Gay Marriages: II
By Dennis L. Siluk
July 14, 2004
Couldn't think of a better title, so I stuck with the old one, and added II, on to it. I know, I just got through writing about this, well let me explain, I got a few letters concerning my view on this subject, actually they were not bad, one was a little interesting in that the person played dumb, or maybe he just wanted to show his intelligence, with no substance; or said that he was, or needed clarification, which was a bunch of...you know what. But let's give Mr. C (short for clarification) the benefit of the doubt, which he applauds me for my philosophical mind, again this is supposed to be an ego boost for me, which is really a cute, because he is really trying to applaud himself for being wise and cleaver, wise for finding in my statement a clause he can use against me, or so he feels: again, let me explain: he implies I am saying man is above the law, thus, he means, he should be able to get married to another man without any contradiction. But it is more important for him at this stage to let me know he has found my statement "irrelevant" in the world of trying to "sell" it. I'm not selling anything; I'm giving an opinion first of all. Nobody buys what they don't want anyways, they just read it.
But let's move on with this junk-box mail. Anyhow, he reaches for "...divine law (because I implied it in my first article)," at this point I think: he's really reading between the lines, it's about time...but he misses the boat, I mean really misses the boat. I thought he was smart, that idea just went down the drain. So out of respect for him taking the time to write me, I write him back. But for those who may be like Mr. C, here is new clarification, which I've already sent to him (maybe it was just him that didn't get the message, and everybody else did, and said, "big deal," not sure now):
You can change the meaning into your own world thinking as much as you want if it suites you, and I suppose it's natural to resist what you don't like and want to justify, and yes man is above the law, you got that right, (just like I said) just as much as God has allowed man to make free choices (although this is not a free ticket to break the law, or get into heaven). If the law says you can marry, and then it is as it is, it still doesn't change my thinking, only you're right in the eyes of the law (right or wrong, there is a divine law - if you jump off a building, gravity will not save you). So these choices, God allowed man to make on his own, can hang him slowly if abused, or if recklessly used; human law or not, divine law will supersede all laws at its bitter end - it always does. Do not be deceived there is no price.
So I hope I have answered Mr. C's question even better than what I had before.
July 14, 2004
Couldn't think of a better title, so I stuck with the old one, and added II, on to it. I know, I just got through writing about this, well let me explain, I got a few letters concerning my view on this subject, actually they were not bad, one was a little interesting in that the person played dumb, or maybe he just wanted to show his intelligence, with no substance; or said that he was, or needed clarification, which was a bunch of...you know what. But let's give Mr. C (short for clarification) the benefit of the doubt, which he applauds me for my philosophical mind, again this is supposed to be an ego boost for me, which is really a cute, because he is really trying to applaud himself for being wise and cleaver, wise for finding in my statement a clause he can use against me, or so he feels: again, let me explain: he implies I am saying man is above the law, thus, he means, he should be able to get married to another man without any contradiction. But it is more important for him at this stage to let me know he has found my statement "irrelevant" in the world of trying to "sell" it. I'm not selling anything; I'm giving an opinion first of all. Nobody buys what they don't want anyways, they just read it.
But let's move on with this junk-box mail. Anyhow, he reaches for "...divine law (because I implied it in my first article)," at this point I think: he's really reading between the lines, it's about time...but he misses the boat, I mean really misses the boat. I thought he was smart, that idea just went down the drain. So out of respect for him taking the time to write me, I write him back. But for those who may be like Mr. C, here is new clarification, which I've already sent to him (maybe it was just him that didn't get the message, and everybody else did, and said, "big deal," not sure now):
You can change the meaning into your own world thinking as much as you want if it suites you, and I suppose it's natural to resist what you don't like and want to justify, and yes man is above the law, you got that right, (just like I said) just as much as God has allowed man to make free choices (although this is not a free ticket to break the law, or get into heaven). If the law says you can marry, and then it is as it is, it still doesn't change my thinking, only you're right in the eyes of the law (right or wrong, there is a divine law - if you jump off a building, gravity will not save you). So these choices, God allowed man to make on his own, can hang him slowly if abused, or if recklessly used; human law or not, divine law will supersede all laws at its bitter end - it always does. Do not be deceived there is no price.
So I hope I have answered Mr. C's question even better than what I had before.
posted by Dennis and Rosa Siluk at 10:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home