lady lazarus:
Yes, and legally it's a secular institution.For a goverment to have put forward amendments regarding something for which the only real arguments against seem to have some sort of a religious basis was muddying the waters of seperation.
The arguement wasn't whether marriage was secular, it was whether it's a civil right.... which it isn't. Civil rights are protected in the constitution. Marriage isn't, or else we wouldn't be having this debate in the country.
Actually, I'm far from narrow minded, and while I freely admit that there are areas in which I am ignorant, this is not one of them. This may sound condescending - if so I apologise, because I don't mean it to - but you haven't been around here for a long time, and there have been some very nasty things said...more than enough to suggest that people have some serious problems with homosexuals. I was in no way suggesting that you thought they were evil, but I can assure you, to assume that no-one else feels they are is the height of ignorance.
Well then we agree. Their are a lot of people out there that hate homosexuals, but to base it solely on Christian scripture is completely wrong. The scriptures say to love everybody. They're grossly misguided.
As far as voting goes they should leave their predjudice behind. But you have to remember the Christians point of view. To most Christians marriage is an institution created by God, not government. Government has only adopted it. I can certainly understand why a Christian wouldn't want that institution perverted by man. It can be seen as offensive to their religion.
Now, those married Christians that go and preach against gay-marriage while they're in the middle of a divorce then they can certainly be seen as hypocritical. If marriage is sacred, then it's sacred. Don't argue against gay-marriage and and support divorce at the same time, if you believe in the sacred marriage of God.
That would be an interesting test to give a Christian to see what they really believe.
Having said that, I would never equate the feelings I have for my husband to the desire I have to own such a horse. What I took exception to was the idea that falling in love with someone is something that you can weigh up the pros and cons on and then proceed with due care. It is not the way most normal people conduct a relationship. Generally by the time you need to consider whether loving that person is a good idea you're already there.
By the way, I wasn't defending anyone by passing the buck, I was merely trying to explain to you - who clearly either has a strange idea (or none at all) of how the human heart works - that where the heart leads, people will follow.Lack of foresight doesn't come into it. Personally, I think it's a huge lack of foresight to be bossom buddies with a bloke who will sell you up the river to the authorities so they can nail you to a tree. Many would disagree with me, I'm sure. Let us leave logic out of love,then, shall we?
Then you're just reading too far into what I'm saying. I only argue that it's irresponsible to blame the government. It sucks, yes, but it's not the governments fault.
Melody:
I equate it to the rules I make for my children. They may not understand *why* the rule is there, and many times have accused me of not being reasonable or unfair because they didn't see the big picture, but just have to have faith that there is a reason for them and that I have their best interests at heart.
Excellent point. I'm curious, Melody, how you would answer to the question posed above. You seem pretty genuine in your faith, but do you uphold every aspect of sacred marriage? Namely, do you condem divorce outside of adultery?
