ANother poster made the erroneously claim that homosexuality is under attack for the marriage amendments across the country.

 

Those on that side of the agenda would like for you to believe that BUT nowhere in there is there anything about outlawing homosexuality. It is defining marriage.

 

With that thought I pose the following question. WHAT should marriage be defined at?

 

Now before you rush off at the mouth, think about what you say.

 

Two adults who can make their own choices opens up the following:

 

Adult mother and adult child should be allowed to get married.

Adult father and adult child should be allowed to get married.

Adult Brother and sister should be allowed to get married.

Heck, for that matter, grandma and adult grandchild should be allowed to get married.

 

And if you say, two, why? Why is two okay but 3 is not. Why can't we have a cult marriage of 8 guys and 8 girls that are all married to each other.

 

If your mindset is that adults should be allowed to do what they want as long as they are consenting,. they all of the above scenarios, you would support to make legal.

 

This IS NOT just a homosexual issue but rather "what does this country want to define as a marriage."

It would be the opening of Pandora's Box and anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling himself/herself.

Man leaves his family to marry a woman who does the same thing. One man and one woman.

 

If a same sex couple tries to get "Married" the word doesn't fit. They have a "Union", which is man made.

 

Marriage is God made. God supersedes man.

 

Man also had multiple wives which is also man made. Solomon had 700 wives (700 Mother-In-Laws) and was brought down.

 

Hannah, Samuals Mother's husband had two wives and the sons from the other woman were killed by God. Hannah had more children later.

 

Man shouldn't mess with God, and as we all know they have done it a lot here in the present, God will judge these sinners for breaking his Laws concerning Marriage.

Man leaves his family to marry a woman who does the same thing. One man and one woman.

 

If a same sex couple tries to get "Married" the word doesn't fit. They have a "Union", which is man made.

 

Marriage is God made. God supersedes man.

 

Man also had multiple wives which is also man made. Solomon had 700 wives (700 Mother-In-Laws) and was brought down.

 

Hannah, Samuals Mother's husband had two wives and the sons from the other woman were killed by God. Hannah had more children later.

 

Man shouldn't mess with God, and as we all know they have done it a lot here in the present, God will judge these sinners for breaking his Laws concerning Marriage.

 

Don't forget what David did with Bathsheba when he lusted for her.

Yes, and what happened to their child that was born?

Yes, and what happened to their child that was born?

 

I do not remember.

Yes, and what happened to their child that was born?

 

The child dies...A form of punishment?

Aren't all of the examples you listed forms of incest? I could be mistaken, but isn't incest illegal?

Aren't all of the examples you listed forms of incest? I could be mistaken, but isn't incest illegal?

:thumb: :thumb:

 

I have no issue with homosexuals getting married.

Looks like lbbc should have "thought about what he said before he rushed off at the mouth"...

Edited November 1, 200817 yr by ScarHeel

It would be the opening of Pandora's Box and anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling himself/herself.

 

Exactly. And it brings back memories of the famous Slick Willy remark........ "What is......... is".:eek:

Looks like llbc should have "thought about what he said before he rushed off at the mouth"...

 

:thumb: I'm not sure why LBBC is comparing homosexuality with incest.

:thumb: :thumb:

 

I have no issue with homosexuals getting married.

 

Me neither. I don't feel it is my right to tell two adults whether or not they can get married.

:thumb: :thumb:

 

I have no issue with homosexuals getting married.

Civil marriage and religious marriage are different institutions. I have no problem with homosexual civil unions but I'd have a major problem with a homosexual union in the form of a religious marriage.

Civil marriage and religious marriage are different institutions. I have no problem with homosexual civil unions but I'd have a major problem with homosexual union in the form of a religious marriage.

 

What about freedom of religion? If they believe that their religion is okay with homosexual marriage, and they can find a priest that believes the same thing, why shouldn't they be allowed to have a "religious marriage"?