Defending the Truth

Yes, these heterosexual activists are so fixed in their ways, it's pathetic.

Which came first - marriage or the governmental recognition of marriages? From my understanding, God instituted marriage as a union between a man and a woman long before God instituted governments upon the earth. It just doesn't seem right to me that governments should recognize something as a "marriage" that is not what God instituted as a marriage. I wouldn't say this is discriminitory any more than I would say it was discriminitory to refuse to hire a man to be an egg donor. A man simply wouldn't fit the definition of an egg donor, so the charge of discrimination wouldn't apply.

Not everyone believes in God, and we sure as Hell don't have to conform to His rules.
There is a separation of church and state for a reason - the country is not run by the church.

If God has such a problem with redifining marriage, he can get his arse down here and bitch about it to our faces.

There have been MANY "redefinitions" of marriage over the times. It started out as a contract between two men exchanging goods for goods (goats for a woman) - and a man could have as many of these marriage contracts as he could afford.

Over the years, it has been redefined by who may/may not enter into such contracts, which have been limited to people of different race, religion, ethnicity, etc.

It has only been in the past fifty years in the U.S. that people of different races were legally allowed to marry. There are still some religions that will not endorse a marriage of mixed faith couples and will refuse to perform such ceremonies.

The laws defining who is legally permitted to enter a marriage contract has evolved as mankind gains knowledge, wisdom, experience and compassion.

That which does not evolve will stagnate and rot.

Everyone doesn't have to believe in God for God to exist. I agree that this country is not run by the church, but this country has decided to recognize an institution that has inherently religious connotations to it. When the government tries to remove those religious connotations, while at the same time calling the union "marriage," then it is the government that is trying to trample religion. Remember. there is a separation of church and state for a rerason.

Your juvenile language reminds me of why I never joined this forum when I was first invited several years ago. I guess the forum hasn't changed much, even though you personally weren't here at that time.

oh, that's just absurd.

If everything bookworm just wrote were TRUE, it would be ATHEISTS barred from marrying, not gays.

Not necessarily.

You just made that up.

You said it yourself, from YOUR understanding, God instituted marriage. First of all, I'd like to see even in the Bible where it mentions that. Second, YOUR understanding comes from YOUR religious views. Not everyone shares the same views as you, and yours are not automatically right just because you believe they are.

From MY understanding, while nature and creation may be the result of the union of male and female, there is plenty of room for people on this planet who love each other but do not procreate. Sure, you could argue that if everyone "went gay", then life would cease to exist. But that will never happen, as there will always be plenty of us "breeders" around.

Shit Tristan, I thought only FX was the one that always brings up zoophilia?

that's TRADING a goat for a woman, not a woman having sex WITH the goat