Today is the first full day of legalized gay-marriage in California, and I have already reach the point of saturation with all of the news about it. The situation is very sad to me. Not only did the state of California circumvent the will of the California electorate, they have now sanctioned the legal union of same-sex-couples as "marriages".
To me, gay couples who think that they can "marry" someone of the same sex is kind of silly. Marriage is the combination of two things that compliment each other. You don't marry chocolate with chocolate, you marry chocolate with peanut butter, or chocolate with cookie dough. I think of marriage like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. If all you've got is two jars of peanut-butter, you don't have a PBJ. You've got something else.
To me, all the courts did was redefine what "is is". I think we've gotten so vain as a society, that we are willing to fool ourselves just to feel good in the moment. Any two people can enter into a contract, but to me, only a man and a woman can enter into a marriage, a relationship of complimentary strengths and capabilities.
You would think that we, as a society, would have more respect for God's order. The power the God has put in our hands to create life is a huge responsibility, and marriage is ultimately the framework designed to protect and nurture children. To twist its intention and turn it into a political agenda or some sort of Godless contractual agreement is, to me, extremely haughty and without fear of God.
Of course, I have sometimes acted without fear of God in my life. All of us have sinned. But when you institutionalize something like this, the societal shift will cause repercussions that we can't even imagine yet. To me this is a grave concern.
To me, gay couples who think that they can "marry" someone of the same sex is kind of silly. Marriage is the combination of two things that compliment each other. You don't marry chocolate with chocolate, you marry chocolate with peanut butter, or chocolate with cookie dough. I think of marriage like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. If all you've got is two jars of peanut-butter, you don't have a PBJ. You've got something else.
To me, all the courts did was redefine what "is is". I think we've gotten so vain as a society, that we are willing to fool ourselves just to feel good in the moment. Any two people can enter into a contract, but to me, only a man and a woman can enter into a marriage, a relationship of complimentary strengths and capabilities.
You would think that we, as a society, would have more respect for God's order. The power the God has put in our hands to create life is a huge responsibility, and marriage is ultimately the framework designed to protect and nurture children. To twist its intention and turn it into a political agenda or some sort of Godless contractual agreement is, to me, extremely haughty and without fear of God.
Of course, I have sometimes acted without fear of God in my life. All of us have sinned. But when you institutionalize something like this, the societal shift will cause repercussions that we can't even imagine yet. To me this is a grave concern.
Labels: Politics
8 Comments:
I've been wondering what is going to happen with all of this. Is there any chance that this decision could get reversed in the near future or is it set for now?
You hit the nail on the head when you stated that marriage is ultimately designed to protect and nurture children. It's funny how often even Christians forget that the mandate that God put on marriage was to be fruitful and multiply. That is the only real command we have have for marriage and it was given before the fall and after. It seems to make it pretty clear to me.
At least I don't have to worry about this sort of thing in Indiana, at least not for a while.
Sorry if I'm monopolizing your comments, but you're the only person consistently blogging at the moment.
Dan,
Don't worry about monopolizing my comments. It's nice to actually have someone read and weigh in on my posts.
It's funny that you say that I am "the only person consistently blogging", because I feel like I am barely keeping my blog alive these days. It's actually a good thing that I am on the computer less.
Anyway, thanks for reading. And to all of you lurkers out there, please do comment!!
*lurk lurk lurk*
I think it's mean that you would mention chocolate and peanut butter in front of a pregnant woman. Now I'm gonna have to go find some candy to munch on. ;)
I'm in the midst of figuring out exactly where I stand on this issue. Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about civil unions?
I don't personally support civil unions, but I think that it is something that our legal system supports.
I believe that homosexuality is immoral, so civil unions are the sanctioning of immoral acts. However, I don't think that you can defeat the legality of a civil union in a secular legal system with arguments about morality.
And sorry about using food in a metaphorical sense while you are pregnant! I must have been hungry when I was posting.
Oh, it happens all the time. Anytime I hear someone mention any type of food, I immediately want it. ;)
very well put Scott. I thought, why did I even vote on this a few years back if they are going to change my vote anyway! Amy M
I agree, Scott, Very well said.
Momma K
Post a Comment
<< Home