I came across a video that was uploaded a few days ago by the Vatican on Youtube. Check out the funny spelling error in the title:
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Thursday, January 16, 2014
This might sound like a weird topic, but I bring it up because I just heard a news story about a felon who switched his sperm with another man's and the man's wife was impregnated with the wrong sperm. So she ended up not having her husband's child, but some random person's whom she didn't know. This probably happens more than people expect. And it's all too possible with all these immoral sexual practices.
If a couple follows God's natural law on conception, this craziness would never happen. The Church says sex must be both potentially procreative and unitive. If either element is missing, it's an immoral act.
Children are not some sort of trophy. People nowadays just plan out their perfect family the same way they buy furniture or a new car. Then if they find out the child they ordered turned out not as they'd hoped, they just destroy it for another one. That's why 92% of Down Syndrome babies are aborted. Just like sending back an ipad that you didn't like.
So couples think of children as an accessory to their lives, just something on their to-do list that they can check off. And then when they have their ideal 1 boy and 1 girl, they mutilate their bodies through vasectomies and hysterectomies so they won't have any more kids. I guess that goal has been accomplished.
Another belief is that sex and procreation are two completely separate ideas, as if they have nothing to do with one another. It would be like thinking eating and nourishing your body as two separate acts with nothing in common. In reality, in nature, procreation is a product of sex, they are inextricably linked. In nature, they aren't two different things.
So Pope Paul VI said contraception was bad. It's pretty obvious, unless you're a "modern" person, that this is true. It's true because when you separate sex and procreation, all kinds of weird things happen. For one thing people start using sperm banks and fertility treatment. Instead of having sex with each other, the couple does their own thing separately and the woman ultimately ends up pregnant on a hospital bed with a doctor impregnating her. Or two gametes are artificially joined together in a sterile lab then inserted into a woman's body. What a strange way to be conceived.
That's procreation, but sex becomes weird too. No longer attached to procreation, sex is just about pleasure so as long as two or more (or fewer) people are having fun then it's totally legit. No one stops and says, hold on a second, this is not procreative so it's stupid and pointless. That's what they would say back when everyone did not have a contraceptive mentality. It'd be like eating a pile of food and then going to the bathroom and forcing yourself to vomit it out. We still connect eating with nutrition so people still say that's weird. Well, having sex while preventing procreation makes just as much sense.
But also inherently infertile sex is totally legit in this new paradigm. Extramarital sex, gay sex, or any other kind of sex is fine, it's just for entertainment. Kind of like games. Some people like video games, others like board games. I wouldn't judge someone for liking video games, even if I don't like playing them. Well that's how people think about sex. Since it has nothing to do with procreation, then who cares who you do it with.
Anyway, people gotta snap out of it. It's all an abomination. A child deserves more than to be born in a test tube and surgically inserted into a woman. He deserves dignity. It's ironic that we kill so many kids through abortion and then go to incredible and immoral lengths to conceive. Why don't the women who don't want their babies just give them to families that do.
To read more about the criminal who switched his sperm with the real father, click here.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 12:49 am
Monday, January 13, 2014
Whenever a Catholic prelate is assigned to a high office, many Catholics wonder if he will be orthodox or not. There is always a fear that a church leader will try to implement some newfangled theology or be a big fan of interpretive dance taking place during Mass.
So when Pope Francis chose Archbishop of Quebec Gérald Lacroix those questions naturally arose. At first I could not find much information on the subject. Media outlets were simply presenting objective facts and did not give any clues as to the Cardinal-elect's positions or opinions.
Then I dug a little further and found out some interesting information. It seems Lacroix is very interested in orthodoxy and presenting a historical and full Gospel. He is not interested in innovation and in fact he is very critical of this approach.
As educated Catholics know, there is no such thing as conservative or liberal when it comes to Church teaching. You are either orthodox or not. Lacroix is definitely orthodox. To prove this, here are some things the prelate has said over the years:
Here's a great interview he did with the National Post. I like how he questions the questions. So the first query asked by the Post was how the new archbishop (this was written in 2011) would get people into the pews of the churches in Quebec. He said "I think the first thing is not to try to bring people back to the pews. People in Quebec will resist that." He goes on to say the focus is not to increase numbers in some utilitarian way, but rather to change hearts and minds and people will come naturally. To read the rest of the interview, go here.
In another great interview, Archbishop Lacroix, whose name means "The Cross" is asked about softening or watering down the message of the Gospel to attract people. He flat out rejects this proposition, stating: “We’re not telling people, listen we have a new message, It’s not going to be as demanding as we were before, we’ve found a smooth version of the Gospel; it won’t be so difficult to live, it’s going to be easy, come right in, no that’s not what it’s all about”. To read the rest of this interview, click here.
Overall, from everything I've seen so far, Lacroix seems like a very solid choice, and given the fact that he was chosen by the Holy Father, it says a lot about the Pontiff as well.
Happy Feast of Christ's Baptism everyone.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 1:50 am
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
Sunday, December 01, 2013
While in Scottsdale AZ, I attended two churches. One is St. Bernadette's and the other is in the Fransican Renewal and Retreat Centre and is called Our Lady of the Angels. The contrast couldn't be more stark.
Last week on the feast of Christ the King, the priest spoke about Fr. Miguel Pro who was killed during the Mexican Cristero War in 1927. He talked about how Fr. Pro reached out his arms in imitation of Christ because he was killed by a firing squad. The homily continued with the priest condemning both abortion and euthanasia. He said they are both very evil. He also said we must obey just laws and that gay marriage is not real marriage and we should oppose it.
I was surprised to hear such clear and direct teaching on these subjects.
But this morning I decided to check out the Fransican Renewal Centre and their Mass. I had checked out this place earlier with my girlfriend during the week. They have a very large area where they hold spiritual retreats. They have areas for people to stay overnight and they even prepare meals. It seems like a very large operation.
I arrived a minute or two late for Mass and the entire place was completely jam-packed. Not only was every seat occupied, there were people outside the church either in the lobby or in the yard. But they would not be witneesses to a traditional Mass, that was clear from the outset. Right when Mass began, two women appeared in front of the altar and proceeded to do a liturgical dance - something forbidden during Mass. They danced and moved their arms flowingly to the music. At that point I really didn`t know what I had gotten myself into.
After the performance, the congregation enthusiastically applauded. There was no hesitation, it was just expected. The music in general was very modern and included an electronic keyboard and complete drum set. Also, there would be a sort of background music during much of the time the priest spoke.
Of course during the Our Father, everyone held hands, well except me. Also I noticed the people took on the actions of the priest quite frequently. The homily was not too controversial. The priest said we must be ready for the coming of Christ. He briefly mentioned something about people from other "traditions" should also be ready, but I'm not sure what he meant by that.
After the homily, the congregation once again applauded. Throughout the whole Mass, the congregation probably applauded about 5 times.
The communion was a thick consecrated piece of bread, not the usual communion.
During the prayers of the faithful, the priest wished Jews a happy Hannukah.
Finally during the announcements, they announced a get together for gay and lesbian group for spiritual discussion. Can't really comment on that much since I don't know much about it.
So as you can see, within Scottsdale there are several very different types of Masses.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 4:34 pm
Thursday, November 07, 2013
WOW! I just went overboard there, didn't I? I mean the only real question is how much or what kind of sex ed we need in schools. Some say we need abstinence only sex ed, while others believe kids should be given information about everything related to sex under the Sun. The more informed they are, the logic goes, the better off they'll be. But I'm asking a different question. Is ANY sex ed needed? If so, why?
My revolutionary idea is that no sex ed is required whatsoever. Think about it. It's a very new concept to begin with. It's only been about a generation since we've even had this in schools. No one in past generations seemed to have any problems with sex, look how many children they had. Oh, I can sense the first objection! "That's the whole point! People had more kids than they could handle because they didn't know about contraception and things like that!"
First of all, Catholics believe contraception is immoral in the first place. Secondly, who says people were having too many children? I remember watching a documentary which was saying how before the first world war, women had few rights and they all stayed home and raised their children, their many children. Only 4% rated themselves as unhappy when asked. The rest said they were happy or very happy! You'd be lucky to get 50% saying that these days.
But back to the main topic - why do we even need sex ed? We don't have Eating Ed or Talking to People Ed or Going to the Bathroom Ed. These are all natural things which humans have engaged in since the beginning of time, and now suddenly we need explicit and detailed lessons about sexuality?
Another disturbing trend is teaching explicit sexual content, including homosexual acts, to children who are very young, even kindergarten and younger. What possible reason would there be for this? The obvious answer is indoctrination. Many pro-gay-acts groups have often spoken about the need to "get them while they're young". Everyone knows if you want to indoctrinate people, you must start with the youngest people you can get your hands on (figuratively speaking hopefully). That's another reason to oppose universal daycare. If it's state-run you can be sure it will promote immorality.
The whole point of sex ed these days is to indoctrinate children. Within my age cohort, there is almost universal acceptance of contraception. In fact, most people my age view it as not only a good thing, but necessary for modernity. Without contraception we'd basically be living in the stone age, so the reasoning goes. You would be surprised how many people think contraception is basically the foundation of our modern culture.
Over the past few years, I have started to question fundamental paradigms instead of only operating within them. Instead of asking the best form of sex ed, I ask if it even necessary at all. What prompted the whole sex ed movement? This is something I must look into further. Was there some public outcry because people did not know "what to do"? That seems very unlikely and frankly absurd. Clearly people knew how to engage in sex.
Many will say the main thing is about STDs, or as they are now called STIs, and how to avoid them. But really the system we have now only promotes STIs. How? By making acceptable the practice of multiple partners, perhaps dozens. This is the greatest contributing factor to the spread of venereal diseases. Just try to find a classroom in Canada which advocates monogamy. It would be harder to find than a needle in a haystack.
If a couple was monogamous and waited until marriage, there would rarely ever be any cases of STIs and they could be dealt with much more effectively. Certain STIs should prevent a couple of engaging in any sexual act. Why would you expose a loved one to a deadly disease?
If you are reading this from a Western country, I know 95% of people will strongly disagree with me on this. If so, please state why you think sex ed is necessary in school.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 1:33 pm
Sunday, October 27, 2013
I am currently working on an exciting new project to develop a Catholic Facebook. This will be a very valuable website. No longer must you scroll through countless articles about cats or some random celebrity. The topic is very focused. Find out what is happening in the Catholic world in your diocese and around the world. Some big names in the catholic world are involved with this project. It is very exciting and promising.
I will be releasing the website address later so stay tuned!
Posted by Phil Lynch at 4:54 pm
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Yesterday morning I was asked to do a CBC Radio Interview for the Central Newfoundland morning show. I found out the previous Friday and prepared over the weekend. I was meant to be on the air for about 5 minutes to answer the interviewer's questions about the pope's recent comments.
Unfortunately there were some technical difficulties to say the least. I was asked the first question. It had to do with how young Catholics have responded to the Pope Francis's recent comments on how to approach evangelization. I gave what I felt was a pretty good answer. When I was completely done, there was silence. I waited a while, but there were no further questions, there was no speaking. After about 20-30 seconds I said "hello?" but no one answered. I didn't know what was going on. Eventually the call was dropped.
They called me back. The call screener thought the cell phone I was using may have been to blame. I felt it was just a random glitch so I decided to move ahead. I was asked another question. I thoroughly responded. Then I waited for feedback. The seconds seemed like an eternity until I realized once again no one was answering. I was so angry. How could this possibly happen?? I waited there. After about a minute, I could hear something from CBC radio come on my phone but then it disconnected.
I really don't know what happened. I was left extremely angry and confused. Whoever was at fault, technically it was as though the CBC person had placed me on mute, because they could hear me but I could not hear them. I'm not saying that's what happened, but the result was the same.
I later called back to apologize and let them know that I would be more than willing to do another interview in the future. At first I didn't feel this way. I felt upset and angry and didn't want to do this again. If I do do another interview, I will do it from a landline. This has never happened to my cell phone before and I did not anticipate even this possibility. I have friends who live nearby who would have been more than happy to let me use their phone.
There may be some kind of message in all of this. I'm not quite sure what it is. What I was able to say I think was pretty good and maybe some people got something out of it. I hope so. There are forces, some immaterial that are working against the Church and this could have been one of them. We will probably never know.
All I can do is place my trust in God always and believe he is always looking out for me.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 6:12 pm
Monday, August 12, 2013
Could humans cause the end of the world? I started wondering this after I began learning more about declining fertility rates. Most people are familiar that world population has been increasing for quite some time now. The fallacy is that it will just continue to grow. The fact of the matter is, as one researcher put it, people are not breeding like rabbits, they just stopped dying like flies. The main factor in growing human population is that old people are living much longer than ever before.
According to this chart, fertility has declined sharply since the 1950s. From 1995 to 2010, fertility rates dropped by .43. That's just 15 years. If that trend continues from 2010 to 2025, the fertility rate worldwide will be just 1.93. If this is not reversed, the human world would be on a collision course to self-annihilation! Look how far we've come since the 50s! Our current fertility rate is less than HALF of what it was just a couple of generations ago.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 11:16 pm
Check out the following video:
Many people are upset with this new series coming out on the Oxygen network, known to many as Oprah Winfrey's tv station. As you can see from the 3 minute preview, the show follows the lives of several rich preachers. My reaction is not quite the same as most people's. Many react in disgust. How dare these men of God take all this money for themselves. This may be true, I'm not going to judge that. What I will judge is the prosperity gospel which says if you follow God's commandments, he will reward you with material wealth. I believe material wealth is objectively good and more wealth is better than less wealth. But I do not believe that material possessions are an indication of God's favor with a person.
I think the main message of Jesus was to not be attached to worldly things but to instead focus on spiritual things. Attachment to material wealth can lead to dissatisfaction with life and greed. Ultimately it can detract from our spiritual relationship with God. However, I do not think it's anyone's obligation to be poor, unless one takes a vow of poverty. The Catechism has an interesting message about greed. It says it can affect rich and poor. Poor people can become obsessed with money and become jealous of others who are more financially successful. This can lead to dissatisfaction. However, on the other hand, people with a lot of money can become so attached to it that they obsess over maintaining and protecting it. This too can lead to dissatisfaction.
Overall I think wealth creation is a good thing, especially when it lifts people out of poverty. But I think the main problem is attachment to wealth and possessions which can get in the way of our relationship with Christ.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 10:48 pm
Saturday, August 10, 2013
I just came across this blog post by a gay Catholic. It's a good read. He talks about his struggles and puts things in perspective. He's already received a massive number of comments and it was only posted earlier today (technically yesterday since it's after midnight):
Posted by Phil Lynch at 12:12 am
Monday, July 22, 2013
I was just listening to CBC and they were talking to a gay group that is going to boycott Orson Scott Card's upcoming movie called Ender's Game. They're doing it because Orson is an outspoken critic of gay marriage and also thinks homosexuality is a disorder.
The ironic part is that this boycott will probably have the opposite of the intended effect as happened with Chick-fil-A.
How dare someone be opposed to gay marriage. The minute some people decided two people of the same sex could form a marriage, all of a sudden everyone in the world must accept and embrace it with open arms, otherwise you are a gay-hater. Nevermind that this is brand new definition, never before heard of in human history. You must accept it or else you are a bigot and must be hated.
So big deal, Orson Scott Card believes in the traditional definition of marriage. Slow news day?
Card also belongs or belonged to the National Organization for Marriage, a group that supports the several-thousand-year-old definition of marriage. Of course, because they do this, they are considered a hate group akin to the KKK.
Card also has allegedly called homosexuality a disorder. So? It obviously is a disorder. Think about it. Animals must do two things: survive and reproduce. Anything which makes these things either more difficult or impossible is suboptimal. If an animal cannot reproduce, his genes will die out. We are ordered to certain ends. We have feet so we can walk. We have hands to hold things, use tools, climb, etc. We have eyes to see. We also have reproductive organs for a reason. Gay people use these organs but not for their intended purposes. They frustrate the natural use of these parts of their bodies. It seems clear this is a disordered behavior. It would be like putting on a blindfold all day over healthy eyes.
Whatever is the case, Card has the right to say these things. It shouldn't be a hate crime to support something which has existed for millennia. I'm glad these advocates don't have the law behind them or it would be illegal to even have an unauthorized opinion on gay marriage.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 11:00 pm
Sunday, July 21, 2013
A new trend these days is for Christians to call themselves non-denominational and another is for people to say they are spiritual but not religious. Today I will talk about the latter.
I started looking at some of his videos and a few things became clear. For one, he does not like religion. He doesn't like words like "sin" or even "morals". From what I can gather, he does not think anyone should acknowledge or even speak about sin.
He seems to have a very simple solution to all our spiritual needs. He basically advocates we "remember" who we are and then we wouldn't do anything wrong and the whole world would be perfect.
In a few places, he comes across as a moral relativist. For instance, someone asks him if there are any sins or any good or bad. He responds by asking for an example. The audience member for some reason chooses "killing an animal" as a sin. The guru then says that we kill millions of organisms when we inhale and exhale. He says we kill plants when we eat. So he says how can we stop killing things? We could stop breathing, but then we would kill ourselves and that would also be a sin. His moral relativism comes in when he asks how you can know what is morally right when different cultures and different religions have different morals.
So he seems to just throw in the towel on the whole question of right and wrong. In fact, he goes so far as to see sin as some sort of conspiracy set up by religion, which then allows them to step in and "fix" the problem which he believes never existed.
What I see from all of this is that he has set himself up as the final arbiter in issues of morality. He is the judge, jury, and executioner. I sense a certain level of pride in people like this. He sits on stage and simply answers one questions after another. He never says he doesn't know the answer, and when he says something it is very definitive. He constantly stops and asks the audience if they agree with what he just said, but it is only rhetorical. He expects a "yes".
I find it odd how moral relativists like this can speak with such absolute certainty.
Also, he is very belittling to religious people. The picture he paints of them is that all religious people are intolerant and constantly fighting with their opponents. He makes it seem like they are all hung up on technical rules.
But he is creating an unnecessary and false dichotomy. In actual fact, many religious people have deep faith and spirituality. The difference is that religious people believe God has revealed himself to humanity, not that they themselves are the revelation, like Sadhguru thinks. Most religious people are seeking answers, not claiming they know all the answers like this guru does.
In fact, in another irony, the guru claims that having morals means you "know" the answers, whereas simply being spiritual means you are open to answers and receiving information. The irony is that I've rarely spoken to a religious people who is any more "certain" than Sadhguru is. I doubt you would ever hear this guru say he doesn't know an answer. In fact, he comes across as rather cocky.
This is the problem when you place yourself above everyone else. He claims religion is a racket but he doesn't mind having tens of thousands of followers paying huge sums of money to visit him, who hang on every word that comes from his mouth. He doesn't act with humility, but rather with complete confidence and an air of superiority.
The bottom line is the new trend, which mostly springs from Eastern religions, is to claim you do not follow a religion, but rather are spiritual. But it reminds of the saying that there is a shortage of priests, but no shortage of popes. Everyone just wants to be the head of their own religion, to make it all up as they go along. Isn't it great to be in a position where you know it all and there is no person or authority above you? Throw in thousands of devotees and you can see the appeal of this new movement.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 10:48 pm
Fellow Catholic blogger Thomas Peters who was involved in a serious accident about a week ago is now on the road to recovery, seemingly with no permanent injuries. This is great news. There is a website set up to track his progress: http://tpetersrecovery.blogspot.ca/
Posted by Phil Lynch at 10:14 pm
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Thomas Peters, who ran the very popular Catholic blog American Papist is in serious condition at the hospital in Baltimore Maryland after a swimming accident. He no longer runs the American Papist blog but became involved in CatholicVote and the National Organization on Marriage. I'm not sure his exact age, but he is around 30. His father is the well-known canon lawyer Edward Peters.
He and his family need your prayers right now.
More information can be found here: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/please-pray-for-thomas-peters-and-his-family.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 5:54 pm
Thursday, July 11, 2013
According to LifeNews, Ireland has recently passed legislation which allows women to abort their unborn babies in some circumstances. Ireland is one of the few pro-life European countries and now this is starting to change. Not by popular demand though, but by the whims of those in power.
In the new law a woman can obtain an abortion if it is deemed she is likely to commit suicide unless she does. As LifeNews reports, suicide rates are much higher for women who have abortions, so this will probably backfire.
The question is how many women will claim to be suicidal in order to kill their baby? I would say a lot. And who is going to contradict them?
But what about women who would genuinely commit suicide? I would say this must be very rare. I don't really understand it. Why would a woman kill herself because she is going to have a baby? If she really didn't want her kid that bad, wouldn't she give him/her up for adoption? Plus, I think the depression should be dealt with separately.
You can't kill a person just because you might commit suicide unless you do. If you are suicidal, you should seek immediate medical attention and stop blaming an innocent baby.
If this is allowed, then why aren't all abortions allowed? If abortion is illegal, it means the people believe it is murder. Does the psychological state of the killer determine whether or not the victim has value and should not be killed? That's what is being implied.
Imagine if a woman said she wanted to kill her 2 year old son. She is told she can't because it's illegal. Then she says she is suicidal and must kill her two year old son and she is then given permission. That would be absurd. The correct course of action would be to treat the mental issue which makes her want to kill her son.
In any event, this is just one step toward total disregard for human life in yet another Europe country. Very sad news.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 10:51 pm
Sunday, July 07, 2013
First off, don't get me wrong. I don't doubt that JPII is in heaven, but being in heaven is different than being canonized. I think this might be too soon to canonize this previous pope. John Paul died just 8 years ago. If you asked non-Catholics, they mightn't even know the names of his two successors. Pope Francis has now declared that John Paul's canonization can proceed and will probably take place before the end of the year.
My issue is how it will be perceived by many. I don't want the canonization process to become a sort of automatic post-death honor given by the current pope to his predecessor. If people perceive canonization as something easy and quick, it could lose some of its profundity in their minds. It becomes just another honor among many, like being on the cover of Time Magazine or winning a Nobel Prize. To some it may look like something akin to a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Oscars.
Now I know perception is not what matters, but the Catholic Church understands the value of symbols. Canonizing someone does not accelerate their entry into heaven and there is no necessary reason to speed up a particular cause. Ultimately canonization is for the edification and prayer life of Catholics. Therefore, it is important to maintain the gravitas of the whole process and proceed with not only caution, but an air of solemnity and seriousness.
Pope John Paul II was a great man. I encourage people to pray to him. My only concern is that his canonization may be proceeding a little too quickly.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 11:03 pm
Thursday, June 27, 2013
This seems like a very basic question, but it is at the heart of the current same-sex marriage debate. Yesterday, the American Supreme Court barely agreed to declare the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. One of my favorite justices, Antonin Scalia, disagreed with the Supreme Court even hearing this case in the first place. He said the court really had nothing to do with this and should have rejected the whole thing.
In any event, 5 of the justices disagreed with this dissent and went ahead and removed DOMA. DOMA was put in place by Bill Clinton to define marriage, on a federal level, as only between a man and a woman. Now that this is no longer in force, the federal government can now start redefining marriage.
Of course, as expected, many people celebrated this ruling. From my own Facebook page, there were many people who seemed very happy about this. Ironically, Bill Clinton applauded this decision, even though DOMA was enacted during his presidency.
But the question that no one really talks about much is "What is marriage?" In all the debates, the only thing I hear is "equality". But in any debates, the terms must be defined.
In all of human history, cultures have recognized marriage and it has always been the union of a man and a woman. This is no coincidence. Marriage exists because of children. If there were no children, there would be no marriage. Because cultures saw that a child does best with his mother and father, marriage held a special status. It was honored and promoted. This is a special relationship that was recognized as the most important because it was the building block of a family, which is the building block of society.
But it is beneficial from a biological point of view also. A pregnant and new mother left alone in the wild is in great danger. She is very vulnerable. Having a man to protect and serve her gives her child the greatest chance at survival. It is also beneficial to a man who can help ensure his genes will be passed down.
Jesus Christ lifted marriage to an even greater place when he made it a sacrament and something holy. So what is marriage? According to the Catholic Church, marriage is "covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring."
This may be the Catholic definition of marriage, but it really is the basic understanding of marriage that all cultures held for many millennia. An essential element of marriage is the sexual complementarity of spouses, because reproduction is an essential aspect of this union.
So if this is the definition of marriage, not allowing gay marriage is not about inequality or bigotry, it's about definitions. It's not discrimination to refuse to call a circle a square.
But what has happened? Basically society at large has changed its definition of marriage. Strangely, most people cannot even define it. They will say some platitude perhaps about marriage being a commitment two people make to one another. It's extremely vague and unspecific to the point where MANY things could be considered marriage that people would never consider marriage. Two good friends can make a commitment to one another, but that's not necessarily marriage.
I've even asked people how they define marriage. They struggle with it a lot. Many will say two people who love each other and want to commit to one another. But if this is the definition, are arranged marriages invalid? Plus, our society in general seems to have a distorted view of "love". Love, in modern terms, is more accurately described as "affection", it's just an emotion. But real love is action, it's putting your spouse's interests first and caring for them in good times and bad. Affection is great, but what marriage requires is true love. But back to the question. What if for a particular period of time, a couple does not feel affection? What if they are going through a hard time? Is their marriage automatically ended? I would say absolutely not.
And if marriage is just about love, however modern people define it, why is it restricted? Even with gay marriage, there are still restrictions. Siblings cannot marry, nor can a parent marry a child. Most gay marriage advocates would say incestuous marriages are wrong. But who are they to judge. Why should I listen to their moral code? What about polygamy? I've asked several gay marriage supporters why we can't have polygamous marriages. Their usual answer is they don't know anything about that and cannot comment. Others say it's just too different. But again, would they accept any of these same arguments used against gay marriage? They too are moralizing. They too are defining marriage based on their own personal belief systems. I've rarely come across anyone who both agrees with gay marriage and all those other types I've mentioned.
Marriage is something, it has a definition. Calling a circle a square doesn't make it one. If circles are forced to be called squares, we will always have to specify what type of "square" is being referred to. Language is pesky like that. It needs to be specific or new words will emerge.
If marriage can be anything, then marriage is nothing.
Posted by Phil Lynch at 10:54 pm