ok....here is the deal.... i'm sure you know my stance on homosexuality... its a sin... but its not worse than any other sin. sinners are going to sin. we shouldn't expect nonbelievers to not sin (hince what I said earier...). Don't tell them to quit being gay... tell them about love, Jesus's sacrifice, grace... don't just tell them but live it.. show them! the Holy Spirit will do the rest
Now civil unions... whatever... its tough for me to call on that.. I don't see how its not already in effect... If women can kill babies... why not...
The main reason why i am not for gay marriage is because it steps in on the church... right now the church has the choice, but it makes logical sense to say that if it is legalized soon couples will sue churches to not let them get married there. at first it will fail in court probably, but it won't every time. Then that will be the first step in the government controling church... the very thing the founding fathers were worried about that prompted them to write the statement that was later twisted to say "seperation of church and state." Yes it sounds like a crack pot slipery slope theory, but it could happen.
Yeah, I get that, but one question: What do you mean by "right now the church has the choice, but it makes logical sense to say that if it is legalized soon couples will sue churches to not let them get married there"? Is it not a fact that couples can be married at a courthouse without church involvement?
My stance is Ok, maybe not gay "marriage," since I know it does have religious connotations, but why not a civil union? After all, two people want to create a bond; what kind of free-speech-pressing Americans are we to deny them that? If it creates happiness for them, so be it; just don't try to outlaw that for them because of your beliefs. Because really, a homosexual couple being in a union doesn't mean that you have to be gay too. Everyone else is no worse off for it. No, that issue was only played for the politics. Every politician stood behind a point, hoping to rally support. Same thing in the abortion arena. Let's face it: it's legal. America is practically split down the middle about it, so IF it does get repealed, it will only get reinstated within a presidential term or two. Sure, that doesn't make it right from a ethical point of view, and everyone should have an opinion on it, but it doesn't mean that every presidential candidate should make it a prime plank year after year. Pro-choice or pro-life, either way, it's not going to make a difference in the political fashion.
i'm sure you know my stance on homosexuality... its a sin... but its not worse than any other sin. sinners are going to sin. we shouldn't expect nonbelievers to not sin (hince what I said earier...). Don't tell them to quit being gay... tell them about love, Jesus's sacrifice, grace... don't just tell them but live it.. show them! the Holy Spirit will do the rest
Now civil unions... whatever... its tough for me to call on that.. I don't see how its not already in effect... If women can kill babies... why not...
The main reason why i am not for gay marriage is because it steps in on the church... right now the church has the choice, but it makes logical sense to say that if it is legalized soon couples will sue churches to not let them get married there. at first it will fail in court probably, but it won't every time. Then that will be the first step in the government controling church... the very thing the founding fathers were worried about that prompted them to write the statement that was later twisted to say "seperation of church and state." Yes it sounds like a crack pot slipery slope theory, but it could happen.
Reply
My stance is Ok, maybe not gay "marriage," since I know it does have religious connotations, but why not a civil union? After all, two people want to create a bond; what kind of free-speech-pressing Americans are we to deny them that? If it creates happiness for them, so be it; just don't try to outlaw that for them because of your beliefs. Because really, a homosexual couple being in a union doesn't mean that you have to be gay too. Everyone else is no worse off for it. No, that issue was only played for the politics. Every politician stood behind a point, hoping to rally support. Same thing in the abortion arena. Let's face it: it's legal. America is practically split down the middle about it, so IF it does get repealed, it will only get reinstated within a presidential term or two. Sure, that doesn't make it right from a ethical point of view, and everyone should have an opinion on it, but it doesn't mean that every presidential candidate should make it a prime plank year after year. Pro-choice or pro-life, either way, it's not going to make a difference in the political fashion.
Reply
Leave a comment