What is marriage?
In the year 2000, 61% of voting California citizens said that it was something that could only be done with one man and one woman.
In the year 2008, four out of seven judges in California say any human can marry any other human regardless of gender. This over turned the vote of 4,618,673 Californians.
Two humans of the same gender can produce no children. Law of entropy?
When is what we want to do a wrong thing and when is it a right thing?
Find the Best Mortgage Rates Near You
3 years ago
7 comments:
Once again a corruption of something beautiful.
Who will be raising the children of the upcoming generation?
yeah...
sigh. I feel very divided on this issue. Not about whether homosexuality is good nor not, I believe it is not good. But about living and letting others live the lives they want to live, too...
Once for a class project I interviewed a lesbian woman in her forties who has been in a committed relationship for 20 years with another woman. They both raise her kids. They're very good people, both of them. When I talked to her she was matter-of-fact, conservative, normal person. That doesn't make it right, but... yeah.
nosurfgirl--
You make an interesting point. However, might I make two comments:
1. Is your experience with that lady the exception or the norm?
2. Her children have undoubtedly been raised thinking that such a way of life is completely normal and good, and will likely follow suit, or teach their own children the same thing. Pretty soon things that are not morally correct can be taught to children as if they are correct, thus influencing all of society, and completely changing what is considered acceptable. It may start out as innocent, but can end up completely overturning fundamental principles that have been put in place by the Person who created us.
I was 1 of the 4,618,673 Californians to vote on this issue in the 2000 election. I firmly believe that God is who created the "institution" of marriage, he designed it to be between a MAN and a WOMAN and he counseled his children to practice it.
I believe that God loves all of us His children, so much so that He allows each of us the freedom to choose our own happiness. Having been a parent now for 5 years and had the opportunity to allow my children to make their own choices I know how hard it is to standby and watch one of my children choose for themselves. It's never anything too drastic, but I am allowing them to learn how to choose for themselves. I try to teach them a little more each day so that they will be prepared to choose that which God, our Father, has asked of us. You're probably wondering where I am going with this...
I want my children to know that God loves them. I want them to know that I love them. However, I also want them to know and understand that God has a plan that he has set up and asked us to live. In God's plan marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN, not between a MAN and a MAN or a WOMAN and a WOMAN. I want Gods children to find happiness, it is just unfortunate that some of His children choose not to live as He would have them do.
Isn't it fascinating that the opinions of four pompous people can overturn the will of over 4 million people? If these four individuals wanted to influence the outcome of this issue, they should take active roles as citizens and take part in the system just like the rest of us through supporting causes as citizens; rather, they are trying to make their vote count more than everybody else's. It seems to me that they feel that because they are trained in law and have judicial experience, that they have the right to supersede the right of the people and legislature to make law rather than interpret it like they are supposed to. It is a pity that four people can nullify the voice of the people because of their political opinions.
Here is my long lecture:
1. People who want to make radical changes are less likely to get a large group of people to go along with them--4,618,673 people or however many. So they must find another way to get it done. Through the judicial branch--a very small group to focus influence upon. This is typical for these types of things.
2. Currently we face The Redefinition of Marriage--but it is called something like "removing the ban on same-sex marriage"--establishing strategic terminology is a significant step. The term, "marriage" will lose much of its meaning.
3. The attack on the Family did not begin with this issue. If past efforts had not been successful, this step would not be as doable. One earlier step was to separate the issue of sexuality from that of morality, so whatever you want to do now in that realm is okay, as long as everyone involved wants to go along. In movies, on tv, in books, this is the norm, and it isn't obvious to the rising generation why this should not be accepted. Animals do what they want and we are animals.
4. If I had a plan to destroy a whole society, not just some of the individuals, I would strike at the system in which children are raised--make it as chaotic and dysfunctional as possible. The rising generation would multiply this chaos as they raised the generation after that. See the warning at the end of the Proclamation on the Family.
5. The above analysis is removed from the level of the anecdotal case--the case of a wonderfully nuturing lesbian couple or the case of an abusive patriarch in a traditional family--these do indeed exist, but this does not answer the issues at hand, and is statistically not indicative. There is a pattern given by our Creator that we strive to follow--you can't achieve stability over time and space by building on a foundation of deviation from a pattern. We can absorb the problems of instabilities in our society (we are all unstable in some way and sometime we all need help) and strive to let whoever needs to, draw strength from what we collectively have. But if that collectivity is chaos, or worse, darkness, there is no strength to draw from.
6. This is a moral/religious issue. As Doestoevsky said, "If there is no God, everything is permissable."
Merrily...
just got back to this.
You're right. But I think, when you meet actual people, sometimes those lines get all blurry... what is right, what isn't right, what is love and what is not, what people deserve and what they don't...
I've never been very good at that sort of thing. I live my life according to strict gospel standards, but when I get in a position to explain those standards to others, particularly those I love or like who disagree with me, I tend to stumble and go, "so, why do I think that again?"
But you're right.
Post a Comment