Who died and made you God again?
So, it looks like the pope is tossing his opinion where it doesn't (and shouldn't) count.
He recently visited Canada, expressing his view against gay marriage, where it is legal in three of the provinces, accounting for 70% of Canada's population.
"Any attempts to change the meaning of the word 'spouse' contradict right reason: legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, cannot be applied to unions between persons of the same sex without creating a false understanding of the nature of marriage."
So, what is the nature of marriage, Pope John Paul "I think I'm God" II? You think you know so much, don't you?
Let's take a real look at the "nature" of marriage, shall we?
For centuries, it was used solely for financial and social gain. That's right, financial and social gain. Parents would prearrange marriages so that it would benefit both families, under the thinly veiled guise of "procreation". This has been going on since civilization became, well, civilized.
The concept of romance and responsibility is a new concept, created in the past several hundred centuries. This brings about images of shot-gun weddings and romance of the Romeo & Juliet style. Even then, procreation was not a focus of marriage, but, simply a duty. Ultimately, the honor and the status of the families involved were the driving force. Not having kids.
When the human race was young and uncivilized, marriage did not exist. Our species knew only to mate and have children. Even the concept of a woman's monthly cycle was created so that man would not be sure when a woman was ready to mate. This evolutionary step gave way to the concept of a bond between men and women, but, not an obligation. Just a bond.
Only with civilization did the idea of marriage come about. Once humans became more "aware" did the purpose of marriage change. It became an issue of material gain, not procreation. Only in the poorer sects of society did the ideal of procreation exist, those sects outside of the "mainstream" religion, which was paganism, and, now is Christianity/Catholicism.
So, taking the Pope's own statement, this is a perfect argument for the legalization of same-sex marriages, since, over time, our hetero counterparts have mostly used it for ultimate gain, not procreation; it was usually an after-thought, if thought at all. Same sex couples want the legal recognition of their love; they want the benefits of marriage so that they can start families and keep the ones they have already.
So, who really has the "false understanding of the nature of marriage", Mr. I'm supposed to be a virgin but I really have six kids? Monster.
Read the story here.
He recently visited Canada, expressing his view against gay marriage, where it is legal in three of the provinces, accounting for 70% of Canada's population.
"Any attempts to change the meaning of the word 'spouse' contradict right reason: legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, cannot be applied to unions between persons of the same sex without creating a false understanding of the nature of marriage."
So, what is the nature of marriage, Pope John Paul "I think I'm God" II? You think you know so much, don't you?
Let's take a real look at the "nature" of marriage, shall we?
For centuries, it was used solely for financial and social gain. That's right, financial and social gain. Parents would prearrange marriages so that it would benefit both families, under the thinly veiled guise of "procreation". This has been going on since civilization became, well, civilized.
The concept of romance and responsibility is a new concept, created in the past several hundred centuries. This brings about images of shot-gun weddings and romance of the Romeo & Juliet style. Even then, procreation was not a focus of marriage, but, simply a duty. Ultimately, the honor and the status of the families involved were the driving force. Not having kids.
When the human race was young and uncivilized, marriage did not exist. Our species knew only to mate and have children. Even the concept of a woman's monthly cycle was created so that man would not be sure when a woman was ready to mate. This evolutionary step gave way to the concept of a bond between men and women, but, not an obligation. Just a bond.
Only with civilization did the idea of marriage come about. Once humans became more "aware" did the purpose of marriage change. It became an issue of material gain, not procreation. Only in the poorer sects of society did the ideal of procreation exist, those sects outside of the "mainstream" religion, which was paganism, and, now is Christianity/Catholicism.
So, taking the Pope's own statement, this is a perfect argument for the legalization of same-sex marriages, since, over time, our hetero counterparts have mostly used it for ultimate gain, not procreation; it was usually an after-thought, if thought at all. Same sex couples want the legal recognition of their love; they want the benefits of marriage so that they can start families and keep the ones they have already.
So, who really has the "false understanding of the nature of marriage", Mr. I'm supposed to be a virgin but I really have six kids? Monster.
Read the story here.
posted by LatinLez at 8:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home