I try to see God in all people. What they are or are not doing in private is between them (their confessor) and God. If the state wishes to make money off granting them marriage licenses, that’s the state’s business. I don’t foresee the Catholic church sanctifying those marriages anytime soon so there really is no threat. Sanctifying gay marriages in a church seems inappropriate to me.
Okay, but why would Christians vote for it? why would any Christian advocate it? that’s what I don’t understand.
I have found that Same sex marriage advocates always seem to refer to it as ‘marriage equality’ and that to be against same sex civil marriage is discrimination (or whatever term they use). However if we are discriminating or are against ‘marriage equality’ by saying that marriage is between a man and a woman. If we don’t have the right to ‘force’ … as they say, our definition of marriage being between a man and a woman onto them, than what right do they have to force their definition of marriage being between two people onto those who think it should be between more than two people? and etc etc
Therefore they would have to advocate the legalisation of every union that someone at a whim or fancy wished to call a marriage, or they themselves are also discriminating and are against ‘marriage equality’. Thus opening the door to many other definitions and once marriage can mean anything, than pretty soon it means nothing.
I was watching a Dr Phil episode where he had both sides on and was talking about SSM, and he mentioned along the lines of “How will allowing this homosexual couple to marry affect your marriage?”
On the outside I believe this looks like a good question (one used often by same sex marriage advocates).
However, No one is imposing any other unions someone at a whim or fancy wishes to call a marriage on me either, they are just including it into the definition and saying “If you don’t agree with it, than just don’t do it” but once marriage can mean anything, than pretty soon it means nothing.
And as Ender so well articulated it for me on another thread in reply to what I said here -
Ender:
I don’t think this point is fully appreciated. Once the definition of marriage becomes accepted as nothing more than an arbitrary definition by the state, then there are no logical arguments to set any limits to it at all. One woman in Washington (state) wanted to marry her house, well - why not? No one is forcing you to marry a house. You aren’t harmed if she marries a house. How do we justify discriminating against her? It sounds ludicrous but if we accept that the meaning of the term marriage is completely arbitrary then we have no rational basis on which to place any limit at all.
I believe Ender is absolutely correct here.
I believe Marriage being only between a man and a woman used to be a self evident truth, that is soundly backed up with a quick study of the reproductive organs (biology 101) but with the total rejection of this, how do you place any limit at all on it?
Many people say “How does this change (same sex marriage) in civil marriage change the Sacrament of Matrimony in any way?” as if we should therefore advocate it and legalise it as a “live and let live” or “tolerance” thing.
In which I would pose the same scenario above and say, “How does this change (recognising this woman and her house as married) in civil marriage change the Sacrament of Matrimony in any way?” the answer would be, it doesn’t. I believe It instead makes a mockery of marriage and once marriage can mean anything, than pretty soon it means nothing.
Please continue to next post -
