You have to read this post at the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy blog. What gay activists are trying to do in Washington is just plain ridiculous. Ugh.
6 comments
  1. I think you’re missing the point of the legislation. Why do you think this is important for the people who are pushing for the passing of this law?

  2. I think you’re missing the point of the legislation. Why do you think this is important for the people who are pushing for the passing of this law?

  3. I think you’re missing the point of the legislation. Why do you think this is important for the people who are pushing for the passing of this law?

  4. Hi, thanks for posting. I don’t think I am missing the point. They are tyring to make a statement. They are trying to circumvent the popular argument that since gays can not procreate they should not marry.

    Homosexuals are trying to obtain special rights. They already possess equal rights. Every adult in the United States has the right to marry… somebody of the opposite sex. They are trying to redifine what is exceptable and not acceptable in society.

    First of all marriage is what it is, a union between man & woman. God created it as such, and that is how it has been defined since the beginning of time (which I’m sure you and I would probably disagree as to when that was, but I digress).

    Secondly if homosexuals get their way, what’s next? I’m sure that NAMBLA would love to see that their members have the right to marry boys, perhaps we should allow polygamy again too, I mean after all should polygamists have the constitutional right to have more than one wife (or to be equal opportunity more than one husband)?

    What if somebody wanted to marry themselves, or a immediate family member, or their dog should that be allowed too? Anyway those are just a couple arguments to consider. I have more objections than what I have time for in this comment.

  5. Hi, thanks for posting. I don’t think I am missing the point. They are tyring to make a statement. They are trying to circumvent the popular argument that since gays can not procreate they should not marry.Homosexuals are trying to obtain special rights. They already possess equal rights. Every adult in the United States has the right to marry… somebody of the opposite sex. They are trying to redifine what is exceptable and not acceptable in society.First of all marriage is what it is, a union between man & woman. God created it as such, and that is how it has been defined since the beginning of time (which I’m sure you and I would probably disagree as to when that was, but I digress).Secondly if homosexuals get their way, what’s next? I’m sure that NAMBLA would love to see that their members have the right to marry boys, perhaps we should allow polygamy again too, I mean after all should polygamists have the constitutional right to have more than one wife (or to be equal opportunity more than one husband)?What if somebody wanted to marry themselves, or a immediate family member, or their dog should that be allowed too? Anyway those are just a couple arguments to consider. I have more objections than what I have time for in this comment.

  6. Hi, thanks for posting. I don’t think I am missing the point. They are tyring to make a statement. They are trying to circumvent the popular argument that since gays can not procreate they should not marry.Homosexuals are trying to obtain special rights. They already possess equal rights. Every adult in the United States has the right to marry… somebody of the opposite sex. They are trying to redifine what is exceptable and not acceptable in society.First of all marriage is what it is, a union between man & woman. God created it as such, and that is how it has been defined since the beginning of time (which I’m sure you and I would probably disagree as to when that was, but I digress).Secondly if homosexuals get their way, what’s next? I’m sure that NAMBLA would love to see that their members have the right to marry boys, perhaps we should allow polygamy again too, I mean after all should polygamists have the constitutional right to have more than one wife (or to be equal opportunity more than one husband)?What if somebody wanted to marry themselves, or a immediate family member, or their dog should that be allowed too? Anyway those are just a couple arguments to consider. I have more objections than what I have time for in this comment.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Here I Stand: The Church

This is my eighth installment of my series on what I believe…

Oh My Aching Head!

I’ve had this headache since last Monday. I’ve had this pain before,…

Prayerful “Anniversary”…

As I sit and reflect on the events of the last year…

A Match Made in ….

UCC President to Speak at Gay Megachurch – The leader United Church…