The American presidential election

[fpb]

I loathe both candidates. It is not merely that they are personally unattractive, although they certainly are; Bush with his fake Texas good ole boy manners learnt at Harvard, and Kerry with a hypocrisy so profound and elaborate that people do not even notice it, as you do not pay attention to the existence of the earth beneath your feet and the

Comments

[jennilee]

My position on abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia, is contrary to that of the vast majority of LJers, including, I believe, everyone who is on my f-list.Except for me. Well, only on abortion and gay marriage. However, my beliefs are still in progress and ever changing

[fpb]

I am glad that you feel as you do, and, being a woman, what you say about rape is a tough and brave thing to say. I wholly agree, but I did not feel it was my place to make a claim on the courage of women like that

[jennilee]

what you say about rape is a tough and brave thing to say

Easier said than done, of course. It is, however, an easier decision to *make* if you have already decided on what you would do though, than if you had never thought about it.

As for marriage, however, I do not think that you have answered my actual argument.

Actually, I wasn't answering your argument, I was just stating what I believe. :)

Okay, so are you saying that gay marriage is an oxymoron then, such as unclean food? (Just trying to understand your POV.)

I don't think that a Christian, in good conscience, could run a country. There are too many compromises that must be made because of the position. Also, power corrupts. Absolutely. I don't believe in cliches or maxims, but I hold that one to be truth.

[fpb]

Are you saying that gay marriage is an oxymoron?
Yes. Not because I deny there is love, but because I deny that marriage is primarily about love.

I don't think that a Christian, in good conscience, could run a country. There are too many compromises...Also, power corrupts.
So, are you saying, 1), that only Christians have principles that are in danger of being corrupted, and, 2), that politics should be left to crooks?

[jennilee]

I deny that marriage is primarily about love.

What is marriage primarily about?

... only Christians have principles that are in danger of being corrupted...

Of course not. Everyone has morals. But Christians are separate from the world. We are *called* to be separate from the world. (In the world, but not of the world.) I just think that one truly in good conscience, who adheres to the commandments of the Bible, cannot stay in government honestly.

... politics should be left to crooks.

Well, that's implying that if you are not Christian then you are a crook. I don't believe that is true.

[fpb]

Your views are something I feel very strongly pulled towards. God knows, politics, especially in the last few decades, is so depressing a spectacle that one comes to wonder whether one should touch at all the damned (and I mean damned) thing. But the problem with it becomes clear when you admit that other people beside Christians can be honest, have integrities which they prize, be in fact the "laws unto themselves" that St.Paul describes in Romans (and implies that they are saved). How is right that they are allowed to imperil their integrity in the public service, but we are too good to? Does this not risk coming close to the Pharisee's Lord, I thank you that I am so much better than that tax-gatherer over there? And supposing that you felt a strong and honest vocation towards public service (which I, thank God, do not), would not your view ask of that man to "bury his talent"? There is no easy answer, but I do not see that deserting the sphere of public service to people who are, at best, honest without being Christian (and

Marriage

[fpb]

Marriage is about inserting yourself in the legitimate succession of your race, from your first parents down the generations. It is about having parents as well as hoping to have children. It is about legitimizing the results of sex and chance. It is about taking joint responsibility for them, and bringing one's own family and background into it (that is why wedding feasts involve every member of both families: because a marriage forges a permanent link between two previously existing families). But above all, it is about extending these families into the future. This is, I feel sure, the common denominator of marriage in every civilization and religion, certainly including the Jewish and Christian ones.

Re: Marriage

[jennilee]

Well, if two gay people want to get married in order to pool their resources so that they can afford to adopt and care for a child who otherwise would have been without a family, doesn't that fit your definition? That is what a lot of them are after: a partner to help them care for children, even if those children are not born to the couple as a couple.

Well, perhaps that doesn't fit your definition, since you say legitimate succession...but then again, you can pass beliefs and traditions on to your children even if they aren't your children by blood, and those beliefs and traditions (whether cultural or religious) matter a lot more than the bloodline.

Re: Marriage

[fpb]

Sorry. You know perfectly well that you are looking for what are called, in Italian, "limit-cases", meaning not borderline cases so much as cases that just sneak over the line - in the case of abortion, it would be the psychologically damaged twelve-year-old raped by her father. This may be pleasant to argue about in a relaxed environment after dinner - tossing theoretical possibilities back and forth - but what we are talking about are large-scale, ultimate realities of human life. Besides, if I conceded something in this area, you know as well as I do that I would only be asked to concede more (one reason why I do not admit any reason whatever for abortion, in particular). And remember that an adopted parent is not the same as a blood parent; in fact, part of my argument was towards making them less so in the eyes of the law, which I currently find cruel and manipulative