Presbyterian Church approves of same-sex marriages

I take this to mean that you cannot imagine or accept a spiritual purpose for a union between two Christian men, be that union marriage, friendship, or simply agreeing to walk the same way along a road.I think it pretty evident that what you say here is merely an excuse for your disapproval. I have no idea what the real objection is.

As has been mentioned, the distinction between a marriage with two Christian men and between a Christian man and a Christian woman is that in the first marriage, no one can get pregnant.You have yet to provide any other Christian or non Christian purpose for a man/woman union that does not exist for man/man. So unless child bearing is your point, you would not seem to have one.

Do you not understand the serious logical problems that people have pointed out with your 'only issue'.Two men who commit to each other are no more limiting in their love than a man and a woman who commit to each other. Neither couple is committing to limit their love nobody else but their spouses.A man who marries a man does not eliminate having a relationship with all other men. He is instead excluding having a intimate, spousal relationship with all other men and of course all other women. In what way is that more selfish that what happens in every other married relationship? Second question. Did Jesus tell people to limit their love to only him? What kind of BS are you pushing with this comment?

And what was the second great commandment, Phat? Wasn't it to love your neighbor?And is a marriage a worship of a man or woman? You still are not making much sense.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That's right. According to Phat being distracted to men other than Jesus is selfish. Only women can marry, but they should marry women.

Wow! Someone changed their mind on the internet! Nice work Phat and jar!

Whether or not the children are wanted is something that sometimes changes over the children's lifetime. Yes, they were wanted at conception, but at birth? Five years later? When the children become awful teenagers? Or serial killers?I think Cat Sci has a point. The idea that the children of homosexual parents are always wanted was just a sound bite.

"Donor male" covers a lot of possibilities including being unfaithful and thus having an unwanted pregnancy.Besides that, I stand by my comment that not all wanted children remain wanted. Yeah I'll agree that sex between same sex couples does not result in pregnancy if that is your point.Surely you heard in about the couple who had engaged a surrogate mother and then refused to take one of the two offspring because that child had Down's syndrome? That could just as easily happened to a homosexual couple as a heterosexual one.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Let's apply this statement to a couple (you pick the sexes) who decides to have their children via a surrogate mother. Use the appropriate definition of 'have' children.What you will find is that your chosen definition of 'have' is not compatible with the statement that same sex children always 'have' wanted children.

I don't think Cat Sci needs any correction.