I don't recall anyone extending this to non-Christian marriage - or even mentioning Christian marriage "only" for that matter. Such a leap would be unwarranted, if only on the basis of what people have posted here, which they haven't. The topic is homosexual marriage - and the inferred right or wrong in a section of society sanctioning it.
And don't for a minute think I (who used the word "gross") or anyone else here who doesn't approve of homosexual marriage think homosexuals are "gross." That's altogether false and is a complete misread of what I said.
I said the BEHAVIOR is an act of "gross self-indulgence" - which it is. Don't presume from that however that I think those who indulge in such behavior gross themselves. That's not what I said. Grrrrrr....
I wasn't singling you out and don't really recall you even using the word "gross". So if you did I wasn't referencing it.
And you missed my point. I know you're not extending it to non-Christians. That's why I'm saying it's hypocritical. God doesn't like for people to be atheist either, so if two atheists marry and raise atheist children and generally don't glorify God with their marriage well why allow it in the first place? But you don't care about atheists marrying, you just care about gays marrying.
And all sex is an act of self-indulgence. My partner and I don't go at it to make society happy, we do it because it's fun and because it brings us closer together as a couple, and in a few years we'll be doing it to bring children into the world. Making anyone other than ourselves happy during sex does not even enter into our mind, and we're straight. How is it different for a gay couple?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Then by that logic, we should just replace the constitution with the bible and call ourselves the Theocratic States of America.
"The Constitution was written for a moral God fearing people and no other. It is based on the assumption that libertry and order can only co exist when the people are inlcined towards self restraint. The less contro there is from within, the more is required from without"
John Adams
Sorry, but God warns us time and time again that it is HE who determines the times and boundries of ALL nations. When the likes of you spit in Gods face and dec;are that you and not God makes the Laws, the nation is finished.
Most would fear seeing this -> To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
than seeing this -> To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Isaiah 8:12-13 (NIV) "Do not call conspiracy everything that these people call conspiracy; do not fear what they fear, and do not dread it. The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread."
So I have a few comments about this I'm going to post here since I'm so angry at the results of this vote. I find solace in the fact that I'm young, and by the time I'm ready to get married, my generation and the one following me will be voting in larger numbers and we are overwhelming in favor of same-sex marriage.
Seeing these arguments again, the same things that were brought up during the prop 8 vote, I'm always struck by how incredibly faulty the arguments used against same-sex marriage are. The rallying cry of "think of the children" was once again dredged up (does anybody else find it ironic that the claiming to want to protect children is the side that is exploiting them for a political viewpoint?). This is, of course, a straw-man argument as letting gays get married has nothing to do with gays adopting. And, despite what many people love to claim, the purpose of marriage isn't to produce children. This is self-evident in that we let sterile people marry, and many couples never have children. So.... logical fallacy there.
Second, changing the definition of marriage. Ignoring the fact that, historically, there is a good deal of evidence that suggests that same-sex marriage existed in Rome and Greece (I'll ignore that since it's not a proven theory), marriage between 1 man and 1 women for love has existed for about 100 years. Before that we had marriage between 1 man and many women, 1 man and 1 women who were forced into the institution, and marriage between 30 year old men and 12 year old girls. Maybe the side who wants to be "preserving marriage" should worry about the laws that prevent pedophilia, so we can go back to a more historical form of what marriage is.
And people who think they need to impose their religion on others in this country do a disservice to what America was founded on. Not to get into the debate of separation of church and state, but the first Europeans to come to America came here so they could practice their religion freely. What's the difference between saying homosexuals can't get married, and the Vatican saying it's impossible for a protestant to get divorced.
You do a disservice to one of the basic ideas that this country stands for on so many levels by voting against same-sex marriage. I know that there are bad people in the world, who can't see the truth of the situation, and are blinded by prejudice and feel that they can hide behind a "I hate the sin" statement (which is preposterous, as they single out a single sinner to focus their political action on). It hurts me deeply to be told I can't love somebody that I love, or that I'm natural. I'm not patient, I want to be able to marry the man I love now, not later.
Linear Mode
