Aw, except it's misleading. Joseph was Jesus's foster father. He wasn't married to God the Father. Try again!
You are nitpicking. The sentiment of the sign rings all too true. It's all about equal rights.
If the adult involved asked the question, "Why can't I have a marriage like other people have," that's one thing.But they've set the child up to ask a strange question. Two daddies would mean the child would be denied a mommy. I honestly believe that many people who enter into same-sex relationships are simply seeking to be loved and to love, but bringing children into the mix is objectively unfair. Someday you might see the same kid all grown up, standing on a street corner, holding a sign that said, "Johnny had a Mother and Father, Why can't I?" The child has rights, too.
So a child raised by a single mom or single father is unfair and being denied a loving parent? Come on now....I don't think you really believe that.If this world had NO adoption and no unwanted children (and being so pro-life I would think you would have sympathy for unwanted children) then your point would possibly be worth examining.But to deny a child a loving set of parents based solely on prejudice is insane. If a child HAS no mother, then you can't possibly be denying them a mother by giving them a set of loving adults who want to raise and love them.I would hope that maybe someday you would meet a child raised by a loving gay couple. Maybe that would help to open your eyes a little.
Well, yes, I do think that it is far from the ideal for a child to be raised by a single parent. A widow has no choice in the matter, and that kind of situation is very sad.Divorce is also very sad, not anything I would wish for any couple, and especially not for any of their children. Children are raised by single parents only when something has gone very wrong in their family (death, abuse, etc.)So I believe I am consistent when I say that children deserve to be raised by both a mother and a father, and that people should not make *choices* that prevent that from happening. Divorce is a choice, adopting a child into a home with same-sex parents is a choice.On a related tangent...have you ever looked into how much it costs to adopt a child? There's room in my house and my heart, so I have. The cost is prohibitive! If there are too many unwanted children, it's not necessarily because there are not people who want them.There's more I want to say, but someone is up from a nap...
Yes, there is a fantasy world where nobody gets divorced and all kids have two parents....Then, there is the real world. With a divorce rate of over 50% and orphanages with plenty of children looking for a happy, loving home.Also....children are not ONLY raised in a single parent home when something has gone "very wrong". There are too many variables in life for such a blanket statement to be true.It would seem that you would rather see a child remain unadopted, than be adopted by a gay couple.I just can't get on board with that thinking.
I'm sticking by my "very wrong" statement, although I don't expect you to agree with my line of reasoning. It goes like this: God created man and woman and gave them the gift of sexuality in marriage. If it is misused outside of marriage and a child is a result of the union, the child itself is not "wrong", but the act that created the child was. (I'm sure we could debate this one all day.)If a married couple, who promised to love each other until death do them part, changes their mind and separates leaving children to suffer the consequences of their divorce, something has gone wrong. I'm not arguing that they all should stay together, but one, or both of them, caused the situation by their actions or failure to stay true to their promise.If one parent dies, obviously something has gone very wrong in the marriage. Death is a result of original sin in the world, a suffering that we will always have with us until the day every tear shall be wiped away. (That's Christian code-talk for "heaven.")So, I say it's better to get at the root of all these problems, and not just treat the symptoms. Let's work on building stronger families, teaching people how to love and forgive each other--and to love and forgive themselves. I know one guy who does this very well, a guy who has helped me love and forgive my friends and family even when they drive me crazy and I want to run out of the house screaming. I'm pretty sure he can help everyone with their problems, too, which is why I go out of my way to introduce him to everyone...Have you ever met my friend, Jesus? ;)
You say........Let's work on building stronger families, teaching people how to love and forgive each other--and to love and forgive themselves. I agree.Let's give unwanted children a loving home....no matter the race, nationality, or sexuality of the people willing to love.Let's not look at somebody as less of a human being and less deserving of THE SAME RIGHTS that you enjoy just because they are different from you.I realize that the bible is FULL of rhetoric pointing out how when someone is different, they aren't as deserving as yourself (and it's not just the bible, but every exclusionary religion out there.....they are all exclusive clubs). And I'm sorry to have to break this to you.....but Jesus is a myth no different than Zeus, Mohammud, Horus, Mythra, and on and on and on.If you choose to believe the myth....that's fine. But try not to use it as a crutch to look down on those born different than you. The "Jesus" of your bible never said a word about homosexuality. That's old testament fluff....along with not eating pork, speaking in church, having marital sex during menstruation, and a million other laws I'm betting you don't take seriously.
A myth! I didn't know! I'm despairing now, desparing...just kidding.Anyway, let's talk about the definition of "rights" because I think we mean different things when we use that word. When I use the word I mean these rights: "We hold these truths to be self-evident...yadda, yadda... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." Or as JFK more recently said, “The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.”Where do the rights you refer to come from if you don't believe in God? Popular vote? A cracker jack box? I'm being funny, but I'm serious. Why is gay marriage between two people a right, but polygamy not?
Also, I should mention that Catholics aren't the sola scriptura Christians. We rely on the teaching of the Magisterium to interpret the Bible and our faith in each generation. So, just because it isn't exactly in the Bible, doesn't mean that it isn't Church teaching. You can look up church teaching on homosexuality in the Catechism of the Catholic Church if you're interested.A quote: The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
My legal rights come from exactly the same place yours come from. The constitution and courts of law.I could just as easily BELIEVE my rights are given to me by a fairy living in the garden as you choose to believe that a "creator" endowed you with yours. But at the end of the day, the long arm of the law gets their marching orders from people....not ancient texts whose writers thought the earth was flat.Now, there ARE places where "rights" and "laws" come straight from holy books and the clerics that study them. Of course....this leads to such things as the genital mutilation of innocent children, the ABSENCE of womens rights, and so on.I'll stick with well reasoned and fair over fairy tales any old day.As for the somewhat stale polygamy argument.....that's an easy one.Marriage is a LEGAL institution. Sure you can slap some religious window dressing on it all you like. Do it in a church, a synagogue, or a temple all you like...it's still the SAME LEGAL institution that can take place in City Hall.So you (a consenting adult) can go out and have sex with as many people as you like. It's not illegal. You can live with as many people in whatever sexual arrangement you all agree on. It's still not illegal.But for the LEGAL RIGHTS that come along with government sanctioned marriage, it is limited to two people. That's the law, and if people wanted to change it, they would work toward that.....but I doubt you will find much support from the business community looking at extending health benefits to polygamists.But as the law stands now....a man and woman can get married and find comfort in the legal protections and RIGHTS that are afforded a couple.Therefor the government is extending benefits to SOME couples, but not others.That's called discrimination in my book.
The Constitution says your rights come from God, and for that matter, America's legal system is based in Judeo-Christian law. I'm asking you where they would come from apart from our already established law.For example, if you lived in a country where slavery was legal and you were a slave, wouldn't you say your rights as a human being were being violated? Why? Following your logic, If the country's constitution and courts of laws said slavery was OK, you would have to concede that they were not being violated. I believe there are universal rights of man that have always existed, that do not originate in the law of the land, and I think you do, too. (Genital mutilation of innocent children, the absence of womens rights, slavery, etc. are violations of these rights.) But where do these rights that you believe exist come from?
The constitution is a secular document. There are no references to religion, God, theism, or Christianity. As for America's legal system being based on "Judeo-Christian law", that's just patently untrue.Last I looked at the ten commandments, only 2 out of ten could possible be concieved as "law".Not to mention the scores of crazy "laws" in the bible that have have nothing to do with modern life...Anyone who dreams or prophesizes anything that is against God, or anyone who tries to turn you from God, is to be put to death. (Deuteronomy 13:5)If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)If you find out a city worships a different god, destroy the city and kill all of it's inhabitants... even the animals. (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)Don't let cattle graze with other kinds of Cattle (Leviticus 19:19)Don't have a variety of crops on the same field. (Leviticus 19:19)Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)Don't cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)Yes, somebody living in a land where slavery is legal would feel their RIGHTS are being violated. I'm sure the women who are forced to cover themselves from head to toe and are denied an education feel that their rights are being violated. And they are.By religion.The rights we have in this country came from forward thinking men who saw fit to seperate HUMAN RIGHTS from ancient mystic texts. They were genius that way.The Christian God is a being of terrific character- cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust-Thomas JeffersonTo talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say there are nothing, or that there is no soul, no angels, no god. I cannot reason otherwise...I am satisfied, sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which we have no evidence-Thomas JeffersonChristianity is the most perverted system that ever shone upon man-Thomas JeffersonThis would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it-John AdamsAs I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how it has happened that millions of fables, tales, legends have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed-John AdamsAs the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitian nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of harmony between the two countries.-George WashingtonShake off all fears of servile prejudices, under which weak mines are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.-Thomas Jefferson
You're right about the Constitution not mentioning God. Thanks, I won't use that one again. But you're not right about the Judeo-Christian history of our legal system. Just from wiki because I'm supposed to be painting the kitchen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-ChristianI'm sure we'll continue this conversation in the future. It's been fun!
Nothing in the Wiki (and come on....wikipedia? really?) counters the arguments that none of the thousands of whacked out "laws" in the Bible are present in our legal system (thank goodness)......and only 2 of the "grand" ten commandments (and that even depends on which of the MANY versions of the ten you are looking at) could even be considered modern law.There is no biblical judeo-christian law propping up our legal system.
I don't think you understand the history of ideas and the evolution of our legal system. I'm not saying this to be insulting, and I will try to explain what I mean another time.
This helps explain what I'm talking about:In addition, the Judeo-Christian tradition in particular teaches that man is created in the image of God. Consequently, each person is endowed with a certain divine dignity and with specific rights that flow from that divine well of dignity. The Judeo-Christian recognition of the importance of the individual raised the status of all individuals in society, laying the foundation for the notion that the state is not omnipotent, that laws of God transcend those of the state, and that the state must not violate the God-given rights of each individual. *This Judeo-Christian concept contrasts sharply with earlier despotisms that had envisioned the monarch as the supreme, and unaccountable, ruler of his domain.*http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/family/593
This is going to trickle in in bits and pieces as I think of it today. And I may not be the most articulate, accurate defender of my faith, so please be patient with me.You don't seem to understand a Catholic's understanding of the Bible. The covenants between God and his people in the Old Testament were replaced by our covenant with Christ in the New T.So quoting Old Testament Laws that don't seem to make sense do not undermine my belief. They don't all make sense to me either. :) But they don't apply anymore since Christ's coming. We believe there is a unity between the Old T and the New T . The Old T foreshadows and prophesies the the New T, and the New T illuminates the Old T. If you really want to know what Catholics believe, you should pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or read it online. And you SHOULD know what we believe, as well as what other religions teach, if you really want to convince the world there is no God. I assume you preach atheism (which I see as a form of religion, because you worship men's brains) because you think it is what will make all men happy. If you are convinced this is true--that there is no God--out of love for your fellow man you have an obligations to spend your entire life working to spread this message. (I'm being sincere!) But your arguments will fall on deaf ears if you display an ignorance of what your fellow man (or woman) believes.
I understand your points about the "Catholic understanding" of the bible.I also find it strange that somebody would profess an allegiance to a religion, then rely on others (especially others who deem it necessary to cover up the serial rape of children) to tell them what their religion "means". How about just read the book. Sure, it's an anonymously written book passed on, edited, and translated decades after it's 'events' took place.....but you ARE allowed to read it on your own. No need to rely on men (who think you don't hold the ability to do their job by the way. Sexist pigs) to tell you how and what to think about it.Not to mention this passage from the New Testament....Matthew 5:17-18 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.Saying that I should know what other religions teach is a HUGE assumption. I've read the bible more than once, along with OTHER holy texts from the many other religions out there. It's a fascination of mine to say the least.An atheists lack of belief may fall on deaf ears to a believer.....but no more than Catholicism will fall on deaf ears to a believer of another faith.Atheism is not a worship of men's brains or invisible fairies. It's the lack of a belief in a 'god' plain and simple. No need to preach....but no need to hide one's head in shame either. Just be.Think of it this way.....no child is born with a religion. It's indoctrinated to them from birth. Religion is more a result of geography then philosophy most times. Believe it or not Justine.....you are darn close to an Atheist yourself. Considering there are literally THOUSANDS of gods being worshiped over time....essentially, I just believe in ONE LESS god than you do.And for the record....denying a couple the same rights you enjoy is still discrimination.
Sorry, I've had a house full of company for a week and haven't had time to stop by. You raise lots of good point, which of course I'd love to respond too, so I'll try to write back when I have a moment. :)
Post a Comment