Does anyone else run a Windows machine and find that, first of all it FORCES you to do updates?Like I want to shut down my computer, but it has decided it wants to take an extra 20 minutes and do 17 updates. Then the next time I cut it on, it has to do over 13,000 more updates (which appear to be registry edits, and happen quite quickly on the machine with 4GB of RAM.) I even understand that the updates are necessary because people intentionally write code to invade and infect the machines. I understand all that, but it doesn't make it any less annoying. It'll be interesting to see how the process runs on the machine with only 2GB of RAM. It doesn't have as many apps, so it may run a bit quicker.
Talking about annoying. Went to see Green Lantern today. Waited for my chronologically and geographically challenged young son, Amit, to arrive. He lives in Edison, NJ, but can never get to the theater on time. Mostly, I think, because when he tells me he's getting on the train he's actually either getting out of bed or getting out of the shower. Either that or he can't realize that the trains go local every weekend. But he's a cool young man; strong on technical knowledge and conversation and not well-enough-versed in anything else to be annoying. The only other things he likes are sports and making/saving money, so we're cool. He's not only a genuinely nice guy, but still young enough that the world is still full of awe and wonder for him. Here's to you, Amit! I can write all this because even though I'll give him the link to this blog, he'll never read it. Way too many words for him. :-)
Once he finally arrived, we went to see Green Lantern. We've seen trailers for it at every movie for the last several months, and the line "I pledge allegiance to a lantern that I got from a dying purple alien" was enough to intrigue me. The first thing I noticed about the movie was that Sinestro looked just like I remembered him from the comic books. And I've only read maybe one or two Green Lantern comics -- he was never my favorite. Granted, they did have to condense a lot of history, but for $17.00, I expect the 3-D to pop (this looked like it was added after filming); and I expect a story line that doesn't literally have me falling asleep in the first half. I even had this whole dialogue in my head trying to lay a Christian theme on top of it, with the fear-feeding Paralyto as Satan, the Green Lantern Corps as the Angels, the Green Lantern as a Jesus archetype, Sinestro as Satan before he fell from grace in heaven, and so on. Still didn't work for me. It seems like in the second half of the movie, they started pulling their act together, but it made me decide that I'll get the bootlegs first before actually buying any more movies. This is one that can definitely wait for DVD. It grossed $52 million this weekend; I think it's just the gullible suckers who didn't know any better. We saw it near Penn Station, in a theater that's normally full. There may have been 20 people there.
Today there's lots of talk about Marriage Equality in NY State. I want to say a few words about that. I've spoken on it before, and my personal position is not the position of my church. I've taken vows in and willingly submit myself to the authority of my church, but I voice my disagreement when I think it's wrong. It's a typically homophobic African-American church. 'Nuff said there.
So here's what I think about Marriage Equality. I think that all Americans should receive the same treatment. I don't think that some Americans should get preferential tax, immigration, or survivor's benefits that are denied to other Americans solely on the basis of how they express their sexuality. Here's what I mean: marriage carries with it certain civil privileges. Given that, you can't deny people the ability to marry and receive those privileges based solely on their sexual identity. Even if you don't agree with their sexual identity or you have personal or theological issues with their sexual identity, you don't get to discriminate against them. It's just like discriminating against people because they're black, or not US-born, or because they're Christian.
I believe that marriage as a RELIGIOUS observance is a divine and sacred institution (sacrament to some). I don't believe the State can dictate that a religion has to believe or behave a certain way. We can't make the Catholic church allow female priests, we couldn't make Mormons believe that black people were equal to whites (until they got a divine "revelation"); you can't make observant Jewish people eat swine meat, and you can't force theologically conservative Christians to condone either homosexuality or gay marriage. The State simply can't do that. That's something the Holy Spirit does, not the State.
As much as I am Christian and enjoy the tainted fruit of Constantine's bastard 4th century dealings, I think the fact that religious marriages have been granted special civil status is, at best, warped. What I believe my prof said was that the State used the Church as its agent. The Church became an agent of the State in ratifying marriages (which should have been a civil function). Over time, both civil and religious marriages have taken on a semi-sacred nature and now there seems to exist some confusion between them. A religious ceremony is just that, and is governed by the tenets of the religion. A civil ceremony, the reflection of a business arrangement, should be available to everyone.
Allowing gay people to marry does not, in my opinion, detract anything from the sacred, sacramental, or religious nature of marriage. What detracts from the sacred nature of marriage is the number of people who spend thousands of dollars to go to the altar declaring their love for another person, and who, for whatever reason, lack the commitment and/or ability to stay in the marriage, sometimes terminating it before the wedding is even paid for.
If we religious people are concerned about the sanctity of marriage, then we need to regard it as sacred. Our clergy need to stop marrying everybody who waves a dollar in front of them. Our clergy need to counsel couples before, during, and after the weddings. We need to require that people actually have a relationship with a church before attempting to get married there. Let's face it -- weddings are moneymakers, and they draw people to our churches. But we need to lift Jesus and have Him draw people to our churches. We need to have every activity in our churches reflect Jesus' presence in our lives (and for those religious people who are not Christian, the same holds true -- the religious marriage ceremony should reflect the religious commitment of those being married).
Perhaps then, the people who enter into the religious institution of marriage would treat their marriages with more respect. Perhaps then there might be some sort of statistical difference in the failure rates between religious and non-religious marriages. According to a 2000 Barna report, Christians and Jews had higher divorce rates than atheists and agnostics. It didn't list divorce rates on Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, or other religions, so either they don't get divorced or they were not statistically significant to Barna in 2000.....
While I don't think "marriage equality" is a "right" for all Americans (I think the phrasing is a bit of a misnomer), I do believe that the ability to enjoy the benefits of being married should be available to all Americans who seek to avail themselves of those benefits. I don't need or want a tax credit for having a roommate; while we may share a roof, we've probably not made a commitment to share each other's lives. But if I've made that commitment with another person, and if I'm living in and honoring that commitment, and if the State has deemed that people who live in and honor that commitment get certain privileges, then I should get those privileges. They shouldn't be gender-specific.
It's touchy, and it goes against tradition. I do believe, for instance, that there should be gender segregation in sports. And I'm not so sure I'd want a 5'2" female firefighter coming to rescue me from a burning building. Where there are clear gender-based physical differences, then I'm in favor of gender discrimination. But what's the big deal with letting gay people marry? That doesn't erode our society or our morals; if anything, it helps us to make stable, loving, committed relationships normative.
A word here to the folk who equate homosexuality with pedophilia or bestiality or incest -- well, y'all and your nasty minds can stay in the gutter. I never understand those people who talk about people "turning" gay. While it is true that many people have some fluidity in their sexual orientation, most people I know can't "choose" their sexuality. If you think people can "turn" gay or "choose" their sexuality, I got news for you: you're bisexual. Which is probably why you're having such a fit about gay marriage -- you're afraid you won't be able to hide any more. I also don't get why folks always equate homosexuality with specific sexual acts. Why are you men so interested in where another man is putting his dingaling? What's that saying about you? I've spent lots of time with lots of women. I spend a lot of time naked in locker rooms and saunas with other women. We sit around and have long conversations, in and out of the sauna and in the locker areas, completely nude and yet we give very little thought to each others' vaginas. What's up with you menfolks on that issue?
Guess my rant is over. If we want to defend marriage, we should defend marriage, not discriminate against gays.... Handle your own business: let your computer update, don't see Green Lantern, and let adults who love each other get married.
No comments:
Post a Comment