Love, Sex, Marriage.
I used to take the position that saving the definition of marriage from political correctness was the right thing to do. This is a blog that really wants to speak for the side of truth, not my perceptions of it.
It all seemed fairly straight forward as society needs to build from somewhere, the concept of cohesion and unity. I thought that children needed to view a duality in parents to learn the principles of that cohesion, just as nature provides us with polarity to understand the flow of electricity or any of the opposites that contribute to the function of existence.
I can't recall when I took ownership of the idea that marriage needed to be saved from the same-sexers, it may have been in science or biology class that I was lead astray because I didn't have a religious upbringing by any stretch. In fact, my upbringing was in a family of disunity and chaos brought on by adultery of one or more parents. This is why I believe my former views on same-sex marriage stemmed from the scientist mind I value and not because God said it is wrong.
I find it incredible that I still don't have such negative feelings about adultery that I once had about same-sex marriage. Adultery should be seen as the greatest threat to marriage, especially since it has had such an impact on my life, yet I find it difficult to get excited about people having sex with someone other than their spouse.
From a religious point of view, people are not to have sex with anyone except their spouse. Sex is intended to be confined to marriage and this is where I've had to adjust my position so as not to be a hypocrite.
I could never tell someone to wait until they were married before having sex or that they shouldn't have an affair, I would simply say it was, "your business". I don't even think I would tell someone to be in love before having sex. This is a far cry from the guy who wanted to save the definition of marriage. Since the intended marriage doesn't exists in our society, why did I ever think it needed to be saved?
So people, fall in love, get married then have sex. Perhaps in a generation or so, marriage will have been saved.
It all seemed fairly straight forward as society needs to build from somewhere, the concept of cohesion and unity. I thought that children needed to view a duality in parents to learn the principles of that cohesion, just as nature provides us with polarity to understand the flow of electricity or any of the opposites that contribute to the function of existence.
I can't recall when I took ownership of the idea that marriage needed to be saved from the same-sexers, it may have been in science or biology class that I was lead astray because I didn't have a religious upbringing by any stretch. In fact, my upbringing was in a family of disunity and chaos brought on by adultery of one or more parents. This is why I believe my former views on same-sex marriage stemmed from the scientist mind I value and not because God said it is wrong.
I find it incredible that I still don't have such negative feelings about adultery that I once had about same-sex marriage. Adultery should be seen as the greatest threat to marriage, especially since it has had such an impact on my life, yet I find it difficult to get excited about people having sex with someone other than their spouse.
From a religious point of view, people are not to have sex with anyone except their spouse. Sex is intended to be confined to marriage and this is where I've had to adjust my position so as not to be a hypocrite.
I could never tell someone to wait until they were married before having sex or that they shouldn't have an affair, I would simply say it was, "your business". I don't even think I would tell someone to be in love before having sex. This is a far cry from the guy who wanted to save the definition of marriage. Since the intended marriage doesn't exists in our society, why did I ever think it needed to be saved?
So people, fall in love, get married then have sex. Perhaps in a generation or so, marriage will have been saved.
posted by Derek Richards at 6:48:00 AM
5 Comments:
Well said.
You'd like Father DeSousa in the National Post today if you haven't seen it already.
Glad to see you're back.
Cheers.
If polarity is at the core of your argument against same-sex marriage, I wonder what you believe should happen to single-parent homes lacking this same polarity and duplicity that you speak of. Perhaps if a parent should die, we should take away the children? if a mother runs off cheating on her husband and leaves him with the children, should we, in the sake of polarity and duplicity suck the child from the home and place him or her in a home with two, polar parents?
Afroecuarriquena,
I think it is interesting you go straight to the most traumatic experience a child might have in their life, the death of a parent. The fact that it is traumatic to the child has nothing to do with my post and I would hope, as with any loss proper supports are in place.
In the event of divorce the courts already acknowledge that the continued involvement of both parents is most beneficial to the child. This also has very little to do with my point.
canadi-anna,
Thank-you and sorry for pulling an Andrew Coyne. I had some tests to write. I haven't picked up the post since the election, but I will today.
AfroEcuaRriquena -- Yours is the argument of someone who has no argument.
I realise your suggestions are meant facetiously, but it amazes me how often people use this kind of nonsense believing they are forwarding their position.
For whatever reasons that two opposite sex parents are not together to raise their child, whether it's by death, or through divorce -- it is not usually by design. With SSM it is generally by design.
Derek's posts ends with the sentiment that okay, they've got the right -- now let's hope that all people, married, or intending to be married, start living up to the obligations. How does that warrant your comment.
I think you were looking for someone to debate, but Derek isn't arguing, he's offering positive counsel.
I hope you're well.
Post a Comment
<< Home