Gay Marriage: When Conservatism and Christianity Clash

As a conservative, I see the federal government's sole role as protecting and defending individual liberty. If a man and a woman wish to, and agree to, enter into a covenant, it is their unalienable right to do so. If two men or two women so wish and agree, ditto.

If a woman wishes to sell sex to a man and he wishes to buy, ditto. If one wishes to offer his body or organs for sale on ebay, ditto.

The gov't cannot be trusted not to test and research 3 part marriages, and it is now a fact they have discovered a way to have 3 parent children, all in the name of staving off disease, but this is trespassing on mother nature herself, and not to mention Gods plan. So, I say, no, the people are far too liberal in this line of thinking, as Sharia law, is way off base of normal.

If we extended ourselves to children and insured a profound education and instill honesty, strength in being proud to learn how to provide for your family, but children are being taught that abortion is an easy means of getting rid of children.

Throw away people, throw away relationships, that have no hope of long lasting fulfilling lives forever clogging up divorce court. Marriage itself, will be too costly and that too thrown to the curb, discontinuing it all together.

Thanks for the serious, thought-out entry.

My limited government political philosophy and my Christianity are in harmony.

One need not even believe in God to see that there state has an interest in bride+groom pairings that it does not have with other kinds of voluntary social associations.

State licenses are issued on behalf of the people of a state, so the people should have some say in their terms.

However, I do believe that couples should be encourage to come up with a pre-nup, rather than allowing the laws/courts to impose a default pre-nup.

http://walrus.blogtownhall.com/2009/05/26/handy_dandy_marri age_neutering_plea_repellant.thtml

First of all the issue of marriage have been forced only on Christians in the United States. The gay coalition is not attacking any one else's religious beliefs to spread their deviant behavior, just as the Ginsberg Manfesto attemopts to legalize pedophilia and rape. As a christian I do not care what anyone does that do not believe as long as they do not attempt to compromise my faith or the faith of believers through: racism, religious bias, and/or political terrorism.

Because of centuries of social policy based on good old fashioned common sense as well as our unique Judeo-Christian value system, the government most certainly has NO business endorsing or enabling in any way anything but heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman. Because it is society's responsibility to offer the best situation for the rearing of children, once again it must decline to sanction anything but one man, one woman, legal marriage. Deviant behavior (meaning anything that DIFFERS from the NORM) has no redeeming features to recommend it as a way to form a "family." Please do not remind me that not all heterosexual marriages work out. We are going for "the best," not "perfect."

to judge whether gay marriage is right for society is not a religious consideration, but for what is right for the future of the well being of society. To confine the argument to Christianity or what any religion has to say plays right into the proponents of gay marriage strategy. Ancient civilization like Greece and Rome did not consider Christian perspectives when they elevated homosexuality to their mainstream. They and all other advanced civilizations declined and fell shortly after.
A lesson in history to be seriously considered.
Natural law does not defer to political correctness, the negative consequences occur,as history has documented.
Christianity just happens to mirror natural law, which makes it easy for their opponents to shift the focus to them. For a self proclaimed Christian like Kleber to go along with this stragety, I have to question either his intellectual competency or sincerity on this issue.

Marriage has been, for thousands of years, a social and religious concept. The federal government has no dog in the show. Or rather, shouldn't. It is, rather, a means for the federal government to extend its power into more and more features of our lives.