More on Marriage

Read After the Ball ( http://article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm ). Seriously. Liberals are associating gay marriage with black slavery and women’s suffrage. Before you write off everything I’ve written below because I’m a bigot, understand that I’ve given careful consideration and a lot of thought to the liberal point of view ( http://integritycanada.org/publications/Challenging_Conventional_Wisdom-Schuh.pdf ), and I would expect the same courtesy. But, is it a civil rights issue? Are gays not equal under the law? Can gays own property? Can gays vote? Can they run for office? Do they have to sit at the back of the bus? What about marriage? Gays have always had the right to marry. A gay man is able to marry any single woman that is willing. Fighting for gay marriage as a civil right is akin to fighting for a man's right to be treated like a woman under the law, and they’re not treated the same (infanticide, alimony, etc…). What is marriage? It is a religious rite. Legal marriage is an archaic law, the legacy of a society where everybody was Christian. Is it a charter issue, as Paul Martin was always going on about? If it was, why did it require an act of parliament to change it? Because, it isn't a charter issue. It never was, and he knows it. He was just trying to associate gay marriage with fighting for civil rights through the charter. If it truly was a charter issue, the Supreme Court of Canada would have struck down the marriage laws as unconstitutional. Paul Martin wanted gay marriage protected in statute law because it was not a charter issue. To take something that is and change it is to make it something it was not. So, gay marriage can never exist in the way set out in the Christian Bible, no matter what is changed. The most intelligent thing I have heard during the whole debate was something Ralph Klein said. He said that the government should get out of the marriage business. I whole heatedly agree.

Students (where a lot of the Facebook posts come from)think they're so smart, enlightened. But they're too stupid to recognize that educational intuitions are breading grounds for liberals. They are being manipulated and shaped and don't even realize it.

When homosexuality was seen to be a sickness (gay couples can't procreate), way back when, gay people protested and said it was a lifestyle choice. Then, the supposition that there may be a gay gene caused a change of position to, "I have no choice" or "it's the way God made me." Which is it? If it's a choice, then that's a hard position to defend. If it is a gene, then that changes the equation. And the question is "why?" Why would God create gay people?

So, assuming that it's a sin, should gay people be allowed in Church? Yes. Welcome all. Should they be allowed to be priests? Yes. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Where would we draw the line? Can liars be priests? What about adulterers? It does present a great challenge though; if it is a sin, and we should ordain them, and they preach gay is good and changes must be made to doctrine, what then?

So, what do they really want then? To be approved of and accepted? To be told that it is good and right and wholesome? Are they looking for God to tell them it's okay? Are they trying to destroy the Christian faith? Why the push to change the definition of a rite rooted in religion? Why not something distinct? Why change something that's been around for thousands of years now, from man and woman to what ever we want? Why make it something is was not? Why destroy? Why not create? Why, why, why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEMUn4KEVe8