Why we are losing the 'gay marriage' battle

WorldNetDaily ^ | February 24, 2004 | Richard D. Ackerman

[valkyrieanne]

Our pastors, rabbis and imams are failing miserably in any effort to energize their congregants.

What is this politically-correct hogwallow? In Islam, under sha'ria, all a man has to do is say, "I divorce you" four times, and she's divorced. (He does have to give her jewelry and brideprice back, though - how civilized. He also usually gets to keep the kids.)

[lugsoul]

Bump, for a dead-on accurate comment.

Why should a sacrament require a state sanction? Why is it even desirable? This entire debate is further proof that the involvement of the state in matters where the state's action is not required is detrimental to society.

As far as the sanctity of traditional marriage, there is no "law" that can preserve it, especially in a time where the "law" freely allows heterosexuals to trample the sacrament with impunity.

[Greenback_dollar]

The only reason most heterosexuals put up with marriage and it's risks and limitations, is children. Since most homosexuals don't adopt, 'gay marriage' is an experiment doomed to failure.

What a cynical view of a loving marriage. Although children are important they are not a destined result of marriage. My good female friend is unable to bear children. She and her husband have been married for 15 years. They stay together because they love and care for each other.

[Theophilus]

From an adult perspective perhaps...

How can you say perhaps??? The event acurately portrayed is God's salvation of us. If He had wanted to Jesus to die by lethal injection, He would have provided Him more recently. Besides scripture indicates that a child's perspective is important.

At that time Jesus answered and said, "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes."

And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, "Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." ' subsequently, Jesus describes amputation as preferable to sin.

But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God."

And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, 'Hosanna to the son of David"; they were sore displeased,

Then answered all the people, and said, "His blood be on us, and on our children."

His blood be on me and my children too! because: ...almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

I'm not taking the 5 year old but I will take the 7 year old because she has more foundational knowledge than many adults. If the movie was about anyone else: Sparticus for instance, I would agree with you completely. Also, if a child were ignorant of the facts i.e. not a Christian, this would be an inappropriate introduction. But my 10 year old, who played the part of Issac in an Easter pagent 3 years ago understood why a knife was being held over him and my current 7 year old understands sacrifice and will understand this portrayal too.

Thanks for the debate - I hope it continues.

[Servant of the 9]

Absolutely, if it wasn't for children, there is now way I would have gotten married. You got it right there. But, you have to admit there are many people who do get married and never have children for some reason or another.

How many people would bother to get married if the knew in advance they couldn't have children?

Not many, most would just continue to live to gether.

So9