1 man + 1 woman = Christian belief

Perhaps the funniest quote I have ever read:

“Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society,” Bush said in his Saturday radio address. “Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.” (Courtesy of the folks at CNN.com)

I hate to tell you, Squinty, but keeping gays from marrying isn’t going to save your marriage. Or mine. Or any one of the people reading this blog right now. If you think that oppressing people will turn them into the ideal, you should know that ages of experience have taught us otherwise. Banning gay marriage will not turn them into heterosexuals. It will just raise the number of people who can’t afford healthcare, children who will bounce from foster home to foster home, and families that will be torn apart.

Family and marriage are not the same thing. Family values have nothing to do with a piece of paper saying you’ve been legally joined together. Family values have nothing to do with the sex of the ones you love. Family values have nothing to do with religion or race or nationality or sexual preference.

I have a heterosexual life partner. She is straight and I am straight, and right now we are blissfully joined in domesticity. Despite the fact that we are dependent on one another, I can’t claim her as a dependent, nor can we file joint taxes. It was hard doing my taxes earlier this year because a lot of my money went toward caring for her. But since we aren’t married and couldn’t be anyway, I got bent over by the government. Again.

I’m sure you’re thinking, “God, Sparkle Pants. You should just find a man if you want a ‘life partner’. Things would be easier and you know it.”

Okay, first of all, the number of men that are even the slightest bit tolerable is unbelievably low and finding them is so very hard. Secondly, even if I did find a man to spend the rest of my life with, who said anything about marrying him? I don’t need the government’s permission to love anyone. Neither do gays. However, I’m at an advantage because should I choose to marry someone and reap all the governmental “benefits” of a legal union, I could. And probably will, if his health insurance is better than mine.

I have nothing against marriage. Some of my closest friends are married. I’m going to a wedding this weekend. Chances are, if I meet The One, I will drag his handsome butt to the nearest court house and marry him. My religion is not the religion of every single person in this country. Christianity is not the religion of the federal government. The federal government doesn’t have a religion. That’s the whole point of this country in the first place. Should we have morals? Well, yeah. Of course we should. But we shouldn’t impose our beliefs on the legal system. They don’t belong there.

Advertisements

Posted on June 5, 2006, in All about Sparkle Pants, Sparkle Pants does Politics, Sparkle Pants does Religion. Bookmark the permalink. Comments Off on 1 man + 1 woman = Christian belief.

  1. I love you, heterosexual life and domestic partner, roommate and best friend fohevah.

  2. OK I don’t want you to take this personally cuz I am not directing this at you. You are my friend no matter how differently we view things. But ku nkiko got very angry with me for not being “up to the challnge” of expressing my views on this very subject so here they are. (If nothing else this will provide the completely opposite point of view for your readers. haha)

    First – I find it refreshing that our President, who claims to be a Christian, isn’t afraid to publicly stand up for the values our government was founded on. No matter how much we try to separate the two, it is undeniable that our forefathers established this country on Christian beliefs and values. So while Christianity isn’t the religion of the federal government, it certainly used to be.

    Second – I understand the rights of homosexual couples have to benefits equivalent to married couples as far as healthcare, taxes, etc. I do not, however, understand their right to the term marriage itself. Call it a civil union, call it a domestic partnetship, call it anything but marriage. Because marriage in and of itself was created by God for a man and a woman. Marriage any way other than how God intended it is just like trying to celebrate Christmas and Easter without acknowledging God. You cannot have one without the other. If you don’t believe in God, why celebrate the things He created? (“You” not meaning Miss Pants of course.)

    It terrifies me that people, even Christians, are so eager to strive for political correctness that they compromise the most basic morals and values God has established for us. Does anyone remember Sodom and Gemorrah? There was a reason the Bible pointed out the sins, including homosexuality, that led to God destroying that city. It was so we could learn from their mistakes. But somehow we are cocky enough to think that we can go the same route and fall into those same lifestyles with no repercussions now.

    Things like that make me doubt my decision to bring children into this world. I wouldn’t trade them for the world, but at the rate our morals are decining I’m afraid to think what kind of place this will be for them to grow up.

    ugggghhhh I’m hitting post…please don’t hate me! :0D

  3. Marriage in and of itself was not created for one man and one woman, AJ.

    Biblical marriage is routinely polygamist in nature.

    So, if you’re okay with the Canadian being married to multiple women, then by all means, say that you support “God’s plan” for marriage.

    One man, one woman is not Biblical. Marrying your sister is biblical (to take a literal view of Genesis), marrying your first cousin is Biblical. Having 300 wives and 700 concubines is Biblical.

    Solomon was married to each and every one of those 300 wives. Is that okay? It seems Christianists are just as up in arms over polygamy. Well, some of them, at least. Those who find it unsavory to marry 12 year old girls, or at least want to look “politically correct” about it.

    Also, I think you should read the story of Sodom and Gommorah a little more closely. Homosexuality was not the sin for which those cities were destroyed. None of them had hearts that strove to follow God. None of them. Hetero and Homo-sexual alike.

    And, for that matter, if you’re so intense about Jewish ceremonial law, as you seem to be, why stop at that one? Why not also follow all of the other 600+ laws handed down in the covenant? Because Jesus came to set us FREE from the law, and to save us from ALL sin, through a relationship with him. Do you wear poly/cotton blend t-shirts? Then you are just as worthy of hellfire as anyone ramming their dicks up another guy’s ass.

    People who honestly claim that they have “God’s view” of marriage, and that that entails shutting it off from homosexual couples are wrong. Period.

  4. oh sparkly one, you have spoken so eloquently the feelings in my heart. family is about love, marriage is about love. or at least it SHOULD be, first and foremost. i don’t think i can go on any further without getting extremely worked up and angry, and i’m just too exhausted for that. but i just love you so much.

  5. k.n. – Are you saying that homosexuality is only referenced in Old Testament law? Because I do believe it is referenced in the New Testament as well, long after Jesus came to free us from that Old Testament law.

  6. Please don’t take offense AJ — but I challenge you to present me with a quotation from Jesus in the New Testament — not from the Apostle Paul, but from Jesus, that condemns homosexuality. Anything, in fact, that condemns anything but hypocritical adherance to antiquated law. I’m not in seminary — my best friend is — but I’m pretty sure most of what Jesus himself says is “I’m the way, the truth, the light, and My Dad, you might know him better as YHWH, says y’all gotta start treating each other better.”

    I would like George Bush’s christianity better if he didn’t use it to condemn what he didn’t understand. Same goes for everyone. If he used his christianity to support groups, some faithbased (like LVC or JVC), whose aim it is to make things better for others and show a true Christian example through love and self-sacrifice. If he kept his judgement out of decidedly grey-areas like homosexuality and used his faith to make the country more united. An issue like this — he only uses it to galvanize one base (Christian Right) and villianize another (those behind my beloved Russ Feingold). It’ll never pass through and only gum up the works of congress.

    It’s not standing up for Christianity, what Bush is doing.

  7. Please don’t take offense AJ — but I challenge you to present me with a quotation from Jesus in the New Testament — not from the Apostle Paul, but from Jesus, that condemns homosexuality. Anything, in fact, that condemns anything but hypocritical adherance to antiquated law. I’m not in seminary — my best friend is — but I’m pretty sure most of what Jesus himself says is “I’m the way, the truth, the light, and My Dad, you might know him better as YHWH, says y’all gotta start treating each other better.”

    I would like George Bush’s christianity better if he didn’t use it to condemn what he didn’t understand. Same goes for everyone. If he used his christianity to support groups, some faithbased (like LVC or JVC), whose aim it is to make things better for others and show a true Christian example through love and self-sacrifice. If he kept his judgement out of decidedly grey-areas like homosexuality and used his faith to make the country more united. An issue like this — he only uses it to galvanize one base (Christian Right) and villianize another (those behind my beloved Russ Feingold). It’ll never pass through and only gum up the works of congress.

    It’s not standing up for Christianity, what Bush is doing.

  8. First of all I did not say I agree with everything Pres. Bush does. I know he says he’s a Christian and stands up for those beliefs on some topics, but I also think some of his decisions contradict that. So this is not about me supporting Bush but I do applaud him on the occasions when he does stand up for his moral standards.

    Tigi – I can give you plenty of scripture explaining that homosexuality is wrong but I didn’t claim to have any quotes from Jesus himself on the subject. I’m not sure I understand limiting yourself to certain scripture though, I take it as a whole, no matter the author of the particular passage, it is all God’s inspired word is it not?

    And no offense taken. Thank you for not attacking me.

  9. k.n. – in response to your definition of Biblical marriage. In 1 Corinthians Jesus himself did address the fact that what marriage had become was as His Father had intended it to be, as in the union of only one man and one woman. So yes, God’s idea of marriage is exactly as I previously described it.

  10. I guess I have a hard time being always convinced that everything in the canonical bible is the inspired word of God because I’ve been so immersed in approaching the Bible from the historical perspecitive for so long.

    Anyway, my point is, and I think Sparklepants’ initial point, is that a Christo-centric government is not really logical, because the laws of our government are not optional, but we can choose to be a certain faith. Your church still has influence in how you lead your life, and if you want to respect the rules of the church in addition to the rules of government, you are welcome to do so. But coercing people by force of law to adhere to these rules is not feasible, nor is it fair. If you want to convince people that Christianity is the way, you ought to do so by good examples of Christian faith. Use Jesus’ name for positive things first.

    And I want to address AJ’s initial comment about sticking up for values our government was founded on — well… to invoke Tubman’s law (that slavery is always brought up in any issue of social justice), slavery was also a part of the foundation of this country. And only white, landowning males were citizens. Killing the natives? Acceptable.

    Mostly, I’m against this being brought up because it’s a waste of time. It’s not going to be approved, Bush is just trying to counter his shitty poll numbers.

  11. >k.n. – Are you saying that homosexuality is only referenced in Old Testament law? Because I do believe it is referenced in the New Testament as well, long after Jesus came to free us from that Old Testament law.

    Paul also says women are not allowed to speak in church, and must wear head coverings in order to be heard by God in prayer.

    So where’s your head covering? And what are you doing helping with VBS?

    Teeg – Amen, girl. Amen.

  12. AJ, 1 Corinthians is a Pauline epistle.

    It was not written by Jesus. Paul never met Jesus.

  13. And if you bring up the vision on the road to Damascus as Paul meeting Jesus, I’ll have to point out to you that in that vision, the Lord never said anything about homosexuality.

  14. I apologize I referenced the wrong scripture. It’s in Mark 10, when Jesus is being questioned by the Pharisees that Jesus explained the way God intended marriage.

    And seriously k.n., why email me and ask me to explain myself if you want to be so vicious and personal in your response? I don’t get it, but you are downright hateful to me now and I’m pretty baffled by that.

    I won’t argue anymore about this because it doesn’t matter that we disagree. I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe and I don’t think any less of you because of it. Unfortunately I don’t think it’s the same on your side of things.

    Miss Pants I am sorry. I didn’t intend to start anything like this on your blog, I thought I had been encouraged to share my point of view but I didn’t realize the consequences would be this. My sincerest apologies.

  15. I believe that when someone else believes their religious beliefs should dictate the laws of the country in which I live, they should at least understand what exactly it is that they’re supporting.

    I also believe that when someone is routinely cruel and hateful, and supports cruel and hateful ideology, they should, at every opportunity, be called out on that cruelty and hatred, and any insipid ideas they have should be thoroughly mocked.

    There is a difference between Christianity and Christianism. I have no problem with Christianity. I am a Christian. When you are vicious and hateful about the people that Jesus loves, you must be called to account for it.

    I have said nothing vicious nor hateful about you. I have only asked you to defend yourself and your religious beliefs.

    Unfortunately, you hide from reality at every turn – perhaps thinking that blind faith in blind hatred of all those things Jesus Himself claimed as of first importance will save you from being yourself?

  16. Without getting into the religious details of the discussion (I obviously missed that battle), I just want to say that I fully support what you are saying.

    As a person who was raised Catholic, I have to admit that I have not read the bible. Thus, I try not to bring up what I do know about the bible into political dicussions. Which, I believe, is the way it should stay. There is a reason that, despite whatever values/beliefs/morals the country was founded on, we have a separation of church and state. And for all of the arguing and all of the biblical passages thrown about regarding this ridiculous notion that homosexuals should not be married, I would just like to point out that at one point in time (Yes, even in THIS country) white people were not allowed to legally marry someone of a different race, particularly those of African descent. In fact, miscegenation was ILLEGAL in some states until about 40 years ago? Less than that. Anyway, the notion that two people should not be married because of the differences in their races is ridiculous, right? Love know no bounds.

    My point is this, if we could come to the conclusion that it was/is okay for people of different races, different generations, different cultures, different beliefs, different… EVERYTHING, why is it we are so against people who want to marry someone of the SAME sex? Who practice some of the SAME social behaviors? How can we as a society put a great big smiley face on a “union” of any sort that is bound together despite racial barriers or political barriers, and yet be so cold hearted, adamently AGAINST something that UNITES people of the SAME sexuality? Isn’t being against homosexual marriage the same as being all for miscegenation again? Because what it all boils down to is the fact that you are saying that one union is not equal to the other. That interracial marriages are just not as good as marriages where both people are of the same racial background. That they are not as VALID because they consist of people that just aren’t the same color. Or in this case, because they are the SAME sex.

    This is getting much longer than I intended, but I also want to point this out as a point of thought. Having a religion for all the term means, is the same has having a blind faith in something that cannot be factuallly proven to any one person at any one point im time. But because you BELIEVE it, does not make it fact. The mere fact that it is a BELIEF, from a Sociological perspective, means that you ASSUME it to be fact. Or to be real. The problem is that some people who are religious assume that others who identify with a religion (whether practicing or not) also then, ASSUME that all others believe in their same religion. In the same way as say, a person who subconsciously experiences ethnocentrism when brought face to face with another culture. They assume that their culture is the norm, is the basis for which all other cultures should be judged. After all, it’s what you know, what you believe and what you feel is right. So why shouldn’t everyone else? The problem is that culture, much like religion, is not something that you are intrisically born with. It’s not something you know to be true or to believe in from the minute you are born. It, like culture, is taught. Is LEARNED. And since it is true that we are not all taught the same thing or even from the same perspective, we believe in different things. We define ourselves by different norms. We experience different things and use different sets of values and beliefs and morals for the basis of which we compare other cultures, other religions.

    Keeping that in mind, being religious could then be compared to beliving in something like superstitions. If you are superstitious you believe that certain things happen if you do something wrong. Just like if you are religious you believe that a certain set of consequences happen if you do something against those set of beliefs. If this is true and if you understand this, then it’s impossible to assume that everyone believes in the same things. Nor should they. Because I don’t believe that if I step on a crack, I’ll brake my mommas back, should I be persecuted? Should I then not be allowed to step on a crack? Should I be BANNED from even being near crack.. umm, I mean A crack. Wait, that doesn’t sound right either. LOL The point is, no matter what you believe, it’s irrational to assume that everyone should abide by your same set of standards. Your morals and values are not that of even your neighbors. Even under the umbrella of a certain religion, each individual does not believe in the same “set” of values or beliefs.

    So all I’m sayin is stop trying to make it a law just because you realize that people no longer like you. Because maybe they never did to begin with.

  17. Way to go Melly – bringin’ the sociOLOGY.

    W00T W00T!

  18. Well k.n. if you think I am the one that is vicious and hateful then back it up. You’ve yet to email me back explaining what a horrible person I am. So why don’t you step up and do that?

    And don’t speak to me like I don’t know what I am talking about. I do not have “blind faith”, I do know my scripture, and I don’t choose to use it out of context to justify my own beliefs.

    I won’t be reading here anymore so if you have some other insults to throw at me you obviously have my email address.

  19. as i commented in ku nkiko’s blog: i would like to nominate ms. nkiko and ms. pants for co-presidents of the united states! :)

%d bloggers like this: