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.
Why is it without purpose?
Um, the purpose of ALL marriage is to join two persons in love for etenity.
Now, why don't you stop procrastinating and answer me?
I just checked your profile and I now understand that I am dealing with a child. Forget "it".
First of all, I never said the time or weather defined marriage. I said that the"dummy it" could refer to time, weather OR something UNSPECIFIC, which sustains what I stated before that, which was that the word it did not represent or replace any word in the way I used it, but that it didn't represent anything in specific.
Second, I asked you to tell me where it said that marriage is between a man and a woman only, and you never answered that. It was very clear, yet you focused on the word "it" because it seems you didn't know what to reply.
Huh, that's funny, and ironic. I may be a child but I hold much better arguments, and apparently know much more.
Also, I may be a child, but at least I know how to directly answer questions and demands. I also know the different uses of the word "it." I know how to sustain my own opinions with facts and bases.
You don't do any of the above, it seems. If I were you I wouldn't judge others for their age. Sometimes, they can surprise you.
If you can't answer a simple question made by a "child", then how are you going to face the real world with the big boys, huh?
I do agree that there is a lot of change and that it naturally happens, and that sometimes you must fight that hard for it... but when it is not necessary, why make it necessary to suffer in order to change something just because it was necessary in a different situation?