Federal Marriage Amendment
- Thread starter Kidan
- Start date
LionOfJudah
Member, Dreamcast Fishing Guru
be careful for what you wish for. you wanting the Lord to come soon, means millions if not Billions will go to hell because the church, not just yours, but all, are not doing their God given purpose of making disciples of all nations[b said:
Kidan
Moderator
it didn't pass. which is why i'm saying to write your reps and senators and let them know how you feel about it.[b said:
as for why it didn't pass, is because liberals wish to destroy the traditional and best definition of marriage, as defined by all societies, including those societies that openly accepted homosexuality.
Tek7 (Legacy)
CGA & ToJ President
Moved to Religious Discussion before the debate sets in.
Tradition does not denote truth, nor does it denote feasability. The marriage amendment will and should not be passed because it is demeaning to those of non-heterosexual orientation. The leadership of this country is not in the position to dictate who a person can and cannot love, nor can any other body. The fact that marriage has been traditionally defined as the bond between a man and a women is irrelevant. It's not the 'definition' that is important, but the thought behind it. Homosexuals deserve to be able to share these thoughts, and be officially recognized as real people who are doing this for real reasons.
Here we go again...
Here we go again...
Kidan
Moderator
but society as a whole is allowed to dictate what is best for the continuance of that society.
Marriage as the basic building book of the nuclear family is the ideal, and as such that is why it should be protected.
Gay unions by their very nature, deny the main reasoning for the protections afforded for marriage (i.e. Children). The fact that gays choose to be in a sexual relationship against nature (since sex is, by design, for reproduction, and homosexual relationships cannot reproduce).
you claim it is not the definition that is important, but rather the thought, but I have to say that it is the definition that is important. Marriage is, by definition the union of a man and a woman. It cannot be anything else, without drastically altering what marriage is.
To destroy an institution that has lasted thousands of years, because we don't feel like keeping the traditional and normal definition with have deep, profound and lasting effects, more than likely for the negative.
To top it off, it is the government endorsing a religion. For since my religion says that homosexuality is wrong, forcing me to accept it, forcing my children to be taught that it is right in schools, is denying me my right to freedom of religion.
Marriage as the basic building book of the nuclear family is the ideal, and as such that is why it should be protected.
Gay unions by their very nature, deny the main reasoning for the protections afforded for marriage (i.e. Children). The fact that gays choose to be in a sexual relationship against nature (since sex is, by design, for reproduction, and homosexual relationships cannot reproduce).
you claim it is not the definition that is important, but rather the thought, but I have to say that it is the definition that is important. Marriage is, by definition the union of a man and a woman. It cannot be anything else, without drastically altering what marriage is.
To destroy an institution that has lasted thousands of years, because we don't feel like keeping the traditional and normal definition with have deep, profound and lasting effects, more than likely for the negative.
To top it off, it is the government endorsing a religion. For since my religion says that homosexuality is wrong, forcing me to accept it, forcing my children to be taught that it is right in schools, is denying me my right to freedom of religion.
LITSAFALDA
Prayer Angel, Moderator
Smiles I am only going to say two things one hate the sin and love the sinner and two Matt 7:1-2. Blessings,"Angel"
Genesis1315
Ladies
Even though I know the response I will get back from my Senators ( have written many letters before
) I will still write to them on this one, Kidan.
Gen
Gen
Dark Virtue
New Member
Don't worry Byblos, just remember Paul's teaching:[b said:Quote[/b] (ByblosHex @ Oct. 04 2004,7:16)]I would write but im not even 18 yet... Man this sucks so bad... Oh well Got no one to marry anyway
1 Corinthians 7
8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.
Dark Virtue
New Member
If both your senators are for the amendment, doesn't that mean that the majority of their constituents are also for the amendment?
Dark Virtue
New Member
That's a mighty strong statement Bowser.
Who then sets the standard? Who is accepted as the standard by which all others will be judged?
If you admit that you believe people should be treated unequally, don't complain when you are treated unequally. That would make you a hypocrite.
Who then sets the standard? Who is accepted as the standard by which all others will be judged?
If you admit that you believe people should be treated unequally, don't complain when you are treated unequally. That would make you a hypocrite.
Dark Virtue
New Member
LOL, now you stepped in it.
[b said:
[b said:
What?
[b said:
We, all of us, set the standard. If we are responsible then we will take care of matters when they need to be dealt with. No, it's not a great solution, but I believe that for the state in which we are in it is the best one.