OF MARRIAGE:
Why is it important for some folks to redefine marriage? If marriage is already equivalent in law to a civil union, then why should anyone be required to pretend a union between two people of opposite gender is the same in physical fact as between two people of the same gender? Next, will the agenda be to make it a hate crime to distinguish between same gender unions and traditional marriages? Precisely what is the agenda, if not to weaken foundations of Western Civ? Must we next take our eyes to be deceivers? If the concern is civil "rights," then why try to force changes in spiritual sacraments? And just why should sustainable civilizations avail equal "rights" and incentives to civil unions between people of the same sex? Just how does foisting and forcing civilization to do that help nourish sustainable civilization?
Obviously, what gay rads want is do is to render deluded minds so confused as actually to believe apples are oranges. Why? Because they desperately want to rewrite "normal" so that nothing is abnormal. Mr. Gay Rads, precisely why should civilization be required to accord equal rights and incentives to civil unions between two persons of the same sex but not between 3, or 5, or bi-communal unions, etc.? Are you poly-phobic of other kinds of unions? Notwithstanding your overwrought hand wringing, few thinking people give a fig, much less condemn you for, what you do behind closed doors. But many of us do care when you try to enlist government to give you the "right" to force us to say itis normal or to force us to avail it with precisely the same degree of social support or civic "rights."
Will you next be advocating that civic law should require that citizens pay precisely the same amounts to purchase or support prices for orange growers as for apple growers, because they have equal "rights"? As I said, your mix of apples and oranges is nonsense -- logically, civically, and historically. Basically, your "argument" that parriage should be deemed marriage reduces to "because I wanna." Well, that's not an argument. And if you wanna argue why parriage should entail precisely the same "rights" as marriage, then you need to explain why. Simply to say "it's my right because it's my right" is no better as an "argument" than to click your heels three times while saying "there's no place like home."
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
In death, all particular perspectives of consciousness must eventually become collateral damage from the unfolding purposes of the field of consciousness. Our material world is not the best of all possible; we are only its gardeners, always pursuing communion, and perhaps eventual merger, with a happier state of being.
1 comment:
Re: The last number of Termite is available at: http://theomegasoci ety.com/termite. html
*****
Well, interesting stuff.
Good tongue in cheek on Lockerbie.
Of poly panendeism(?), one may ask:
Can any thing, perspective of consciousness (or even god or gods) self-define or understand-itself, as it actually is, as opposed merely to what it relates, models, images, imagines, or continuously re-creates itself to be?
Is some meta-aspect of consciousness necessarily existent, yet fundamentally resistant and humbling to all attempts to impose a complete reduction to cause-effect empirical modeling? Does IT seek self understanding or fulfillment through a multi-verse of contextual perspectives, frames of reference, and points of view, none of which can ever offer a model that is consistent, coherent, and complete? Or is it only by identifying with and maintaining an illusion (incomplete mathematical models within mathematical models) of space-time that one's mortal consciousness is misdirected from understanding IT?
Is all of that which appears to be "physics" mere byproduct of meta-consciousness interacting with varying points and frames of mathematical reference?
Well, I doubt mortals, merely by resorting to logic and empiricism, can lift that veil. Still, I take it on faith that consciousness, however incomplete, through shared intuition and empathy, can enhance pursuit towards a civilizing quality of interaction (or self-fulfilling mirage of happiness). I suspect that is a common quest, both for those who suppose their notions of goodness are based in spirituality as well as those who suppose their notions of goodness are based in more secular "hope and change." IOW, that which religious folk take to be based in faith, secular folk seem prone to take as based in hope. In a way, atheism seems to be part of the mirage.
Post a Comment