"Ten Persuasive Answers to the Question 'Why not gay marriage?'"
Q4: Can't we have religious marriage and civil marriage?
Point 1: Marriage was the first institution, before church or state
Point 2: Federal spending driven by family fragmentation
Point 3: State has a vested interest in ensuring marriage is strong
Point 4: Marriage cannot simply be either religious or civil; it must be both
Monday, July 21, 2008
Video: Religious Marriage and Civil Marriage
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
All this talk about marrying men, women and even animals is discriminatory to those who find sexual/romatic gratification in inanimate objects, or what is commonly called fetishism. What would be the logical argument against someone wanting to marry, say, their fully automatic Thompson sub-machine gun if that is the object of their love and affection?
How appropriate for a compassionate follower of Christ to belittle a very real situation that affects millions of Americans. I can see the love of Jesus shining through you.
Go ahead and marry your submachine gun. I hope it suffers from premature ejaculation ;-)
A passionate, but not a very logical argument, alexh.
Of course, my hypothesis is absurd! It is about as absurd as homosexual "marriage" is to me and to thousands of years of mankind before me. In all of human history no society, even those that tolerated or condoned homosexuality, had ever thought of marriage between those of the same sex. There must have been some wisdom in reserving marriage to a union between a man and a woman.
I dearly wish I had a Thomson SMG, but I would handle it only with the tenderest of care:>)
Same-sex marriage may be absurd to you, but I assure you millions of people take it very seriously. And just because things have been a certain way doesn't mean that they cannot or should not change.
I sincerely hope you never get that gun. Religious nutjobs and firearms should never mix.
Post a Comment