fun of divorce! :-)
Actually, I've seen many a homosexual couple whom has created a "family
structure". Sure, they may have 2 dads or 2 moms, but aside from being
outside the "norm", how can this be worse than other situations?
Should a marriage between an abusive husband and or wife be anymore
valid than a union between 2 loving people of the same gender?
Some people feel that a homosexual union will create homosexual
children. Okay, when I think back to my childhood, I don't remember my
parents even having a talk about sex with me. I barely remember them
kissing, and thinking about them having sex was well.....eeew! So how
did I turn out heterosexual? I'm pretty sure that's biological. Now I
will admit that people can be influenced greatly by brainwashing
techniques etc. that would cause them to be something different than
what they are, but what kind of parent would want to do that to their child.
I know in the bible that it talks about a marriage being a union between
a man and a woman. But the bible's also filled with a lot of other
stuff that doesn't apply or is ignored today.
<snippet source="http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm">
*Deuteronomy 22:28-29* requires that a virgin woman who has been raped
must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings are towards the rapist.
</snippet>
Lastly, I'm not saying a christian's perspective is wrong. People
should hold whatever belief's they want to, but the government shouldn't
discriminate based on those beliefs.
marlon
Matthew Small wrote:
> I don't think I agree with you - the basic precept of marriage is to
> create a family structure, and swinging violates that precept since it
> introduces an outsider into the structure. The family structure is
> central to ours and most societies, which is why there is a push for
> same sex marriages by homosexual couples. Why get married if you want
> to include others? Only for the licensing, as Jim Campbell tells me.
> I guess the next logical step for the court to take is to allow
> marriages of three or more people - and it will happen.
>
> - Matt Small
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Heald, Tim
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 11:02 AM
> Subject: RE: CNN Breaking News
>
> Realistically adultery is a religious construct. You look at the
> various
> polyamory movements and swingers and so forth and see groups that don't
> believe in monogamy, and they are perfectly happy with their
> choice. Now
> obviously you need to look at it kind of like contract law too I
> guess. If
> you agree to monogamy during your vows you should be somehow bound, but
> altering the vows to allow extra marital relations should certainly be
> allowed. The military has some very out dated laws regarding sexuality
> still. Sodomy of any kind, even when consent is given, is prohibited.
> That's just silly in this day and age.
>
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Haggerty, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 10:58 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: CNN Breaking News
>
> I was just thinking the same thing...
>
> Obviously, adultery has no consistent meaning in a legal sense and all
> definitions of it should be thrown out until something that works can be
> discovered. This should apply to religious institutions as well.
>
> Should mean Erika is released from any monogomous obligations she
> previously felt bound by, Gel.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 10:51 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: CNN Breaking News
>
> So let me get this right...
>
> In Massachusetts, same-sex marriages are ok
>
> But in New Hampshire, if you are married and have an affair with someone
> of
> the same sex, it is not adultery.
>
> _____
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
