Posted on 02/24/2012 11:18:47 PM PST by EnglishCon
As Blackstone said of slavery:
“...repugnant to reason, and the principles of natural law...”
You neglected to include the States that have already done so, and judges that have ruled in favor of ‘homosexual marriage’.
I’m not dismissing your theories of degenerate marriage definitions, but unfortunately States and judges are making these theories a reality through the force of law.
You still will not speak plainly.
Do you want to allow each religion, cult, and church to define marriage for themselves, or not?
Okay, let’s play it your way. But first answer this very plain question:
Are you still beating your spouse, yes or no?
I’m sick of these degenerates running this country. They’re the freaks and misfits, not us.
I have tried desperately to understand you.
I keep hearing that you want the government out of enforcing the definition of marriage, and that you want religions to make their own definitions and to be the sole decider of marriage as they see it within their religion.
The government does not own marriage nor have the exclusive right to say who can marry.
The Church antedates any government in existence by a long shot. It speaks with infinitely more credibility, experience, understanding, wisdom and moral authority than the Equalities minister of Great Britain.
It even speaks with more right: natural right. Before feminism took over the universities, educated occidentals understood that.
When will people connect the dots: womynism...Statism...confiscation of freedom...culture of death?
What is the point of that? How does it translate into usable political information?
What action do we take, or support, to protect a single definition of marriage in America?
Here’s my final statement to you on this issue. Take it for what it’s worth without reposting it into a digest of your reasoning.
For as long as we grant govt the right to define marriage, we are beholden to its interpretation of it by force of law, not God’s law, but bureaucratic law, and potentially tyrannical law. The 1st Amendment speaks to this.
Marriage is a sacrament of Faith between one man and one woman witnessed by God. I have no desire to arrest anyone that enjoys pretending it’s something else.
Any conclusions or extended meaning you draw from this should not be considered my views on the matter. So avoid the assertions, implications, and assumptions if you have anything further to say.
FRegards.
According to you it would not be "pretending", it would be a legal definition of marriage. You are clearly saying that you want our common legal definition of marriage to be gone, and that it be replaced with no definition at all, it is whatever people say it is among themselves, polygamy, homosexual, whatever.
That would mean the Army has to count a Mormon's 18 wives as all legal wives. .
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Homo marriage is more than just a narrow "gay" agenda issues. Actually the entire "gay" agenda is meant to revolutionize society into their liking (ie a perverted bath house). But homo-marriage is specifically, as EnglishCon noted, an attack on religion. ALL religion. Weird thing is, leftists have an alliance with Moslems, so sooner or later fur will fly.
Honestly. Go for a nap and the thread explodes!
As you know, I respectfully disagree with you on the trinity. Not exactly smart, but my CO says it is, so it is.
You nailed it.
I truly hate the phrase “hate the sin but love the sinner” as it has, in my experience, been used badly. You hit what it should mean - not what it often means.
Oh come ON mate, you are better than that. You have, as of this post I am responding to (hey, a guy needs to sleep sometime, right - and I work nights mostly), accused 3 people of that.
Stop being a fool - I know you are not. One of those people you have accused is me. It took a while to stop laughing at that, but OK, I can live with the accusation if you really need it.
“Don't sweat the small stuff” is one of the missing commandments. The 12th, I think, after the golden rule.
Your rights under God are laid out by wiser minds than mine. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now, to repeat my question which you keep ignoring, I assume your scroll up button is not working -
A person who granted me life (by saving my a$$) and liberty (by saving my a$$) should be allowed to pursue happiness.
Yes or no?
This sinner wants to know.
Nothing predates the one who created all things that have been created.
You should save that in case someone tries to claim that marriage predates God.
Yes or no?
What? What does that even mean?
You really do fail on reading comprehension, don’t you.
God but you are vague and cutesy.
Is your point about your homosexual friends pursuing happiness?
On the contrary, Colonial history clearly stipulated religion to be subsequent to faith in Christ. Many states had already expressed this in their Bill of Rights prior to the Constitutional Amendment being formed. The 1st Amendment was an attempt to blend the expression of those rights as formulated in the declarations of many of the original states.
It has only been a late 20th century interpretation of a political doctrine for the 1st Amendment to allow the worship of ANY GOD, vice one true God. The relationship between Divine Law and State Law has over 600 yrs of historical development in western history and several thousand years of expression worldwide.
The present usurpers of legitimate authority, who promote anything so long it is antichristian, will be brought to their knees in the future facing perfect righteousness and perfect justice.
Christianity is 2,000 years old.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.