Marriage


This subject is so controversial, that many people simply don’t talk about it. Well, this may come as a surprise, but I’m not afraid to talk about it, because I feel my beliefs are correct, and I shouldn’t be ashamed or afraid of the truth.

I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I don’t support gay marriage, because I believe it is morally wrong. When it comes to matters like this, I don’t look to what is socially acceptable, I look to what I believe is acceptable to God. I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.

Do I discriminate, or in anyway dislike homosexuals? No, I don’t. I believe people are free to choose the way they want to live, because we are, after all, a free land. But when people try to force me to accept their lifestyles and decisions, in encroaches on my freedom, and my freedom must be protected as well. The will of the few can not, and should not trump the will of the majority.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

I applaud you being able to articulate why you feel same sex marriage is wrong. But here is a point of view. You call yourself a conservative, therefore I would like to think you believe in smaller government and less regulations. You like freedom for things like guns, health care, social security. Then shouldn't you also feel the government should get out of the bedrooms as well? Personally I may not think the marriages are right, but marriage is a religious term the government shoulnd't define, and the government doesn't belong in the bedroom.

Anonymous said...

Ho hum ...
Yet another right-wing blog cutting and pasting the same old stuff we've read on a thousand blogs before. NC, try to take an original perspective for once, and maybe your blog will garner more interest !

Anonymous said...

Some oppose same sex marriage on religious grounds but some are not convinced by such arguments.

I oppose same sex marriage because it would cut marriage off from biology. Marriage would no longer be connected to procreation, mother, father or blood relatives. It would instead center around adult desire. Children would grow up in a variety of circumstances- some with the mother and a father who gave them birth, some with three or four mothers and no father (in the case of lesbian divorce) and who knows what else. When marriage is redefined to signify a meaningful adult relationship and not much else, it has lost its connection to the future.

Traditional marriage has been attacked by a variety of liberals for 40 some years. Feminists very much favored liberalizing divorce laws. Social conservatives did not. Liberals abolished the taboo against sex outside of marriage. Social conservatives did not. The Supreme Court passed Roe v. Wade. Liberals do not want it overturned. It is no wonder that traditional marriage is in trouble.

Now that it is, proponents of same sex marriage (usually liberal) point to divorce and single motherhood as evidence that traditional marriage is flawed and that therefore we need to institute same sex marriage. This long attack on traditional marriage is very odd and can only come from people who overemphasize individual freedom at the expense of the community.

We can start to find our way back by requiring that both parents agree to a divorce if children are involved. No fault divorce should only apply if no children are involved.

The national dialog on abortion was cut short by Roe v. Wade. I believe that it would be better to turn the issue back to the states. All IMHO

Anonymous said...

Some oppose same sex marriage on religious grounds but some are not convinced by such arguments.

I oppose same sex marriage because it would cut marriage off from biology. Marriage would no longer be connected to procreation, mother, father or blood relatives. It would instead center around adult desire. Children would grow up in a variety of circumstances- some with the mother and a father who gave them birth, some with three or four mothers and no father (in the case of lesbian divorce) and who knows what else. When marriage is redefined to signify a meaningful adult relationship and not much else, it has lost its connection to the future.

Traditional marriage has been attacked by a variety of liberals for 40 some years. Feminists very much favored liberalizing divorce laws. Social conservatives did not. Liberals abolished the taboo against sex outside of marriage. Social conservatives did not. The Supreme Court passed Roe v. Wade. Liberals do not want it overturned. It is no wonder that traditional marriage is in trouble.

Now that it is, proponents of same sex marriage (usually liberal) point to divorce and single motherhood as evidence that traditional marriage is flawed and that therefore we need to institute same sex marriage. This long attack on traditional marriage is very odd and can only come from people who overemphasize individual freedom at the expense of the community.

We can start to find our way back by requiring that both parents agree to a divorce if children are involved. No fault divorce should only apply if no children are involved.

The national dialog on abortion was cut short by Roe v. Wade. I believe that it would be better to turn the issue back to the states. All IMHO

Anonymous said...

Some oppose same sex marriage on religious grounds but some are not convinced by such arguments.

I oppose same sex marriage because it would cut marriage off from biology. Marriage would no longer be connected to procreation, mother, father or blood relatives. It would instead center around adult desire. Children would grow up in a variety of circumstances- some with the mother and a father who gave them birth, some with three or four mothers and no father (in the case of lesbian divorce) and who knows what else. When marriage is redefined to signify a meaningful adult relationship and not much else, it has lost its connection to the future.

Traditional marriage has been attacked by a variety of liberals for 40 some years. Feminists very much favored liberalizing divorce laws. Social conservatives did not. Liberals abolished the taboo against sex outside of marriage. Social conservatives did not. The Supreme Court passed Roe v. Wade. Liberals do not want it overturned. It is no wonder that traditional marriage is in trouble.

Now that it is, proponents of same sex marriage (usually liberal) point to divorce and single motherhood as evidence that traditional marriage is flawed and that therefore we need to institute same sex marriage. This long attack on traditional marriage is very odd and can only come from people who overemphasize individual freedom at the expense of the community.

We can start to find our way back by requiring that both parents agree to a divorce if children are involved. No fault divorce should only apply if no children are involved.

The national dialog on abortion was cut short by Roe v. Wade. I believe that it would be better to turn the issue back to the states. All IMHO

Anonymous said...

Marriage would no longer be connected to procreation, mother, father or blood relatives. It would instead center around adult desire. Children would grow up in a variety of circumstances- some with the mother and a father who gave them birth, some with three or four mothers and no father (in the case of lesbian divorce) and who knows what else. When marriage is redefined to signify a meaningful adult relationship and not much else, it has lost its connection to the future.

Well (other than the lesbian thing), that pretty much describes John McCain's family to a tee, doesn't it?

Anonymous said...

What does a personal attack on John McCain's family have to do with this topic?

Anonymous said...

I'm just kind of confused as to how gay marraige encroaches upon your freedom, where I don't quite understand how the union of two men or two women is going to make you any less free. LOL

Anonymous said...

hahaha It's fantastic to know that you are basing your beliefs on what you think your imaginary friend in the sky would want. I think it might be more important to look at what is acceptable to us LIVING PEOPLE than some possibly existing power hovering above us all. This is honestly one of the most ignorant posts I've ever read.

Notorious Nick said...

Good for you. Mocking the beliefs of millions, nay billions of people must make you feel like a big person. Keep up the good work.

Post a Comment

I reserve the right to delete profane, obscene, or otherwise insulting messages. So please, keep it clean.

While you're at it, visit our message boards!