Biblical Heresy: Don’t Worry About the Talking Frog.
Just Worry About What He Said. 28
The entire concept of “gay marriage” is delectable, inflammatory and exquisitely inviting. How could anyone with a reasonable foundation in religious mysteries possibly walk by this one? From the detached view of a definitely post religious observer the question appears to be little more than the second chapter of “How many angels can dance on the head of pin?”
Are these people nuts?
Look for similarities in the following short story: “A young Jewish couple has been hiding in the ghetto to avoid the Holocaust. Conditions make a traditional wedding impossible. They leave their refuge, seek out a chaplain in the German Army, explain their dilemma and ask him to wed them. They justify this reckless act with the simple explanation that they love each other.”
So, all the things that the religionists have done to homosexuals through the ages are actually quite secret. Perhaps the accounts of the stake burnings and the torture are misinterpreted. Maybe the hysterical papal rants through the centuries were actually translated incorrectly.
What possible reason would there be for a nice homosexual couple to have anything to do with these people or their seemingly endless, violent condemnation? Aside from a few who might actually suspect that such “marriages” would weigh in their favor on Judgment Day, can we extract any other reasons?
Yes. After the bone-chilling ambitions of the medieval zombies are excluded, a rather clever mix of “bait and switch” is revealed. Is marriage a secular arrangement, or is marriage a religious arrangement? What makes it seem to be such an essential tradition anyway?
Last question first. These are the propositions. Marital loyalty is created within the institution. Without marriage, irresponsible young men would act like sex dogs. They would tire of their young ladies and commence to roam far and wide with their seed. They would cease to support their children. Family life, so essential to our culture, would collapse.
The religious explanation of this is simple. Men (and, probably women) are essentially sinful. They are weak. They abandon their family loyalties at the first sign of trouble or infatuation.
If this were not the case when the modern institution of marriage started, the constant repetition of this “everyone is sinful” business has become a self-fulfilling prophecy since then. In fact, as such a concept is accepted by those participating in marriage, its converse has been equally instilled in the minds of these young couples. “Now that we’re not married anymore, what exactly shall we do next? How about running wild in sexual profligacy? Nothing else suggests itself.”
The fact is that humans make matches and are generally inclined to stay in them so long as external craziness is not injected. Couples living together in conditions of their own design find themselves responsible for sustaining their relationship. It becomes necessary for them to mature. Together. This is what makes family life important, not a ponderous religious usurpation of every issue with meaning.
The domination of religious concepts as extraneous impositions on this natural state yields a critically destructive result. It encourages irresponsibility and marital intolerance by replacing growth normally expected from the couple in question with all sorts of external demands, definitions and expectations originating from outside, originating from the religionists.
Homosexuals are as well equipped as anyone else to undertake the union’s definition and execution. There is actually almost nothing of value available to be added by religious commentators. There are two parties involved. The religionists demand a third chair at the table. One with a megaphone.
Presently, around 55% of heterosexual, religious based marriages fail. Is this the part denied to those eager homosexuals who want in on the action?
Back to the “bait and switch.” The social discourse concerning homosexual marriage consistently deals with what has been surreptitiously represented as its spiritual or Biblical description. This is the area chosen as most favorable for the debate.
The part not chosen for the debate is the rather immense body of statutory law which defines legal advantages available exclusively to couples with a marriage license. Inheritance, co-ownership, adjustments to taxable income, custody of children are presented as “procedural assets” to be gained by submitting to the imposed conditions of the religionists as required to “enter marriage.”
All of this has a peculiar odor of non-Constitutional “suspect discrimination,” although, before any remedy is sought, remember Reverends Falwell, Dobson and the like. The continuing promotion of this ridiculous debate amounts to money in their pockets not to mention an opportunity to impose their ambitious religionist controls on more and more people.
So, what will make sense out of this? Separate the religionist procedural interests from the value of the secular assets. The legal advantages of marriage should provide no more of an advantage than what is expected from other religionist practices, baptism, confirmation, etc. Of course, in this country all would be completely free to participate in such things, including marriage, but there should be no expectation of “gain” over those who did not participate. In fact, there should be no insistence that those who did not marry should subsidize the tax burden of those who did. Further, statutory civil rights which are granted married couples but denied all other individuals have seen their day in the sun.
(A similar argument can be made concerning the insistence to subsidize other religionist institutions at the expense of those who are excluded from their spiritual “benefits.”)
Civil unions represented a finely crafted offering of partial relief. They included a few secular advantages previously reserved exclusively for married couples, but they continued to reserve others. It is no more than the song of a mortally wounded hunter. It will not bear the light of day.
The social culture, as considered in its mass, is expressing less and less interest in submitting to the control of the religionists. Those in whom religionist death fear remains at its medieval intensity continue to be dangerously reactionary in their resistance -- and disgust -- with respect to homosexuals receiving anything remotely close to equal, secular treatment. They envision a glorious vindication from their Savior at the Gates of Heaven, a just compensation for their denial of equal justice for homosexual sinners.
Yes, it is all terribly dated. Its “bang” period has passed. Its “whimper” period approaches.
Just Worry About What He Said. 28
The entire concept of “gay marriage” is delectable, inflammatory and exquisitely inviting. How could anyone with a reasonable foundation in religious mysteries possibly walk by this one? From the detached view of a definitely post religious observer the question appears to be little more than the second chapter of “How many angels can dance on the head of pin?”
Are these people nuts?
Look for similarities in the following short story: “A young Jewish couple has been hiding in the ghetto to avoid the Holocaust. Conditions make a traditional wedding impossible. They leave their refuge, seek out a chaplain in the German Army, explain their dilemma and ask him to wed them. They justify this reckless act with the simple explanation that they love each other.”
So, all the things that the religionists have done to homosexuals through the ages are actually quite secret. Perhaps the accounts of the stake burnings and the torture are misinterpreted. Maybe the hysterical papal rants through the centuries were actually translated incorrectly.
What possible reason would there be for a nice homosexual couple to have anything to do with these people or their seemingly endless, violent condemnation? Aside from a few who might actually suspect that such “marriages” would weigh in their favor on Judgment Day, can we extract any other reasons?
Yes. After the bone-chilling ambitions of the medieval zombies are excluded, a rather clever mix of “bait and switch” is revealed. Is marriage a secular arrangement, or is marriage a religious arrangement? What makes it seem to be such an essential tradition anyway?
Last question first. These are the propositions. Marital loyalty is created within the institution. Without marriage, irresponsible young men would act like sex dogs. They would tire of their young ladies and commence to roam far and wide with their seed. They would cease to support their children. Family life, so essential to our culture, would collapse.
The religious explanation of this is simple. Men (and, probably women) are essentially sinful. They are weak. They abandon their family loyalties at the first sign of trouble or infatuation.
If this were not the case when the modern institution of marriage started, the constant repetition of this “everyone is sinful” business has become a self-fulfilling prophecy since then. In fact, as such a concept is accepted by those participating in marriage, its converse has been equally instilled in the minds of these young couples. “Now that we’re not married anymore, what exactly shall we do next? How about running wild in sexual profligacy? Nothing else suggests itself.”
The fact is that humans make matches and are generally inclined to stay in them so long as external craziness is not injected. Couples living together in conditions of their own design find themselves responsible for sustaining their relationship. It becomes necessary for them to mature. Together. This is what makes family life important, not a ponderous religious usurpation of every issue with meaning.
The domination of religious concepts as extraneous impositions on this natural state yields a critically destructive result. It encourages irresponsibility and marital intolerance by replacing growth normally expected from the couple in question with all sorts of external demands, definitions and expectations originating from outside, originating from the religionists.
Homosexuals are as well equipped as anyone else to undertake the union’s definition and execution. There is actually almost nothing of value available to be added by religious commentators. There are two parties involved. The religionists demand a third chair at the table. One with a megaphone.
Presently, around 55% of heterosexual, religious based marriages fail. Is this the part denied to those eager homosexuals who want in on the action?
Back to the “bait and switch.” The social discourse concerning homosexual marriage consistently deals with what has been surreptitiously represented as its spiritual or Biblical description. This is the area chosen as most favorable for the debate.
The part not chosen for the debate is the rather immense body of statutory law which defines legal advantages available exclusively to couples with a marriage license. Inheritance, co-ownership, adjustments to taxable income, custody of children are presented as “procedural assets” to be gained by submitting to the imposed conditions of the religionists as required to “enter marriage.”
All of this has a peculiar odor of non-Constitutional “suspect discrimination,” although, before any remedy is sought, remember Reverends Falwell, Dobson and the like. The continuing promotion of this ridiculous debate amounts to money in their pockets not to mention an opportunity to impose their ambitious religionist controls on more and more people.
So, what will make sense out of this? Separate the religionist procedural interests from the value of the secular assets. The legal advantages of marriage should provide no more of an advantage than what is expected from other religionist practices, baptism, confirmation, etc. Of course, in this country all would be completely free to participate in such things, including marriage, but there should be no expectation of “gain” over those who did not participate. In fact, there should be no insistence that those who did not marry should subsidize the tax burden of those who did. Further, statutory civil rights which are granted married couples but denied all other individuals have seen their day in the sun.
(A similar argument can be made concerning the insistence to subsidize other religionist institutions at the expense of those who are excluded from their spiritual “benefits.”)
Civil unions represented a finely crafted offering of partial relief. They included a few secular advantages previously reserved exclusively for married couples, but they continued to reserve others. It is no more than the song of a mortally wounded hunter. It will not bear the light of day.
The social culture, as considered in its mass, is expressing less and less interest in submitting to the control of the religionists. Those in whom religionist death fear remains at its medieval intensity continue to be dangerously reactionary in their resistance -- and disgust -- with respect to homosexuals receiving anything remotely close to equal, secular treatment. They envision a glorious vindication from their Savior at the Gates of Heaven, a just compensation for their denial of equal justice for homosexual sinners.
Yes, it is all terribly dated. Its “bang” period has passed. Its “whimper” period approaches.
No comments:
Post a Comment