Answer Number Nine!

9. I voted against the marriage amendment.

TRUE. For those of you who might be unclear, the Grand Ol' State of Michigan attempted - and succeeding - in passing a state amendment declaring that the term "marriage" could only be used to refer to a certain relationship between one woman and one man. In other words, no same sex marriage.

I voted against it.

So much for the secret ballot...

I should say that I knew it was going to pass, regardless of how I voted, so in a way, it was a protest vote. And I want to say that some of my friends who voted for it had some very good reasons to do so. In otherwords, I am saying that I recognize that there are legitimate reasons to discuss the issue, and that sincere people voted differently than me because they came to a different conclusion than me.

That's fine.

The reason I voted against it is this. I think true marriage is a "sacrament" of the Church, meaning (from a Protestant's view), that marriage extends from and has its birth in the validation that the community of Christ (which includes Christ) gives to the couple to be a couple. Or, to say it in a more popular - yet often misunderstood way - marriage extends from the authority of the Church.

Ok, well hell...we sold the term "marriage" out long before the gay community decided to come play. Pastors all over have stood up and "married" all kinds of people who have nothing to do with the community of Christ. What for? I don't know. Maybe the pay is good.

The divorce rate is sky high. People are beat up and scarred up and limping around because we're "marrying" people who don't know the first thing about marriage. And then (the audacity and shame of it!) when some gay couple comes along and wants to use the word "marriage" in an "unsanctified way" - suddenly, there's this huge uproar!

Please.

Gag me.

And while, as I said above, I know there were good honorable intentions on the part of some of those who voted for it, it seemed to me that the movement (again, not necessarily the individual) was nothing more than culture-clasping, remember-the-good-old-days version of homophobia veiled with Jesus words.

And it made me sick.

It makes me sick that Jesus has been used as a "culture club" to beat people into submission. And it makes me sick that the "Jesus club" doesn't work all that well anymore either - not because the general population knows the truth about Jesus and therefore dismisses the misuse of his name - but because Jesus has become a joke to them.

As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." Romans 2:24

As far as I'm concerned, we ought to let the term marriage go. It's mangled beyond use anyway (ok - so that's somewhat overlydramatic). But hey, let everyone get married. We haven't been discriminating in the past, why start now? If we did this, maybe THEN, we'd realize that we need to speak more accurately when we open our mouths and have more integrity with the "authority" that is given us.

And we'll also get to come up with a new cool word for marriage - which will be fun!

Practical Application: If its an either/or question, Headless doubts that very much.

posted by Headless-in-GR @ 10/27/2005 08:40:00 PM

 

Comments:

The way you prefaced it, like you did something that would rile everyone up, made me think that you voted for it. But I'm from Boston, where admitting something like opposition to gay marriage would instantly instigate a stylishly indignant coup d'etat. But you're right, and I'm on the more liberal side of the gay marriage issue for pretty much the same reason. Not exactly the same reason, but pretty much. Point being, how you feel about this issue doesn't automatically show how you feel about homosexuality.

# by:  S. Grace : 9:19 PM

 

I'm with Grace's comment. I remember telling someone once I don't get my panties in a bunch over gay people adopting. You'd have thought I said I enjoyed peeing in public.
geez, people.

# by:  Captainwow : 10:56 AM

 

Sexuality can be expressed "n-1" ways: like this interesting case where it was "taught"...but philosophy has now reached an era where "expression" is no longer viewed as all that meaningful..."repression" is not the "problem" today...today's philosophy counters "psychoanalysis" with "schizoanalysis", where anxiety, rather than repression, is viewed as the primary condition of mankind. (Repression is now viewed as being a necessary component of production; as repression alleviates ones primary anxiety and channels it in creative ways)..."the project" now presides over "the complex"...and, "the project's" goal is to find a way to merge concept and action together in the form of political action. To "enunciate", or to "think", now means "to construct," "to produce"...rather than just express oneself in whatever way one desires socially or sexually, etc. It is not simply about accepting another's forms of expression, no, no...it is to be militant...to assert, to demand...that concept and existence no longer be separated. That is what is "good" these days (even if one is being "used," like this young lady was in the first article, and even if it is criminal): it is following an ideology...or a "programme"...for brainwashing and joiussance.

Where does that leave the Church? Who knows? How is it even handling expression?

# by:  Steve : 4:04 PM

 

Post a Comment