Sean, I’ll take this down if it offends you. I thought I’d offer my response to your comments about “Youth 2000″
Surely I’m subtle enough? That’s like a compliment wrapped in an insult!
Actually it was an observation. I’ve known you to be fairly rational, and I thought your conclusions showed a lack of nuance, and a reactionary spirit not based on the solid thinking that you usually portray. You also accused me of something I despise, namely bigotry, and I agree that there was a tad bit of bite in my response. I apologize if it offended you.
In my post, I stated that the kids cheered when the priest declared that marriage was between one man and one woman. You replied rather sarcastically, “Yeah, I like queer-bashing, too.” You missed the boat twice. Firstly, the statement wasn’t about gay marriage per say, but a response to an ever growing threat to the traditional concept of marriage. Such affronts include but aren’t necessarily limited to the attempt to redefine marriage as including homosexual unions. Personally, I’m more concerned with how these young Catholics view marriage and sexuality, as they are under increasing pressure from popular culture to accept MTV sexual morays without thought or argument. The argument against gay marriage from tradition should only hold water with Catholics, who see tradition as something sacred and true.
Secondly, even if I had specifically stated that I think homosexuality is a sin, and that gay marriage is illogical (which I do), I still, in my backwards way of thinking, am not “queer bashing.” It is possible and logical, as banal as the sentiment has become of late, to “hate the sin, but love the sinner.” For in the end, we are all sinners, Sean. I have my own personal struggles with sin, some of which are related to the sin of unchastity. I do not blame or despise anyone, or want to “bash” anyone for the lifestyle that they live. Rather, offer them the truth that I think I have found, and do it in charity. This whole incident reminds me of the late Cardinal John O’Conner of New York. He was known for his compassion for AIDS victims, having given countless hours of his own time fighting for their well being, while at the same time, preaching openly for the conversion of those who chose a homosexual lifestyle. It was a sign of contradiction to the world that someone could be for the sinner, and against the sin.
As if joining your team of backwards thinkers would make me subtle, but treating fellow human beings with respect would place me back in the stone-age with the other mental invalids.
I understand why you think homosexuality isn’t a problem. I was concerned with you drawing the conclusion that I was gay bashing. I’m sorry; I just didn’t and still don’t follow that somehow I’m “bashing queers” because I think that there’s no such thing as two men or two women “getting married.”
Jayson, surely you’re compassionate enough to realize that keeping something to yourself doesn’t make you richer. Marriage is no weaker for allowing other human beings to join the club.
If I disagree with homosexual marriage, it’s not for the silly and meaningless argument that “it weakens traditional marriage.” The state of my marriage doesn’t have anything to do with the state of someone else’s marriage. If this were the case, then we were in trouble a long time ago. The advent of no-fault divorce, and shotgun Vegas style weddings would have already done it in for the collective “marriage” (if there even is such a thing) years ago. The truth is, I oppose gay marriage for strictly religious reasons. But I also support “traditional” marriage for strictly religious reasons as well.
I freely admit it. I’ve thought it through many times. There are no convincing arguments against homosexual marriage that will satisfy the secular mind. There are simply too many premises which must be accepted that rest on a foundation of Christian thinking. I’m not saying that it can’t be proven syllogistically, but that unless the precepts of Christian Doctrine are accepted, then homosexual marriage won’t convince those who don’t already think marriage is a divine institution.
Therefore, I don’t attempt to argue or convince you of the issue. Only this; If marriage is not a divine institution, then at the very most it is a social contract. If it is a social contract, then it is up to society to decide its definition. Therefore, I would personally vote against recognizing two men and two women as having the possibility of being married, but would not find it unreasonable for the majority of Americans to decide to widen the definition.
PS… can we keep the Jews and blacks out, too? It would sure make my marriage stronger.
I know that my beliefs upset you, but I hope you can realize that I wish we can remain friends in spite of our differences.
-Jayson
Hey Jayson.
Well, obviously we’re coming from two very different sides of this issue. And I don’t even want to begin to stir up a debate about homosexuality, as its one that I very rarely see anyone change their thinking about. But as someone whose life will be very much affected by whatever course of action our nation chooses to take on the issue of same-sex marriage, I wanted to throw in my two cents (or maybe like five cents).
Because of my work, I spend a lot of time in my county courthouse, where marriage licenses are granted every day. I see people — young and old and of all races — come in and apply, and it always makes me smile. People always look happy and excited about starting this new chapter in their lives. It’s nice to see.
But it also makes me a little bit sad to know that it’s not something I can take part in. I’m a fairly average citizen with a good job. So is my girlfriend. We both have college degrees. We pay our taxes and our bills and own a home. We always vote and give to charity and come out to community events. We contribute to the local economy and try to be good neighbors. We do our part, I’d say, as much as — if not more than — most citizens do.
We fulfill our civic obligations and do all the things our government asks its citizens to do. And yet, we’re excluded from marriage for reasons that I just don’t understand. What makes our relationship inferior to those of our straight friends? What makes it different? The fact that neither of us have a penis?
Though I’m asked to abide by the same laws, pay the same taxes, and conduct myself according to the same standards as other citizens, I’m shut out from the possibility of having a marriage that my government will recognize as equal to those of other couples. If marriage is indeed a “social contract,” shouldn’t I have the same access to that kind of contract as my brother or my neighbor?
Our relationship really isn’t any different from straight relationships. We fell in love for many of the same reasons as other couples I know. We do the same sort of things with our free time. And we want to promise each other the rest of our lives in the same way. Nothing fancy. Nothing different. We just want the right to have a marriage like any other.
Again, I know that’s not likely to change anyone’s mind. Just felt compelled to express how it feels to be excluded from something that seems so special and wonderful. Something I would love to be a part of some day.
I can’t help but feel that in acting like anatomy — not the level of love or commitment or respect that exists between two people — is what makes a marriage a marriage, supporters of the president’s amendment have already degraded the institution far more than I ever could. In implying that I and so many others not worthy of the right to wed, they’ve taken everything that I view as beautiful about marriage and turned it into something cruel and judgmental.
It hurts.
You’re apparently wrong, ’cause god said so.
Being that god made us and knows which ends are contrary to his design; yes, because he said so.
If you’re truly interested in learning more about Catholic thought on sexuality Sean, I’d highly suggest Pope John Paul’s “The Theology of the Body.”
<a href=”http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0819873942/qid=1080873275/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-4390215-8200952?v=glance&s=books&n=507846″>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0819873942/qid=1080873275/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-4390215-8200952?v=glance&s=books&n=507846</a>
I guess my issue with the whole thing is this: I can handle certain individuals and groups not approving of my life and my relationship. But as a good citizen and taxpayer, I would hope that inside my county courthouse I could expect to receive the same treatment as anyone else. I can do everything else — file a civl lawsuit, have access to public records, testify in court — in the same way as other people. But I’m forbidden from marriage licenses.
That aspect of it doesn’t make sense to me. I also feel like elected officials make a big production out of doing things to help the honest, hardworking people of this country. But banning same-sex marriage doesn’t help anyone. All it does is harm families who don’t fit the traditional model of heterosexual marriage.
Again, the religious aspect of the debate doesn’t really interest me. It’s the practical side of how marriage policies affect couples and families who want nothing more than to be recognized as legitimate by a government that is supposed to have their best interests at heart.
Amber,
I’ll be finished with my response to your original post sometime later this evening. If it’s okay with you I’ll post the response on the main page. If you’d prefer I’ll just post it here or send it to you in an email.
Hey Jayson,
Any of the three are fine. I hope you know I didn’t mean anything personal by any of my comments. Obviously I know you’re a good guy and not a bigot.
It’s just a big issue for me, and I figure the more opinions that get tossed out on it, the better.
I’ll look forward to reading your response.