If the traditional definition of marriage is the state of being united to a person of the opposite s*x as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law, when was the union of two people, of the same s*x, added to this definition? It doesn't make any sense to me.
I can think of 2 people in my family involved in this kind of activity, but it's not something I condone. I was taught growing up in the "church" that marriage was a privilege a man and a woman held that cemented their promise of obligation toward each other. It's like two pieces of a puzzle that just fit. I am of that generation where everyone decided to "come out." I don't want to see all that! It's a sickness to me and I would prefer we were still in my grandparent's day where you just stayed in the closet. Way back in the darkest part of the closet. We were meant to procreate. It's the natural order of things.
That's why it's very important that a child is either raised by both parents, or surrounded by caring adults, male and female. It's not normal for a male child to be influenced by his mother alone. I was a single parent, but made sure my sons were influenced by my brothers, uncles, father and cousins. I can't teach a boy to be a man. Only a man can.
Please read more of my blogs at
http://blaqsage.wordpress.com/
Posted By:
Saturday, October 11th 2008 at 5:47PM
You can also
click
here to view all posts by this author...
