There’s something I need to say… something controversial and possibly offensive.

But to understand my concern requires that we be on the same page. So I’d like to ask some questions before I get to the meat of things.

1. If schools are for educating people – why do we have gender-exclusive schools? Do you think it’s wrong that we have all male/female schools considering the purpose of education is and should be universal? Should the foundation of an educational system be changed because of it?

2. Why do sports have so much unnecessary rules? Take basketball for instance, isn’t the goal simply to put the ball in the basket? Why must there be a requirement to dribble the ball, not stay in the paint for more than 3 seconds etc. etc. If the minutiae of the sport makes it more complex than it really should be, does that mean that league that made the rules was misguided?

Questions similar to what I have posted aren’t “issues” at all. It’s just one of those things that we universally accept.

So where the hell am I going with this?

I’ve seen increasing articles in the net where people tend to take things too seriously. Perhaps to them, those issues are near and dear to them, and I wouldn’t want to trivialize those issues, but that’s exactly why I asked the questions above so that you can understand where I’m coming from.

Most of them are related to how religion is conflicting with the plurality of beliefs and cultures.

Same-sex marriages

For the record, I believe legally, anyone should have the right to marry whichever partner they choose regardless of their sex/gender. So if all these articles I’m reading are focused on the legal aspect ¹ Like if the state or government recognizes their union – and gives them the legal benefits married couples deserve., then I’m 100% supporting the gays.

But once they start complaining about how the church frowns upon that union, or that it doesn’t acknowledge it – that’s where it gets a bit tricky. And before you even continue reading, I just have to remind you to pay close attention that I consider state marriages (legal unions) and church marriages (sacraments) as totally different things.

Why is it such a big deal for them? And by “it” I mean marriage as a sacrament, or marriage in a religious context. Homosexuals seem to be really offended about how traditional religion views them. And while I can see where they’re coming from… I really have to say they can get quite irritating as well.

If you actively choose to be part of a group, you abide by that group’s rules. If you choose a creed to live by, then you live by the tenets of that creed. If you have any disagreements with them, you have the option to leave. Is that so hard? If you don’t leave, but continue to go against the creed, then you naturally better be prepared to be frowned upon. Simple as that.

I, in particular, don’t think lust and sex for pleasure is wrong despite the fact my faith considers it as one of the seven deadly/mortal sins. I choose to not accept it for reasons that constitute a whole other blog post so I’d rather not get into that. But I also choose not to leave my faith. So I just have to accept that Catholics around me will frown upon that aspect of my “faith.” But notice that I’m not trying to get the catholic church to change their minds about it – just so I can have the peace of mind that I will not burn in hell. Do you get what I’m trying to say?

There are different takes on how the church sees homosexuality depending on how you interpret the Bible. But my point is, even if we assume the worst… big fucking deal! Given the plurality of cultures and beliefs available nowadays, it really shouldn’t be hard to find a belief system that works for you… hell you can probably even make one from scratch. So instead of being so hot and bothered by your Church condemning you for being whatever, why not just consider switching to a religion that welcomes your disposition with open arms?

If you intend to enroll your child to an all-girls school, then that child better be a girl. Even if you believe that education should be non-descriminatory and that your son should have the same shot at his sister’s school, you’re out of luck. If you really want them both in the same school, then just find a co-ed school and put them there. The all-girls school doesn’t need to change one bit for your “needs.”

We’re not in the dark ages anymore, people aren’t out to kill anyone for being in the minority, and given the nature of religion, as long as we’re not being killed for our beliefs, I don’t think religion or any other belief system owes you, or me, any more favors.

I do agree though that whatever “prejudice” a certain belief system inflicts upon a minority, shouldn’t discriminate them in such a way that it hinders them from what I call “practical living.” Simply put, legally, you should have a right to be treated like any other human being. ² Which is why I really think the church should back-off totally from affairs of the state. It just becomes so much more complicated when they’re involved. So I do agree with legal unions – because those have legal benefits, which no member of society should be deprived of.

But marriage as a sacrament? The whole in-front-of-God-and-the-Church part of that union. I really don’t think homosexuals have any right to expect the Church to acknowledge that sort of union (marriage as a sacrament).

Why do I say this? Because if I may return to my previous scenario; basketball, to be called “basketball” must be played a certain way, rules must be followed… else it’s simply not basketball.

Likewise, marriage as a sacrament by definition requires a man and a woman. If you disagree and wish to push the “It’s between two people” argument – fine, lets play it your way; two people – regardless of anatomy.

One of the [most] important conditions in the sacrament of marriage is the act of consummation – now look that up and see if two “people” in general will be able to fulfill that condition all the time. They can’t if they’re of the same sex. Because the act of consummation requires the male and female genitalia. The act of consummation should be in context of ejaculation of the sperm into the vagina with the purpose to procreate. If it’s not, that’s not “consummating” anything… that’s just “fucking.”

So even if a straight couple would have intercourse after marriage, but used protection… technically they have NOT consummated that marriage yet. Now if straight couples can have those kinds of problems, what more couples that simply cannot fulfill that condition no matter what they do? ³ Couples of the same sex If you have the same genitalia, you cannot consummate the marriage – and if you can’t then it simply isn’t a marriage (as a sacrament).

By now, homosexuals would probably cite that those conditions need not be met – that you don’t need such rules to prove your love to one another. And I would agree wholeheartedly! But it begs the question; if you believe that you don’t need those conditions, then why do you even value the opinion of the system that created those conditions? The sacrament of marriage is a religious concept, if you really want to have it, it means that you acknowledge the importance that it (as a religious concept) represents. That in turn means you also [should] value the conditions surrounding it. If choose to deny some of those conditions for your own benefit, you’ve essentially lost the significance of the sacrament.

Believing in the value of the sacrament of matrimony while not acknowledging the conditions that must be met is just the same as a Catholic believing in Jesus but not acknowledging him as the son of Mary. One can certainly claim that Jesus was just some random person in history, but for your faith to be called “Catholic,” then the “Jesus” you know should be Jesus son of the virgin Mary, son of Joseph, son of God. If you think of him as a prophet, that’s fine, but that’s not the Christian take on things. Likewise, if you think the sacrament of marriage is fine without a man and a woman to consummate it – then it also isn’t a Christian view of marriage.

You don’t need marriage to prove beyond a doubt that you love someone. But all the same, if you want it to be called a sacrament, then you should play by the rules of whatever Church you chose/choose to be part of. You can kick the ball into the basket to score a point, but it’s not basketball unless you do it properly.

Ratificatum et Consumatum – one of the details I actually remember from theology class. These are very important aspects of a Christian (or at least a Catholic) marriage – without them it’s simply not a marriage in the Christian/catholic sense.

So you see what I’m trying to say here? It’s really unreasonable to expect the Church to change something as important as that. There’s nothing wrong with having very specific conditions to acknowledge marriage it as a sacrament – even if it borders on being exclusive. That’s precisely why the sacrament of marriage is different from a legal wedding.

Regarding the ex-communication of women priests

Now I have to say that the church went overboard with this issue. That’s not to say that I think there should be women priests. I’m more inclined to ask why these women want to be “priests” to begin with? Isn’t the Nun the counterpart of a Priest? Why is this even an issue? Is this a girl-power thing?

If the Church thinks that Priests should be only be Men, then I’d just take that like an all-boys-school rule. It’s not right or wrong, it just is. And I really don’t see why people should care. And before I even ponder on why women would care about it, I’d sooner ask why they need to be priests to begin with? You don’t see us men wanting to be Nuns do you? And if the Church starts a rule ex-communicating male nuns… I don’t think you’ll find us complaining.

But I have to say, what they should’ve done is simply revoke the titles from existing women priests and deny future women from becoming priests. To ex-communicate someone who has dedicated their life in defending the faith out of a technicality seems too harsh of a penalty if you ask me.

Actually, I think the Church also needs to pay them some damage/reparation fees as well:

Assuming these women went through the same process to become priests… you know how fucking long it takes to become one – as well as what you have to give up? Not to mention constantly suppressing whatever worldly need for the sake of that vocation? Only to find out one day that the Church that you basically sacrificed literally everything for, not only does not acknowledge your title, but also kicks you out of the group entirely.

That really sucks.

In a nutshell

Simply put, if you truly believe in something – more than the belief system you’re supposed to live by, then you shouldn’t be afraid to live by your decisions – regardless if you’re knowingly going against “the system” you’re in. Nor should it matter to you if you continue in that system whilst living the way you do.

If you on the other hand are disturbed to no end because your faith seems to condemn you and your actions, it simply means that your belief system has a greater importance than that of your own reasoning. In that case you should make a decision:

1. Step in line according to what your belief system dictates.
2. Leave and find a different belief system that fits your needs.

Either way, the “system” we’re questioning need not change. Our questioning should only go as far as to make us decide if we should adhere to what the system says or not – not expect it to change for us. And whatever decision we make is our responsibility; ours alone. The world doesn’t owe us any favors.

Now the real question is what would you choose? Or when would you choose one path over another… well that’s why we were given brains to think with.

---

It’s worth mentioning that this sort of argument is possible today because the dynamics of societies have changed. The fact that it’s possible to respect a person of a different creed makes all the difference.

You can be a Muslim, Christian, or even an atheist, but still be perfectly capable of being a decent human and co-exist with fellow humans despite a fundamental difference in beliefs. As long as we follow the golden rule, ⁴ Treat others as you would treat yourself. we’ll be ok. And this rule is not exclusive to religion mind you.

If we were still in a religious strangle-hold; where people don’t really have a choice, where they can literally die or get seriously hurt in the name of religion, where holy wars would be rampant in the world – then I’d be singing a totally different tune in this post.