Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Same sex marriage - you know, it just isn't right. It is against all our instincts and inherent beliefs. It is not and can never be morally justifiable, to have 2 people of the same sex being married. Marriage is a sanctifying bond, between a man and a woman, to ensure the survival of the species and the preservation of morals. How can 2 men, push their penises into each others backsides, then say they can bring up an adopted child to have a balanced view of life?
Whatever your arguments here, or anywhere else, you know in your heart, it is wrong.
Over half of the country disagrees with you, so... nope!
Again - speaking from a biblical standpoint - not trashing all of the legal stuff.
Why should your Bible run the country? If you want a country whose laws come from a single religious book, you can move to Iran and see how you like it.
Marriage is a covenant between a man and a women raitified by sexual intercourse. This is what I believe is a biblical definition - which is slighty different than what we have in the country because of the legal ties, marriage licenses, etc.
I believe it is defined this way because any covenant in the Bible is ratified by blood. When the woman enters marriage as a virgin, and there is the initial sexual encounter, blood is present making the covenant official - at least in God's eyes.
That makes our behavior today WAY out of whack with those standards.
Let me see if I understand your definition correctly:
Must be a man and woman.
Must be ratified by blood, meaning that the woman needs to be a virgin.
You correctly conclude that our current behavior does not live up to your definition.
In other words, according to you, most married couples are not truly married because their union was not ratified by blood.
What, then, are you fighting for? A return to virginity testing? Blood-stained sheets that are publicly displayed? See, if you are not fighting for those "ideals," then a fight against gay marriage is just meaningless.
Do you think that, just perhaps, your ideology and the application of your Christian belief system are completely outdated and an anachronism in our times?
If so, do you wish to have a return to dogmatic enforcement of biblical standards?
If so, do you approve of middle-Eastern theocracies?
You see, your views may not just be anachronistic, but they are outright anti-American.
I believe it is defined this way because any covenant in the Bible is ratified by blood. When the woman enters marriage as a virgin, and there is the initial sexual encounter, blood is present making the covenant official - at least in God's eyes.
What about people who don't believe in Christianity? Does this apply to them as well? Or do you not believe in religious freedom?
What if two non-Christian homosexual people wanted to get married? Say two homosexual atheists or two homosexual Buddhists wanted to tie the knot? Would that be okay with you? Or do you insist on forcing your Christian laws on people who don't even believe in Christianity?
I think if you stated the thought exactly as he did, you would get a far smaller amount of approval.
There are two issues with this type of argument - and they are interwoven:
1.) Your argument would be a lot easier if marriage was an exclusively religious ceremony. Unfortunately for you, government decided long, long ago, that marriage represented a LEGAL contract and thus, bestowed LEGAL CIVIL rights upon such a union.
As soon as government did so, it follows that it MUST grant these rights to all it's citizens.
2.) As long as homosexuality was accepted to be a mental or developmental abnormality, government had no obligation to grant equal rights to homosexuals. However, with an increasingly strong shift toward the perception (based on evidence) that homosexuality is, in fact, an immutable personality characteristic, such obligation has arisen. Except for religion, ALL parameters regulated by anti-discrimination legislation are based on immutable characteristics (gender, race, etc.). Thus, it follows logically, that government will, eventually, not have much of a choice.
In essence, your argument is mute since you want to apply a specific religious definition to a civil issue. If you lived in a Christian theocracy, doing so would not represent a problem. The USA, however, is NOT such a theocracy. The USA is also not a purely Christian nation.
Also just for icky land religious types arguing that the marriage contract be ratified by blood, anal sex can easily hasn't the same result. Im just saying...
also just for icky land religious types arguing that the marriage contract be ratified by blood, anal sex can easily hasn't the same result. Im just saying...
lol!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
