Very impressed that you will speak out against adultery by remarriage, or adulterous behavior, even more than you speak out
against homosexual marriage and / or homosexual behavior... after all, the direct words of Jesus should carry far more impact than just the words of Paul or Moses, right?
It can be seen that the reason that churches are
against homosexual marriage is not because it is explicitly said by God, but because of a lack of instruction to specifically allow it.
They are for teaching the religion in schools and
against the homosexual marriages etc..
Not exact matches
I therefore conclude that you make equal argumentation
against second
marriages (as compared to
homosexual marriage).
The adoption bill permitted
homosexual couples jointly to adopt and in another strike
against the status of
marriage also allowed unmarried couples to adopt.
BTW — The following passage is far more clear than the supposed claims of scriptural condemnation
against homosexual orientation / sex /
marriage.
Somehow, active public discrimination
against homosexuals and barring fellow human beings from
marriage rights does not seem very loving or neighborly to me.
It is unlikely that Pope Paul VI or any of the bishops in 1968 would have imagined that within a few decades a substantial proportion of Catholic parents in some Western countries would be living together outside of
marriage or that the Church in those countries would be defending her rights
against those who claim that
homosexual partnerships must be treated as being of equal value with
marriage.
Against this background, Catholic Voices, an organisation whose motto is «putting the Church's view in the public square», arranged a talk about
homosexual «
marriage» and the common good last November.
When Judge Vaughn Walker voided Proposition 8, which restricted
marriage in California to a man and a woman, he said in so many words that such a view was based on an irrational prejudice
against homosexuals that could find support only in sectarian religious ideologies.
In particular, it is a response to the threat
against the family represented by secular society's accelerating movement towards accepting what were, only a generation ago, simply demands by a small minority of activists for the legalisation of what they insist on describing as
homosexual «
marriage».
This negative assertion therefore stands
against all attempts to argue for the autonomous or intrinsic legitimacy of any «life style» and
against those who condemn homosexuality from the standpoint of an assumed righteousness of heterosexual marital fidelity or those who, condemning the obvious hypocrisies and oppressions ingredient to the institution of
marriage, claim the autonomous validity of a
homosexual life style.
A great many of our fellow citizens see demands for
homosexual marriage as just one more step in the democratic struggle
against injustice and discrimination, a continuation of the fight
against racism.
This subject deserves better than the court of political correctness, whose authority, advocates of
homosexual marriage hope, will prevail until the law is voted on — a tribunal they defend by means of disqualifying caricatures
against anyone who dares to question their project and their motives.
Although Christian churches are opposed to gay
marriage, they all warn
against intolerance of, and discrimination
against,
homosexuals.
Carl Paladino, who is mulling a re-match
against Gov. Andrew Cuomo next fall, is still angry about an incident during his failed 2010 bid during which he stood with Orthodox Jewish leaders in Brooklyn and pledged to «oppose the
homosexual agenda» — especially same - sex
marriage — and said children should not be «brainwashed» into believing that being gay is acceptable.
A Tory MP prompted outrage when he railed
against the «aggressive
homosexual community» today, as the Commons debate on gay
marriage became increasingly heated.
why should I be discriminated
against and not allowed to marry because George Amedore is opposed to
homosexual marriage....
[77] He has said he would take a more libertarian stance on the matter in regard to state policy; he follows a «live and let live» approach to the topic of homosexuality, [75] actively opposes discrimination
against homosexuals, [74] and encourages a statewide referendum on allowing same - sex
marriage in the state, saying that he would honor the result of said referendum.