You're gonna have to give me more than just "that's the way it's always been." Don't you ever wonder why it's always been that way (if that's even true) or about the reasons why it's always been that way?
Not allowing gay couples to marry is telling them that their bond is not as important or holy or special as the bond between a man and a woman. And that's just not true. I don't think the intent of a 'marriage' has anything to do with the gender of the parties concerned. I think of marriage as the acknowledgment of a spiritual bond between 2 people infront of God and their friends and family.
I understand the Mormon thing - I used it as an example because there are court cases pendind in Utah asking for polygamy to be granted the same status as marriage - they were filed after the first states started with gay marriage. I use it as an example in my 'next step' way of looking at things. Gay marriage, then polygamy, then what will be considered "marriage" next?
I've got a meeting and then another meeting, but I'll respond to your other points soon.
Comments 6
Not allowing gay couples to marry is telling them that their bond is not as important or holy or special as the bond between a man and a woman. And that's just not true. I don't think the intent of a 'marriage' has anything to do with the gender of the parties concerned. I think of marriage as the acknowledgment of a spiritual bond between 2 people infront of God and their friends and family.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I've got a meeting and then another meeting, but I'll respond to your other points soon.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment