Anonymous:
Actually, the point of my comments is that I’m not alone, there’s no bandwagon, my friend
The idea that marriage is not marriage unless it includes both genders is not some novel idea picking up steam
Trying to change the definition of words by governmental mandate is the unusual idea here
Anon: “the idea that marriage is not marriage unless it includes both genders is not some novel idea picking up steam”
Me: The definition of love is union. Thus, marriage is the uniting of two souls as being one.
Though men and women can love, platonically, members of the same gender more that that of the opposite gender, it is a world away from the reality of homosexuality.
I believe the Biblical love story between David and Jonathan was one such example:
David: “...I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me; Your love to me was wonderful, Surpassing the love of women.”
“Surpassing the love of women” being the operating phrase, implying that they were heterosexuals, and thus, not attracted to each other in a sexual way.
However, if they had been born or reincarnated as women, they would still be the same people (males), just in female bodies. As males (in female bodies), they would still be attracted to women, and the sexual component would then be at play -- Ergo, lesbians.
It is your belief systems that cause you to resist the fact homosexual couples can and do experience the same depth of romantic love that heterosexuals do.
Anon: “…marriage is not marriage unless it includes both genders … trying to change the definition of words by governmental mandate is the unusual idea here”
Me: And therein lies the rub.
The idea that this has anything at all to do with words like “traditional” “redefinition of” or the ever clevers like “if we let gays marry, then what’s to stop people from marrying a banana peel?” is a propaganda tool that you’ve all bought into.
Marriage or unity = Love. “Traditionally” thought as only being capable between a male and a female. This is what is at issue.
This wordplay with “marriage” is a euphemism to hide the fact that you and you ilk are incapable of, or unwilling to accept that our love for each other is equal to that of your own, the understanding of which would obliterate the notion that if allowed, then anyone could marry anything.
Nor would it open the door to Government sanctioned incestuous and/or polygamous marriage for reasons essential to maintaining a civilized society.
Anon: “actually, the point of my comments is that I'm not alone”
Me: Alone or not, like I said, it is your belief systems that are the source of your resisting the fact that homosexual couples can and do experience the same depth of intimacy that heterosexuals do.
And the crux of those beliefs lie the addictions to your egos (superiority, supremacy, etc.).
To be fair, I have the same addiction, but I am aware of it, and so I am in better control of it, but most importantly, I don’t worship it.
It is difficult to challenge one’s own beliefs and conform to one’s that are more accurate -- you lose a part of your identity, but I’d rather be wrong in order to be right.
No comments:
Post a Comment