Thomas I hope that you understand this, you cannot make Christianity whatever you want it to be. All people are sinners that is a fact. So I'm not going to judge against gayness because I myself am not perfect. HOWEVER, it is two VERY different things to be able to accept a sinner as they are, in your case homosexual, and to advocate. A Christian should love all their brothers and sisters in Christ, and accept them, however that does NOT mean they should advocate what they do. Whether you like it or not, homosexuality is a SIN and it is NOT something that should be advocated EVER. Sin should not be advocated no matter what the sin is, there are no exceptions. So I myself stand firmly that gay marriage is wrong.
*edit*
I am editing my answer to offer a little more perspective of my feelings on marriage in general.
Now I'll come at this from another angle. I believe that the issue of marriage should be something free of the state, the law should not be involved. Government has no place in marriage. This may seem strange to you or hard to understand because of my previous statements, but nonetheless I believe the state has no business in marriage, marriage should be something independent of the state. NOW if marriage were independent of the state, who and/or what got married would ...
*edit*
I am editing my answer to offer a little more perspective of my feelings on marriage in general.
Now I'll come at this from another angle. I believe that the issue of marriage should be something free of the state, the law should not be involved. Government has no place in marriage. This may seem strange to you or hard to understand because of my previous statements, but nonetheless I believe the state has no business in marriage, marriage should be something independent of the state. NOW if marriage were independent of the state, who and/or what got married would ...
Thomas I hope that you understand this, you cannot make Christianity whatever you want it to be. All people are sinners that is a fact. So I'm not going to judge against gayness because I myself am not perfect. HOWEVER, it is two VERY different things to be able to accept a sinner as they are, in your case homosexual, and to advocate. A Christian should love all their brothers and sisters in Christ, and accept them, however that does NOT mean they should advocate what they do. Whether you like it or not, homosexuality is a SIN and it is NOT something that should be advocated EVER. Sin should not be advocated no matter what the sin is, there are no exceptions. So I myself stand firmly that gay marriage is wrong.
*edit*
I am editing my answer to offer a little more perspective of my feelings on marriage in general.
Now I'll come at this from another angle. I believe that the issue of marriage should be something free of the state, the law should not be involved. Government has no place in marriage. This may seem strange to you or hard to understand because of my previous statements, but nonetheless I believe the state has no business in marriage, marriage should be something independent of the state. NOW if marriage were independent of the state, who and/or what got married would be up to the individual's discretion, and people like myself would have no say in who or what would be able to get married. Under these circumstances a gay or lesbian couple could be married no problem.
SO if gays TRULY want to be free to do as they please the LESS government is the answer, NOT more government.
Once again I realize it may be difficult to understand that I feel that way on the issue, that on one side I am against gay marriage, but on the other I say it would not be up to my discretion. What I'm trying to say that as long as it is a state's issue, I would vote against it if it came to that, because I believe it is wrong. But at the same time, marriage should NOT be a states issue. If it was not a state's issue, it would not be up to my discretion.
(more)*edit*
I am editing my answer to offer a little more perspective of my feelings on marriage in general.
Now I'll come at this from another angle. I believe that the issue of marriage should be something free of the state, the law should not be involved. Government has no place in marriage. This may seem strange to you or hard to understand because of my previous statements, but nonetheless I believe the state has no business in marriage, marriage should be something independent of the state. NOW if marriage were independent of the state, who and/or what got married would be up to the individual's discretion, and people like myself would have no say in who or what would be able to get married. Under these circumstances a gay or lesbian couple could be married no problem.
SO if gays TRULY want to be free to do as they please the LESS government is the answer, NOT more government.
Once again I realize it may be difficult to understand that I feel that way on the issue, that on one side I am against gay marriage, but on the other I say it would not be up to my discretion. What I'm trying to say that as long as it is a state's issue, I would vote against it if it came to that, because I believe it is wrong. But at the same time, marriage should NOT be a states issue. If it was not a state's issue, it would not be up to my discretion.
We begin the debate with two major problems. First, gays are being treated like second class citizens in this country and should not be. Second, the state does not have and should not have any jurisdiction over religious ritual, doctrine, or bias. How can we ensure equal rights for gays while protecting religious freedom?
Well, I originally thought that marriage was an activity that should be confined to the religious sector. Whatever religious rituals a church wants to go through should not be interfered upon by the state (within certain limits). Likewise, I figured the churches had no business influencing the state, namely, by pressuring it to endorse certain rituals, doctrine, and bias over others. The reality is that heterosexual couples get benefits and rights that same sex couples don’t, even when they are married by the same church. This is because the church HAS indoctrinated the state to an extent, and the state plays along, cherry picking which ancient rituals it wants to endorse, and which rituals it will not tolerate.
Here is the solution. Let the churches to do whatever they want regarding marrying people, and let the state do what it wants regarding recognizing these unions. The churches can justifiably do this on the basis of religious...
We begin the debate with two major problems. First, gays are being treated like second class citizens in this country and should not be. Second, the state does not have and should not have any jurisdiction over religious ritual, doctrine, or bias. How can we ensure equal rights for gays while protecting religious freedom?
Well, I originally thought that marriage was an activity that should be confined to the religious sector. Whatever religious rituals a church wants to go through should not be interfered upon by the state (within certain limits). Likewise, I figured the churches had no business influencing the state, namely, by pressuring it to endorse certain rituals, doctrine, and bias over others. The reality is that heterosexual couples get benefits and rights that same sex couples don’t, even when they are married by the same church. This is because the church HAS indoctrinated the state to an extent, and the state plays along, cherry picking which ancient rituals it wants to endorse, and which rituals it will not tolerate.
Here is the solution. Let the churches to do whatever they want regarding marrying people, and let the state do what it wants regarding recognizing these unions. The churches can justifiably do this on the basis of religious freedom. The state can justifiably do this on the basis of civil rights and encouraging healthy civil behavior. The only people who lose are those that want to violate the separation of church and state. And they should lose.
Saying that the government should just keep its hands off the matter is unrealistic and no solution.
Again, I apologize.
Your argument is pathetic. You should be ashamed.