Defending Marriage

August 7th, 2006

       I've been thinking again. Dangerous, I know, it can only get me in trouble. One man's deviance is another man's orthodoxy.

       It has been observed that those with lifestyles outside the social norm are not open about this. After all if it was an honest thing, why do they hide? When you consider the reactions of certain yahoos (cough - Fundamentalists - cough) to anything outside their experience is it any wonder people are not forthcoming?

       They wave their fingers become red in the face, get their ire up over things that are frankly not their business and "God will send you to Hell for that!!" they shriek.

       Funny thing but last I looked the Bible said "Love thy Neighbor as thyself." It didn't have any qualifiers such as "only if in a monogamous, heterosexual marriage that meets with your standard of racial purity and gender roles." Lord knows that if Jesus loved only those that met his standard none of us would be at the party.

       Another funny thing, but last I talked to the Big Guy, I was not informed that "they" were in the enforcement division. Hey, if "they" can get the direct Word of God so can I.

       I have to conclude that Christianists do not believe in the teachings of Jesus. Note that I said Christantists, not Christians. Same difference between Islamics and Islamicists. Ever note how it's the Old Testament they always quote? A friend pointed out that Fundamentalists never want to post the Beautides in the courthouse. Here is my favorite. "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." I don't see many peacemakers among the Fundies. Could this mean they are not the Children of God? It is not for me to make judgments here, only observations.

       One also has to observe the degree of wealth among the loudest of the hate mongers.

       And when Jesus had looked around, he said to his disciples, 'With what difficulty shall they who have riches enter into the kingdom of God!" And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus again replying, said to them, "Children, how difficult is it for those who have confidence in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Mark 19: 23-25

       Interestingly enough this passage appears in three of the four gospels, in basically the same form, and the "camel" quote is in all three. Only John doesn't report it. Remember too that "The love of money is the root of all evil". Not as many misquote, the money itself. This goes straight back to an observation I have made before. Money is an anti-survival tool. Those that have plenty in their youth do not learn to look to themselves in danger, but to their wallets. Money can solve everything, but we know that it can't. Sure, it is useful stuff, and I wouldn't mind having more. However their comes a time when money will not save you, money will not help and money is worthless. Your mind and your body are the only things left, and you better know how both work.

       The dead closest to Pompeii had their arms filled with money and jewels. No accident I think.

       But to get back to the original subject. Yes, I am taking about the Gay lifestyle. I don't believe that the State has any business defining marriage. From the point of view of the state, marriage is a legal contract between two or more people. It matters not from the legal point of view if that marriage is between two men, two women, or a man and a woman. Indeed it doesn't matter if it is only two. While not a polygamist myself, I see no reason that consenting adults, and that is the requirement, both consenting and adult cannot form any domestic arrangement they desire. Be that a dozen couples if that is what the dozen couples desire. I am a firm believer in pairing, but I see no reason why you have to stick to one pair. However, if one woman wants two guys and the guys are agreeable, what harm does it do me?

       Religion can define marriage as it sees fit. And here we have another point. What business does the state have in defining marriage as the Judeo-Christian norm? And indeed that is exactly what one man one woman is. It isn't universal. I would say that turning the Judeo-Christian norm of marriage into law is in fact the establishment of religion, and that is my friend against the very first article on the Bill of Rights. A document that our current administration ignores wherever inconvenient.

       If the (insert church of choice) choses for the reason of doctrine to not sanctify Bob & Mary & Gill & Fred in a four way marriage, that is the right of that Church and I will not argue it. However, it is not the place of the state to tell them they cannot form a legal contract, and call it marriage, if indeed that is what they wish to do.

       Yea, the "Defense of Marriage Act" keeps people from getting married, but only politically incorrect people. Ironic, ain't it?

       Get the State out of the Religion business! Neither benefits when they mix, and We the People suffer the most.

       "The religious right are a proof of concept for the theorem that those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Once the despised and legislated against minority they now are in the halls of power attempting to dismantle, for others, the rights the founding fathers so desperately fought for, and so wisely embodied in the Constitution. However, power is fickle, and time will see them cast from the seats of power. Should they succeed in their current quest their children or grandchildren will reap the grief of a new age of persecution fueled by the successes of their forefathers." -- The Tao of Phoenix

 

 

Return to the Grumbles

Your Comments Welcome.

Site designed and maintained by the Owner
  
With the Amiga 4000 Computer and SuSE Linux: 100% Windows Free

The Computers that work for me