A really old family was found... which is more important than it seems.
If from the time of cavemen until about the 20th century marriage was between a guy and a gal (and they had kids) I have to question the folks that came along and reinvented the wheel... I don't doubt that there are examples of homosexuality in the past but I don't think you could find a society that endorsed the practice.
I at least like to think I'm a humble man, which only lends evidence to my pride, but if there was a humble person in America, don't you think they might defer to all of the people who were smarter than them (and there had to be a few, especially considering American education these days) that condemned many of the things popular society champions.
For all his immense intelligence (I put down his books because I knew he's wrong, but he was too convincing... I'm not there yet) and philosophical searching for the truth (though the comment that he was fueled by a need to be different holds some merit), I think we have to acknowledge something wrong with Nietzschean Philosophy (1, 2, 3)...
Man just can't resist the temptation to think he's on to something that the rest of the rest of the world neglected. As if these guys are smarter than this guy. Or the guy who did this.
Then again it all comes apart when somebody has the guts to say I am smarter than everybody else and God doesn't exist. It's just those holier than though Catholics who think gay marriage is wrong.
Oddly enough, for all the stereotypes surrounding Catholics they recognize the sin of pride and try to eradicate it. In an odd way other religions put their founders above Jesus, who founded the Catholic Church. Lutherans either have to say that Jesus didn't found the Catholic Church (which seems false, according to the bible) or that Martin Luther was on to something that Jesus wasn't. Somehow I find it hard to believe that by the 1520s man was smart enough to tell Jesus what he meant to say.
But now it's just become a long babble... I should have ended this three times already.
I can't resist, which is actually the big problem in society.
November 18, 2008 | |
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think Luther meant to tell US what Jesus meant- which we had lost sight of at the time- and then went kinda wacky when he started saying that priests and nuns could only be from the devil. Sigh. Nuns are awesome.
I've been wondering lately about this whole gay marriage thing- would it be acceptable for the gov. to just drop the whole recognizing marriages altogether? Marriage, it seems to me, has always been associated with religion- and actually I don't believe that people who are "married" with a civil service are married at all. I'm wondering if it's even a matter of separation of church and state. If it turns into churches being guilty of "hate crimes" or discrimination for not "marrying" gay couples wouldn't we rather have the gov. just not recognize marriage at all? I suppose the purpose of recognizing a marriage is so that people like doctors know who can visit who and things like that- but I doubt that thats really what those who are advocating gay marriage really care about. I don't know- I don't know enough about it to actually say anything- only questions.
In religion class we were talking about gay marriage and we were told that the radical gay activists want to eliminate marriage all together, which at first struck me as frightening. But then coming from you (a much better moral source than a gay activist...), the idea seems to make a lot more sense. But then I started thinking about a world without marriage.
I suppose advocates of civil marriage would say that it is a spiritual union with is played out on earth, so it is necessary for doctors, the IRS, and the rest of society to know who is married and who is not. Ultimately eliminating marriage might solve this problem but create many more. I think people would just stop getting married. Certainly there are a fair number of people who don't recognize marriage as ultimately a spiritual union. And even if your in a "committed relationship", considering the alarming rate of divorce it would not be odd if men and women just went from one relationship to another. They would date their whole lives essentially. If that were the outcome I think the only thing we can do is protect marriage ardently in hopes of helping confused souls. But secularizing marriage to protect it seems like an odd line to take.
Oh the thought of dating my whole life makes me feel that gross damp hot and cold feeling that you get when you have the flu. That's just what I'm saying though. Marriage usually only means what it actually is when it's done in a religious setting. There's no point in atheists "getting married" if you think about it. Really why? You're going to die- why be monogamous? Marriage is actually already gone in our society. People are so dumb though that they don't even think about where marriage comes from and do it anyway. I think people just like weddings- you know, they're pretty and you get presents and get to wear a *strapless wedding dress*. And then you have a dance with a DJ and watch old so and so get drunk and then complain about it later. Barf. It's the biggest gift in the world to get married during a mass where the focus is always, always, ALWAYS on God- I think I'll throw a big contra dance party after I'm married with a pot-luck dinner (live bluegrass band of people I know of course)(and plenty of hot-dish and bars). Anyway, I think if they found out it came from religion and actually tried to carry out what their preaching they wouldn't get married at all- TOO BAD THE HUMAN HEART LONGS FOR SUCH THINGS- that's why they won't let it go. MORE proof that God exists and that there is an objective moral truth. Sigh... like I said before, liberals don't think enough. Be hot or cold- lukewarm annoys everybody!! (and God will spit you out of his mouth)
I love that verse! It makes the moral life infinitely harder but infinity times infinity squared more awesome. I think that if man could find a way to enjoy the moral law he would be much closer to God, but were always mad that we have a law to reckon with and so we only half follow it. Which is really odd because we can die and the moral law can't. It's a pretty one sided battle.
I know what you mean
http://letthemcometome.blogspot.com/2008/11/law.html
Post a Comment