Absolutely, runner. So is Exodus 21.

Praise be...

I think same sex marriage comes down to three things still. Those who listen to their hearts, and therefore let the issue be emotionally infused. Those who listen to their heads and have looked at the matter closer, and those who listen to another source of information that they trust.

Those who listen to their hearts can be assoicated with the phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions," and they might not see the issues in what they are supporting. Often this is the younger generations who flock to supporting their cause for homosexual rights without having seen what else is going on. Those listening to their heads might be less compassionate but it's because they've seen the issues and aren't satisfied with the lies and misdirection being spread around. It's worse that if they say anything and are ousted as being a bigot because they see the health of homosexuality, the politics under way, or the loss of justice, protecting the innocent, and freedom of speech that has happened as a result of SSM pushing. Who would blame them for becoming bitter and losing a kind tone in conversations.

But the biggest issue apparently is those who trust another source to speak for them or to supplement their own stance. Whether it's a news media source with it's own agenda or it's own ax to grind (becoming indoctrinated without it being a religious source). Or people are trusting their religion that is against homosexuality. Anything associated with religion is fought against and mocked on it's own without even considering what the subject being discussed is about. When it come to SSM, one of the biggest issues is "who do you trust?" Personally, I think Christianity has the best seat to consider. They trust God enough to consider the faults in homosexuality (whether it's health, social, or the other messes to not ignore), while also having the stance to love your neighbor and to treat other the way you want to be treated (thereby keeping their own compassion for homosexuals).

To make it clear, my question sort to find if people held the same views on SSM as they did prior to and at the time it was legalised. As with anything the majority endorses, some people shrug and accept the new position and think that they now have to go along with it, and shut up, some don't. Do the latter believe it is safe to voice their opinions, or has the tyranny of the majority silenced them. Committed Christians certainly will maintain their objections, but there are others who object to SSM and homosexuality on obvious anatomical grounds, normal behaviour personal disgust etc. All man-made laws, can be overturned, and are overturned, under the right circumstances.

Dear runner,

And the following verses say;

"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

So do you think the main purpose of marriage is so that those who can't avoid touching a woman can do so without technically fornicating because they have a marriage certificate?

And do you agree it is good never to touch a woman if you can help it?

What a warped bloody view of sexuality these chapters present. It is clear Paul was a suppressing homosexual and like many of the modern day anti-gay religious crusaders, some of whom get found our snorting cocaine off the backsides of male prostitutes in airport toilets. This whole section needs to be regarded as toxic to any modern person.

ttbn,
My view of SSM has not changed.

The whole concept of marriage has now changed from one of wholesomeness, designed to foster the continuation of our species by the raising of children, to one of depravity and filthy sexual practices.

It is good that I am now a widower and no longer associated with such an institution. I see the popularity of marriage falling because of the association with homosexuals.

They could have chosen another name for their 'union' but the whole thing was designed to improve Homos deserved social reputation.

Throughout history marriages have been celebrated by families.
It is the promise of the continuation of the family.
The desire of parents to see their grandchildren is also fundamental.

The intrusion of homosexuals into the family is a diversion but not a marriage.
No, same sex marriage is pointless and unhealthy in practice.