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
- 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
I'm amazed at how effective the "other side" has been in the Culture Wars. Any reference to belief in traditional marriage is treated as intolerance. I've never believed so strongly that we are finished as a culture. We've clearly reached critical mass. What now?
ReplyDeletePS. Regarding your list of restrictions... Why do the parties to a marriage have to be consenting persons? If I love someone, why should my ability to find happiness through marriage be limited by his/her/their consent?
I think you are being very charitable in your assessment of same sex marriage and our latest pontiff. And you are also very logical.
ReplyDeleteGod bless you this Easter and every day.
George, all we can do is pray, pray and pray...these kind of enemies aren't defeated with reason and logic...Exactly, consent, who needs that? IF we're going to eliminate all barriers, might as well eliminate the most important one...though I really think the other side might "like" that ;)...Have a blessed Easter
ReplyDeleteLola, thank you :)...Happy Easter to you and your family as well :D
I'm going to preface what I'm going to write with a bit of a disclaimer: I'm not here to troll, or to cause trouble.
ReplyDeleteBut I vehemently disagree with what you believe in. I come from a Catholic family, so I hear these arguments on a regular basis. Where I live in the UK, we're about to enshrine marriage equality in law, and I've discussed this with my family at length.
I think the main argument presented in this (admittedly well-written) blog post is that the issue is how marriage is defined. The Catholic viewpoint is that marriage is a union between a man and a woman with an aim to create children. And deviation from that is unacceptable.
Well, not everyone shares that definition. I think that marriage is a union of two people who love each other. And most people under 50 share that view. At least in Western Europe, Canada, the US and most Latin American nations.
So, my question is as follows. Why should we care what the Catholic Church thinks about the definition of marriage? If they only admitted that Galileo was right in 1992, why should we care what the church thinks about marriage equality now? Why is it an authority that we should listen to?
Unknown, thanks for commenting on the blog....
ReplyDeleteAllow me to say somethings...
1. It is precisely the fact that there exist a plurality of definitions which makes the issue a problem. If there can't be agreement on some type of formal definition, there will be lots of confusion. And one might say, why can't we have a plurality of definitions? The answer is a bit complex, but the simple answer is for the order of society and its daily function, that one should be able to go anywhere in the world and agreement on a definition should be had. It's the reason the for example in the scientific fields that we have certain accepted units that are used internationally that are independent of cultural norms. For example the unit agreed upon for the measurement of intertia (mass) is the kilogram. This unit is recognized by everyone...(Even though in different countries there exist different units, such as in the US system that same unit is called the slug) makes for the smooth running of society.
2. The Galileo situation is a unique one...in the fact that it wasn't that he was "wrong", but rather, it was that he did not have enough evidence to really support his claims at the time. (Technology had not caught up)...It wasn't that the Church did not support Galileo's opinion, it's simply that the evidence that Galileo presented was weak at the time. (Bear in mind that much of the clergy were also scientists during Galileo's time as well. (and still many are today)...Galileo was a bit arrogant which also lead to particular problems as well. ...He is of course not the point of this post, but I thought i'd address it since it was brought up.
3. You say that marriage is a union between two people that "love" each other. But that leads to another question: How do we define love? Do we define love by an emotional feeling or expression? Do we define love by the sexual act? And whom can be the object of this love? The English language fails to really express the reality of "love." The Greek language has 6 words for love, and each define different things. Ambiguous language can be interpreted in anyway possible, and most often times is done so. Without some type of direction, things would be bound to go wrong.
4. One could argue, and argue rather successfully, that any moral authority the church had, has been squandered by the various abuse scandals, blatant disobedience to the Holy Father (past and present), and various other phenomena, which if she were a mere human institution, would have fallen to the point of irrelevancy a long time ago...
5.But the reason that the Church should be listened to, is that she has far more experience in dealing with the varying norms in society, and can see things that we by ourselves cannot see. Whether it's through the barbarians of old, or the sex slaves of now, the Church has been through it all, and has the ability to anchor things in the right direction...
6. The above said, the debate on marriage has been lost for quite awhile, and we have society as a whole to thank for it. Unfaithfulness, abuses in marriage, and various other phenomena have "destroyed" marriage long before the modern situations have come into play. The use of concubines, prostitution, were all abuses in marriage, for those that are biblical readers and are mentioned kind of as an analogy to our own unfaithfulness to God, and our own sinfulness (amongst whom I am the first)...The arguments against gay marriage would be a whole lot easier to make, if people were faithful to their own marriages first...
Basically, what it comes down to, is objective vs. subjective. Regardless of which side is emphasized, there will have to be someone that will be excluded. Distinctions will always be apart of human nature...Without distinctions society literally would be unable to function. I hope I was able to answer your question, always feel free to comment or say your opinion...
Joe