Wednesday, August 4, 2010

WOO HOO!!!! Same-Sex Marriages Declared Legal in CA Again!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38560562/ns/us_news-life?GT1=43001

And yes, I'm a Christian... but no... I don't think allowing same-sex couples to wed will "destroy" traditional marriage. Traditional marriage will always remain popular with the 90% of the human population that is heterosexual. Marriage should not remain the province only of "one man and one woman" in America.

"Against love there is no law."  - The Holy Bible.

The word "abomination" (when targeting homosexuality in the Bible) means "eyesore," properly translated from the original texts.  I agree that sexuality (of any stripe) may be considered an "eyesore" if engaged in in public... but there is no commandment against same sex couplings where actual love is involved. 

The homosexuality "spotlighted" in the Bible, in every instance, was about lust and fornication without benefit of love or marriage. It was about dominating another, or about uncommitted couplings.

I believe it's hypocritical for Christians to disallow marriage; when we do, we make homosexuals "fornicators" rather than committed couples. By allowing gays and lesbians to marry, we remove the stigma associated with same-sex commitment.  And I'm all for that.

Let's legislate against hate if we feel we have to legislate against emotions, feelings and passionate commitments.  See how that works out...

7 comments:

Chrystabel said...

I’m always baffled by the “destroy” traditional marriages argument as 50% of all marriages currently end in divorce. It looks to me like we heterosexuals are doing a fairly good job of destroying the institution of marriage. As someone who absolutely LOVES being married to my best friend, I’m all for giving everyone the same chance to experience this level of commitment and love regardless of sexual orientation or religious affiliation. Way to go California!

Kristine M Smith said...

Amen and amen!

JD Moores said...

Hopefully, my POV will be welcomed in the spirit of tolerance that seems to mark this ruling and the reactions here. Frankly, it doesn't much bother me one way or the other. The Bible aside, I've seen plenty of unholy heterosexual marriages, most ending in everything from divorce to murder-suicide. And I do agree that this is likely the most "Constitutional" thing to do and, as long as there is separation of Church and state (which I support), that's all that should matter. Otherwise, you're just arguing over the very personal end-result of any marriage, and that is, of course, sex.

Per this post, the problem is in identifying where "love" actually exists. Look at the number of couples, straight or gay, whose idea of sex involves acts of domination, etc. "Love" can be a convenient excuse for a lot of things that, in certain circumstances, are just plain irresponsible. When I was 11, two friends of mine, brothers, were orphaned because their father killed their mother (who happened to have been having an affair with a woman) and himself one sunny Saturday. The act was evil and he was disturbed to begin with, but considering the fact that she was also sodomizing her children, could not the actual act of murder have been out of "love," in that the only likely alternative would have been a divorce in which they would have been left with an abusive parent? That doesn't necessarily apply here, but if you want to defend homosexuality based on the presence of "love," why not beastiality? Why not incest? Then, of course, we have to decide WHY we're against one or two of these things and not another.

I, personally, think that the reason Christianity takes such a strong stance against homosexuality (marriage being incidental) is because it can never result in procreation. The Bible says, "Be fruitful and multiply." As old-fashioned as it sounds, you could argue that the pleasures of sex are merely Divine and / or biological motivations for the propagation of the species, which would make any other kind of sex - homosexual AND a few forms of modern heterosexual intercourse - just plain selfish. Now, even from the Christian standpoint, we're all sinners, we're all going to be selfish sometimes, and it does seem trivial to be picky as to exactly HOW one is selfish - kind of like adopting Milton's layers of hell as Scripture. Then again, there's a difference between allowing for a few selfish acts, or their inevitability in any life, and condoning and / or promoting an entire lifestyle predicated on an act that can be little else for both partners.

Logically and legally, I couldn't oppose the ruling, but with all respect, Kristine, I do find the "love" defense to be... risky. Lots of philosophy and such enters into these kinds of questions, but my own "conservative" bent, if that's how it's identified, is simply to avoid the kind of confusion and uncertainty that, I believe, can come with being afraid to stand one's ground for fear of offending someone. One day, "love" is good feelings and the exchange of affection - the next, it's an act of violence justified because, out of "love," one wanted to defend someone or something from that which was destroyed. Nazis LOVED Germany and the Nordic race - so, they sought to eliminate the materialistic Jews (in a time when Germany was in economic ruin) and anyone that stood in the way of their progress. I could go on and on, but I think the point is more than made.

Kristine M Smith said...

By love, I mean love in its purest form -- agape.. divine love between human and God and human and human. Sex enters in as a sharing of real love. All else is delusion and selfishness. I don't think committed homosexuals or heterosexuals are selfish for sharing intimacies. I think the other types of "love" you mention are perversions because there is always a victim... not two equals.

JD Moores said...

I get what you mean, Kristine, and I won't belabor it much because you were generous to post my originally wordy manifesto in the first place. That said, sex CAN have its victims. Mostly, it's called rape, which is sex even if the motivation isn't actually sexual - if for no other reason than that, unfortunately, it can result in pregnancy. Then, there's the transmission of an STD to a partner, whether the result of ignorance or neglectful omission of facts. Either way, there's at least one victim, sometimes two. Any other definition or criteria for "sex" and / or "love" beyond the purely biological and literal is semantics and personal philosophy, each easy to embrace, but difficult to defend logically.

In any case, I won't argue with the ruling and its Constitutionality and legality, but my original point stands and I thank you for understanding, as I've no more to add. - JD...

Carl Rylander said...

You read news of same sex penguin couples that raise chicks that other penguins have abandoned, Kristine. That's a good fallback. It happens in nature.

I must admit, if I saw two men kissing in a bar, I would struggle with that. I shouldn't, and it should happen, though not lewdly and not expecting the whole bar and myself to join in!

Two women kissing, I wouldn't mind as much. I've seen it!!

Kristine M Smith said...

10% of mammalian species are homosexual. It's a natural occurrence.

Thinking someone can "catch" gayness is ludicrous. If it were, the gay population would be growing (as opposed to just deciding to come out of the closet). I really don't know what all the fuss is about. Just some more fear of "otherness," I guess... same-o, same-o.