Start rational poster modeaTm wrote:Im sure JD is traditional marriage, ultra-religious by inclination. He just has to root for his team since that's the "side" they are on. It's like having to root for Kobe Bryant or Kevin Garnett just because he's on your home team.
Maybe this should go in the theology forum, but honestly, this whole affirmation of LGBTQIA is a bother to me. It was MUCH easier when they would just stay in the closet and hide in shame.
It bothers me watching Michael Sam kiss his boyfriend. It bothers me watching men make out on Scandal (not so much watching chicks make out on The L Word or OITNB). My wife made me watch Joan River's old show and one of the guests was some ice skater (ostensibly a dude) who was wearing a dress, high heeled shoes, lipstick, etc - looking at him was just disturbing and made me want to stone him.
However, when I devote brain power to it:
- In America, consenting adults should and do have the legal right to do disgusting, disturbing things to each other if they want. Are two women cleaning each other's carpets more of an abomination than a man and a woman urinating/defecating on each other, or a guy taking his wife to a sex club and letting 12 dudes ejaculate on her face?
- Historically, marriage between ONE man and ONE woman is really a Roman model, adopted by the church after Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire. ALL of the heroes of Biblical Judaism were polyganous and the Romans made special exceptions for Jews that allowed them to keep multiple wives. In the areas of Christian Europe that Rome hadn't conquered, plural marriage was debated (if not outright allowed) up until the late Middle Ages, so the claim that the traditional model of marriage is the ONLY one EVER allowed by God is thin.
- There is a theological argument that supports same-sex relationships. How strong an argument it is depends on one's perspective.
- Some people are absolutely born gay and unless we stone them at birth, forcing them into a hetero-normative (I'm using that in-perpetuity) box will not merely fuck them up, but the unintended consequences are horrible. I've had to help people deal with the consequences of living with a "boxed-in" person. I've seen women who married men who tried to conform to heterosexuality and - even if they never gave in to their true nature - I've seen how tortured their marriages were and the impact on their kids.
- I'm by no means a universalist, but the notion of God condemning someone for a condition that he gave them at birth is the same theological construct that allowed for blacks to be enslaved because they "bore the mark of Cain" and is totally incompatible with the concept of grace.
- Human sexuality is extremely complex. For many people - from the dawn of history until today - the sex act is not a gift from God to be shared in the sacramental relationship of marriage, it's a means of exchange (you kill a bird for me to eat and I fuck you, you protect me from monsters and I fuck you, I bring you sparkly rocks and you let me fuck you, etc.). Or it's an expression of power, a way to kill time or a biological imperative.
So, yes, as a matter of choice, culture and faith tradition, I'm a one-man-one-woman supporter and push traditional marriage strongly. But it's complicated.
end rational poster mode
