"That is ridiculous" they said. "I can't believe you would say that" they argued. "It's not even the same thing" was their contention. Who are "they"? The ones who argued for the redefinition of marriage. That is, our culture no longer wants marriage to be solely between a man and a woman. In fact, the focus of marriage has stopped being about the stability of society and has become about "love". But when has the government ever cared if two people love each other when they get married? And why is the government even involved in marriage to begin with? Theses are important thoughts that can't be fully fleshed out here.
What we do need to understand, though, is the slippery slope. I, as well as others, said this from the very beginning. That is, whatever "new" definition you give to marriage then that same argument can be used for all sorts of sexual orientations (polygamy, beastiality, pedophilia, etc...). Well here it is ladies and gentlemen. The state of Utah just ruled that parts of Utah's law banning polygamy are unconstitutional. This comes from the push of the show 'Sister Wives' on TLC.
I wonder if those who argued for same-sex marriage are also going to argue for polygamous marriage. To be honest I think I would have more respect for them if they did simply for consistency sake. What utter hypocrisy and bigotry on the part of those who are pro-homosexual marriage to then fight against polygamous marriage. If marriage is about love then why can't love be between a man and multiple women? The fight is not about marriage, per se, it is a philosophical duel over Jesus Christ. Is He Lord or was he just a sage who lived 2000 years ago? Our culture has rejected him as Lord and unfortunately a lot of churches are falling in line. If the Church does not stand up for Truth now when will she? Are we going to wait until they are taking our 7 yr old daughters before we cry 'foul'?!?!
My challenge is this: If same-sex marriage should be supported by the State then why not polygamous marriage, beastiality and pedophilia?
To Read The Article on Utah's Ruling Click Here
What we do need to understand, though, is the slippery slope. I, as well as others, said this from the very beginning. That is, whatever "new" definition you give to marriage then that same argument can be used for all sorts of sexual orientations (polygamy, beastiality, pedophilia, etc...). Well here it is ladies and gentlemen. The state of Utah just ruled that parts of Utah's law banning polygamy are unconstitutional. This comes from the push of the show 'Sister Wives' on TLC.
I wonder if those who argued for same-sex marriage are also going to argue for polygamous marriage. To be honest I think I would have more respect for them if they did simply for consistency sake. What utter hypocrisy and bigotry on the part of those who are pro-homosexual marriage to then fight against polygamous marriage. If marriage is about love then why can't love be between a man and multiple women? The fight is not about marriage, per se, it is a philosophical duel over Jesus Christ. Is He Lord or was he just a sage who lived 2000 years ago? Our culture has rejected him as Lord and unfortunately a lot of churches are falling in line. If the Church does not stand up for Truth now when will she? Are we going to wait until they are taking our 7 yr old daughters before we cry 'foul'?!?!
My challenge is this: If same-sex marriage should be supported by the State then why not polygamous marriage, beastiality and pedophilia?
To Read The Article on Utah's Ruling Click Here
RSS Feed
