data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/70f74/70f7495fe8edc0d0ac28acb5b9b4c1475dd46488" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/56948/569483ef5dddb4ebb746009e3ed341fc949085e7" alt=""
A sphere of clarity, color and light -- with an infinite amount of room inside!
Okay, so here is my basic problem when debating the topic of "gay marriage":My friend's response was positive, and he said he liked the way this debate was going. He said he would get back to me. So far he hasn't, and it's been over six months.
I have an issue with the whole premise of redefining language. If a word means something, then redefining it seems to me a manipulation. For example, if the whole of the English speaking world has understood the meaning of the word "chair" to mean "chair" then I think it is wrong that a small group could start insisting that we understand "chair" to mean "chair and table". It distorts language and clouds understanding, till words become meaningless.
In my mind, the same thing happened with the word "gay". It was co-opted and now means something completely different from what it used to. Young people hear the words of a Christmas song, "merry and gay" and they have no idea how that fits, or perhaps they giggle. Women named Gay had to change their names. Gay suddenly lost its true meaning. That is manipulation of language that I think is political in nature and has nothing to do with the *organic* growth of language. (Would you agree?)
So, essentially, I can't debate "gay marriage" since "marriage" has always been known as one thing (male/female). If we want to call it something other than "marriage", then let's do that. How about "unions" "relationships" or even a new name altogether. But marriage has already been defined for centuries (more, if you leave English for ancient language equivalents of "marriage"), and I just have a philosophical opposition to manipulation of language. I believe language must mean something.
Someone said: "All social engineering begins with language engineering" and I think that is true.
So, that is why I don't believe in "gay marriage" ... because it cannot, by definition, exist.
One Sunday morning I was approached by a married couple who wanted me to meet their beautiful twins. The couple was elated that after many attempts to conceive they finally had received twin gifts from God. Still, they were troubled. After a few minutes they revealed that their twins were conceived through multiple attempts at in vitro fertilization; they loved both children and beheld them with pride and joy.
Not until after their children were born did the couple discover that every human embryo is a child according to the Church. They now faced terrible new dilemmas; their first dilemma was that “selective reduction” was utilized so that their twins would survive-- an abortion had occurred. And, without knowing, they incurred excommunication. Their second dilemma was that the wife no longer could carry children to term; yet they had 15 embryos in a cryobank. They didn’t know what to do and asked me for advice. Their strong desire for children led them down an unexpected slippery slope. They felt trapped. They are not alone in their quandary: In 2002, more than 400,000 embryonic children were being stored in the cryobanks in the United States, according to a Rand Corporation study.
The couple I spoke with that Sunday also mentioned that they had suffered severe financial difficulties because of the extreme cost of the multiple in vitro procedures but wouldn’t relent on their need to pay the storage fees as they couldn’t abandon their embryonic children. They were experiencing severe financial difficulties due to the debt they incurred. They expressed concern that if they declared bankruptcy or were unable to pay the storage fees, they wouldn’t be able to live with themselves; they might have to cease paying the storage fees and lose what remaining control they had over the rest of the frozen human embryos.
Physical, economic, spiritual and moral torture is what they were experiencing.
Because I am too undisciplined to be consistent with "7 Quick Takes Friday" posts, and because they say you should always do what you're good at (which for me is complaining), I thought I'd institute a new feature called "3 Quick Pet Peeves," which I will post whenever I feel like taking those complaints public. ('Cause, you know, I'm trying to cut down on complaining to my family since I'm trying to be a better person, and it's always preferable to complain to a hundred people rather than to just a few, right?)
Without further ado:
1. I really hate that when I lose weight, I gain wrinkles! What kind of universe is this? A fallen one, for sure.
2. The foolish "feminist" bumper sticker that says, Well Behaved Women Never Make History. Ummmm.... Ever heard of Mother Teresa? Margaret Thatcher? The Blessed Virgin Mary?!! They all had manners, class, and were well behaved! And I'm guessing Betsy Ross and Ethel Merman were nice, too! Besides, is "making history" really the goal in life? Maybe for an atheist, since atheists believe this world is all there is, but not for this woman, thank you.
3. Round, synthetic-like shoelaces, which seem to have replaced the old, flat, cotton type. These round shoelaces never stay tied, thus defeating the whole function and goal of a shoelace!!
There you have it. Thanks for reading the first of many of my "3 Quick Pet Peeves"! I'd love to hear some of yours!
PS: Yes, I realize I have now begun three different "regular features" for my blog. The Doctrinal Quiz Show, the Little Teachings From the Bubble, and now 3 Quick Pet Peeves. I have no explanation, nor do I know when/where this blog feature madness will end!
The Bible, itself, uses spousal love more than any other image to help us understand God’s plan. It begins in Genesis with the marriage of Adam and Eve and ends in Revelation with the marriage of Christ and the Church. Here we find a key for understanding the whole of Scripture: God’s wants to “marry” us – to live with us in an eternal bond of love that the Bible compares to marriage.
But there’s more! God wants to fill us – or, to go with the analogy – God wants to “impregnate” us, his bride, with his own divine life. This is a very “earthy” way of speaking, but it isn’t mere poetry. In Mary we witness a woman who literally conceived divine life in her womb.
Having been enlightened by an angel in a dream regarding her pregnancy, and perhaps further by Mary concerning the words of the archangel Gabriel to her at the Annunciation, Joseph knew that God had conducted himself as a husband in regard to Mary. (emphasis mine)
Living a celibate life within marriage was not unknown in Jewish tradition. It was told that Moses, who was married, remained continent the rest of his life after the command to abstain from sexual intercourse (Exodus 19:15) given in preparation for the revelation at Mount Sinai. There was also a tradition that the seventy elders abstained thereafter from their wives after their call, and so did Eldad and Medad when the spirit of prophecy came upon them; indeed it was said that the prophets became celibate after the Word of the Lord communicated with them.