Sunday, October 26, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Redefining Marriage
This post has been a long time coming. With Proposition 8 looming, I feel it's finally necessary to address the issue of homosexual unions and why marriage is, and needs to be, between one man and one woman.
You probably already know that most of the outcry for homosexual marriage is from the standpoint that traditional marriages get some economic and legal benefits that other unions don't. Joint tax returns, exemptions on property tax, next-of-kin status... stuff like that. And if society is going to recognize their unions as acceptable, then maybe they should receive those benefits.
But that doesn't make their union a marriage.
What is marriage?
Marriage is defined by society, not the law. Whatever a society chooses to recognize as marriage then becomes the definition. It should be noted, however, that even in societies that tolerated homosexuality, a same-sex union was never considered an acceptable environment for rearing children. In cases where one or both parents were missing, close relatives or society in general would step in to provide those children with the appropriate role models.
What we need
Let's talk for a moment about biological needs. And we're going to pretend that we only know about the primal needs. Men need to mate. Women need someone to be devoted to her. The best way to approach these needs is by monogamous unions. "Polygamous systems always result in surplus males that have no reproductive stake in society" (OSC again).
Civilization is based on the idea that people will sacrifice their own base instincts and desires for the common good. Or, at least, for the good of their children. Historically speaking, the societies that have given the most males and the most females a chance to successfully mate (and thereby have given their children the greatest chance for survival to adulthood) have been the ones that lasted the longest.
Violating our rights
When court judges decide that they can create new laws and make vast, sweeping changes to the law, everyone's constitutional rights are violated. We live in what was intended to be a democracy, where vast changes to our social structure would be made only by consent of the people.
However, in Massachusetts, Vermont, California, and a handful of other states, the judicial system has taken it upon itself to also legislate- a function which it has no business sticking its nose into.
I'm also reminded that there is currently no law preventing homosexuals from being married. Nowhere in the constitution nor in any federal statutes or state laws is marriage ever limited to a man and a woman (actually, the idea that we have to define it as such in California this year shows just how misunderstood our marriage laws have become). Thus far, only societal restrictions (and not even written ones) have prevented these unions from occurring. However, homosexuality has become more and more acceptable in US culture, and so now more homosexuals are declaring their unions valid.
So,
Why is it that it takes years of careful planning, permits, code inspections, and intensively-researched environmental impact statements just to add a runway to an airport, but a couple of "progressive" judges can redefine and reorder the fundamental unit of society without any sort of political recourse?
Okay, so I've said my bit. A little disclaimer: I want to say that I have some friends back home who are homosexual, bisexual, or transgender, and they're great people. I'm not against them at all. I love them dearly. When you read this essay, you can disagree with me if you want. That's okay, I still love you.
You'll find that many of my ideas are just rewordings of this essay. Also for reference, here are some links to a study and a few awesome articles.
Also By Orson Scott Card:
The Homosexual Relationship
Judicial Activism, Libertarianism, Federalism, and Gay Marriage
Upholding the Constitution
Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex 'Marriage'
You probably already know that most of the outcry for homosexual marriage is from the standpoint that traditional marriages get some economic and legal benefits that other unions don't. Joint tax returns, exemptions on property tax, next-of-kin status... stuff like that. And if society is going to recognize their unions as acceptable, then maybe they should receive those benefits.
But that doesn't make their union a marriage.
What is marriage?
Marriage is defined by society, not the law. Whatever a society chooses to recognize as marriage then becomes the definition. It should be noted, however, that even in societies that tolerated homosexuality, a same-sex union was never considered an acceptable environment for rearing children. In cases where one or both parents were missing, close relatives or society in general would step in to provide those children with the appropriate role models.
It is a demonstrated tendency -- as well as the private experience of most people -- that when we become parents, we immediately find ourselves acting out most of the behaviors we observed in the parent of our own sex. We have to consciously make an effort to be different from them.
We also expect our spouse to behave, as a parent, in the way we have learned to expect from the experiences we had with our opposite-sex parent -- that's why so many men seem to marry women just like their mother, and so many women to marry men just like their father. It takes conscious effort to break away from this pattern.
So not only are two sexes required in order to conceive children, children also learn their sex-role expectations from the parents in their own family.
Orson Scott Card, Homosexual "Marriage" and Civilization
What we need
Let's talk for a moment about biological needs. And we're going to pretend that we only know about the primal needs. Men need to mate. Women need someone to be devoted to her. The best way to approach these needs is by monogamous unions. "Polygamous systems always result in surplus males that have no reproductive stake in society" (OSC again).
Civilization is based on the idea that people will sacrifice their own base instincts and desires for the common good. Or, at least, for the good of their children. Historically speaking, the societies that have given the most males and the most females a chance to successfully mate (and thereby have given their children the greatest chance for survival to adulthood) have been the ones that lasted the longest.
Violating our rights
When court judges decide that they can create new laws and make vast, sweeping changes to the law, everyone's constitutional rights are violated. We live in what was intended to be a democracy, where vast changes to our social structure would be made only by consent of the people.
However, in Massachusetts, Vermont, California, and a handful of other states, the judicial system has taken it upon itself to also legislate- a function which it has no business sticking its nose into.
I'm also reminded that there is currently no law preventing homosexuals from being married. Nowhere in the constitution nor in any federal statutes or state laws is marriage ever limited to a man and a woman (actually, the idea that we have to define it as such in California this year shows just how misunderstood our marriage laws have become). Thus far, only societal restrictions (and not even written ones) have prevented these unions from occurring. However, homosexuality has become more and more acceptable in US culture, and so now more homosexuals are declaring their unions valid.
So,
In order to claim that they are deprived, you have to change the meaning of "marriage" to include a relationship that it has never included before this generation, anywhere on earth.
Just because homosexual partners wish to be called "married" and wish to force everyone else around them to regard them as "married," does not mean that their... wish should be granted at the expense of the common language, democratic process, and the facts of human social organization.
However emotionally bonded a pair of homosexual lovers may feel themselves to be, what they are doing is not marriage. Nor does society benefit in any way from treating it as if it were...
...Just because you give legal sanction to a homosexual couple and call their contract a "marriage" does not make it a marriage. It simply removes marriage as a legitimate word for the real thing.
If you declare that there is no longer any legal difference between low tide and high tide, it might stop people from publishing tide charts, but it won't change the fact that sometimes the water is lower and sometimes it's higher.
Calling a homosexual contract "marriage" does not make it reproductively relevant and will not make it contribute in any meaningful way to the propagation of civilization. (OSC again)
Why is it that it takes years of careful planning, permits, code inspections, and intensively-researched environmental impact statements just to add a runway to an airport, but a couple of "progressive" judges can redefine and reorder the fundamental unit of society without any sort of political recourse?
Okay, so I've said my bit. A little disclaimer: I want to say that I have some friends back home who are homosexual, bisexual, or transgender, and they're great people. I'm not against them at all. I love them dearly. When you read this essay, you can disagree with me if you want. That's okay, I still love you.
You'll find that many of my ideas are just rewordings of this essay. Also for reference, here are some links to a study and a few awesome articles.
Also By Orson Scott Card:
The Homosexual Relationship
Judicial Activism, Libertarianism, Federalism, and Gay Marriage
Upholding the Constitution
Ten Arguments From Social Science Against Same-Sex 'Marriage'
Monday, October 13, 2008
Moderation wins again.
Usually I like Focus On The Family's "Boundless" Webzine. But lately I've been losing respect for one of their staff writers, and the company theology she seems to promulgate.
In a recent article entitled "Mind the 'Single-Minded' Church," the author discourages churches from creating singles-oriented ministries and encourages them to continue "setting up" singles so that they can marry more quickly.
Never mind for a moment the fact that she pretends to make her article scientific by quoting various sociological researchers at various lofty universities. Never mind that she makes rather vague claims and "supports" them with cut-and-paste quotes that could quite easily have been taken way out of context.
Let's focus on the premise from which she approaches singleness. Over and over, she emphasizes (not just in this article, but also in numerous others) that it's okay to want to get married. Which is fine. I have no problems with that.
But then she often implies that if you have any inclination or desire to get married, then you probably should. This idea is one which has been spread all over the church like wildfire, that if you are meant to be single, you'll have no desire to marry. Ever.
It's another example of just slight hypocrisy in the church. We feel free to tell people getting married that it won't be a cakewalk. "It's going to be hard," we say. "Sometimes, you won't even like the person you're marrying." And so married people are prepared for what's ahead. They know that the road is littered with ruts and big sharp rocks.
But singles are told a different story. We're told, "If you have no desire to marry whatsoever, then (and only then) are you meant to be single." And it is obviously communicated to us (though few people are brash enough to just come out and SAY it) that if we stay single too long:
1) There's something wrong with us, and
2) We might NEVER find someone (I mean, really... you ARE getting older...)
When I was getting ready to come to Kenya, so many of the old ladies in my church said, "Hey, maybe you'll find someone in Africa," with a little wink. Find someone. These ladies didn't know my recent past. They didn't know that in the two years since I'd decided to go to Kenya, I'd had my heard broken twice, dated a couple of real jerks, and had a close friend, heart-torn by a broken engagement, kill himself. They didn't know that I was trying to get AWAY from all this "find someone" business and wanted only to find God in the midst of social pressures.
I came to the wrong place for that, though. African community is rooted in marriage so if you don't marry and start making babies as soon as possible, you're no longer a productive (reproductive?) member of society.
Anyway, Boundless Webzine right out says that "we believe marriage is God's design for most believers," and with that they quote Matthew 19:11-13 but never with any commentary on it. Funny, because I've seen that same passage used to defend the idea that people should stay single if at all possible.
But aside from that, I don't think we need to make such a big deal about singleness. Or marriage. Being able to tolerate either one is a gift from God (The Bible never says- but does imply- that singleness itself is a gift). Wherever you are in life is a gift, and God provides contentment in whatever stage of life we are.
So what's the big deal about wanting to be married? Is that bad?
No, not at all. And the church needs to stop its bickering. Just because you're single now, doesn't mean that you will always be.
I had a friend a while back who, when she was 13, was called into the ministry. But in the vision she had, she was ministering with her husband. So, fourteen years later, she, at 27, was still waiting to start ministry until she found a husband with whom she could minister. For more than half of her life, she had been waiting!
But here's the thing. We're called to wait on the Lord, not on husbands. We're called to ministry, regardless of our current marital status.
What's my solution?
I think the church needs to adopt an ambivalent stance toward marriage. Neither "you should get married" nor "you should stay single." Only God can tell you that anyway. Instead, the attitude of the church should be, "Whatever stage you are right now, how can we help you minister to the best of your abilities?"
In a recent article entitled "Mind the 'Single-Minded' Church," the author discourages churches from creating singles-oriented ministries and encourages them to continue "setting up" singles so that they can marry more quickly.
Never mind for a moment the fact that she pretends to make her article scientific by quoting various sociological researchers at various lofty universities. Never mind that she makes rather vague claims and "supports" them with cut-and-paste quotes that could quite easily have been taken way out of context.
Let's focus on the premise from which she approaches singleness. Over and over, she emphasizes (not just in this article, but also in numerous others) that it's okay to want to get married. Which is fine. I have no problems with that.
But then she often implies that if you have any inclination or desire to get married, then you probably should. This idea is one which has been spread all over the church like wildfire, that if you are meant to be single, you'll have no desire to marry. Ever.
It's another example of just slight hypocrisy in the church. We feel free to tell people getting married that it won't be a cakewalk. "It's going to be hard," we say. "Sometimes, you won't even like the person you're marrying." And so married people are prepared for what's ahead. They know that the road is littered with ruts and big sharp rocks.
But singles are told a different story. We're told, "If you have no desire to marry whatsoever, then (and only then) are you meant to be single." And it is obviously communicated to us (though few people are brash enough to just come out and SAY it) that if we stay single too long:
1) There's something wrong with us, and
2) We might NEVER find someone (I mean, really... you ARE getting older...)
When I was getting ready to come to Kenya, so many of the old ladies in my church said, "Hey, maybe you'll find someone in Africa," with a little wink. Find someone. These ladies didn't know my recent past. They didn't know that in the two years since I'd decided to go to Kenya, I'd had my heard broken twice, dated a couple of real jerks, and had a close friend, heart-torn by a broken engagement, kill himself. They didn't know that I was trying to get AWAY from all this "find someone" business and wanted only to find God in the midst of social pressures.
I came to the wrong place for that, though. African community is rooted in marriage so if you don't marry and start making babies as soon as possible, you're no longer a productive (reproductive?) member of society.
Anyway, Boundless Webzine right out says that "we believe marriage is God's design for most believers," and with that they quote Matthew 19:11-13 but never with any commentary on it. Funny, because I've seen that same passage used to defend the idea that people should stay single if at all possible.
But aside from that, I don't think we need to make such a big deal about singleness. Or marriage. Being able to tolerate either one is a gift from God (The Bible never says- but does imply- that singleness itself is a gift). Wherever you are in life is a gift, and God provides contentment in whatever stage of life we are.
So what's the big deal about wanting to be married? Is that bad?
No, not at all. And the church needs to stop its bickering. Just because you're single now, doesn't mean that you will always be.
I had a friend a while back who, when she was 13, was called into the ministry. But in the vision she had, she was ministering with her husband. So, fourteen years later, she, at 27, was still waiting to start ministry until she found a husband with whom she could minister. For more than half of her life, she had been waiting!
But here's the thing. We're called to wait on the Lord, not on husbands. We're called to ministry, regardless of our current marital status.
What's my solution?
I think the church needs to adopt an ambivalent stance toward marriage. Neither "you should get married" nor "you should stay single." Only God can tell you that anyway. Instead, the attitude of the church should be, "Whatever stage you are right now, how can we help you minister to the best of your abilities?"
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Dear World,
I'm so sorry.
Can I just apologize right now for the jerks that so many Christians have been to you?
I'm sorry that I break off contact with you when you're going through a life transition and you need me most.
I'm sorry I ignore you when you're standing with your cardboard sign at the freeway offramp.
I'm sorry that I sit in my warm home protecting my way of life while you freeze outside.
I'm sorry I mocked you for voting Democrat.
I'm sorry that I pretend not to have any spare change so that I don't have to deal with the fact that I am afraid of you.
I'm sorry that I think putting a check in the offering plate absolves me from offering you a hot meal.
I'm sorry for polluting the sky you sleep under with my overpowered SUV.
I'm sorry for advertising on my shirt companies that mistreat people around the world.
I'm sorry for killing the plants, animals, and people that God calls me to protect by buying the cheapest coffee on the shelf.
I'm sorry I shop at stores that mistreat their employees.
I'm mostly sorry for thinking that I'm better than you.
Christians are called to live in another world. A world that reflects the values of the Kingdom of God. The early church lived in a manner where there was no one in need among them. And we should still be living that way.
But we slacked off. We let our corporeal desires and needs take over and we forgot the greatest commandments: to love God, and to love others. And if we really did love others as much as we love ourselves, we certainly wouldn't let them go hungry.
Oops.
Christians should be the most eco-friendly, the most socially responsible, the most demanding of corporate accountability, the greatest peace advocates. And yet, we're not.
Somewhere along the way, someone taught us that the US is a "Christian" nation, and so we got confused. We thought that if we could be good "Americans", then that translated over and made us good Christians too.
Again, oops.
So now we live in a world where the average American consumes as much as 520 Ethiopians per year. Where we buy cheap food that is harvested by people who aren't paid enough to feed their own families. Where driving a nice car is more important than the people who were mistreated while building that car in the factories in Myanmar. Where people harvesting cotton to make our clothes are exposed to toxic chemicals that kill thousands worldwide.
I can't promise to change the world.
But I can promise to change myself.
So now it begins. And it's not easy. I have to ask where everything comes from. I have to commit to buying only brands that support my values. I have to find ways to save energy. I have to commit to treating people like Christ. I have to love everyone, regardless of their lifestyle and circumstances. I have to change.
This is the beginning of my new life. We'll see how it goes.
Love,
Kath
Can I just apologize right now for the jerks that so many Christians have been to you?
I'm sorry that I break off contact with you when you're going through a life transition and you need me most.
I'm sorry I ignore you when you're standing with your cardboard sign at the freeway offramp.
I'm sorry that I sit in my warm home protecting my way of life while you freeze outside.
I'm sorry I mocked you for voting Democrat.
I'm sorry that I pretend not to have any spare change so that I don't have to deal with the fact that I am afraid of you.
I'm sorry that I think putting a check in the offering plate absolves me from offering you a hot meal.
I'm sorry for polluting the sky you sleep under with my overpowered SUV.
I'm sorry for advertising on my shirt companies that mistreat people around the world.
I'm sorry for killing the plants, animals, and people that God calls me to protect by buying the cheapest coffee on the shelf.
I'm sorry I shop at stores that mistreat their employees.
I'm mostly sorry for thinking that I'm better than you.
Christians are called to live in another world. A world that reflects the values of the Kingdom of God. The early church lived in a manner where there was no one in need among them. And we should still be living that way.
But we slacked off. We let our corporeal desires and needs take over and we forgot the greatest commandments: to love God, and to love others. And if we really did love others as much as we love ourselves, we certainly wouldn't let them go hungry.
Oops.
Christians should be the most eco-friendly, the most socially responsible, the most demanding of corporate accountability, the greatest peace advocates. And yet, we're not.
Somewhere along the way, someone taught us that the US is a "Christian" nation, and so we got confused. We thought that if we could be good "Americans", then that translated over and made us good Christians too.
Again, oops.
So now we live in a world where the average American consumes as much as 520 Ethiopians per year. Where we buy cheap food that is harvested by people who aren't paid enough to feed their own families. Where driving a nice car is more important than the people who were mistreated while building that car in the factories in Myanmar. Where people harvesting cotton to make our clothes are exposed to toxic chemicals that kill thousands worldwide.
I can't promise to change the world.
But I can promise to change myself.
So now it begins. And it's not easy. I have to ask where everything comes from. I have to commit to buying only brands that support my values. I have to find ways to save energy. I have to commit to treating people like Christ. I have to love everyone, regardless of their lifestyle and circumstances. I have to change.
This is the beginning of my new life. We'll see how it goes.
Love,
Kath
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Quote- Bill Clinton
"Nearly anybody can learn nearly anything they need to know. Nature has something to do with it, but I think Nurture has something to do with it... I think Nature made Einstein's massive brain and made him what he was but Nurture can make nearly everyone seem to be above average intelligence if they have the right sort of nurturing early as well as formal schooling and academic challenges and adults who believe in them when they're children. So, I really believe it's a little bit of both, but I think most of us are... we're all capable of doing more than we think."
From the documentary "Wordplay"
From the documentary "Wordplay"
Saturday, September 06, 2008
This one's for the boys
So, there are roughly 2 guys that read my blog, but I respect both their opinions dearly, so maybe I'll just let them answer this and see where it takes us.
Modesty.
That's the issue of the day. Let's pretend for a moment that women don't struggle with lust. Let's pretend that we don't have a single unclean thought when we see a guy with chiseled shoulders and tight abs playing two-hand-touch on the beach. We good Christian women want to be modest so we are very careful about the way we dress. If anything is too low-cut or too short or too tight or too sheer, we're reprimanded for "leading men astray". Here in Kenya, we're even discouraged from wearing jeans because "it's all men can think about."
So the question is this: How much of that is our fault?
Seriously. I'm not being bitter or demanding; I'm just asking a question. How much responsibility do we have when it comes to the issue of men and lust?
If we're honest, we can say that no matter what we wear, some man somewhere will likely think unclean thoughts about us. In some Muslim countries, a woman can be killed and/or dismembered simply for wearing makeup or painting her fingernails because that distracts men from their pursuit of God. So, where do we start/stop?
We want to look nice. We want to take care of ourselves and our appearance is really an extension of our personality. So if we feel gross and grungy, we'll probably be wearing a baggy t-shirt and sweats. But if we feel good about ourselves, blessed, secure, and confident, we will be more snazzy in the way we dress. But how do we balance that with being modest?
And how much responsibility do men have to, say, look the other way?
Modesty.
That's the issue of the day. Let's pretend for a moment that women don't struggle with lust. Let's pretend that we don't have a single unclean thought when we see a guy with chiseled shoulders and tight abs playing two-hand-touch on the beach. We good Christian women want to be modest so we are very careful about the way we dress. If anything is too low-cut or too short or too tight or too sheer, we're reprimanded for "leading men astray". Here in Kenya, we're even discouraged from wearing jeans because "it's all men can think about."
So the question is this: How much of that is our fault?
Seriously. I'm not being bitter or demanding; I'm just asking a question. How much responsibility do we have when it comes to the issue of men and lust?
If we're honest, we can say that no matter what we wear, some man somewhere will likely think unclean thoughts about us. In some Muslim countries, a woman can be killed and/or dismembered simply for wearing makeup or painting her fingernails because that distracts men from their pursuit of God. So, where do we start/stop?
We want to look nice. We want to take care of ourselves and our appearance is really an extension of our personality. So if we feel gross and grungy, we'll probably be wearing a baggy t-shirt and sweats. But if we feel good about ourselves, blessed, secure, and confident, we will be more snazzy in the way we dress. But how do we balance that with being modest?
And how much responsibility do men have to, say, look the other way?
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Race and Relations
The issue of race relations is caused by people making value judgments on other people based on the color of their skin or what region they call home. In some areas of the US, we've gotten very good at avoiding this, and I'm glad that I was raised to believe, as Dr. King said, that we can live in a world where people "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character".
However, I now live in Kenya and I'm finding it very difficult to adjust to this culture where people are judged almost solely by their skin color. I have to wrestle with the preconceived notions that all white people are rich, all asians know martial arts, and (to the locals), even the level of darkness in the skin says something about who you are.
It's a series of assumptions that I'm trying to fight, but my efforts are made nearly void because I have light skin.
In January of this year, we saw people do horrible things to each other simply because of what tribe they were from. At home, we're taught not to make gross generalizations about any group of people. But at my place of work, that's all they know. "Those Kikuyus are thieves," they say, and continue to assert that, yes, ALL of them are. "Those Kamba..." "Those Luo..." "Those Arabs..."
And then they ask me why white people hate black people so much. I can't answer that because I don't know any white people who hate black people. But hey, I know plenty of black people who do believe this, and hate white people because of it.
It's a vicious cycle.
I try to provide unifying potential. But the people I work with just assume that somehow I'm trying to usurp them, to enslave them again.
And sadly, there's nothing I can do about that.
However, I now live in Kenya and I'm finding it very difficult to adjust to this culture where people are judged almost solely by their skin color. I have to wrestle with the preconceived notions that all white people are rich, all asians know martial arts, and (to the locals), even the level of darkness in the skin says something about who you are.
It's a series of assumptions that I'm trying to fight, but my efforts are made nearly void because I have light skin.
In January of this year, we saw people do horrible things to each other simply because of what tribe they were from. At home, we're taught not to make gross generalizations about any group of people. But at my place of work, that's all they know. "Those Kikuyus are thieves," they say, and continue to assert that, yes, ALL of them are. "Those Kamba..." "Those Luo..." "Those Arabs..."
And then they ask me why white people hate black people so much. I can't answer that because I don't know any white people who hate black people. But hey, I know plenty of black people who do believe this, and hate white people because of it.
It's a vicious cycle.
I try to provide unifying potential. But the people I work with just assume that somehow I'm trying to usurp them, to enslave them again.
And sadly, there's nothing I can do about that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)