P.r.o.o.f. of eXistence

A blog about things you avoid at the dinner table

messmeriz-ed asked: Hey. Thanks for the follow. Waiting for me to post something so you can make fun of it?

No, not really. I follow more than just Conservatives so i can have the entire picture. I do not like group think.

I will give it a poke if necessary, or if I feel compelled.  

Anonymous asked: I'm not trying to offend you for voting for Romney, but if you think that dumbass can run America better than Obama then you're wrong. So wrong.

Please explain to me how well Obama has run this country, and when you do please provide statistics (and facts) - alongside sources to support your claims.

 

Anonymous asked: Hello! I had a question regarding the government & the Christian's role/responsibility in allowing "gay marriages." I believe that God created man and woman, each beautiful and unique in their own way to come together, marry, and procreate; I also believe that homosexuality is an abomination. However, why shouldn't the government allow gay marriages? Is not allowing them to marry dehumanizing them? I have had debates with my roommate, and I don't quite know what to believe, other than to pray...

That’s a fantastic question Anon,

In my honest opinion, government has every right to grant homosexual marriage. But at the same time, government, I believe, has no business within the “sacrement” of marriage.

You see, marriage, as we know it in the United States, if formed from the Judeo-Christian tradition and culture. Ever wonder why it was/is done with a Church (or religious institution) and why a religious leader has rights to marry individuals?

Government has injected themselves into marriage when it 1. declared a definition of it and 2. Used it for means to identify (census) and collect taxes.

Marriage, as it was (unofficially) identified by the government of the United States, is between a man and a woman. [California’s Constitution actually says “man” and “woman”]. 

So given that Marriage in the US is founded in religion (before Government) - you have fundamental argument between the definition of marriage itself, and what it allows for.

Example: A homosexual couple would have difficulty visiting a hospitalized partner (as family and or a spouse are sometimes only granted permission). Then there are Tax issues, and grey area issues in official documents provided to employers etc. (Then there is the issue of simply explaining who “so-and-so” is… (“my partner” or “my husband” etc.)

The religious right will fight for what they believe is the essence and ideal of marriage (one man and one woman) and the liberal left will fight for their own (love and anyone can marry).

Does this “de-humanize” homosexuals? No. But it does create issues (as described in the examples). 

The Right faces some issues: 1. Being seen as bigoted 2. Being seen as “behind the times” and 3. Facing an ever-growing Political and financial push.

The Left faces some issues: 1. Re-defining a cemented tradition (religious and societal) 2. “Capping” what is and isn’t marriage and 3. Political backing vs. the Right (though the Right dwindling in comparison).

What I mean by “Capping” marriage (for the Left) is - if “love” is the only pre-requisite for marriage, who are YOU to define where it begins and ends? Does polygamy then become legalized (thats a growing issue in Canada and NZ). Does marriage between “objects” or “animals” too count? (That sounds ridiculous and might piss some people off but it is actually practice in some places).

So should government allow gay-marriages? Yes and no. I think it would be best for government to stay out, but if the government in a democracy (or Republic like ours) represents the people, then it will have to depend on the people to decide. I believe government should instead “equalize” the attributes of civil unions (to that of marriage) - but I do not believe it should be called marriage (as marriage is defined already and should not be altered). This has its own issues (some will complain that its likened to the separate but equal ideas of the civil rights era, which it is not but they will receive sympathy nevertheless).

Stand firm in what you know as Truth, the Bible says “wrong will be right and right wrong” in the last days. Our duty as Christians is to stand up for Truth, but also to “live in peace with everyone as far as it depends on us” and to “love our neighbor as ourselves” (likewise our enemy), beside walking in God’s way and “preaching the Gospel.”

Christ once said “render to Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the things that are God’s.” If marriage is a Holy institution, a sacrement, and a view of the relationship between Christ (the Groom) and the Church (His Bride) - then I believe we should fight for Marriage; but not to the point where we hurt our own Faith or the Faith of others (aka Our Witness).  We spend too much time fighting politically rather than spiritually.

The greatest Christ-Centered Rebuttal I have ever read.God bless, my brother.

The greatest Christ-Centered Rebuttal I have ever read.
God bless, my brother.

(via johnnyis)