It doesn't have to Webby.....
You start off your post with the repair, then go on to justify your personal beliefs as the fix to "this" threat upon what you see as disruptive.
If man extended to others, the freedom to believe, and behave, in a manner they readily extend to themselves, I believe the truth to really what is sustainable (living) would become manifest, and all diversionary options revealed as shortcomings.That’s Kumbaya group-hug type stuff which sounds great sitting around camp fire with hippie girls when you’re trying to get laid, (and i hope you succeeded with that line) but in the day to day world, that falls short. Freedom to believe is one thing, freedom to behave in whatever manner you see fit to find whatever definition of self-fulfillment floats your boat, is another.
In a society, the actions of one affects the actions of the others, which is certainly more so the higher up the scale of actions you go. Changing your walking schedule from going left around the block to going right is not what we're talking about. This is something fundamental, something that is the single most important foundation for children for example. For the economy as well.
It’s inconceivable for a person to think that changing the definition and manifestation of an institution which has meant one thing for all of human history to something else, won’t have an impact is foolishness. And if you think you can predict what those impacts will be, count yourself foolish twice. I know this looks good in theory ( too me
) and next to impossible to fulfill, however, if I find I practise it, I have freed myself from the energy to battle all these society skirmishes, that will never see resolution to the reason(s) for them.
Am I copping out, no, it just that my "battle" is on a much smaller theater .
Edit: let me give you a possible skirmish in the future with the hope it might show how these "battles" evolve around their own personal survival ( to their beliefs) and not about alliances.
Let advance the possibility in the future medical science will find evidence that homosexuals have a distinct trait/marker, and their sexual behavior/preference is derived from that difference.
I think that is a given. My guess is they could probably do that now, but never would. The could also find markers for pedophilia or what ever sexual disorder you want to name. Would you suggest those babies be aborted? Now armed with such information, many myths, and beliefs, will/should be dispelled re: homosexuality, and many of these "battles" ended, and all the energy it takes to wage them perhaps directed to a more peaceful endeavor.
Now picture this, with this new discovery (truth) another element, or weapon, has given opportunity to wage a new skirmish, and break up societal alliances.....
If a heterosexual couple, lets add some wood to the fire
, say a evangelical zealot couple who interprets the bible to eradicate sin ( in others) finds through a prenatal study their "embryo" has a distinct possibility of being homosexual based on the findings that has linked those traits/markers, that they now will abort this "baby" instead of terming and raising.
I don't know who screwed your mind up and told you such nonsense about what the Christian masses really believe. Could you find couples like that? Sure you could. They would be uplifted in the atheist, liberal media as typical of Christians. How many movies or tv shows have a wacho Christian as it's bad guy? Hundreds.
I would challenge you to expand your viewpoint a little bit. Your anti-Christian ideology is warping your view. Radical Muslims throw gays off buildings, Franklin Graham only says he won't marry two men, but you sound like they are one in the same...Wow, look how all those beliefs have been surrender to "justify" self.
Would it be an easy assumption that the homosexual community would now be the driving force against abortion on the argument its a woman's right?
Actually, no. My guess is they would say it's better that that child not be born and influenced by Neanderthal Christians than have a chance at life. Can you see what I mean webby?
I see your points, but I don't agree with them. Here's the bottom line: If you think you can predict with certainty all the ramifications as a result of officially changing the institution of marriage, hats off to you.
I can bet by this time next week, now that the historical reason for human marriage has been washed away, we will have demands for other groups to join in the marriage party. Threesomes, brother-sisters, fill in the blank . And who could argue if a brother and sister wanted to call themselves married? You've already said all it takes to be married is to make a statement of commitment of marriage to one another. The historical basis is gone now.
Are you saying a brother and sister could marry? Should we make polygyny the law of the land too? What colors will Obama light up the White House with then?!
Pages: 
