Posted by AuntieMel on February 22, 2005, at 10:53:28
In reply to Political wrest, posted by rayww on February 22, 2005, at 0:20:13
"First do no harm"
"I don’t want our government to change my definition of marriage."
Ray - no matter what the government does it doesn't have the power to change *your* definition of marriage. It is what it is, and that is that.
But is your definition the same as the biblical one? From what I've heard from you I don't think so. Although there are many biblical examples to the contrary marriage then meant many wives, marrying your brother's widow if she's childless. Women then were often treated as property. and so on and so on.
These things evolve as human relationships and civilizations evolve.
-----------------
"Virtues of love, sacrifice, morality, kindness, responsibility, accountability, integrity, honesty, can best be developed within its framework."
All of these things are things to strive for, but I don't believe that it is limited to a traditional (whatever that is) marraige. The same-sex couples that I know are just as moral, kind and honest as anyone else.
My love=based ideal government would give respect and recognition to any couple who loves each other. I don't believe I have any right to judge that they are doing wrong.
The children? The laws of nature say that a same-sex couple will not reproduce, so any children are likely to be adopted. In reality, those adopted children are usually older or disabled - children no one else wants. Is this adoption worse than the foster care system? I don't see how it could be.
"just as long as you don't hurt anyone"
poster:AuntieMel
thread:461623
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050122/msgs/461738.html