If it destroys the family, or reduces the Christian influence in society,
he’ll be championing it.
You cannot change the definition of something that God defines.
An organization however formed by man, which adheres to certain principles and beliefs CAN be redefined.... such as the BSA.
Let us make that distinction.
It’s OK to steal if you only do it to a few people. And if you are stealing, it is most advantageous to steal from those who have the stuff to make it worthwhile. Duh!
Have you ever noticed that much, or most of what government does is things which would be considered criminal if you did it yourself, or with a group of cooperating friends (call it a “gang”)? Much of what was considered vice is either taken over by the government (the biggest, toughest gang in the neighborhood), or legalized to please their supporters (if there is no real cash profit involved). Almost all the old rackets are now in government hands: gambling, liquor, counterfeiting, and (coming soon) prostitution. The latter has long been controlled by the police in México. It is licensed in Nevada and many European countries: government as the pimp.
We are in effect being ruled by a large, very complicated, criminal gang.
Now anyone who studies sociology of gangs, knows that there must be some unifying bonds among the members of a gang, so that they know on whom to prey, and whom to trust. In many gangs ethnicity is a unifying factor. This is probably our future, as the country breaks into ethnic and linguistic factions. That is the way it works in Russia.
The rule of law is disintegrating, and only a thin veil of democracy remains: but it is meaningless, without constitutional restraints, which are being swept aside in succession almost daily.
I await the court case over whether a wealthy person may marry their son/daughter (the man and woman combinations really don't matter). Of course they'd be marrying so that the offspring could inherit their parent's estate tax-free, but that wouldn't matter. I'm eager to hear the twisted logic from the homosexuals as to why that shouldn't be allowed.
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable— what then?"
-George Orwell, 1984
See tag line.
It may be time for churches to stop acting as agents of the state with respect to registering civil unions as a subtext of performing religious marriages.
Gov’t employee? Share the LURATIVE benefits with whomever and how may you want. NICE
correction-—LUCRATIVE
So Marriage "meant" excluding gays all along, and was never about lifetime commitments and an oath before the Almighty to build a decent home and family?
Or was it that the government's treatment of married folks was always about excluding gays, and was never really about encouraging the positive social structure of dedicated families?
Interesting.
In reality, all that has changed is that government (unwisely, IMHO) has changed how it will treat same-sex couples who make long-term commitments to each other. They (stupidly, IMHO) used the same term for it as the traditional relationship, but maybe that was just to thumb their noses at religious folk (as our current immature crop of Liberals seem to enjoy doing). All that has to be done to reverse this damage is what should have been done in the first place: get government out of the business of treating married and single folk differently. Then gender-preference in committed relationships becomes meaningless. It is government's refusal to give up this tiny aspect of social engineering that is at the pivot point of the entire argument. Once we are taxed the same, can freely choose who is and is not in our insurance policies (and insurers are freely able to pass those costs on to the insureds), and can have our system to allow medical decisions (like DNR) to be made by anyone we choose, then EVERY difference that the gay lobby is fighting for immediately disappears, and we as a people all gain more Freedom in our lives... sadly, nobody seems interested in more freedom and less government intrusion into our lives these days.
I kind of feel sorry for Mrs. Lonsberry.
I’ll define marriage in 2013 in one word-
Whatever.
The IRS will be having fits over this, too many people will save money by filing as married. They probably already have charts & graphs showing how much it is going to cost them. ( they believe it`s their money )
Look for new IRS regulations soon.
This crusade isn’t over. The ramifications are endless. You will have to accept homosexual marriages in all areas of your life, or face prosecution.
Children will be taught in every grade level in every public school about homosexual sex and “marriage”, and about how it is no different from heterosexual sex and traditional marriage. If you protest, your child will be ostracized. If you continue to protest, you might logically be charged with “hate crimes”.
Your Church/Synagogue will eventually be forced into silence on the subject of homosexuality. You will not be allowed to speak against homosexuality. Think that’s unlikely? It’s already law in Canada.
If you own a business, you must use that business to support homosexuality no matter what your belief system. If you sell flowers, you must provide them for homosexual “weddings”.
Whatever you do, wherever you go, homosexuality as a normalcy will be in your face and you must not only accept it, you must acknowledge and accommodate it. You can no longer ignore it, homosexual “marriage” will soon be the law of the land and that means there will no longer be allowed any barriers regarding it. None, whatsoever.
What if a father marries his son to avoid inheritance taxes? That might be illegal in some states, why, if they love each other? If it is illegal in a state then marry a stepson or stepdaugther and avoid inheritance taxes, yahoo.