What Is a Relationship?

It has been a while, but I figure now is a decent time to break my blog silence (though I really just want to get into writing books). I recently got into an argument with my Protestant mother about what it means to have a relationship with Christ, she contended that the "forms of worship" do not mean you have a personal relationship with Christ. What she implied is that my desire to do Catholic devotions is not a sign of a personal relationship, when I contend that it cannot be anything but that. All relationships have rules, you do not act the same with EVERY set of friends. You do not treat your parents like they are your friends (if the relationship is in its proper place). The list goes on. Therefore, I see the "forms of worship" as merely relational rules. These "forms" are how we worship and relate to God. Worship itself is a sort of relational thing. To adore anyone or anything you have to have some sort of attachment to it. You must be oriented to it in some way, that is you must have some sort of relationship with it. I think my mother was using a very narrow definition of relationship that she has not really questioned (which is mostly fine, as my walk is not her walk). A personal relationship with Christ seems to mean, and I might be over simplifying here, that you need to be freestyle praying all the time, not doing things ritualistically,and actively engaging in your relationship with Christ. The problem here is that Christ even gave us guidelines for how we were to pray. This was not to say that we could not make prayers off the top of our head (in fact, most of the used prayers in the Church were originals at some point). Rather it was done to help us see one specific way of relating to God and thus Christ. The Lord's Prayer reminds us to put our wills aside and try to line up with our Lord's. The institution of the Eucharist was the same thing. "Do this in memory of me." Before the Last Supper, Christ said that his followers, those that would be saved, needed to eat his flesh and drink his blood. He also made sure to make sure they were taking this rather literally. When he instituted the Eucharist, he gave Christians a way of further relating to him. We receive His Grace through this an other sacraments. The fact that it is a ritual is neither here nor there. If God is our creator, as we Christians believe, then there is surely a specific way of relating to Him that we must follow. We are not supposed to make up things every day and always change our approach. This does not mean that there are no developments or changes, but these are revealed over time and must be revealed to us by our Creator. If He wants to change our methods, He has to let us know somehow. Let's look at it this way: I am a twenty something. I am now, basically, an adult. This means that my relationship with my parents and other elders has had to change in many ways. However, it would be unwise for me to assume just what I was supposed to do in these situations. Suddenly using first names with people I had called mister and missus would be jarring and probably not appreciated. God is, of course, different in many ways, but that does not mean that He does not tell us how to reach him. For years it was through the Jewish temple system and He honored those pagans who sought him and tried to live uprightly. Their relationship was mysterious in the fashion that they had no idea what they were looking for, while the Hebrews had a God who revealed himself to them over time. After Christ, the Father revealed himself to the Gentiles. Through Christ, the Father helped, Jews and Gentiles alike, learn a new way of associating with Him. The relationship itself and its external aspects changed at His behest. So, it appears that ritual is one important way we associate with God. Protestants still do this. As is general worship when we are alone, or when we show someone true love. Protestants do this as well. Just because I have ritual does not mean I have no personal relationship with Christ, it just means that my relationship is different than a Protestants. Still, we ALL have rituals, so that that thought is silly. Having form prayers is helpful when you are under duress or when you are tired. It gives you something to say when you may not have the words. There is a place for freestyle prayers, but using form prayers is not the worst thing in the world. It may seem like it is not heartfelt, but that is not necessarily true. Ritual and form can become stagnant, we are not creatures that persevere very well in such manners. However, it does not follow that the rituals and forms themselves are what is the problem. We are amphibians, as C.S. Lewis once said. Therefore we are affected by our moods, bodily states, and other factors. We inhabit time. Things becoming stagnant does not even mean that you have lost your relationship with Christ, lukewarm though you may be. Your relationship can be damaged or in jeopardy, but that does not mean you do not have one. Finally, having rituals does not make a relationship impersonal. We can have secret handshakes and whatnot with our friends without making the relationship less personal, why would ritual necessarily do that with our relationship with Christ? Anyway, I am le tired. Later. Z

Unwrapping Part I

Unless you already know me, you likely do not know that I've had a fairly rough upbringing. It is hard to tell sometimes because I have a strongly phlegmatic temperament. For those not in the know, this means that my actual reactions are very slow and reserved. Not in a shy sort of way, but I just process things more internally than it seems (I am an ENFP, though my extroversion is not way higher than my introversion. Thus, the deeper thoughts are rarely revealed while the less serious thoughts are revealed almost immediately in an extroverted fashion). Here's a prime example: I'm likely to say some sort of dry humored quip in response to someone making fun of me, without truly expressing whether or not I was hurt about it. I've even gone as far as feigning hurt to repel the hurt. I likely felt and reacted quickly, internally, but I certainly did not express what went on inside of me. So, here's the deal: I was abused verbally, emotionally, and sometimes physically by my father. However, I did not really fully acknowledge that I had pain from it until many years later. I tend to just pick up and keep going, ignoring the internal issues. I never revealed my less than ideal family structure to anyone for the majority of my life. I went through a lot of changes at the end of my junior year in high school, that made me want to open up. Unfortunately, that lead to a lot of over-sharing on my part. Particularly, when I was in a romantic relationship. I just spewed all the negative, questionable, and bad things about myself (mixed in with good stuff) all at once, at the beginning of the relationship. This is a habit I only really started acknowledging the problem. I never realized I was doing it and did not think it was wrong. After all, the relationship is something where two people are to know each other fully. Marriage is two becoming one. I have approached romantic relationships in a wholly irresponsible way. However, I am learning, and I believe that my time alone will help me get a better grip on these things. I recently broke up with my girlfriend, she initiated. The first night, I was completely devastated. But, I am starting to see it as a blessing, because we were not in a healthy relationship. Well, at least not a wholly healthy relationship. There was a lot of good there, but the bad parts were particularly cancerous. So, here is the biggest lesson I learned in these past couple of months: people are gifts that need to be unwrapped slowly, quite slowly. This feels completely counterintuitive for those of us still in our youth. Hannah once reminded me that I was still young, and she was right. There are plenty of "old soul" aspects about myself and my tastes, but I still can make careless, youthful mistakes. I, we, made plenty of those in our relationship. I won't go into details on her side of things, but our mutual lack of experience, and my apparently false understanding of my previous experiences lead to things moving way too fast and us never getting the chance to enjoy each other--I mean really enjoy each other. Our love was speedy, we enjoyed the countryside like we were in a ferrari instead of on a tandem bike. We were in jets and unable to even make out the beauty in full way. She is, and always will be, an incredible, unique woman; I am an interesting and unique man. There was a ton of potential, but our rapid sharing and the speed of things kind of made things self destruct. There is, of course, no way of telling if things would have turned out completely different; but, the gift of hindsight, has highlighted a lot of what I did wrong. For every good thing we did, there were a host of bad things we did--mostly unknowingly. I still think there is a ton of potential; but, now that it is over, I think it best for me to stay single until I am stable. If we ever meet again and are both in a place to do things well, that'll be great and I'm open to it. But, that cannot be my goal for working on myself. I want to just be healthy in general. I'm, thankfully, in therapy and figuring out a lot about myself. There are plenty of unconscious behaviors I have due to my upbringing. I don't realize they are there, but I think I figured out one of the biggest ones. I figured out why I rush. You see, I often thought I could not do anything right. This effected me,. as I grew older, in a number of ways: stopped taking my schooling seriously, never fully tried, lost my drive, and rushing relationships. Additionally, the duration of most of my relationships was a month or less; so, the tendency to rush was exacerbated. I wasn't even aware of that until now. Thank God for clarity. I thought I could not do anything right because things I did were never considered good when it came to my father's evaluations. It was never just good. I could have handled it better, I think, if the approach had been: "This is really good. But, let's see how we can make it even better," or something in that vein. I may have taken it just as badly, as I am fairly sensitive to criticism, but I think opening with that first statement helps a great deal. Eventually this seeped into how I do things. Additionally, my early life was colored by the fact that my father was in and out of my life--and the fact that most of our interactions felt frightening to me. The former part is the most important here though, he was gone--often. Being a child, I could not completely understand that it was partly work, partly problems with him and Ma, and partly his not wanting to deal with his own problems. I can see these things now, but that is beyond the reach of a child. I am not yet sure how I processed it, but I know I had to be conflicted with how I both loved and was legitimately afraid of him and his reactions. There had to be relief mixed with guilt of that relief and terror. That conflict became buried in my psyche and would manifest itself in odd ways. In relationships, it eventually meant that I would over-share. I mean this in all relationships. I would give away too much of myself too quickly. In my romantic relationships, this meant revealing things that did not need to immediately be revealed. This, I am starting to see, puts a lot of pressure on the relationship. Doing this meant that the person who normally would reveal themselves slowly, do so as quickly as I have; the seriousness of the relationship is ratcheted at an extremely high level, causing worry; and, forcing the party not ready for the seriousness (read: both parties)to blind themselves to certain issues, placing a huge chink in the armor of the new love. To conclude, this is why I vow not to do that again. First of all, it fits my temperament better and drains me less. Second of all, it would put undue pressure on the success or failure of a relationship. Thirdly, both my significant other and I can have the great chance to unwrap each other shortly. A star takes a long time to become what it is. The materials are all there, but the star does not appear immediately. Relationships are a bit like this, and we can only appreciate starlight because the forces of the universe took their time. It is there that I will stop. I'll go into unwrapping more a bit later. Zaire

Cliches Christians Use Part 1

My girlfriend actually posted an interesting article on her facebook. The link is here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christianpiatt/2012/07/ten-cliches-christians-should-never-use/ It highlights cliches you often here Christians spouting in various situations. I find a lot of it quite true, as someone who dislikes cliche; but, some of it misses the point of the statement. In the comment, there are some other cliches that were mentioned, "love the sinner hate the sin" being one of them. I will pay special attention to dealing with that issue after responding to the original list. First of all, let me highlight the well-made points. The following ARE, in fact, terrible cliches (some of them strictly because I am now Catholic): -Everything happens for a reason -If you died today, where would you spend eternity -He/She is in a better place -Can I share a little bit about my faith with you (when done in extremely early encounters) -Will you come to church with me on Sunday? (similar reasoning) -Have you asked Jesus into your heart? -This could be the end of days -Do you accept Jesus as your personal lord and savior? The others either are really silly or completely miss the point of the statement. However, let us first look at: "Everything happens for a reason." Here the blogger actually partly misses the point. I agree that it isn't a comforting statement and that, truly, a lot of comforting does not require words. However, someone saying to a woman who has been raped is not asserting anything that doesn't make any sense. Of course there is a reason for everything that happens, be it due to cause and effect or simple free-choice. The statement is not comforting simply because it misses the entire point. There is always a reason for something, and most would agree with that; but reminding someone who has suffered trauma of any kind that there was a reason it happened is not the way to comfort them. I understand, and hope the blogger I'm responding to understands, that the person who says this is trying to infer some divine plan in the whole thing. However, that is not something they can directly note or define. They should never presume to say it. It takes a bit of gall, though they may not notice it, to claim insight into the divine plan behind something that has befallen a friend or neighbor. The simple truth of the matter is: the world is full of people and people can be quite wicked. They will have reasons (unless severely brain-damaged) for doing whatever wrong they do, but that neither makes them sensible or obviously connected to the divine plan. Additionally, that phraseology commits people to a completely predestined view of the world. A sensible person can accept that some stuff as being inevitable. They could have been born with a defect or had a horrible accident that literally changed their minds into something unrecognizable. Those kind of things, you generally have no control over. You also cannot control your genetics, though you certainly can control how you approach life once getting knowledge of these genetic possibilities. However, a lot of stuff is inevitable simply because of the choices you make. It was not inevitable that I would fall in love with my Alma Mater, Baylor University, upon my first visit to campus; but, it certainly was inevitable that I would attend there after having made my choice to go to there while on that campus visit (note that there are some things that could have happened inbetween that perhaps changed that; but, all things being equal, it was inevitable). Perhaps a better example would be found in drunken driving. People know it is dangerous and are warned constantly about those dangers, and yet find themselves doing it anyway. It is unavoidable that the possibility of an accident increases with your impairment. It isn't a fact you can change. Alcohol lowers inhibitions, including the ones saying: making that lane change is a poor decision or slow down, fool. You are more likely to be risky while drunk that much has always been sure. Thus, the dangers of being drunk. These are simple matters of fact (again, there are variables that may help or hinder your chances; that's why I used the increase in probability of an accident as a example. We have studies that demonstrate this). However, the belief that everything is inevitable ignores the fact that we clearly have free-will. If you do not believe me, become a teacher. The students are not automatons that just respond to outside stimuli, they are living beings who make choices just like you and I. Sometimes, that choice is to be disrepectful and to bring my righteous indignation and doom down upon their heads. I can, of course, choose not to do that; after all, I have control over how I chose to behave or react later. Gut reactions defy this, but you CAN reign yourself in. If people actually indulged every gut reaction, I am sure that there would be even more violence than there is already. So, what does this mean for my main point? We do not know the future and cannot know that there was a plan behind this sin, whatever it may be. It is far more sensible to admit that inability than use this cliche phrase and note that God can turn terrible things into something good. Heaven, once attained, will work backwards and make even the worst pain into something glorious (C.S. Lewis). Pretending otherwise is little to no help at all. Instead, LOVE that person and provide yourself as the "hands and feet" of Christ. Next, how do we view "do you know where you're spending eternity" or any variant of that question? This runs into a similar problem to the previous cliche, namely: the fact that we cannot, for sure, know the future. At best, we can make an educated guess. This is the Catholic view of it; it isn't set in stone, but you can reasonably guess where you'll end up if you have been keeping track of your relationship with God. DO you have unconfessed sins? Have you been obstinate and refuse to give up a particular sin? You're likely not in good shape. If you are making actual efforts to improve, you're probably okay, as that demonstrates faith in a far truer since. This isn't the assurance that Protestant churches claim they have, but it is more sensible. There are still many choices to be made in life and it makes little sense to believe one choice made long ago, for whatever reason, has completely sealed you off from becoming doomed. If you make choices that constant pit you against what that choosing of Christ requires of you, unrepentantly, then you probably are not in good shape. Here I could go into mortal vs. venial sin, but that would be too much. Additionally, as the article I'm responding to say, this reeks of using God as a get out of jail free card. That can work at a conversion right before the end of one's life, but most of us have plenty of living to do. The assumption of being completely saved and needing nothing else is actually going to do more harm than good in the long run. What is there to strive for when one is not endangered? That fact that life is full of various dangers is partly why people have achieved anything (actually I would venture to say this is the main reason). Realizing that you are on a journey and having a ending place for this journey will make you more watchful. Things can go wrong on an adventure and it is not good for you to help those things along. You have to find the problems and fix them. That "get out of jail free" mentality was a large part of my conversion process. That mentality eliminates true conversion. So, in summary: We cannot really know where we will end up in eternity, but can make decent guesses; also, that knowledge can be very detrimental to your spiritual walk as it eliminates the necessity of the whole "walking" part. "He/she is in a better place" has exactly the same problem, except the educated guess come from observation etc. Remember, there HAVE been full saints before. Not every man was heading towards purgatory or needed a quick scrubdown before entering those holy gates. We don't know the resting place of any soul for sure (excepting, perhaps, those who are saints) and are failing to help by saying this to someone. The two questions that pertain to getting someone to church/mass or sharing one's faith have the exact same problem, when approached in a particular way. These statements are the equivalent of an emotional dump on a person you just started dating. A habit of my own I have been slowly breaking with Hannah. The difference is mainly that the later tends to be more negative and the former tends to be a good-hearted attempt to help...someone you hardly know. You simply cannot assume that you know what a person needs when you've only just met them. These questions are best after having formed some sort of relationship. Get to know them, love them. This is the way to help. They'll note your loving care and the fact that you actually are attempting to get to know them. These "tactics"can lead to a more open heart for those two questions to actually have some effect on. Love your neighbor. Have you asked Jesus into your heart? This phrase also has the distinct smell of the whole "get out of jail free mentality" as it is often followed with the statement: once you do, you shall be saved. Again, and this may just be me being catholic (which I hope it is), I think that this is a poor understanding of the Christian life and leads to more paralysis than striving. While there are people of this ilk who do strive for heaven, it is more of an accident, since their philosophy/theology does not truly allow for it. Remember: it makes no sense to strive for something you've already achieved. Any improvement after that is likely going to be for pride's sake, which cannot be too safe. "This could be the end of days" signifies a misunderstanding of the book of Revelation. Knowing the history and context of the book works wonders. That said, we run into the whole cannot predict the future thing with the harsh statement of "no man will know the day or hour" of Christ's return. His return represents the end of this Creation and the process of remaking all that was good, but it isn't nothing we can predict. Early Christians learned the hard way, they sometimes adopted rather unhealthy practices because they thought Christ's return was soon to come. Best thing to do here is not try to predict when He is coming back, or you'll look like that random guy who predicted everything would end next year. Also, you'd likely be a Jehovah's Witness... The final phrase is "have you accepted Jesus as your lord and savior." Here I mostly agree with the authors assertions, but think he misses part of the point. There is actually no equivalent to a lord in our western world, so his thinking about the word lord being archaic and easily misunderstood makes little sense. Also, there are dictionaries. Secondly,people tried to elevate Jesus to the role of "King" in contrast with the dominion of Rome and thus a revolutionary. They did not try to make him a lord. Additionally, historically speaking: a king is technically above a lord (uses promises to get the lords to do things). In any case, he rejected the sort of revolution that the Jews assumed was to come when the Messiah came. Is not most of the Gospels spent showing how people misunderstood things--including the disciples? Also, Christ refers to himself as lord quite a few times. The time I can remember at the moment is: not everyone who cries out to me 'lord, lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven. He accepted tributes and acts of worship. He accepted people having faith in Him. He did this for one of two reasons: 1. He truly was or believed he was the Son of God/God or 2. He was a madman who was not a servant of God but himself. Finally, I find it interesting that we gloss over the more violent words and imagery that Christ used, such as: being a sword that separates or being the cause of hatred between even family members. Pigeonholing Christ into a convenient box does damage to those who cannot understand and fails to realize that Christ's message was complex. He took many moments to explain to just his disciples what he meant. He knew he would be crucified and go back to heaven, so he took the time to try and explain something that is not wholly simple. Christianity is not a connect-the-dots but rather a harrowing adventure tale where anything can still happen and things can get foggy and complex. Trying to wholly simplify the Faith into maxims and the like doesn't do its justice. How odd is it that God allowed himself to feel as we often feel? How crazy is it that Christ apparently resurrected from the dead? Let's remember the complexity and see the beauty of it all. In my next post regarding the blog I mentioned earlier, I will address the quotes I wholly disagreed with. -Zaire

Pushy Veganism and the Like

I have a beef, you guys. 

I am consistently irritated by philosophies that go to far into one direction and stop making sense. One such example of this are pushy vegans/vegetarians. There is even a group on facebook that wants to extend the idea of murder into ALL killing of animals (so it appears on the page). This is a notion that simply makes no sense. 

What specifically is murderous about killing another animal for food? Don't misunderstand me, there are instances where people do actually murder animals, like the bunny seen on fatal attraction, but it does not follow that any killing of an animal is murderous. Why? Because you simply do not extend the same distinction to carnivorous animals. What makes a human so different from a tiger in this regard? Think about it, the prey animal is alive (often enough) for longer stints than animals killed using human implements. Not all kills are clean, but humans are actually better able to do that than most species.

If a tiger or cheetah are aloud to devour herbivores, why can't humans? Don't try and say that it is HOW the kill the animals (though there are things that make sense in that thought) because most deaths are going to be painful in the animal world. Nature is not kind. Seriously, it isn't in the least. 

In nature, animals are killed in many and varied ways, often painfully. In nature, animals kill other animals all the time and we are not trying to turn tigers and polar bears into vegetarians. If you're going by the gore, a seal clubber produces just as much blood as a polar bear (though the animal is far less shredded when beaten to death). It cannot simply be the pain and gore that are the problems.

I'm willing to concede that animals have souls in a far more limited sense than we do. This may sound terrible, but humans are different from other animals in a great many ways. As with most things, it isn't the similarities that matter, it is the differences. Where humans differ from other animals is far more important than the similarities, in this case pain, soul in some sense of the word, and feelings. 

As far as the animal kingdom go, humans are a strange phenomenon. We make art, we use thought when making out buildings, we develop better tools etc. We are the crazy ones. The is something that is above or, in the least, not normal in the existence of human life. 

Turtles are not likely having existential crises or fighting someone because someone talked about its mother. Tigers are not either. Animals, while filled with life and soul, are of different stuff than us. Yes, they have emotions and can feel a lot of the same things, but it isn't exactly the same in every way. Animals are far more tied to their instincts than we are. We can choose our own course, but it isn't like there are Ape colleges or dolphins capturing humans for an underwater LandWorld. Let's just face it, humans are different.

That said, humans are omnivores (though they do not have to be). Humans, moreso than any animal, can adapt to the food that is available to them. A tiger cannot likely become a vegetarian and nourish itself properly. Its stomach is built to handle raw meat, not vegetables. Killer whales are not often in waters that even have a lot of vegetation and similarly built in such a way that meat is the way for them. A human's digestive system can handle so much more. Much like bears, humans can eat most anything and they do. Since humans are like this, it makes sense for various peoples to prefer different foods for various reasons (religious etc.), but it does not make sense to think that eating meat is necessarily wrong. If other animals can eat meat, why are we so different? If other animals cause pain, why are we so different?

Bear in mind that I, in no way, condone mistreatment of animals; I just think that the line for mistreatment is in a completely different place than pushy vegans/vegetarians say it is. Is it wrong to train dogs to fight and drown them if they don't perform? Surely. Is it wrong to club a seal just to club a seal? Yes. Is it wrong to (as a I saw on a comic on that group site) boil your cat to make sure that your water isn't scalding hot for you? Of course. But, one cannot just use a broad brush and paint any situation where an animal is hurt or loses its life as a case for murder or moral wrongness. Not all cases where such things occur are as these people believe. 

Here is another point: if you are equating humans and other animals in terms of morality, then the times when you allow other animals to do something "murderous" should be allowable to humans, no matter what the method is, teeth, fangs, or musket. If a wildebeest can end the life of a lion to protect its young, so can we. If a lion can end the life of a gazelle for nourishment, so can we. That is all in simply thinking that humans and animals are equal. The pushy vegans/vegetarians are trying to equate us with pure animals and hold us to a standard that is clearly not natural.

Let's look at nature again: dolphin males regularly rape and badger females for sexual pleasure. They will go as far as killing a calf to make the mother receptive. Would this be acceptable for a human? no way, no how. Dolphins also regularly kill sharks for fun and don't even make an attempt to use the carcass for anything. If it weren't for animals that can survive off of such a thing, the thing would wither away. That's a waste of a good shark. 

What I am trying to say is that, they need to make up their minds. If we are the SAME as other animals, their arguments fail for sure. If we are different, then they need to find a way to tell us why an animal life should get the same consideration a human life does. Why should I not eat that delicious baby gazelle; nature certainly does not prohibit it because prohibitions are a human invention.

I am done for tonight, and I hope this makes sense. Again, there are times when were ARE mistreating animals, but we cannot say it is mistreatment because they are the same as us, the similarities are nice, but we are still QUITE different. In the areas where we are similar, it is perfectly acceptable to take the life of another animal. I'm not talking about hunting for sport and not using the animal in any way, I'm talking about milking a cow or killing it to eat it. These things are not wrong (there are ants that raise aphids like farm animals for slaughter) in nature and do not appear to be wrong when looking from outside of nature. Their rhetoric and arguments need to change. Goodnight.

Punished With A Baby

I just saw a delightful piece of Pro-Life propaganda. I'm pro-life, but it was still propaganda. Stop acting like it is a dirty word!

Anyway, the sentiment was that President Obama would rather his grandchildren aborted than his daughters become responsible mothers. This was drawn from a statement when he said "I would never punish my daughters with a baby," a couple years back. The conclusion drawn is the most extreme one, and probably not what President Obama meant while pandering to another political lobby. But, still, the line of thought is inherent to saying one's daughter's having a baby is a punishment for poor decision making (you should have had a condom!!!).

I say that he probably didn't mean such things because he seems to be a kind-hearted man, a rather weak one in my opinion. After all, he is a politician. Before someone goes crazy, I do not think that ALL politicians are weak, but rather that they are prone to certain weaknesses that come with the territory of having to have people like you to stay in office to do anything at all. Keep in mind, that none of this would be this way without Andrew Jackson and the like. Jefferson believed in the people, but was still an elitist and felt that people who were trained to do so should run the government. That's the whole purpose of the electoral college etc. Additionally, the president was not the most powerful position initially. Again, that is something that happened due to Jackson's presidency. But, I am not here for a history lesson.

The point is, with the popular vote actually being important these days, politicians have to walk a fine line. In general, most will not go out right and say certain things unless it is too their advantage. Politicians tend not to be built for any real conviction or, if they once were, shed that ability for the sake of office.

In this regard, I can say that Obama was being rather brave. The topic of abortion is a hot button issue, and going out right for abortion as a President, is a rather big deal. He's still wrong, but even the Russians love their children, right?

In any case, like most politicians, I am willing to wager that he has maybe had one introductory philosophy class (okay, so this entire section of this blog was kind of ad hominem. Forgive me, but I cannot trust politicians and I am hoping that will become more evident later. This can also be considering poisoning the well...but, anyway). As a novice philosopher, he surely does not easily come to the logical conclusions of what he says. Richard Dawkins is a brilliant bioligist, but a failure as a philosopher because he does something similar.

Essentially, what we are dealing with is a form of sophistry, that has only become necessary because of how our government works. In a monarchy, there isn't much public opinion can do unless it spawns a revolution. In our government, it can be near about everything. A president cannot continue for another four years if the public opinion has generally swayed away from his favor (though, there are exceptions). So, President Obama is participating in sophistry and poor philosophy.

Here is what he is missing, his statement does imply that he would rather his daughters have an abortion than carry the child to term. His assertion additionally implies that pregnancy is a punishment for poor planning. Actually, it goes beyond simply implications and veers directly into outright saying that it IS a punishment.

Now, I could say, 'how can he say that, pregnancy is so natural,' but that would not be the best argument to make. After all, a lot of things are natural but really dangerous and detrimental to human life and aspirations. For example, there are natural things like cancer, HIV, or the flu (which isn't really a thing apparently...). These are things that do harm to human life, but occur in the natural world without human assistance. They just happen.

On another point of view, sexuality is natural, but what sort of sexuality is good is often up for debate. How are we to tell what natural things are GOOD things? Well, by using our noggins and doing the noodle dance, of course.

In older societies, let us not forget that they were societies, this was discovered by using what we term as natural law. Essentially, it is looking at the world as it is and looking for the ends, or teleology, that natural things appear to be oriented toward.

For sex, people thought, 'what is the teleology of sex?' In the end, an overwhelming majority decided that sex was for procreation and some felt for unity as well. So, what is a good sexual act? It would appear to be one that has, at least, the possibility of producing children, which societies cannot continue without. You have to replace all the old people, you know! Silly old people.

So, let's look at it that way. Pregnancy, what is the purpose of it? What is its teleology? Obviously, pregnancy works within sexuality to produce the next generation. Its purpose is to bring new life into the world to replace the old (in the simplest terms). Without pregnancy, mankind was not going to survive. This clearly means that pregnancy must be a good thing! Why else would there be fertility banquets and deities?

However, despite most of the world agreeing with this thought, there have ALWAYS (abortion isn't new people) been those who find particular pregnancies to be highly inconvenient or unfortunate for various reasons.

Can a pregnancy be inconvenient? Certainly. Can it be unfortunate? If it is doing what it should do and producing life? Not in my opinion. Not in any understanding of its teleology can it be unfortunate, unless it turns out that life isn't good and we need to avoid having children.

Parts of our society (and parts of others) are of the belief that unfortunate, as well as inconvenient, pregnancies can occur. To alleviate what they see as a problem, they feel abortions should be allowed. After a while, our government agreed and we got Roe v. Wade. This is kind of the result of the feminist movement which, in part, advocated for women to gain more control over the whole birth thing.

While I find portions of the feminist movement spot on and good (such as the fact that women CAN do a lot of things like men can and should get paid the same to do the same work), but this is where things get a bit dodgy. For one, what does it mean to have control over one's reproductivity? Does it necessarily lend itself to the ability to terminate unwanted pregnancies or children? Does it necessarily mean that women should take a pill that effectively eliminates (sort of) their ability to have children until they desire? Does it have to mean that children are a burden and should be prepared for as one prepares to do something burdensome? You know, with a big sigh and the pulling up of one's britches as you dig into the life of parenting.

I think it is in the control of reproductivity where we have gotten confused and off-track. This is also tied in the unfortunate tendency of certain feminists trying to advance women by making them into men. Let me explain:

When I say that some feminists try and make women into men, I mean that they try to eliminate ALL distinctions between the two sexes. Is it really so bad that men and women ARE, in general, built differently? Their development is divergent, it makes perfect sense to insist that men and women are different creatures that lend themselves more towards certain things than others.

Men hunted because they were built for it, and women cooked because SOMEONE had to. It was not necessarily oppression. Just because some men have used it as such does not mean that's how it started or how it ever should have been. Women did "women's work" because the men had work of their own to attend to. Men passed down their "man skills" to their sons and women passed their "lady skills" to their daughters. This was not done with the intent of placing a glass ceiling over the life of their progeny, but to keep people going and to help them know how to do so.

Nowadays, it is quite true that this distinction is far less necessary. But, is that a completely good thing? The old shape of society tied men to work in such a way that, their not working eliminated their worth as a person. Even a woman who works will consider her husband (though not always) a deadbeat if he is not working as well. For whatever reason, whomever works outside of the home forgets that the home is its own work and is just as honorable. For years, it was just ungrateful men who took their wives and their wifely duties for granted. But not, it is perfectly acceptable for a woman to consider her husband a deadbeat for not having a job. I could be wrong about this, but I get the feeling that, even if they are working and make enough for the whole household, a woman desires for her husband to be working, too. There is something odd about a man sitting at home and being with the kids all day. Is it a bad thing? No, but it is still treated as such because people cannot seem to get past this idea of being in the home as being the same as being in a prison.

Let's be real, when has a woman throughout the whole history of mankind been chained to the kitchen? When you go to someone's house, where the traditional mold is in place, does the house more reflect the woman, or the man? If you mess up the house, who is more likely to beat you? The entire home was the feminine domain and it was an incredibly important job. The entire early childhood of every child depended on the women folk (and let's keep in mind that families were less fragmented). The village raised the children, but a lot of preliminary and extra work was done by the mothers, grandmothers, and elder sisters of said children. Did this mean that mean could not do such things? No. But, it also does not mean that the person at home is doing nothing, no matter who it is. Both parties, truly, are at work. Just because it is not work as we seem to recognize it today, does not mean that it isn't work and certainly does not mean that it is worthless. Let's get that out of our heads, now.  It is ruining families.

That said, there are things to be said for the traditional model, like it was done with some thought to natural law. In general, women are more attuned to the whole child-raising thing. There are hormones and various other things that are not conscious to the woman, that lead them down the road of desiring motherhood. Fatherhood, has always kind of been less like that. There are genetics involved that make men kind of want to do it with every pretty lady, but we can say that men become more into fatherhood (if things are going well) once the child is conceived. Think about every cute pregnancy movie you have seen where the father is a daft, affable fool who just wants to help his wife.

Why would we take pictures of us next to our significant other's bulging belly? That isn't terribly sexy by today's standards. Then again, today EVERYTHING has to be sexy, but that's for another post.

Is it sexist to say that one sex/gender tends to be more attuned to certain things than another? No, it is simple observation. Is it bad to recognize that some children are naturally better at somethings than others? Is it bad to note that some people can do almost everything well, while others cannot? No, it just makes them different, and all of it is beautiful. Please, let's revel in the differences between men and women.

That said, it is OBVIOUS that each sex/gender is going to have exceptions. Should the exceptions be attacked? No. Since our society is supposed to be freer, people should be able to make such choices. If someone wants to be a mother sooner rather than later (when it is healthier to do) is she necessarily throwing her whole life away? Even if they never got to do everything they dreamed of doing as a child, is having provided someone with a life and helping them grow a waste? Where are our priorities?  Is not a quality life better than one filled with crap that probably won't make you happy? Have we not learned from movies like CLICK!?

Alright, so I digress and got a bit silly. My point still remains. If men and women were supposed to be exactly the same, it seems like both should be able to get pregnant, instead of just one. Seahorses (horsi?...i wish) live like this. There are plenty of asexual species with little individuality (just as there are many species who sex that have little individuality).

As it is, men and women are different. Let's celebrate that.

Now, I went through all of that to get here. Woman are the ones who can get pregnant. Women are the ones who have a certain level of oneness with the child before it can enter the world as a visible child. She shares her meals, anguish, and womb. The child is literally two in one, but only the mother gets certain privileges.

This makes me think of a Bill Cosby joke. He talks about raising his boy and the boy gets really good at football. The father, of course, taught the boy all that. But, when the big moment comes and the son is under the spotlight, all he says is 'hi, mom.' The father is important, in a different way, but kids tend to be more attached to the one whose breasts they suckled and who, more often than not, held them.

In all previous ages, the mother was the one who was there more often. Now, it can be the opposite, and should the man be penalized for that? I think not, that is TRUE SEXISM.

That still isn't what I want to say though. Brace yourselves, it is going to get worse...

Let me get back to what I started with, the idea that pregnancy can be a punishment. How can life be a punishment? Your body producing another human is terrible and ugly? How far we have fallen.

Pregnancy is natural and produces the greatest good most humans can think of: simply being alive. We need to change our thinking on this. Treating children as oppressions is not going to end well for anyone.

Do we really want women to have control of their reproduction? Yes and no. We need to stop acting as though reproduction is a one person thing. That's what we have done by separating sex from its natural consequence (in the sense that it means a result). It is simply about pleasure in our culture, the baby is an accident more often than not (at least that how it seems to be treated). We have forgotten that the pleasure part is probably (even on a natural, evolutionary view) there so we WILL procreate. The pleasure is not the most important part, as wonderful as it is.

We need to bring the man and the woman together to truly control reproduction. The Church has a method, it is called Chastity. Chastity is not just abstaining from sex. It is an entire system that engages all people. Nothing is truly private. How you do things in private are going to reflect how you do them in person. This is a simply truth.

If you are participating in infidelity, the family you leave behind, the woman you do it with, and even your social circle are affected. Particularly, when you get found out. When it is exposed, you see the effect of your once private actions. Things come out into the light eventually, why spend time hiding things in the dark? Your actions are going to make you treat your friends, children, and wife differently. Don't bring up excuses for your actions. There's always a reason for an action. Let's take some responsibility.

Chastity is found in fidelity, discipline, and love in its truest sense. The desire for the betterment of the beloved. You give up something you want for the sake of something even better.

In the world of chastity, a child is a gift, a reward. It is as the child should be. Behavior and the like are not what the child ARE, the little human animal does not yet know the way to be and must be shown the way. The child is a story that is just beginning. Nothing is yet set in stone. The child represents possibilities and those can be good things! Why are we so cynical? Why is a bit of trouble so terrible for us?

Forgive me, I am passionate about life and its goodness. I am someone who has suffered greatly in my own way, but can you not look at the sky and be lifted just a bit? Lift up your eyes, humans can be so much more! Why should we allow what is imprinted on our DNA dictate everything about us? Where is our choice? Liberals, who are often pro-Choice, tend to contradict themselves when they assert that people are born a certain way. There is no choice in that universe, how can you say you support choice? People aren't even allowed to choose not to engage in all of their desires without being accused of not being true to themselves.

Who are we to say who someone is, we silly, half-hearted creatures? We can only say who they are to us, and nothing more. Who they are is going to be up to them. We can only say who someone was in retrospect. You have to take the whole body of work. You can't stop at that one, awkward, experimental album. You can't stop with that loss in the NBA Finals. Fall down seven times, stand up eight. That is what makes us human, we are not stuck being what we were born as. A dog will always be a dog; a man who behaves as one, need not be.

So, I say we learn to use our choices properly. Law in no way inhibits one's choice. Otherwise, there would be no murders, thievery, or deception under oath. Making abortion safe and easy is not helping the women who get them (as a sidenote: most abortions are not done because the mother is in danger physically). It is crippling them. Making them unable to make choices. It gives them some license to be less careful because it views something they should be able to cherish is a problem to be solved. Pregnancy should be a joy, whatever the inconvenience. New life should be loved at all costs!

Teach our children how to use their bodies properly, teach them that they hold the power to give life and they should be careful. Be disciplined, learn charity. Know that it is beautiful, silly, powerful, and dangerous. Know that we have to make tough choices to refrain from certain actions for the sake of wisdom.

Alright, I am off my soapbox. The point is, the Church is right about what would solve the whole problem. It is the Church that is for choice and affirms that we are free. We are not a system or stuck in a system. We have choices to make.

Refuting What I Deem As Silliness Part 1

I know, it's another one of THOSE posts. I'll try at least to be brief, but the general lack of "mind" the post-modern (or modern, depending on whom you speak with) displays is astounding. I saw this today:

This sort of thing makes me, sometimes, irrationally angry (to borrow a term from a friend) because it recognizes no nuance and clearly doesn't understand what the Church teaches. I mean the Catholic Church (which is more than just the Latin Rite by the by), because Protestants are more scrambled and less unified, so their answers reflect this. All of these points made by whomever wrote this are, in fact, refutable. They are VERY refutable. So, I will just go through each one and attempt to do just that.

1. If Jesus did not mention a subject, it cannot be essential to his teaching.
   
First of all, this is actually a fairly silly way to look at religious teaching in general. Lots of specific cases are not mentioned, because it is already hard enough reading Leviticus as it is (or any deep holy book, really). Can you imagine if the Bible had actually come down from the sky in fullness with a full summary of everything mankind would have to deal with past, present, and future? That would be a book big enough for me to climb and far too large for me to make out the words but from space. It would be as insane to conceive of as my hyperbolic description of it was. I, honestly, have no idea where that came from.

Christians, specifically Catholics and Orthodox, do not believe that about the Bible in the least. The idea is that the books of the Bible were written by authors inspired by God who used them as a vessel to communicate with people through words. These books were then gathered and compiled by equally inspired people who put them in a certain order after lots of thought, prayer, and discussion. Remember, Tradition predates the Scriptures. Scripture is necessarily the product of Tradition, the people would still have believed as they did, even if no one thought of writing anything down. This is true of both the Old and New Testaments. Also, please note that, just because they were not as scientifically or medically advanced as we are, doesn't mean that they are ignorant nor stupid. Acting as though the compilation of the Bible was done haphazardly done by idiot ancients is a slap in the face of history and pays little respect to the people who got us to where we are now. No one would be here without the ancients, so it is about time we showed a little respect and decorum.

So, since the Bible is not a book that was written covering every possible scenario (as it did not fall from the sky in a perfect form) we have to use what we learn from the Bible and Tradition to figure out how to approach various problems that arise in different epochs. The issue that this picture is talking about is Gay Marriage, because that is one of the hot button issues of the day, but thinking that no direct mentioning of homosexuality or various other sins means it isn't essential to his teaching is silly.

Remember, when Christ was on Earth, his first mission was to those who would already understand what he was talking about. If he showed up in Greece or Meso-America, the concepts of sin and repentance would have needed explanation. I don't mean that these people did not right from wrong, they did mostly, but the Jewish understanding of such things was actually rather revolutionary as most ancient religions just said that the world was simply the way it was. Jews and later Christians actually placed blame somewhere other than chance or the gods. Humanity was at fault for our current state of affairs and it was due to our ancestors committing foolish acts that brought sin into the world. Back then, that was entirely revolutionary.

People have trouble thinking in those terms, because they have heard or, rather more often, misheard what sin and redemption are in Christian terms. The Western World is a product of the Christian beliefs that their ancestors accepted and developed. What we have now, that other countries are just getting to, are a result of that background.

Anyway, Jewish theology and religion, as it developed, looked less and less like the religions that it had sprung up around. There was something quite odd happening with those people and Christ came to the people who would better understand and receive his message first. It is hard for him to dialogue with people who have different definitions for different terms.

So, the next question was what was Christ's message? Well, it appears that his focus was on repentance, learning to love God with everything, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. This is, arguably, one of the reasons he hung around the "sinners" of his contemporary Jewish society. Those were the people who really needed his message. He himself says this a few times. He came for the lost, not those who had an okay grip on things.

If those things were his focus, and we can admit that not every possible problem that will arise would necessarily be addressed, then we have to realize that, in calling for repentance, Christ was telling people to "Sin no more." His people, the Jews, had a true concept of this, one that the rest of the world was soon to receive. They had many laws that had been passed down way before Christ was born, and he would (besides the fact that he was God) have known about these laws. He tells people that he came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. Does that sound like someone who is going to encourage people to do something believed to be a sin?

Now, about Leviticus (and Deuteronomy). I want to reiterate that the Bible was not compiled as books just popped out there. There was discussion, argument, etc. Just because people more often held mystical beliefs back then does not mean they were meatheads, though some SURELY were. The books (remember the Bible isn't just ONE BOOK, it is many) were written and placed in a certain order with a purpose. The Bible is also filled to the brim with many a literary genre. Not understanding this fact will not let you understand what the Scriptures are, nor what it took to compile it. The entire Bible is not meant to be taken literally, that is a fallacy that many Christians early on and many Protestant ones have fallen into (though it is worth nothing that their usage of literalism is selective).

Leviticus is a book of Law for the Hebrews as God's first people. It drags along with various stipulations, many of which are repeated and elaborated on in Deuteronomy. There were many specific rules that were all a part of helping the Jews be set apart. A notion Christians would later take as being a City on the Hill.

However, there are also many laws that were in Leviticus that were not simply laws for the Jews, they were natural laws, such as those involving sex being both procreative and unifying, something naturally lacking in homosexual relationships throughout all ages. Current homosexual erotic relationships have to have some money to conceive a child in unconventional ways or adopt in order to do something that will usually happen naturally in an heterosexual union (preferably in a marriage). Before we go on, let's note here and now that I am not saying that homosexual erotic love is not a reality or that what the people feel isn't real. That isn't even what the discussion is about. We feel lots of things, but that does not mean that we have to act on said feelings or, even more, that these feelings are what define us as human persons made in the image of God. The fact simply is, naturally speaking, homosexual couples cannot have children. (notice I don't blanket it on all those with SSA because some get into heterosexual marriages and conceive children that way)

That fact is a natural one and irrefutable. The reason why the Church still follows the Ten Commandments, but not all of the laws of Leviticus, is not because they just wanted to pick and choose like many people have desired to do through all ages, but rather because they are rooted in reason. Natural Law is all that we can deduce about proper conduct just from using our reason. Thus, murder etc. are wrong. So, in the Church's eyes, homosexuality is disordered because it takes the good of sexual desire and misaligns it. Everyone is aware that people can become infatuated or fall in love with things that it would be inordinate to be in love with. This is further tied to the fact that sexual congress is, on even an evolutionary level, used for the production of children. Other uses for sex evolved, but the core of it is still in passing on genes to a new generation and raising them up. That is the first and most important aspect. Homosexual congress clearly does not line up with this, and so must be disordered in some way. (Christians go further in the discussion of Chastity, but that is for another blog)

For a really good succinct explanation of why Catholics don't follow EVERY law in Leviticus go here:
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-we-are-not-bound-by-everything-in-the-old-law

A final note in this line of thought, Christ came to enhance our understanding of the law and often did things that the strict Pharisees disagreed with but, because of who He was, he was able to better define the law into the spirit behind these laws. (also, some of those laws were matters of discipline more than matters of sin. Is everything that is against any set of laws necessarily a sin? No.)

Now, my final point is this: the Bible, as I have shown, was not dropped in a complete form upon the heads of unwitting Jews. The same thing is true of the New Testament. The writers of the Gospels, which chronicle important aspects of Jesus' life in a condensed fashion, did not write those full accounts down until they were fairly old. It was done to combat heresy a lot of the time. Read the beginning of Luke to see this (he tells the dude he is writing that these are the really big points that happened so he knows the truth of the eyewitnesses).

Also, note that the Gospels were not biographies in the sense that we think of them now. They reported the facts, but focused more on a person's essence than reporting everything in supreme detail. The disciples likely took notes while Jesus was their rabbi, but it is obvious enough to know that those notes would be different, because different people remember and focus on different things. The points where they agreed on were probably the most essential, and one of the most essential parts of Christ's ministry was telling people to turn away from their sins. He told the woman at the well, who had been treating marriage like a hobby (joking), to go and sin no more. Turn away from that life.

So, what does that mean? Well, it means that every single, word-for-word, instance of Christ teaching or rebuking something is not going to be recorded and the goal of the Gospels was not to uncover every single stone. It was, instead done to show what was witnessed and done in a more condensed fashion than some of the biographies we read today. That said, what biography is going to be word-for-word, action-for-action, complete? People are going to remember different things, forget things, etc. Expecting ALL what Christ said and is foolish. A couple of the Gospels even have verses where they claim that Christ did this and many other wonders. They clearly saw more, but did not want to write for that long. They didn't have computers then, you guys!

Now, to wrap this up, here are the major points:

1. The Bible is not believed to have suddenly appeared in perfection with all questions answered. That is simply an improper way to view scripture.

2. You need to properly understand (though I am not perfect at this myself) what Christ's message was and take into account that the first people he brought it to were people with concepts that they could readily attach to what he was saying (though, again, done imperfectly. The disciples were often like WTF, Jesus?) Christ message wasn't simply a lazy "love" that accepts everything people do as okay, but rather a turning a way from such thinkings and learning to truly love. Abandoning sin and learning to live as we should. It is a message of the complete alteration of the self into what it is suppose to be. If you think Jesus was just like, be nice and "love" everyone, you have not read the right scriptures.

3. Understanding how the Bible was compiled, respecting the ancient compilers, and learning to distinguish between laws that really had to do with a man's soul and those of discipline are essentially to understand any of the Church's view on things. Christ did things that were "anti-Sabbath" but simply redefined them to help the people understand more. We know that fish does not ruin your soul, and neither do your clothes. In fact, in the words of 'Ye, "the prettiest people do the ugliest things." Many of those laws were not essential to the salvation of the soul. So, the Church had to form a new understanding with the advent of the Holy Spirit. (see: the Circumcision issue in the NT)

4. Natural law is often used by the Church to determine what is ethically acceptable or what is in proper order to its purpose etc.

5. Expecting every single word of a two year period to be exactly written down shows a misunderstanding of what Scripture is and a misunderstanding of what it is to be human. The Church wasn't expecting every single thing to be written down, but instead used what had been traditionally taught to see what Scriptures were inspired or not. Every single thing he addressed is not likely to make it into the writings, but a lot of really big important stuff is.

That's all I have for now! This is gonna be a multi-parter!

Z

Secular Law and the Christian

I would like to preface this post with the following: the United States was a secular government from its conception and the whole "under God" thing in the pledge and on our money was the result of an attempt to separate the US from Communist Eastern Europe. Additionally, most of the Founding Fathers were deists and did not believe in God truly interacting with His Creation. Franklin and Jefferson are prime examples of this.

Logically speaking, this means that what the Church says about anything does not matter to the American government, right or wrong. Most of the governments of the Western world are of this slant.

Now, here is what grinds my gears: As Christians, we are called to be in the world but not off it. We are also told to live justly under the laws set before us by secular governments we live under. So, whatever the laws end up being, we are to abide by them.

Here is the next issue, the United States in a Democratic-Republic where everyone is supposed to get their voice out there through various government officials. Whenever we vote, it is with the hope that, if our person gets elected, they will help steer our government in a direction we find desirable. For many liberals, this means that the Democrats need to be in power while most conservatives think that the Republicans need to be in power.

Whomever you believe is best suited to run the country is a decision that must be made based on one's beliefs, convictions, and conscience. As a Catholic, if you are as faithful to the Church as we all hope to be, this will put you into several binds.

First of all, you cannot vote in favor of things you find dubious or against your conscience. That would be ludicrous. Many people will do this out of pressure from the outside and internal struggles, but that really is not what is best for the soul. We are at our best when I hearts, bodies, minds, souls, and spirits are in proper relation to each other. People may disagree on what this relation is, but the fact remains that human happiness and health are connected to this fact.

The next bind comes in the fact that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves, to love God with all our heart. The question is, what is it to love one's neighbor? The Ten Commandments give us a good starting point, and we can relate back to them in an effort to choose rightly, but there is still going to be a tension. Part of loving is being merciful and helping the oppressed. Part of loving God is going to be deploring sin and doing one's best to (with God's grace) rid one's self of sin and to help others, whether or not they are striving to do the same, do the same.

So, when it comes to our political practices, like voting, we have a lot to consider. These decisions should and will weigh heavily on us.

Now, let's look at a few hot button issues: abortion and gay marriage.

With abortion, we are clearly defending the right of an innocent, at least in our minds and hearts this is how we feel. To our opposition we are depriving a woman of the right to choose having children. No matter what, I know I will always vote against it, but I now would like to address the charge that we keep women from choice.

Pro-Choice is a misnomer and, as Sartre would say, a sign of an inauthentic life. The fact is, we are free no matter what the government says or does, right or wrong. A law being put in place that prohibits something no more deprives you of choice than parents telling their child they cannot date. Whether it is done in secret or with the full blessing of the law or one's parents. The choice will always remain, a law certainly does not change that or free-will is not a real thing.

Legislation disallowing abortions would make the decision that much harder, but it does not eliminate the possibility. Surely, most of us have been human long enough to realize that, in the very least.

This argument can be brought up with birth control as well. We will vote against or struggle against things that force us against our Church, but it does not eliminate the ability to choose to use birth control.

By the by, insurance being provided by employers is not, in fact, a right guaranteed by the Constitution. It is a wonderful, helpful privilege. Not all employers even provide that. I worked a full-time job at a small car shop for a full year and we had no insurance. We were on our own.

Now, for gay marriage. Christians are going to tend towards voting against it because we believe that ENGAGING in homosexual behavior is a sin. The attraction itself is uncontrolled and attraction itself is so complex in how it is formed it is foolish to blame someone for those inclinations. You are not condemned for having the inclination (and please do not site Jesus using hyperbole to counteract this).
However, choosing to engage or add those sorts of sexual relationships to your life is an offense.

This is still a sin, whether or not you are a part of the Church. In our view, these laws stem from natural and divine law, and it applies to all. So, that means we cannot show support for certain lifestyles. Don't get me wrong, this does mean we show hatred and do not love those engaging in said lifestyles, we just cannot give our blessing to it. It is great that you are happy, but we have something that will actually give you the happiness you look for. It is found within God. It takes a long time to grow accustomed to the fruit and life of Heaven, but it will be far worth it. Everything is much larger on the inside of the Church than you think. But, we have to be prepared to give things up.

So, I cannot vote for gay marriage as gay marriage. For the Christian, there really is no such thing. It is affirmed in the New Testament and evident in natural law that the primary purpose of a marriage is to sire and raise the next generation. People with natural inhibitors to this aspect of marriage, like those who cannot conceive, can still live in a holy marriage and are likely excellent candidates for adoptive parents. They may not be able to have children that are of their own blood, but they can certainly benefit children who are not.

The fact is, gay relationships are, naturally speaking, a dead-end. If the wording troubles you, think of it this way: for humans to be born, both the male and female must be united (egg and sperm), so it follows that naturally homosexual relationships will not produce progeny. They cannot naturally do so. We do have technology that can change this, but it is technology that I worry objectifies people more than anything. It is nice that someone can donate sperm to couples who cannot conceive, but there seems to be an underlying danger there. There are people who donate sperm often and have a bunch of children they do not know about. There seems to be something wrong with that picture. Sure, we are use to women raising kids on their own, but that is not the ideal. Also, using someone else sperm or egg seems to be bringing a third person into what is supposed to be a union of two.

Anyway, it is not something we can advocate. However, I think, since our government is secular and the Church and State are supposed to be separate, that civil unions should have similar rights to marriage. I am not married, so I am unaware of what the rights are, but I am plenty aware that those unions do not, in the Christian view, constitute what marriage truly is. This fact is why many Christians vote against gay marriage and that is not a bigoted or hateful view. I tired of people approaching such discussions with a chip on their shoulder and deeming anything they don't agree as hateful. It makes no sense, and I feel as though we can at least be sensible and just in such discussions.

So, the Christian is stuck between a rock and a hard place. We are citizens of the City of God, but we still live in the secular, post-modern world. We have to stand for our beliefs and live them out, and this seems to require us to get spat at and called hateful because we do not wish to condone choices that are actually more harmful to a person than they realize. It is as the Gospel said, is it not?