Am I missing something here?

Help Support CattleToday:

On a personal level, I understand the outrage... On a political level, I want freedom for everyone. Especially now when we're all in the minority. If I want freedom to be who I am, I have to support freedom for everyone else. Get the government out of it and lets vote for morality by inviting people to church with us.
 
Please folks, I didn't mean to start a Forrest fire. Please calm down and discuss this like ladies and gentleman.
This gay marriage thing is just one of many things that the government is or has imposed on all of us that I disagree with.

As cross_7 said " So where does it end ?"
As it applies to taxes, gun control, religion, higher fuel and fertilizer prices, lower cattle prices all of which have been chipped away at by the government.

Homosexuality just happened to be the one issue in the news and as I always do, I took a stand on it because I feel gay marriage is wrong.
If you think it is OK that's fine with me, but please don't deny me my right to oppose what I feel is wrong.
Thank you
Pete
 
Ryder":1kvj6eyr said:
cow pollinater":1kvj6eyr said:
If I want freedom to be who I am, I have to support freedom for everyone else.

Why?
well, at least 51% of our nation thinks you and I are a couple of backward hicks for raising cattle for slaughter, killing snakes, believing in God, and thinking that hard work should pay off and laziness shouldn't etc... Would you really enjoy having the majority tell us which of our activities they see as moral and fit and which ones they don't? To some degree that already happens and we squeal like stuck pigs when it does.
 
I don't mean to start another argument here as we're all fairly level headed but I'm curious as to how many people that agree with the marriage is for procreation only stance would support measures that would limit marriage to only men and women of child bearing age, or require that fertility testing be done prior to marriage and certificates denied to infertile persons, etc.
 
It's not that marriage is for procreation. Marriage is a sacred Bond between a man and a woman. Or at least its supposed to be. Any deviation is not marriage no matter what quasi popular term you want to put on it. We all have to draw our lines in the sand of what we deem acceptable or not on various things in our lives. No matter how popular or acceptable homosexuality becomes, I'll never accept it as being anything normal. It's a deviancy pure and simple
 
I don't believe "marriage is for procreation only" so I probably shouldn't respond, but
I would NOT " support measures that would limit marriage to only men and women of child bearing age, " etc
Because I believe marriage is a life time commitment between a man and a woman regardless of any procreation for religious reasons and that marriage is a tool of religion and not that of the government. Therefore if the government would implement such a requirement it would be interfering with my freedom of religion.
And you would not have separation of church and state.

And just so you know, I do not support government using marriage or not as a means to set someone's income taxes.
Pete
 
P & H cattle":c1btkszw said:
and that marriage is a tool of religion and not that of the government.
I agree. It is not the governments place to tell us who can and cannot be married. Glad we're on the same page.
 
cow pollinater

Then we are in agreement that a marriage is between a man and a woman as defined by the church and not the government? Marriage is " a union between a man and a woman".

Now if gays want to call their union other then marriage and the government recognizes it for what ever reason then I have no problem with it as long as we all are treated equally under the law.

Pete
 
P & H cattle":24gu77l1 said:
Then we are in agreement that a marriage is between a man and a woman as defined by the church and not the government? Marriage is " a union between a man and a woman".

That has been my belief all along. What business does the government even have in marriage? This is a religious ceremony but the government had to stick out its hand wanting to sell a license or should I say tax it. What part of seperation of church and state did they not understand? And then, to make matters worse, the politicians sell themselves by grouping married people into a block of votes and promising them special treatment on their taxes. How is this fair? Would any of this even be an issue if the government hadn't tried to fleece a few extra dollars out of engaged couples? Would this even be an issue if we had a flat tax and everyone was treated equally? Is that not the real issue? Equality.
 
P & H cattle":3li9jga4 said:
cow pollinater

Then we are in agreement that a marriage is between a man and a woman as defined by the church and not the government? Marriage is " a union between a man and a woman".

Now if gays want to call their union other then marriage and the government recognizes it for what ever reason then I have no problem with it as long as we all are treated equally under the law.

Pete
Ever noticed that protestant ministers say "By the power invested in me by THE STATE OF _______ I now pronounce you husband and wife ???
 
TexasBred":2mma18zw said:
P & H cattle":2mma18zw said:
cow pollinater

Then we are in agreement that a marriage is between a man and a woman as defined by the church and not the government? Marriage is " a union between a man and a woman".

Now if gays want to call their union other then marriage and the government recognizes it for what ever reason then I have no problem with it as long as we all are treated equally under the law.

Pete
Ever noticed that protestant ministers say "By the power invested in me by THE STATE OF _______ I now pronounce you husband and wife ???

Good point. If this negatively affected a minority or the gay community the country would be up in arms saying its unconstitutional.
 
There can be many reasons for marriage. Not just to produce more children. Seems to me there are already too many of them. But children do need both a mother and a father. They also need these parents to be united (marriage) to give the security and sense of family for them to be incorporated into.

One, if not the best reason for marriage, is for "completeness". It takes a woman to complete a man and a man to complete a woman. Neither sex has what the other can offer. This is why there cannot be same sex marriage.

Another reason is companionship. "It is not good that man should be alone".

Also for partnership. In the game of life two can survive and accomplish more and do it better and easier than one alone. Maybe this is close to being the same as completeness, but not exactly.

Another reason is to maintain social order.

Marriage is a social, spirititual, religious, traditional union.
None of the government's business.

And that's my say on the matter.
 
There are two families that I am good friends with, these two families each have a daughter and they live together and that's all I know is that they live together. When they come to church they come as two girls going to church, no sitting close, no hugging, no holding hands, no kissing. It's my opinion that the last thing they would want is to embarrass their families or cast aspersion on the church and I'm fine with that, I hope they come every Sunday.

"Christ's mercy is available to all that seek it, however a homosexual lifestyle is incompatible with Christian teaching" that is from the United Methodist Book of Disciplines. That is the official stance of the church and it describes my views as well. Believe me, it is a constant battle to hold that position .

Larry
 

Latest posts

Top