Occasionally I find something amusing on Facebook, and rather than respond to it there I post it here. I do this in part so I don't scare off the "friends" I have on FB who are invaluable sources of information about ideologically and tribally extreme positions. Since those people don't read my blog, I feel pretty safe re-posting their stuff here.
The last couple of days on FB have, to a great extent, been dominated by the "marriage equality" discussion. Far too many of my FB friends have changed their profile pics, so that I can't tell them apart anymore. But what I was really waiting for was for someone on the other side - someone against gay marriage - to take a stand. I finally got my wish today, with this:
One Nation Under God supports Civil Unions this does not prevent anyone from living whatever lifestyle they choose but we believe strongly in the traditional, universally-held belief of a man and woman being required to constitute marriage. God created man and woman for a reason and this is an essential part of His plan of happiness for humankind. Sadly, whenever there is good as we know there tends to be evil. The reason for this particularly against the family is because this is where the potential for the most love and joy exists. Just as in politics those with less than honorable intentions purpose is character assassination so it is where the greatest cause of happiness exist so does Satan's desire exist to take away the ability for humankind to enjoy life. The family his his single greatest threat.
For those who claim because someone doesn't agree with them means they hate them they are nothing more than schoolyard bullies trying to force their own beliefs upon others while hypocritically attacking those who simply follow the traditional and universally-held belief that a man and a woman who have children are what constitutes a family.
This page has been, is and will ever always be for the love of the family. God bless the family!
I certainly support both free speech rights and the right of people to believe whatever theology they choose. But the "argument" here fails to persuade, largely because it rests on a twice-repeated assertion that the "traditional" definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman is "universally-held".
If this were true, would we be having this discussion? I think Inigo Montoya put it best: