Two quick things:
a) The previous post makes only minimal amounts of sense; I intend to edit it for clarity and coherence.
b) Holy shit! My links worked! I've never done that before.
That is all.
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
It's called the "Bible," not God's Big Book Of People Who Are Going To Hell, And Therefore Are Acceptable Targets Of Your Narrow-Minded Scorn And Ridicule. Seeing as gay marriage and ten commandments monuments are on everybody's mind just now, I thought I'd take the time to weigh in on both subjects. First, the 10 commandments monument in Julia Davis park.
It seemed to me that the importance of of having the monument in the park quickly overshadowed the message the monument represents. (I wonder how many of the people in these vigils and protests were aware it existed before Fred Phelps made a fuss about his monument. More than that, I wonder how many of them actually practiced what the stones preached.) But command number 2 is all about not having graven images, i.e., worshipping things as opposed to God. I don't think Boise is any better or worse off for having or not having the monument in place. Now that's is being moved, I'm fairly certain that people will forget about the fracas, and continue on with their lives.
The point I'm trying to make is, if you truly believe, if you give more than lip-service to God and the Bible, then you don't need a monument; you have it in your heart.
Broadly speaking, I'm very pro religion. I don't have much use for organized religion, personally, but in general, it's a good thing. Almost every religion I've come across, and certainly the Big 3, boil down to: don't be a dick, don't lie, don't steal, don't kill, be nice to people, avoid drugs and alcohol, don't have sex unless you're absolutely prepared to have kids, respect people, and so on. All very good things, things that wouldn't kill more people to try. But then you get into the zelots, and the whole system breaks down. This seqways nicely into my thoughts on gay marriage.
It's well established that the Bible, and by extension God and Jesus, take a very dim view of homosexuality. By most readings, homosexuals go to hell. End of story. Guess what? Gay people know this. You don't have to beat them over the head with the fact that you may consider their whole like to sinful. Gays, for the most part, are not asking the Catholics, or Luthren, or LDS, etc, etc, etc, to suddenly approve of homosexuality, they're asking governments to.
I see three levels, no, let's call them types of marriage, as levels implies a hierarchy, of marriage, each capable of existing with or without any of the others. The first is a 'spiritual' marriage. This is where two people decide that they love each other, and make lifelong commitments to support each other. Weather or not this union is recognized by any religious or secular authority is another question, and irrelavent. These people love each other, and that's all that matters
The second type, is a religious marriage, that is one sancioned by a higher power, weather that be Buddha or God or Jehova or Allah or Kali or Deanna or a thousand other deities. These unions can exist with out without any kind of legal status, and with or without any kind of love or emotion.
The final type is a civil union, which is largely a taxable arrangement anymore.
Every combination of these types of 'marriage' is possible. If you think for a moment, you've probably encountered several combinations in your own life.
The gays have the first type, they mostly don't care about the second, seeing it, I think, as a lost cause for the time being, and are after the third. Just because San Francisco, or New Paltz says these two people are married, does not imperatively mean they love each other, or any sort of deity gives a damn. It's just a monetary situation. gays want to get all the cool financial stuff straight people do: lower taxes, better interest rates and insurance, the right to inherit and all that stuff.
It was asked of me, if they allow gay marriage, since tradition is out the window, why not allow incestual marriage? I say sure, but the problem lies in the semantics of the word 'marriage.' 'Marriage' implies a religious ceremony, so I propose that we leave marriage to refer specifically to that alone, and have the word 'union' apply to any two people who want this tax status to apply to them. There does not need to be any physical love/sex/lust involved, (and if there is, what business is it of yours?) but this could really help people out. As an example, my uncle and grandmother have lived together for many years. My grandmother is divorced and my uncle shows no signs of getting married any time soon, if at all. If the option were open, setting up a 'union' could help them tremendously. (Money is very tight with them.) If would lower their taxes, my uncle would be able to add his mother to his health insurance, and they would have more money in pocket because of lower deductions.
It seemed to me that the importance of of having the monument in the park quickly overshadowed the message the monument represents. (I wonder how many of the people in these vigils and protests were aware it existed before Fred Phelps made a fuss about his monument. More than that, I wonder how many of them actually practiced what the stones preached.) But command number 2 is all about not having graven images, i.e., worshipping things as opposed to God. I don't think Boise is any better or worse off for having or not having the monument in place. Now that's is being moved, I'm fairly certain that people will forget about the fracas, and continue on with their lives.
The point I'm trying to make is, if you truly believe, if you give more than lip-service to God and the Bible, then you don't need a monument; you have it in your heart.
Broadly speaking, I'm very pro religion. I don't have much use for organized religion, personally, but in general, it's a good thing. Almost every religion I've come across, and certainly the Big 3, boil down to: don't be a dick, don't lie, don't steal, don't kill, be nice to people, avoid drugs and alcohol, don't have sex unless you're absolutely prepared to have kids, respect people, and so on. All very good things, things that wouldn't kill more people to try. But then you get into the zelots, and the whole system breaks down. This seqways nicely into my thoughts on gay marriage.
It's well established that the Bible, and by extension God and Jesus, take a very dim view of homosexuality. By most readings, homosexuals go to hell. End of story. Guess what? Gay people know this. You don't have to beat them over the head with the fact that you may consider their whole like to sinful. Gays, for the most part, are not asking the Catholics, or Luthren, or LDS, etc, etc, etc, to suddenly approve of homosexuality, they're asking governments to.
I see three levels, no, let's call them types of marriage, as levels implies a hierarchy, of marriage, each capable of existing with or without any of the others. The first is a 'spiritual' marriage. This is where two people decide that they love each other, and make lifelong commitments to support each other. Weather or not this union is recognized by any religious or secular authority is another question, and irrelavent. These people love each other, and that's all that matters
The second type, is a religious marriage, that is one sancioned by a higher power, weather that be Buddha or God or Jehova or Allah or Kali or Deanna or a thousand other deities. These unions can exist with out without any kind of legal status, and with or without any kind of love or emotion.
The final type is a civil union, which is largely a taxable arrangement anymore.
Every combination of these types of 'marriage' is possible. If you think for a moment, you've probably encountered several combinations in your own life.
The gays have the first type, they mostly don't care about the second, seeing it, I think, as a lost cause for the time being, and are after the third. Just because San Francisco, or New Paltz says these two people are married, does not imperatively mean they love each other, or any sort of deity gives a damn. It's just a monetary situation. gays want to get all the cool financial stuff straight people do: lower taxes, better interest rates and insurance, the right to inherit and all that stuff.
It was asked of me, if they allow gay marriage, since tradition is out the window, why not allow incestual marriage? I say sure, but the problem lies in the semantics of the word 'marriage.' 'Marriage' implies a religious ceremony, so I propose that we leave marriage to refer specifically to that alone, and have the word 'union' apply to any two people who want this tax status to apply to them. There does not need to be any physical love/sex/lust involved, (and if there is, what business is it of yours?) but this could really help people out. As an example, my uncle and grandmother have lived together for many years. My grandmother is divorced and my uncle shows no signs of getting married any time soon, if at all. If the option were open, setting up a 'union' could help them tremendously. (Money is very tight with them.) If would lower their taxes, my uncle would be able to add his mother to his health insurance, and they would have more money in pocket because of lower deductions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)