1.
It rained last night. I never knew how much I missed rain until it rained last night.
2.
So you know that guest post I wrote over at “The Kennedy Adventures!“? Well, it’s been bookmarked over here… *Happy Dance*
3.
I know everyone has some organizing kryptonite. This is the bane of my existence:
Suggestions gladly taken.
4.
DD1 received Legos for her birthday and I have to say, they are really more relaxing than I thought they would be. The girls and I played with Legos for close to an hour yesterday and it was so calming. Granted, no one has stepped on a Lego… yet.
5.
Yesterday we took the girls to something very un-politically correct, complete with protesters… The Circus. I know that it’s demeaning to the animals, etc, etc. But it was still really fun.
6.
But no worries, I received this little “gift” in the parking garage at the Circus:
Massive Scratch on the slidey door. *Sad Dance*
7.
Jennifer Fulwiler wrote a heart felt post about a conversation she had with a close friend. A close friend, who happens to be gay. If you read the post, do so when you can focus on it completely. This is a topic and teaching that I know I have a hard time with, and I am not alone.
______________________________________________________________
Be sure to head over to Conversion Diary for more Quick Takes!
Related posts:
- Seven Quick Takes Friday (Vol. 15)
- Seven Quick Takes Friday (Vol. 11)
- Seven Quick Takes Friday (Vol. 12)
- Seven Quick Takes Friday (Vol. 16)
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
My whole house is my organizing kryptonite!
I just have a question re: government banning of gay marriage. I am fine with individuals or churches holding their own spiritual views on marriage, but aren’t we supposed to have religion separate from government? Why shouldn’t the governmental rights that come from marriage (i.e. medical decision making, property inheritance, etc.) be extended to all people? I am actually on board with having ‘marriage’ as a term/symbol be reserved for churches to define in their own way, but the *rights* that go along with marriage should be governed by the state and should not be influenced by religious doctrine. My husband and I are married, but I would be willing to call our ‘marriage’ something else (partnership, union, whatever) since we did not get married in a church if that would somehow alleviate this marriage defined by the church vs. state problem. I don’t think it’s fair to promote one religion’s views on marriage (as the promotion of new life) as a national agenda because not everyone holds those same beliefs about marriage. Thoughts? I’m just really bothered by people thinking that allowing people to get married to whomever they want for whatever reason they want somehow invalidates their marriage or marriage as a whole. I think one’s marriage would have to be in quite the sad state to say that the marriage of two gay men will somehow make their commitment less valid or sacred.
I actually agree that there should be more of a separation between “religious” marriage and “civil” marriage… kind of like what is done in Europe. (So, get married by the state and then have the option of a church blessing/ service.) But I believe part of the concern out there is that what is to stop the government from telling religious institutions from mandating that they perform marriage ceremonies for all, despite having doctrinal differences?
“I’m just really bothered by people thinking that allowing people to get married to whomever they want for whatever reason they want somehow invalidates their marriage or marriage as a whole” This could be part of the issue as well. Historically it’s been proposed that marriage was instituted to have a stable environment into which to continue the propagation of the species, allows for the mixing of gene pools (ideally,) economic stability, etc. One question that opponents have is, where is the line drawn? Would someone be legally able to marry their sister (maybe to keep family money?) or their beloved pet? Not saying that people WOULD, but that is the slippery slope that some fear. Marriage has been seen as a special status in life, and Catholics especially look at it as a “calling” (vocation,) people are either called to marriage, the single life, or religious life. But, like I said… this is something I do have a hard time wrapping my head around.
Thanks for the response, Karianna! And I am in no way trying to be confrontation about this as it’s a hot button issue with a lot of emotions involved, but it is something near and dear to my heart and worth discussing for sure. I appreciate our ability to discuss the merits of each other’s arguments without making it about who is moral or unjust.
Correct me if I’m wrong here as religious history in the US is not my strong suit, but when states legalized interracial marriages, this was not forced upon the churches, correct? I think it was just in the news that there was a church in some southern state that to this day doesn’t perform ceremonies for interracial couples on the basis that it went against their church doctrine. I guess I’m just not sure why people think that gay marriage would somehow be forced upon churches when interracial marriage wasn’t. Obviously, social pressure caused more (and now, nearly all) churches to allow interracial ceremonies, but it was not legislated. Indeed, many churches have come out in support of gay rights even in states where gay marriage is illegal.
In Colorado, first cousins can still legally marry one another, even though it has been shown that procreation between relatives that are that closely related can lead to a number of detrimental health effects for the offspring. I guess I don’t see how this is any more harmful than gay marriage, which is not legally recognized in the state. First cousins could clearly marry only for financial reasons (keeping a family fortune intact, for example, like you mentioned with the sister example), so I’m not sure how allowing gay marriage makes this scenario more likely. Also, marriage, as you mentioned, has been cited as a social tool to ensure stability, economic security, etc., so wouldn’t extending marriage to more people lead to greater stability and security within communities? Surely it seems that restricting commitments within relationships would not lead to greater stability and security. And while some religious doctrine may include species propagation as a purpose for marriage, a government should not dictate one’s procreation choice–what about heterosexual couples that choose not to have children? Or are infertile? What is the government’s role in defining their relationship?
Again, I am not in favor of trying to change anyone’s religious views on marriage. In fact, I’m downright against it as it is not the government’s role to impede on religion as long as the practices are not harming lives (i.e. human and animal sacrifice). I don’t think anyone’s views on marriage are inherently right or wrong–they are just different, and that’s OK. But I don’t like when someone else’s beliefs impede on the rights of others who don’t subscribe to those beliefs in terms of government benefits. I think marriage is a intimate topic of discussion, and everyone has very personal views on what should constitute a marriage. However, if my beliefs about marriage are not allowed to define or affect the marriage rights of someone who follows a different belief system, then I believe that this fairness should go both ways. We can have different views on things without having to put these beliefs into law if the ‘consequences’ do not interfere with the lives of others (and simply being bothered by another’s choice doesn’t count as interference, in my opinion). For example, I choose to be vegetarian, but I also know that my opinion should not affect the rights of others to choose to eat the way they want as it has no effect on me personally, so while I disagree with meat-eating, I would never vote to legislate against it, if that makes sense. I guess the larger question is when is it OK to create laws based on beliefs that are not held universally on things that do not impede on the lives and happiness of others?
For the record: I am a straight, married woman, so legalizing gay marriage in no way benefits me personally. I just see no reason why my and my husband’s heterosexuality somehow entitles us to more rights as a couple than what is allowed for our gay and lesbian friends.
The only way I can organize (and my desk frequently looks like yours) is to take it ALL off and go through it piece by painful piece….blessings and luck to you!!
I decided to solve my organization problems I need a 5 bedroom house hahaha shhh I LOVE the circus but I think part of that is b/c Dumbo was really big when I was little.