ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel


Updated on May 16, 2012

What a chemistry of a man, who was a priest.

An article on CNN front page on the Internet weighs in on homosexuality and same sex marriage, and almost condemns the totality of the Bible not rebuking any of them, but as the writer stipulates, as aiding and abetting aberrant behavior; and to the chagrin of most people, almost called homosexuality/same sex marriage to be normal in the eyes of Jesus and Paul.

It is by Daniel A. Helminiak, who almost has the word "maniac" in his name, to explain why people must not bother too much to be critical about President Barack Obama's decision to support same-sex marriage.

He, who was ordained a priest in Rome, quoted biblical passages to enumerate the instances that those things that were called "sins" did not include homosexuality.

He even said that Jesus told his followers to love their neighbors as themselves, when the word "love" there did not have any sexual connotations. It was like a mother's love for a son; the mother's emotional feelings would not permit her to think of having sex with the son.

However, putting the Bible aside, as we are not all theologian experts, whatever is good in life is good, just as what is abnormal is abnormal, no matter from what perspective.

In other words, human behavior has generally not evolved from bad things to good outcomes. It was like the law of Moses that did not start teaching the Israelites of how to live in society. It was to emphasize the commandments that have been laid out before, for them to continue to obey them.

Also, in every culture under the sun, what was abominable was abominable, as it did not start to be abominable and then developed into anything else. It was standard from the natural processes of human psychology that, for example, what was not yours, was not yours. You were a thief if you stole it.

That went for all other crimes for them to be controlled and condemned, wherever and whenever necessary. Societies that did not even know the Bible or any other good book would have a set of rules of conduct to follow; and it was not an accident that what were considered to be good and evil were the same everywhere.

So was a man cohabiting with another man instead of a woman; otherwise what was the objective of the former, when laying in bed was to reproduce other human beings. The act of doing so was not recreational, for it had a clear and specific purpose.

So many Americans found it repugnant, and in some circles, an insult, to back some people that were bent on changing the meaning of a time honored institution such as marriage.

They have every right to choose any other name for themselves, and fight for whatever rights that they were entitled to, and there would have been no qualms about that.

They had "domestic partnership" and "civil union", and they could use any of those monikers to advance their cause.

However, going back to Helminiak, the same Bible quoted that "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder", with respect to marriage between one man and one woman; but he was overlooking that in order to approve a life style, which was diametrically opposed to that institution; Marriage.

What was driving the modern day argument about sexual behavior was not that people wanted to interfere with what others did with themselves and their lives; but it was a matter of choice; and that was to choose to trample something wholesome underfoot or not.

Most people regarded marriage as sacrosanct, as depicted by the Bible, and when its meaning was being brutalized in any way, shape or form, they had to object to such action.

Some would prefer to put a flashlight in their backside, and nobody would care about that; but when they decided to alter a name of an institution that they held so dear, that was when they said, "enough is enough,"

President Obama has every right to listen to his daughters and change his mind about anything, but that did not make whatever it was any good.

So are those of us, who have the same right to want to stay with marriage as we know it; that it is a union between one man and one woman; and no former priest can change our minds with his theologian expertise.

I, for one, will always cherish the picture of my parents wedding. It has always made me proud, not that I have not been born out of wedlock, but the fact that they married the right way, as husband and wife; a man and a woman.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.