Sunday, February 11, 2007

Outlaw Childless Marriages in State of Washington

I've probably made it only too clear that I have problems with conventional Christianity. By "conventional Christianity," I mean Christianity as it's understood and practiced by most people who call themselves Christian and that espouses some version of the Apostle's Creed. I concede, in deference to those who maintain this, that there might be a more evolved, unconventional Christianity possible and that some people in the past and present may even embody it. But, as I've said before, I wonder just how far one can depart from conventional Christianity and still be Christian in any meaningful sense.

One problem, among many, that I have with Christianity is its stance on gay sex and gay marriage. The Catholic Church formally proclaims that all gay sex constitutes "intrinsically disordered" acts of "grave depravity" and "under no circumstances can they be approved." Most other Christian churches officially agree. They base their prohibition on biblical condemnations of homosexual acts and on the notion that gay sex violates the God-given procreative purpose of human sexuality. My counterargument to this has been that if it's permissible for heterosexual couples to have sexual relations without wanting or being able to have children, homosexual couples should be able to do the same. And when Christians reply that sex should only take place within marriage, I respond by stating that gays should be allowed to marry.

Well, it seems that the gay Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance agrees with me and has chosen a wonderfully ironic way to respond to Washington state's banning of gay marriage on the grounds that gay couples can't procreate. They are circulating a petition that would place on the ballot an initiative that would require married heterosexual couples to produce children within three years or have their marriages automatically annulled.

This group admits that the proposed law is "absurd" but argues: “For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation. The Washington Supreme Court echoed that claim in their lead ruling. The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine.”

I couldn't agree more. What do you think?

2 comments:

John Hughes said...

This post has been nominated for The Sacramento Bee's roundup of
regional blogs, which appears Sunday in Forum. As part of an
unofficial program, you can help decide which blog posts are included
by voting at www.ipsosacto.com/bw.

The Sunday newspaper column is limited to less than 800 words. Blog posts
included in the column are often cut to fit. No editing is done other than
to add ellipses to indicate deleted passages. The blog's main address will appear
in The Bee, and the online copy of the article will contain links to the
actual blog post.

A list of the regional blogs monitored can be reviewed at www.ipsosacto.com/bloglist.

If you have questions (or you DON'T want your blog post considered for inclusion
in the newspaper column), contact me at ipsosacto.com/contact.

John Hughes

AA/CC said...

I think it would also be smart and hilarious for the WDMA to bring a suit into the Courts until it eventually ended up at the infamous W.S. Supreme Court and then to watch all of these Justices try to explain themselves like Jackie Gleason, "Hemmenny-hemmenny-hemmenny." :D

AA/CC