The Misrepresentation Of Love

[Mr. Chips]

"The Misrepresentation Of Love

To define love is madness. To impress upon it some regulated understanding is to deny its purpose and its promise.

 

Love chooses us. And though we have attempted in vain throughout the ages to unlock its mysteries, we are still helpless in its grasp. Born man or woman, straight or gay, love chooses us and we follow.

 

If you believe that the God you worship personifies love then love in any form cannot be wrong. It is wholly contradictory to espouse the virtues of a universal love and yet disqualify those that do not fit within certain parameters. That is not love, unfortunately, but it’s corruption.

 

What deity would be so callous as to exclude those who do not meet specific “requirements of love”? What person would, in the same breathe, declare that God is love and then deny the love of those that they consider “corrupted”?

 

Love and forgiveness are inseparable. To forgive is divine they say, and yet forgiveness isn’t something many of us care to practice. Battles are being fought in nations throughout the world to ensure that same sex marriage is not legally recognized by people who are obviously so detached from the truths of love and forgiveness as to be in peril of supporting the opposite.

 

What arrogance must one possess to declare themselves the representative of such a powerful and universal thing? What person willingly denies and defames the love of complete strangers because of some personal insecurity or religious bigotry? How dare any of us undermine love?

 

To define love is madness. To defy it? Even more so.

 

If ever there was a time for us to embrace the world’s most powerful weapon and declare war, it’s now. Because to embrace the idea that the law and love are two separate issues is not the sort of inheritance that our children deserve. One has absolutely everything to do with the other, no matter who decries otherwise."

 

 

 

Oh dear. That's the most moving thing I've read in Matt's blog.

[Crusader]

I tend to believe that religion shouldn't be involved in government at all. A lot of people believe that, and that's how it should remain.

 

I completely agree with you Matthew. Love is universal. It doesn't care who you fall in love with. It's an emotion and the government can't control that. If two people fall in love and want to get married then they are entitled to a marriage. Gay people share the same rights as we do. They're people too and not animals. What you believe in or what your religious affiliation believes in should not have anything to do with anyone else's life.

 

I don't think 'God' would say no to gay marriage. Isn't he supposed to love everyone no matter what? Think about that before you use religion as your reason of opposing these people's right to marriage.

 

My response. It's kind of a stupid response but I didn't have enough time to think.

[Tim]

It's just horrible really. I'll be marrying my long-time girlfriend this Sunday. We have the luxury of being able to get married without all the bullshit.

 

It breaks my heart that others are being denied for such ridiculous reasons. As Matthew already stated..

 

 

"Love chooses us. And though we have attempted in vain throughout the ages to unlock its mysteries, we are still helpless in its grasp. Born man or woman, straight or gay, love chooses us and we follow.

 

It's that simple. Now, if only people could wrap their thick heads around that.

Edited August 14, 2004 by Nearing_Fantastica

[Crusader]

Congratulations ;)

[Tim]

Congratulations ;)

Why thank you, sir.

[lcpja]

Congrats Tim and his lucky lady.

 

I love weddings! Love is beautiful!

Edited August 14, 2004 by lcpja

[Crusader]

What I don't understand, is that, if we take the stance that love is indeed out of the hands of the government, then incest would no longer be outlawed?

 

Most of us are disgusted by the thought of incest and yet are accepting of homosexuality, but they are both practices that have been stigmatized for the simple reason that the "church" disapproved isn't it?

 

This is the argument I constantly run up against when arguing for SSM, and I haven't found a reply that promotes SSM but would deny incestuous marriage.

 

Any thoughts?

 

-jackie-

Jackie | Email | Homepage | 08.13.04 - 6:42 pm | #

 

 

This is in response to Jackie.

 

You're quite right. I don't know how we could deal with that. But what really does that have to do with SSM? The same sex couple wouldn't be related would they? The acceptance of same sex marriages does not necessarily open up to that path.

 

You could argue that incestuos marrgates would mutate the gene pool adversly while same sex marriages would not. From a medical stance same sex marriages are far more sound.

 

Please excuse my horrid spelling and going a bit off topic.

Anton | Email | Homepage | 08.14.04 - 2:32 am | #

 

Geeze I just read what I wrote and that didn't make much sense ;).

[Mr. Chips]

Congrats indeed.

[Tim]

Thanks to everyone for your well wishes. I appreciate it.

[running4home]

i hate how people have such a problem with someones sexual orientation that really really bugs me

[decomposinglight]

Wow! Matt is so the best. I wholeheartedly agree with him. ;) Thanks for posting this!