zoegirl wrote:but sexual pervesion being declared illegal would help keep society in check.
It would?? I must assume you're living in a fantasy world...or at least keeping yourself from seeing the world as it is.
Wow, I wonder why it is that we outlaw rape, child abuse, child prnography if outlawing sexual pervesion doesn't keep society in check? While it may be hard to keep these in check (given the rampant trade in computer porn), it would be ludicrous to NOt outlaw them simply because we are worried about the logistics of the law.
zoegirl wrote:If we mess with the definition of marriage, at what point would we stop? Why isn't three people in love with each other and committed to each not marriage? At what point do we worry about the social implications?
God never defined "marriage"...the word is what we use to describe it.
Umm....why do you think God never defined marriage?!?!?! From Genesis to Christ, it was clear what the mandate was.
On another hand, Christian morals shouldn't be left to the public school system. If you want your children to learn Christian values, I suggest you put some money into your local Christian school system
I never suggested that we lean upon the school system....and I do work at a CHristian school. But I find this argument absurd as well. Again, simply because these are Christian values does not negate their value in society. Why would it? It is also a value seen in other religions. We legislate morality all the time and most of it is based upon Christian values, whether or not society wants to see it that way.
and allow the "world" to define marriage as they please.
Ahhh, so let's allow ALL civil unions between Polygamists, threesomes; quartets; hey a whole conglomerate of people who LOVE each other and want to be committed to each other...After all we shouldn't let the state control morality!!
Bottomline here is...the responsibility of teaching our children Christian morals starts and ends within the family setting.
I don't know why you are including this as an argument. I have neither stated the opposite nor do I suport the opposite. Somehow you think I believe that it isn't our responsibility?!!?!? Of course it begins with the family first. But that doesn't mean that we cannot define marriage. Plain and simple....why not? It is the function of our govenrment to decide the law.
What about the other kids in society with no family? Be a big brother or a big sister...there are plenty of programs out for the concerned to get involved and make a difference.
Ummmm Why in the WORLD are you including this?!?!? Of course there are families without a mother or a father. It's sad, it's unfortunate....it's also not what SHOULD be. It's a result of the fallen world. Peopl get divorced, people die. But in the end, it's what we ACCEPT as the was it should be that's important. In a world not corrupted by sin, there would not be death and there would not be rejection and divorce. ASk any child and they would completely understand that death and divorce STINK. It shouldn't happen. But this shouldn't define our concept of marriage.
Using your logic, we should just be resigned and accept murder....after all it happens, right? Goodness, we better not make the murderer feel bad.
And absolutely there should be programs like big brother or sister.
cslewislover wrote:I don't think that by allowing gays to marry that the world will go "into a tailspin of sexual perversion." A lot of the world is already there, lol. I remember this painful argument on another board not all that long ago.
Then there's no real reason to legislate it. It's inevitable.
Wow, I wonder if this logic is how Sodom and Gomorrah began it's descent?
By this logic, it's inevitable that people will be murdered....ergo let's stop legislating murder
The issue is not the inevitability of an act, but whether the act is immoral
cslewislover wrote:but I don't think it should be marriage as defined in the bible,
What if we call it a union
and they get everything a "marriage" allows? If Prop. 8 was worded as a "union" instead...?
Where will you draw the line? Suppose 8 women and 8 men all love each other.....four men and one woman? A woman and a dog? Why not? Why should you be so specist?