these:
  • Is it unjust to discriminate against brother and sister marriages? If it is, then why have the law on the books? If it is not, then why can't someone else be discriminated against?
  • Is it unjust to discriminate against age? If it isn't, then, why can't there be other restrictions? If it is, then why do we have the law on the books?
  • Is it unjust to discriminate against last names? If so, why bother with the laws? If not, again, why can't we add more restrictions?
I'm going to make an attempt to answer all of my own questions

  1. Is it unjust to discriminate against brother and sister marriages?
No..Biology tells us this (marriage between brother and sister) would be a very bad idea, why? The genes are so similar as to cause defects, resulting in the next generation of human beings with serious problems. People with serious problems will not be able to effectively run society and would constantly have to be cared for. It is in the best interest of society that this situation be prevented. Fortunately for the vast majority of people, they are not attracted to their own relatives. Perhaps a Biologist with better background can go into more detail about this...

2. Is it unjust to discriminate against ages allowing marriage?

Again no, it is not. The human mind is developing, and there are some decisions that humans are just not ready to make at particular ages. You would not expect a 2 year old to run a family business, just as you would not expect a 100 year old to be drive a car. Neither are in capacity to do those decisions at that age. Now, of course there are those rare exceptional human beings that have reached emotional maturity quickly or wise beyond those years, for those situations, they can be granted on a case by case basis or with parental consent (as law already allows). Something as huge as marriage should not be done by someone who hasn't reached the age or reason or is not ready to accept the responsibilities that come with marriage, period. 

3. Is it unjust to discriminate against last names?

I would say for this, yes, there is an injustice to this one...Just because someone has the same last name does not imply that they are related in anyway shape or form. In these situations, tests should be done to see if they are related, and how close that relation is. As it would be important to make sure that there is enough of a distance as to not cause any problems in marriage. 

4. Is it unjust to discriminate against number of partners?

No, this would not be discriminatory....This discrimination helps to avoid legal complications. There would be no competition as to what could happen in the case of spouse dying, or fighting over various custody rights or what not. If anything this is to protect both sides from burnout (one woman is hard enough to handle..let alone 20...hath no fury like a woman's scorn)

The mistake that many on the anti-gay marriage (and let's be clear, I am as well) make is the direct implication that taking away the restriction on gender would automatically eliminate the need for any other restrictions (Society, can still be very repulsed by certain things, even though they try hard to be "inclusive"). This may or may not be the case, really, we have no idea as a mass experiment on society has never been done. (This is of course not to say that people won't try, it can be assured that someone would try)...Perhaps the argument against gay marriage should be simply reduced to the effects that we can be certain of....

  • With the change of the definition of marriage will come the necessity to publicize this change. In other words, these kinds of people will want public acceptance of this decision. 
  • With the change of definition, those that have any longing for a religious ceremony will want one...however, because such a thing does not exist, they will not find one, and will resort to other ways to get a religious type ceremony. (Whether it be through lawsuits, or underground)
Things such as property, insurance, and tax benefits are not required for a marriage to take place...All people know this, but people do not realize why these tax benefits exist. They exist because marriages have the possibility of children, which helps the state continue...(Even if a couple cannot have children, this still does not change that fact). The state of course likes their money, so they are going to support anything that gets them more money....(more children = more taxpayers)...(whether the state should be doing these things is another blog or another topic entirely)....

What is wrong with preventing two people that "love" each other from getting married? Well, for one marriage is not just about an emotional feeling of love. Love is an act of the will first and foremost, but what happens when the emotional high runs out? If marriage is strictly based on emotional high, I could easily argue that 99% of couples should not be married ever. An emotional high runs out fairly quickly. Before the re-ordering in the ritual, the rearing of children was the number 1 reason that was placed in marriage. There's a reason for this...children are an extension of the couple's love for each other...(Mind you it is midnight when I'm writing this, so you'll have to bear with me)...I'll add more thoughts to this as comments come in. 

There is no need to publicize every single act in our private lives...but again, that is for another day. The homosexual movement seeks public acceptance of their lifestyle...my big problem, is since when is public acceptance required? The majority of people do not go flaunting around their own sexuality, as this is not a necessary condition to live in society....why is it necessary that homosexuals define themselves by their sexuality? 

Because no homosexual marriage has the possibility of children, I do not see how it will better society in the long term, as things are the same will die off, and not have production for the next generation. Even if in the short-term there are not immediate consequences....

Am I repulsed by homosexual behaviour? Yes, I am, for me it is not comprehensible that people of the same sex can like each other in a romantic sense...and yes, I have been hurt someone exerting this behaviour in the past....so that does play into it....

But I will say, condemning homosexuals to hell does not help...as that is completely false...

b. Pope Francis...umm, humble, I think not....

I have tried my hardest to give the Pope the benefit of the doubt. I've really tried, but I can no longer do this in good conscience. 

  • What good is law if it is not followed? Benedict XVI even at nearly 86 could still genuflect. It was probably painful as heck for him...It probably is still painful for him to do so, yet out of love, and obedience to the rubrics he does so...The least Pope Francis can do is try, even if he needs assistance getting back up...that is after all, what the MC is there to do, assist with the smooth running of the Liturgy. It is not just the liturgy, the mozzata, it's just the fact that the Pope is not just an ordinary Bishop, he is the vicar of Christ on earth, as the old saying goes, if one does not want the office, one does not accept...perhaps, Pope Francis was right in saying to the cardinals "Lord have mercy on you for what you have done."
  • Is it possible that Pope Francis does not believe that he's the Pope? In the dismissal of the various things that belong to the Papacy, it could very well be that the Pope does not think himself to be the Pope. (Now, I'm not a sede-vacantist, or think Pope Francis is an anti-pope)...but one has to wonder...if he's not dressing the part because Benedict XVI is still alive? I don't presume to know anything...but I do have to think...
  • Humility does not need to be broadcast, or emphasized to be humility. The minute, people start to say "look how humble..x is by act y" you immediately know that it's not humility. True humility does not require public announcements. (Again, not to say that the Pope is not personally humble, I believe that he's trying)...just the constant media push of "he's humble" immediately puts to my mind "he's not humble." Instead of disappearing, he's trying to maintain his own person...which is a problem...I think all of these acts of humility are counter-productive...the Church will never be loved by anyone accept those in her, because it is she that preaches Truth, and truth compels people to make choices that most people aren't comfortable with...Trying to get the Church to win a popularity contest will ultimately fail. Jesus was hated, so will the Church...,trying to re-fashion her, will not work.  
I pray that all of you have a most blessed Triddum...and please pray for me...that I might not flea from the wolves....and remember this image....

Pax Vobis

24 March 2013

Thought of the day

Today at the Byzantine Liturgy...there was a connection made between the Raising of the dead of Lazarus and Palm Sunday...it was beautiful :D

16 March 2013

Absolutely disgusting

h/t to supertradmum

I read these tweets this morning, was it sad the fact that I wasn't even surprised that His Eminence said such things? Being from his archdiocese, I've experienced the Liturgical terrorism that's better known as the archdiocese of LA Liturgies at various points. All this said, I have an open Letter to Cardinal Mahony...which I'm sure he'll read...seeing as I'm going to mention him...

Your Eminence:

Compassion for the poor is something that Jesus commands us to do, indeed it is quite evident from the Gospels that we should. That said, our first commandment is to love God with all our minds, hearts and strength. Is not beauty an exterior expression of our love of God?

We do love God, so why should we not give Him the best? It makes no sense to place our compassion for the poor in opposition to what we give to God. It is justice that we give Him our best and our full devotion...None of this detracts from our compassion for the poor.

I know in some crazy views, the Pope is just a Bishop, just an equal to your own....afraid, that the Pope in a special way is the Vicar of Christ for the Church Universal. In this regard he needs to be distinct from the other Bishops. This distinction raises the dignity of the other Bishops because the Pope is being humble in abandoning his own personal preferences to be distinctly noticed as the Pope. In the same way your dress as a Cardinal of the Church does not lower my dignity as a lay person. You do not need to dress like me so that my dignity may increase. As a matter of fact I'd be horrified if you dressed like me. (So don't)

To insult our previous Holy Father is beneath you, you are better than this! This also places a burden on Abp Gomez. I pray for you extra today...I beg of you earnestly, stop speaking...for the good of the Church, and for your own persona.

14 March 2013

Pope Francis (not Francis I)...my thoughts.

Well, we have a Pope and his name is Francis...

My first thoughts were and I quote "who?"...I had zero idea of this guy before his election. Did a little research into him, which of course has been reported in the public media....here's a quick bio

I do not worry about anything dogmatic...the Holy Father has no ability to change the Church's teachings on anything, it's a good thing...

That said, I believe that everything the Church does revolves around how she worships. If she does not worship correctly, everything else falls out of order. God first, everything else 2nd in short....And from what I've seen the Liturgy today, I do worry that there will be a de-evolution in the Papal Liturgies....But I will wait and hold judgement...I really believe he (Pope Francis) will be growing into the role, as he is not used to the office.

Let us pray for Pope Francis, that God may perserve him, and give him strength to defeat the enemies of the Church....