But everyone else doesn't have to, including the straight nose picker with the itchy ass and armpits?
Sure. You know there are other reasons for same-sex marriages IMO. I find some contradictions in thought process when certain religions work hard on right to life, no contraception and all that. Then when they are forced to have such a large population of children who need adopting. They should be congratulated for their work with children, but to not allow same sex parental adoption, just seems counter productive. I understand all the basic arguments, one man-one woman of course. But since half of all hetero marriages end up in divorce anyway, and children end up with only One parent in so many cases, well with a 2 person income, they are likely to have a better chance in the world. My hope is to add to the other post listing other reasons for same sex marriage. No 'c' - just for you this time.
Because it changes the meaning of the word. For instance. Straight people used to use the term gay as something positive. (Remember the flintstones? "we'll have a gay ol' time") No straight person will ever say that again, now that homosexuals destroyed the word "gay". Gay is now an insult heterosexuals will say to other heterosexuals when they want to insult them. Also look at the rainbow. A rainbow was something beautiful and cheery, and now its the homosexuals flag. Music is another one. When homosexuals flock to a certain artist, A straight person cant listen to that artist for fear of being called gay. For instance...a straight man can't listen to Cher without people thinking he is gay. So what will happen if we let them get married. Probably the same thing...If you let them all get married today...10 or 15 years from now, straight people might say "Why get married? Only gays do that"
Not so sure 'marriage' - the word itself, will change it's meaning. And, since over half end up in divorce, I guess we shouldn't have any marriages. Seriously, I think allowing gays to marry won't hurt hetero marriages. c
Not all homosexuals are 2 income households. And 2 men raising one child is the same as 1 man raising 1 child. A child needs a mother & a father, not 2 fathers. There is no shortage of straight people looking to adopt either, they just make the process very hard for some people. Let me leave you with this...if you are a 10 year old kid, would you prefer 1 straight parent, or two homosexuals parents? Case closed!
Marriage is a relationship sanctioned by God between a man and a woman. By allowing the same term to be used to gay relationships that I believe are NOT in any way sanctioned by God is basically an abomination both of the word and of God's grace.
I guess you never pay attention to the News, Child Protective Services, and all the horrible abuses going on in 'straight' households. At least the gay couple would be vetted, extremely so, prior to adoption. The 3rd generation, non-working hetero family, as an extreme, but commonplace, environment is no good either. The 'straight' parents don't go through any vetting. Might be a good idea to have that required before allowing so many 'wayward' couples to keep having kids they cannot afford. Hardly a closed case, Mr. Peil c
Certainly welcome to your opinion of how God wants to handle God's children. The civil rights issue is not that of God, simply that certificate that says you're married. If the Church was ample, then hetero couples wouldn't need that piece of paper, just their God's blessing I guess. Not sure anyone's God would approve of some of the language used to describe his children here on ET. Just saying. c
God does not require a certificate for marriage. It is the state that requires the certificate for state purposes. If the state did not exist, no paperwork would be required. As you say, just God's blessing. Of course, how do you know you have God's blessing? Only from the written word that one believes is from God. I don't think using a term like, "if the Church was ample" is constructive in intrepreting the will of God.