No boot. I prefer FLYlady's lace-up shoes, and they're never used to kick people. :) I basically agree on abortion, disagree on the NSA because what they're doing infringes too much on rights for way, way too little benefit (there are better ways to track down terrorists) and I don't believe that primary health care and urgent care should be a business at all. (Other things, like dental care, are open for debate, but basic preventative care and urgent care are necessities of life that should be available to everyone regardless of their insurance status.)
My reading of the Bible doesn't lead me to believe that same-sex marriage is a sin, or even homosexual sex. Centuries of mistranslation and misinterpretation have gone into creating that doctrine, and it's questionable at best. The Catholic position on sex is the most consistent and at the same time the least workable in modern life, but for the most part I find the North American Christian obsession with sexual sins to be a sign of their deep repression. I'd like to see the church pay more attention to the poor (which Christ talked about incessantly) and less to sex (which he hardly mentioned at all.) If marriage were to become a purely religious institution, and all couples needed two ceremonies - the civil union at City Hall and the religious one at their place of worship - then I would support any church's right to deny the latter to homosexuals. As long as the word "marriage" has a legal connotation outside of its religious one - and it is possible to get married without setting foot in a church - then it is not solely a religious contract and the word can apply to homosexual unions. And, when you've studied as much history and anthropology as I have, it becomes difficult to say the phrase "traditional marriage" without a snort of derision.
What is the value of a government, if it is not at least somewhat responsible for its citizens?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-14 04:44 pm (UTC)My reading of the Bible doesn't lead me to believe that same-sex marriage is a sin, or even homosexual sex. Centuries of mistranslation and misinterpretation have gone into creating that doctrine, and it's questionable at best. The Catholic position on sex is the most consistent and at the same time the least workable in modern life, but for the most part I find the North American Christian obsession with sexual sins to be a sign of their deep repression. I'd like to see the church pay more attention to the poor (which Christ talked about incessantly) and less to sex (which he hardly mentioned at all.) If marriage were to become a purely religious institution, and all couples needed two ceremonies - the civil union at City Hall and the religious one at their place of worship - then I would support any church's right to deny the latter to homosexuals. As long as the word "marriage" has a legal connotation outside of its religious one - and it is possible to get married without setting foot in a church - then it is not solely a religious contract and the word can apply to homosexual unions. And, when you've studied as much history and anthropology as I have, it becomes difficult to say the phrase "traditional marriage" without a snort of derision.
What is the value of a government, if it is not at least somewhat responsible for its citizens?