"Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples" - Chief U.S District Judge Vaughn Walker
Opposite-sex couples are superior, when looking at the State's interests, as only opposite-sex couples are capable of generating and rearing children, which are desperately needed for the continuance of our society (not to mention paying off the national debt). Any policy should reflect reality.
Showing posts with label Marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marriage. Show all posts
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
Family, and the Reality of Marriage
Some thoughts that have been banging around the ol' cranium:
How can one make an argument against "gay marriage" without resorting to religious proof texting? One could appeal to natural law, physics, biology and reality.
Society is completely subsidiary to a heterosexual, reproductively active pair bond. Wherever there is a man and a woman, there is the possibility of life and of society. Therefore, Society owes its existence to the heterosexual, reproductively active pair bond, and should give it every deference. Society calls these bonds 'Marriages'.
Sure, modern society has provided ways and means of creating simulacrums of productive, life-sustaining unions. But these inherently sterile cooperatives, either by nature or by choice, do not contribute to the future of the society. Sure, the participants may derive sentimental pleasure and personal affirmation from these pairings, but they offer no future to the larger society. They are dead-ends.
Proponents will point to the modern decline of the quality of marriages to somehow strengthen their argument that artificial unions are just as good. The problem with modern marriages is not with the definition of marriage, but of modern peoples' obsession with selfish pursuits of edification and gratification. Don't blame the recipe for cake when you start your disaster by substituting dirt for flour.
Sure, a homosexual couple can procure common property, furnishings, and even children produced by others. They can surround themselves with every trapping similar to a heterosexual, reproductively active pair bond, but it does not change the inherent difference, it does not change the truth. Sure, humans have built aircraft to soar above the ground, but it hasn't changed the laws of physics and gravity.
The larger society needs to recognize that its future can only be made with the help of the heterosexual, reproductively active pair bond. In that recognition, the society must give that union due deference by honoring its significance, not dithering away its definition to pander to peoples' feelings and sentimental illusions.
How can one make an argument against "gay marriage" without resorting to religious proof texting? One could appeal to natural law, physics, biology and reality.
Society is completely subsidiary to a heterosexual, reproductively active pair bond. Wherever there is a man and a woman, there is the possibility of life and of society. Therefore, Society owes its existence to the heterosexual, reproductively active pair bond, and should give it every deference. Society calls these bonds 'Marriages'.
Sure, modern society has provided ways and means of creating simulacrums of productive, life-sustaining unions. But these inherently sterile cooperatives, either by nature or by choice, do not contribute to the future of the society. Sure, the participants may derive sentimental pleasure and personal affirmation from these pairings, but they offer no future to the larger society. They are dead-ends.
Proponents will point to the modern decline of the quality of marriages to somehow strengthen their argument that artificial unions are just as good. The problem with modern marriages is not with the definition of marriage, but of modern peoples' obsession with selfish pursuits of edification and gratification. Don't blame the recipe for cake when you start your disaster by substituting dirt for flour.
Sure, a homosexual couple can procure common property, furnishings, and even children produced by others. They can surround themselves with every trapping similar to a heterosexual, reproductively active pair bond, but it does not change the inherent difference, it does not change the truth. Sure, humans have built aircraft to soar above the ground, but it hasn't changed the laws of physics and gravity.
The larger society needs to recognize that its future can only be made with the help of the heterosexual, reproductively active pair bond. In that recognition, the society must give that union due deference by honoring its significance, not dithering away its definition to pander to peoples' feelings and sentimental illusions.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Ignorance and Enablers
Okay, the article in the local paper was headlined as "Churches help couples prepare for their future together", so I figured to see how bad it could be. Oh yes, pretty bad.
The family highlighted is listed as such: Bride goes to temple and wants Jewish wedding. Groom is Seventh Day Adventist, but isn't particularly adamant, and agrees to the Jewish wedding. Bride's mum goes to a UCC church. The temple balks at the interfaith wedding, so mum gets the kids to have a co-officiated wedding at her UCC church. Getting it so far?
Bride has this to say:
Okay, you can get up off the floor now, catch your breath, and dry the tears.
A rabbi of local renown, who co-officiated the ceremony for the confused couple "said he believes churches should be blind to the cultural and religious differences that a couple might have." Does that include one spouse proclaiming Jesus as Lord, while the other spouse considers Him "[God's] little friend?"
The senior minister at First-Plymouth said that weddings are an advertisement for his congregation’s inclusivity and lack of anything deeper than passing discernment.
Well, how about instructing the spiritually ignorant, for starters? The couple getting married in his church obviously need some instruction, as ambivalent as they are. But this minister does like to collect the lukewarm. He has, in a televised sermon, smugly intoned about one of his congregants that "still considers herself a Catholic", yet attends his church because she disagrees with Rome on many issues.
You know, a sewer will take anything that drops down the hole as well..
The article then prepares us for the coming section on Catholic teaching on Matrimony with this:
The director from the diocesan Family Life office then gives the proper Catholic teaching on marriage, and the article explores a catholic couple's long road to the Altar.
The article concludes with it's punchline, that the UCC is starting a marital preparation course as well, though with the muddle of theology the UCC subscribes to, I can't imagine that it will be of much service.
The family highlighted is listed as such: Bride goes to temple and wants Jewish wedding. Groom is Seventh Day Adventist, but isn't particularly adamant, and agrees to the Jewish wedding. Bride's mum goes to a UCC church. The temple balks at the interfaith wedding, so mum gets the kids to have a co-officiated wedding at her UCC church. Getting it so far?
Bride has this to say:
“He [groom] would’ve been fine with a justice of peace, but I wanted a wedding, and I wanted a religious wedding,” she said. “I said, ‘I want God at my wedding and if he wants to bring his little friend Jesus along, then that’s fine with me.’”
Okay, you can get up off the floor now, catch your breath, and dry the tears.
A rabbi of local renown, who co-officiated the ceremony for the confused couple "said he believes churches should be blind to the cultural and religious differences that a couple might have." Does that include one spouse proclaiming Jesus as Lord, while the other spouse considers Him "[God's] little friend?"
The senior minister at First-Plymouth said that weddings are an advertisement for his congregation’s inclusivity and lack of anything deeper than passing discernment.
“We look at this as a moment for them (couples) to begin a potential relationship with the church or a moment for us to express the warmth of the Christian church,” he said. “Will the church be a place of compassion and inclusion and spiritual depth or not?”
Well, how about instructing the spiritually ignorant, for starters? The couple getting married in his church obviously need some instruction, as ambivalent as they are. But this minister does like to collect the lukewarm. He has, in a televised sermon, smugly intoned about one of his congregants that "still considers herself a Catholic", yet attends his church because she disagrees with Rome on many issues.
You know, a sewer will take anything that drops down the hole as well..
The article then prepares us for the coming section on Catholic teaching on Matrimony with this:
"Not all clergy are as progressive."
The director from the diocesan Family Life office then gives the proper Catholic teaching on marriage, and the article explores a catholic couple's long road to the Altar.
“The church is trying to present an authentic view of marriage and to preserve and protect that understanding,” he continued. “There are so many images and presentations in our culture of marriage that are not authentic and not Christian. They are warped views of marriage. We are trying to protect and preserve what God has established.”
The article concludes with it's punchline, that the UCC is starting a marital preparation course as well, though with the muddle of theology the UCC subscribes to, I can't imagine that it will be of much service.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Convalidation
Last weekend, my wife and I got our marriage blessed by the Church. After a year without the Sacraments, it's good to be in communion once again with Christ's Church.
Seven years ago, my wife and I got married outside the Church. There was reluctance to get married in the Church, as my wife's a lapsed Baptist, and her family has issues with the Church. To salve my own conscience, I sought out a 'catholic' priest to do the ceremony. At that point in time, I was not particularly concerned with issues of licity and validity in regards to Holy Orders and the Sacraments.
Soon, Son #1 was on his way, so I started going to Mass again, taking my wife along. Our child had come, and we eventually had him baptised in the Church. I started getting more and more involved in the Church. Then our girls came, 10 weeks early, and had them baptised right away.
All the while, I had this nagging doubt about the validity of our marriage, and eventually decided to take the matter to my confessor. A year later, here we are. What a merry hunt, trying to find your original parish where you were baptised, getting a note from a different parish, confirming that you've been confirmed, and trying to get marriage prep started betwixt two holiday seasons in a small parish. Maybe more on all that later..
Friday, October 27, 2006
of Food and Marriage
Both are best with natural ingredients.
Food used to be a substance that one would make with raw materials, effort, and care. There was wheat flour, real sugar, eggs, butter, cream, salt, all of which you’d get at the grocer’s. In 2006, a trip to the grocery store is more like a trip to a laboratory supply warehouse, judging from the ingredients in the “food”. There are pre-fab meals that you just have to heat, no effort involved (just don’t ask about the ingredients), and foods pre-segmented in small portions, for those who cannot count their own portion sizes. Our food today is less nourishing, and in cases, more harmful than ever before. It’s because we got lazy and stopped caring for the work involved in our own sustenance.
Now we have marriage, which alongside our cupboards, has disintegrated into toxic convenience relationships. We no longer are content to serve each other without an exit clause in the contract, and it shows. Don’t forget to add pornography, artificial birth control, and rampant consumer debt. Marriage is just not the same thing as it used to be.
So, now people are willing to push the marriage recipe further by doing away with the heterosexual nature of the institution. They’re making soda with Sucralose now, instead of sugar, so what’s the difference? Our society has already stripped the other essential elements out of marriage, so why are we shocked when they clear away the last recognizable element? Marriage has become a legal maneuver, like an omnibus power of attorney, and homosexuals want that privilege.
So, instead, why don’t we throw out the Pop-tarts, pornography, Pepsi, condoms, frozen pizzas, birth control pills, Spaghetti-os, and pre-nuptial agreements. Start over again. Make it count. Both food and marriage are best with natural ingredients.
Food used to be a substance that one would make with raw materials, effort, and care. There was wheat flour, real sugar, eggs, butter, cream, salt, all of which you’d get at the grocer’s. In 2006, a trip to the grocery store is more like a trip to a laboratory supply warehouse, judging from the ingredients in the “food”. There are pre-fab meals that you just have to heat, no effort involved (just don’t ask about the ingredients), and foods pre-segmented in small portions, for those who cannot count their own portion sizes. Our food today is less nourishing, and in cases, more harmful than ever before. It’s because we got lazy and stopped caring for the work involved in our own sustenance.
Now we have marriage, which alongside our cupboards, has disintegrated into toxic convenience relationships. We no longer are content to serve each other without an exit clause in the contract, and it shows. Don’t forget to add pornography, artificial birth control, and rampant consumer debt. Marriage is just not the same thing as it used to be.
So, now people are willing to push the marriage recipe further by doing away with the heterosexual nature of the institution. They’re making soda with Sucralose now, instead of sugar, so what’s the difference? Our society has already stripped the other essential elements out of marriage, so why are we shocked when they clear away the last recognizable element? Marriage has become a legal maneuver, like an omnibus power of attorney, and homosexuals want that privilege.
So, instead, why don’t we throw out the Pop-tarts, pornography, Pepsi, condoms, frozen pizzas, birth control pills, Spaghetti-os, and pre-nuptial agreements. Start over again. Make it count. Both food and marriage are best with natural ingredients.
 |  |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
