Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
you know
Is this you? Claim Profile »
9 months ago
in Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8 on ETC: Everyday Thoughts Collected
No, it's a pretty poor point. When did I say "anyone" and "everyone," or anything like it? Children are the property of their parents and can't give legal, binding consent. ergo, they can't wed. Gay adults CAN give consent, and belong only to themselves.
And Michael, your attitude, which by the way paints your blog, is exactly what gives Christians a bad name. As if every non christian who doesn't need God to hand over morality is just some heathen in need of a baptism. It's pretty sickening,
And I really wonder why, Mike, you haven't done a blog on Palin's interview with Couic. Hmmm...
And Michael, your attitude, which by the way paints your blog, is exactly what gives Christians a bad name. As if every non christian who doesn't need God to hand over morality is just some heathen in need of a baptism. It's pretty sickening,
And I really wonder why, Mike, you haven't done a blog on Palin's interview with Couic. Hmmm...
1 reply
9 months ago
in Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8 on ETC: Everyday Thoughts Collected
No, and I couldn't imagine this is seriously your argument. You're not exercising your right. Just like if you don't adopt a child, or don't vote, you're not exercising what you don't have.
The benefits, Randy, are given to couples because they benefit society. And this may be a shock to your system, but couples don't just benefit the world with the children.
And Randy, why don't you run your logic all the way through. Because, really, if that's the case, it not just Gays that can't have a true marriage before God, but Muslims too. They don't worship the true God, correct? At the very least they reject God's Son as His Son. So they can't have a true marriage either. In fact, NO group who doesn't subscribe to your dogma could.
But I don't see Exodus or Focus on the Family or any other religious organization trying to protect marriage in that way.
And by the way, marriage is a right for all human's. Even if Jesus didn't exercise it.
The benefits, Randy, are given to couples because they benefit society. And this may be a shock to your system, but couples don't just benefit the world with the children.
And Randy, why don't you run your logic all the way through. Because, really, if that's the case, it not just Gays that can't have a true marriage before God, but Muslims too. They don't worship the true God, correct? At the very least they reject God's Son as His Son. So they can't have a true marriage either. In fact, NO group who doesn't subscribe to your dogma could.
But I don't see Exodus or Focus on the Family or any other religious organization trying to protect marriage in that way.
And by the way, marriage is a right for all human's. Even if Jesus didn't exercise it.
2 replies
Randy
I didn't mention anything about children in this thread and you could make the same arguments by putting it in the right context.... marriage is not a right it is a benefit according to our legal system. That's the way it has always been considered and should remain that way.
Not every good thing is a right and to frame it as such is to reframe the debate in a way that isn't true.
Not every good thing is a right and to frame it as such is to reframe the debate in a way that isn't true.
Mensley
Marriage actually isn't a right for all humans. Children don't have the right to marry, and people who are already married don't have the right to marry again should their eye wander (unless they dissolve their current marriage--which frankly, our legal system makes far too easy).
If we take your logic to its ultimate conclusion--that marriage ought to be directed by personal proclivities--then polygamy will be the result. That our the abolition of marriage altogether. Lifelong, monogamous heterosexual marriage isn't a gay person's automatic orientation--but it isn't anyone else's, either.
If we take your logic to its ultimate conclusion--that marriage ought to be directed by personal proclivities--then polygamy will be the result. That our the abolition of marriage altogether. Lifelong, monogamous heterosexual marriage isn't a gay person's automatic orientation--but it isn't anyone else's, either.
9 months ago
in Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8 on ETC: Everyday Thoughts Collected
Maybe because it's a human right, not a heterosexual privilege?
1 reply
Randy
It's a human "right"? So those of us who aren't married, can't get married or unwillingly unmarried or choosing to not marry somehow have less rights?
I as a single man have as many rights as married people. I just don't have the same government "benefits" they do.
Marriage is a benefit and people have done it with or without government sanction for all time. Marriage is a covenant before God and sometimes government provides benefits and sometimes it doesn't ... marriage is not a "human right."
I as a single man have as many rights as married people. I just don't have the same government "benefits" they do.
Marriage is a benefit and people have done it with or without government sanction for all time. Marriage is a covenant before God and sometimes government provides benefits and sometimes it doesn't ... marriage is not a "human right."
Gay adults can give consent, but again, following your logic to its ultimate end, so can polygamists, "swingers", etc. Marriage must have definite boundaries, or it doesn't exist.
And yes, I believe every person (including me) needs God to help them know and do what is right. If that sickens you, so be it.