A "vested interested", you say?

So, we all know how passionate I am about issues involving sexuality, right? Side note, if you want to know why, please ask me privately and personally.

Even if I weren't so interested in ameliorating this issues on different levels... if I could care less, we all know that everyone is talking about Chic fil A, aka, "American's best chicken joint and oh yeah go eat there to stand up for tradish marriage" (patent pending!). As I skimmed through my blogs, I actually stopped to read one entitled "Is gay marriage about granting 'rights'?" (Spoiler: no, it's not. the rights in question can be achieved by other means). What struck me, though, was this line, as quoted in the post itself:

Neither the state nor the church invented marriage, though both have vested interested in it, and therefore neither can change its nature. [sic]

I hope both institutions' "vested interest" are apparent, but I'll explain shortly anyway... there is a point to this post.

I got to thinking... which institution has MORE of a said "vested interest"?

As a Catholic, man of faith, my first instinct would be to clearly pick the Church. More babies born (that's the natural ends of marriage, remember?) means more souls won for Christ and more of us happy in Heaven. YAY!

However, IF IF IF IF IF we aren't necessarily looking at the issue with our eyes of faith, perhaps the STATE has more of an interest. We can agree that more babies born and raised have the potential to become happy, healthy, productive members of society, chocked full of innovation and ingenuity... meaning $$$, money that the state can then tax the crap out of and then spend like... well like they currently already are, but that's not the point.

IF we're not looking at the eternal reward of Heaven and perfect communion with the God of the freaking universe, I would like to think that the Church's interest is much less in keeping marriage between one man and one woman. I mean, more babies born means more souls that we have to try to reach, more kids that we have to teach about the faith, more fallen away Catholics that we have to pray for, etc... you get the idea, right? I could take this example to far, but it sure would be a lot less work if there were less people.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do NOT take my words out of context. The Church LOVES to do this work. The Sacraments are AWESOME! Souls are beautiful. People, human beings are the crown of God's creation and should never be treated as just a number. Christ calls us to mission and our response out to be a happy FIAT, despite how hard the work can be at times.

Of course, we know that it's flipped around. The Kingdom is worth everything, so why not fight for it by protecting traditional values, upholding our religious liberty, the freedom to do not whatever the heck we want recklessly, but to do what we know is right. Thanks JP2.

I guess my point in this post is a wake up call to the govment. WTF??? Why aren't you joining us in protecting traditional marriage, when you only stand to loose from trying to change it? Or are you just being a passive parent bending to the whims of the capricious, crying infant? That's not what a good parent would do...

update!!

so, as i've made clear in other posts, i'm studying jp2's theology of the body in one of my grad classes. i just finished reading the third cycle (summary forthcoming). it occurred to me that both Christ and St. Paul (in agreement with the Lord) seem to grant a certain superiority, as it were to celibacy, yet in no way do they disrespect the institution of marriage as it is between one man and one woman. again, don't take what i say here the wrong way. the Church totally supports traditional marriage (it's the primordial sacrament). however, if Jesus Himself and the Great Apostle both are trying to teach us by calling to mind humanity's eschatological destiny, then it only gives more weight to my argument that any civil authority in "this world" should be in favor of keeping marriage between one man and one woman.

yeah. just thought i'd add this. though i'm sure no one reads my blog anyway...