You're viewing a partial stream (from 03/03/04 to 03/03/04), you may want to view the entire stream.
Here Them Bells?
[Note: Yeah! One from the bandwagon posts. I love it. BlogEasy sticks recent posts on their site, so when a current event post is made - it usually draws some comments. See Chris's post and the comments here. Below is the text of my comment (I quote the comment by 'Anonymous').]
First let's ignore the baseless accusations, 'Dude, homophobes have done more to "erode the foundation of our society" than any or all gays.' I'll believe that when I see some sort of legitimate data.
Anonymous: And who says one has to believe in God? That blows your whole theory right there.
Unless of course there is a God. I don't believe there's any obligation to not stand for what you believe (or even know) to be true. If you can question the foundation of my beliefs, then I can question yours. What if there *is* a God - that blows *your* whole theory right there.
You have to start somewhere, and if my 'core' believe is in a God (Who has a desire to be involved in mine and other's personal lives) then that obviously will effect (or should effect) the rest of my beliefs. If you're beliefs are based in a 'core' belief that there is no God - what if you're wrong?
Anonymous: Please don't insult the intelligence of your readers by comparing it to intra-family sexual relationships. I think you know the difference.
How? How do I know the difference. I've grown up all my life believing that marriage is between one man and one woman - now you tell me it's just two loving people. What if someone else tells me it's between three loving people, or two loving siblings. Why shouldn't I believe that?
Quote from my blog (http://tim.timlytle.net):
"May I point out just one thing? Without any research I can give examples of times in history where it was acceptable for two loving family members to be married, and where it was acceptable for three loving people to be married. Can't remember anytime it was considered acceptable for two loving people of the same sex to be married. If we're going to redefine marriage, maybe we should start with the definitions that were once acceptable? To bad the advocates of same-sex marriage won't tolerate that. Maybe we should just forget what definitions are 'acceptable' and just go with the definition of the Person Who defined marriage in the first place."
Anonymous: Mormons believe in bigamy. Some Native American Tribes believe in using certain drugs for "religious experiences". Our government leaves them to their right. Does this mean religion will "cease" to be religion?
Actually, our government denies Mormons (who no longer practice polygamy) the 'right' to marry more than one person. But this does bring up an important point. Whether you believe same-sex marriage is wrong or right - it is against the law. And to marry same sex couples is to break the law. That's why the mayor of that town in New York is now facing criminal charges. You want to change the law? Go right ahead - they already took it to a vote in California, and the majority said 'no'. And as for rights - marriage isn't a right - it's a privilege. One reserved by our government for two people of different genders. If marriage was a right I could just go out, find a girl, and say, "Marry me." And she'd have to. After all, it's my right. Do I even need a girl? I should be able to get married all by myself. Marriage is a right.
Anonymous: The world is a changing place and God, in His infinite wisdom, allows us to adapt and grow. I would suggest you try it.
God's 'infinite wisdom' would by definition be greater than ours. It would also be, by definition, complete. God's wisdom would not change - if it is infinite. So God's not growing - but we are - God can't grow, because He's complete. He may allow us to 'adapt and grow' - but there's only one of two directions we would be going. It's either closer to His perfection, or farther from it. Wouldn't it be wise to know which direction we were going?