Same-Sex Marriage

How is a same-sex union is the same as a marriage? Being from Canada, I have had to watch my political leaders squabble over this issue for some time now, and at no point did any of them ever attempt to inform us as to what it is about same-sex unions that make them the same as (as in "equal to") marriage. I have written a multitude of essays (well, three to be exact) and researched either side of the debate even more times, and I am still at a loss for words when I consider how a same-sex union is the same as my marriage. The majority of the articles, web-sites, books, and scholarly essays that I have read all allude to two factors when they attempt to tell me why there ought to be same-sex marriages: love and equality (as in civil rights). This blog will attempt to use the ideas of love and equality to express why legalizing same-sex marriage is an act of injustice.

First of all, love: "Homosexual people ought to be married because they love each other." You don't need me to tell you that love is huge. From a religious perspective, Mother Theresa is often quoted as reminding us that we are all created to love and to be loved. But is that what marriage is all about? Is the capacity to love the only qualification I need to have a stable and wholesome marriage? I love my wife -- we have a good marriage. I also love my brother, would we have a good marriage? Probably not -- we could barely live with each other in the same house growing up, never mind a commitment to live together for a lifetime. Some people would reply that the love I have for my brother and for my wife are of a very different nature; others would ignore that aspect and remind me that a good marriage takes compatibility -- I certainly wouldn't argue with that one, but is that it? Is marriage a public statement that I love my spouse and that we are compatible? On the contrary, marriage is so much more than just love and compatibility.

Marriage is about commitment, a life-long commitment; marriage is also about the complimentary nature of the sexes; more importantly, marriage is about kids. The nature of marriage, then, is that it is a relationship in which children are welcomed, nourished, and formed to be full members of society. Marriage is an institution in which the ebb and flow of the dynamic relationship of the husband and wife, the ways in which they compliment and complete each other, nourishes and fashions their children, who are created manifestations of their mutual love, fidelity, and respect, into becoming capable, confident, and productive members of society. That is its nature. It is all about the kids, it is all about the complementarity of the sexes, and it is all about the life-time commitment. Is this the same as a same-sex union? Does the sexuality of two gay men, the core of who they are, compliment each other the same way as the sexuality, the psychology, and the nature of a man and a woman does? Does the relationship between a husband and a wife have the same dynamics and compliments as the spouses of a same-sex union? The answer is no. No matter how hard a man will try, he can never be a woman. He may look, talk, and act like a woman, but we need to ask ourselves if our sexual identity subsists only in our appearance and our actions. If that is the case, then by all means, a man who gets a sex change is now a woman. However, following the same logic, a woman who has been badly burnt so that all of her feminine features have been scorched away, and has lost the capacity to walk and talk, is she still a woman? That is, if we lost the apperance of being men and women, would we still be men and women? Of course. Our sexual identity must go much deeper than our appearances since men and women differ on so many ontological, emotional, and relational ways -- hence, the complimentary nature of the relationships between men and women.

The next point: Equality

When we speak of wanting equality, do we want to make everything the same, so as to abolish all stigmas and apparent divisions? Or is equality based on legal recognition and the capacity to make legally recognized choices? Does equality go deeper than "same-ness" and legal and social freedoms? Is everyone inherently equal? Many proponents of same-sex marriage attest that their plight is the very same fight for civil liberties as the African-American and feminist movements grapled with in the mid-20th century. However, the logic of same-sex marriage advocates seems to revolve around the idea that equality is only found in being legally recognized as the same, as opposed to equality being found in one's nature and substance. That is, they passionately long for legal equality, and in their struggle they claim that their argument is just since it is synonymous with the African-American fight for civil rights -- meanwhile ignoring the fact that the "African-American fight for civil rights" was about acknowledging the inherent equality found within all human persons, while a same-sex union is not at all the same as a civil marriage. If we were to follow their logic it would seem plausable that the only thing that makes African-Americans equal to the rest of Americans is the fact that they have been legally recognized as equal, their inherent nature as human persons had nothing to do with it. To illustrate my point a little further I will claim that the argument for same-sex marriage is analogous to an argument that wants to ... say ... call an orange an apple -- their nature is different, but since apples are sold more often and eaten more readily, any attempt to label them as distinct is an act of inequality and ought to be resolved. They are both fruit, not one is less than the other, but to equate them would be unjust since their nature keeps them distinct -- an orange will never be the same as an apple, just as a same-sex union will never be the same as a marriage since their very own natures keep them distinct.

The Middle East

I once had a friend whose predominately Catholic family was from Palestine. Although he may not have fully understood the reprecussions of what he was saying, he often called Arafat a hero, and proclaimed that Israel must die. I don't know all of my history, and I don't know the circumstances that led to the Palestinian people's support of the P.L.O., but it boggles my mind when people rise up in support of terrorist organizations.

The recent bombings in Lebanon, and the killing of innocent Lebanese people, is being used as fodder against Israel, and fuel for the extremists' cause to irradicate Israel from Earth. Sounds extreme, I know, the total annialation of a culture from the face of the Earth, but when we are dealing with extremists, the rediculous and absurd is considered normal. This would be considered a call to genocide, but the Muslim extremists, and the Lebanese government (in their silence towards Hezbollah's actions), consider this to be entirely just.

Now we have protests that call on governments to publicly renounce Israel and her actions, while they are consistently silent about what organizations like the Taliban and Hezbollah, and governments like Iran have stated and acted against Israel. How could we support regimes that promote terrorism and genocide? How could people logically and morally rise up in support of such atrocities? How can we allow our children to support murder in the name of martyrdom by publicly supporting such inhumane organizations?

Personally, while I would hope that there must be a peaceful way to coexist within the Middle East, if anyone were to speak to me about the Hezbollah - Israel war, I would give my full support to Israel. I believe that they are retaliating agianst a regime that lusts for their demise. I cannot fathom why anyone would want to support an organization that uses its own people as shields, and then cries murder when their "shields" are wounded or killed. And yet, our media and our culture is silent about the base actions of Hezbollah -- as if we are terrified by what may be the outcome of our public denouncing of such an organization. We need to grow a backbone and renounce any form of support for Hezbollah and the governments that allow such organizations to exist within their borders, and, quite literally, in their own backyards.

"Lest you become like like little robots ..."

Sometimes I think that Christians have given up the faculty of their intellect. I'll give you an example: I was recently reading the posts of a debate on same-sex marriage when I became fed up with most of the arguments that the Christians were making. The bulk of their arguments were, "don't do it, because the Bible told us not to." It was as if all these kids placed their brains on a shelf, and submitted the Bible in its place. Don't get me wrong, I understand that we are called to put on the mind of Christ; I understand that we are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. However, Jesus did not say that "unless we become like little robots we will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

The impression that I get when I read some arguments made by Christians is that being a Christian implies that our blind faith is more ignorant than childlike. Ignorant in the sense that we neglect to want to understand the "why's" and the "why not's" of our Christian faith. We do things because we are supposed to, not because we freely (that is, with the full use of our intellect) choose it. I am tired of reading arguments made by Christians that lack credibility and "meat."

We have to be very careful, because it is this type of ignorance that leads to strict fundamentalism -- the type of fundamentalism that ruins relationships, builds walls instead of destroying them, and leads to a hatred of anything that is "not with us." I don't know who said it, but the following quote certainly convicts us on this issue: "The leading cause of atheism in the world today is Christians ..." It is my conviction that this type of fundamentalism is where atheism is nourished. Something must change. We ought to make a stronger attempt to discover the riches of our Christian faith; we need to become living witnesses of our dynamic, transforming, and challenging faith. Our intellectual ascent to the "why's" and the "why not's" of our faith ought to rise up in adoration of our loving Father, just as our hearts ascend to the beauty, love, and grace of the one "whom our hearts love." I will contend that our blind ignorance will continue to present Christianity as unattractive, tasteless, and dry. After all, who wants to be a robot anyway?

Jesus of Nazareth ... the Christ???

Let's discuss the next step in our discussion on God. Jesus of Nazareth. Who is he, what is he known for, and what were his claims? For starters, what can we agree on?

Jesus is known as a moral teacher -- some would even go so far as to say that he was a GREAT moral teacher. He taught the importance of forgiveness and that we ought to respect all walks of life. He showed the importance of acting justly, treating people as we would like to be treated, and that we ought to love eachother just as he loved us ("Just as he loved us?" what a loonie -- if he is merely a mortal.). Once we look at his theology, we can view more evidence that points to the fact that, if we cannot accept his divinity, he might be just another wacko from Waco.

He claimed to forgive sins -- sins that people did to other people, before he even met them, sins that were really none of his business! He claimed that he would be raised from the dead; he lamented over Jersalem by saying, "I keep on sending you prophets and wise men" -- like, if he were just a mortal, where did he get off saying that? Some other audacious claims of his are that if we don't eat his flesh and drink his blood, we will have no life within us, because, he says, his flesh is true food(?) and his blood is true drink(?)!! He even claimed to have been before Abraham, greater than Abraham, "before Abraham was, I am." On that note, he did the unspeakable. Not only did he say the unutterable name of God, he even claimed ownership over it! The name in question is, "I am." For a Jew, as he was, to claim this name, to claim ownership over this name, God's name, is punishable with death. The divine name was to be said once a year, in the tablernacle, and only by the High Priest -- sometimes, it was so intense for the High Priests to say the unutterable name that some would even die from the intensity of it! Besides, who can claim ownership over a name other than the "owner" of a particular name anyway?? I can only say that I am Kevin. If I were to say that I am Steve, then I would be a liar. Only the Great I Am can claim that He is who is. Even the name "I Am" implies someone who is without begining or end. So, for Jesus to claim "I Am" as his name was either an act of sheer lunacy, that is, a death wish, or it was an act of intentional deciet, or he realy is who he says he is.

Think about it. Lets say that we find all the great spiritual gurus of all time, and ask them of their nature. Let's take Buddha, and ask him if he was "the son of Brahmah," what would he say? He might say something like, "My son, you are still in the vale of illusion"; if we were to ask Socretes if he was Zeus he may reply with roaring laughter. Lets take Confucious and ask him if he were "heaven," to which he may reply, "Remarks which are not in accordance with nature are in bad taste." Lastly, if we were to ask Mohammed if he were Allah, he may tear his clothes and then chop off our heads.

What happened when they asked Jesus if he were greater than Abraham? He simply replied, "Very truly I tell you, before Abraham was, I am." The divine name, picked by God Himself, and Jesus claims ownership over it. Out of all the other religious gurus and moral teachers, Jesus, time, and time again, claimed to be something more that just a man -- he claimed to be God Himself, the Uncaused Cause.

I am going to stop this post here and ask a question (before it gets waaaay too long): when we are confronted by the claims of Jesus the Christ, how do we react? Do we pick and choose between what makes us feel good and what makes us uncomfortable? Certainly, to think of Jesus of Nazareth as God can be a very unsettling thing.


***** Side note: I gleaned some of the above information from an essay written by C.S. Lewis entitled, "What are we to make of Jesus Christ?"

The God

When discussing the possibility of a God, the one argument that seems to strike a cord with me is the argument of the uncaused cause. Although there are some people who seem to claim that all causes are caused, that there is no uncaused cause, I don't quite understand how someone comes to this assumption (but I am sure that they may be thinking the same about my position). However, if there were a cause that did not need to be caused, that is, had no need to have been begun or set in motion by something else, it would seem that this cause would have to be perfect, that is, lacking nothing. To claim that something is the source of all "causes" would also imply that this something is perfect, that it is the source of the universe, life, and existence. This perfect thing would have to be totally sufficient, that is, not in need of anything else to keep it from not existing, it must be able to sustain itself. Therefore, it would have to be outside of time, eternal since its be-ing would not have been caused, and outside of our understanding of what it means to exist. This thing would just "be." It seems fair to say that this perfect, self-sustaining, and eternal cause would be what we mean when we think of "the God." Whether this God is Hydrogen, or a personal being, is a topic worthy of further discussion. For now, however, it doesn't seem to make a difference if our "God" is Hydrogen or a personal being, we know that whatever it is, this God is the eternal, perfect, and self-sustaining cause behind all things.

I will post more about his, but if anyone other than myself, my mother, and my wife is reading this, chew on it for a while.

The Looming 21st Century

The past 20th century has seen a lot of turmoil. We have lived through wars, terrorism, natural disaters, crises in faith, insurgence of atheism, extreme adaptations of feminism, a decrease in morality, and a general loss of respect for women -- not to forget a loss of respect for the elderly, the disabled, and the vulnerable (infants and children). We have also seen the deaths of many influential voices such as: G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Mahatma Ghandi, Dorothy Day, Catherine Doherty, Mother Theresa, and Pope John Paul II. Although we may have failed to acknowledge their accomplishments, their impact upon our society will continue to ripple for centuries to come.

The past 20th century has also seen many advances. We witnessed the first radio, television, computer, satellite, rocket ship, VCR, and cell-phone; we cannot forget the first man to the moon, the hand-held calculator, the walk-man and disk-man, as well as the development of DVDs and the insurgence of the "game-boy." Our technological advances have gone beyond anything that anyone could have imagined, and they continue to excel more than we could have hoped.

What do I expect form the 21st century, and why do I concider it to be 'looming'? I expect us to advance in ways that would continue to have a greater impact on how we live our lives. I expect that we will become more technologically advanced than even our greatest thinkers could have ever imagined. However, the future still seems to hover over us like a rising storm. As a society, our accomplishments happened so fast that we seem to have forgotten our past failures that have destroyed the lives of countless men and women. Failures that could have been avoided had we taken the time to listen.

We have developed so quickly that we seem to have ignored the counsels of the prophets of the 20th century, such as: G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Mahatma Ghandi, Dorothy Day, Catherine Doherty, Mother Theresa, and Pope John Paul II. We have sneered at their admonishments to respect all human life; we have held them in contempt as they warned us of the dangers of neglecting traditional moral norms. If we continue to have disdain for those who attempt to discipline us, our arrogance will lead us back to where the 20th century first started: a century born into turmoil.

"wisdom"

Christianity is not compatible with eastern mysticism. The popular western interpretation is that we can pick and choose whatever we want from whichever religion, or philosophy, that makes us feel good. Being "spiritual" (or a plurality of beliefs) is "in," while being "religious" (or stuck to one point of view) is not.

First of all, for some reason, people think that they are wise, new-thinkers who are paving the way for a spiritual revolution. However, in reality, this plurality is nothing new (Muhammud left Mecca because he disagreed with the people's relativistic faith -- amalgomating all religions into one worship). What makes Christianity incompatable with eastern thought is that when Jesus spoke of truth, HE was the Truth; when Jesus spoke of the way to heaven (the way to the Father), HE was the Way; when Jesus spoke of God, He was speaking about Himself ("before Abraham was, I am," is just one among many other refrences to His own divinity.). For some reason, "modern" thinkers are either ignorant of Jesus' claims to divinity, or they choose to ignore them. Eastern mysticism believes in a plurality of faiths, that all are true, and that it would be silly and ignorant to claim that only one is true. Well, Jesus must be ignorant and silly because He said that HE was THE TRUTH and that HIS CHURCH would last forever and that unless you eat His body and drink His blood, you will HAVE NO LIFE WITHIN YOU.

"I believe that even Father is too limited." Please don't take this as a personal attack against anyone -- especially truevyne -- but who are we to say that "Father" is "too limited"? Jesus calls God "Father," and, in the Old Testament, God calls Himself "Father" -- He has revealed Himself to us as "Father."

Have we, as a society, become so arrogant that we can tell God who He is, or who He ought to be? Have we become so foolish as to claim authority over our Creator and tell Him how He should speak to us, or how He ought to have spoken to us? It is about time that we gave our heads a shake and we woke up to the reality that we cannot make religion into a tea party; we need to wake up to the reality that we can't tell God how He ought to be. We have to quit playing the guru and quit pretending that we are wise simply because we use Hindu terms with our Christian thought -- when in fact, there was never anything more arrogant, ignorant, and foolish!!