You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
This is just puerile. "Live and let live" is not, nor should it be, any religion's dogma, and insinuating that Christians insincerely advocate such a position is willfully ignorant. If the people are going to be given the opportunity to decide whether or not they want to redefine what is probably the fundamental social institution of human civilization, those who say, "no" should not be mocked and misrepresented by those who claim to be open-minded and tolerant.
Snippet, you are also being willfully ignorant. You appear to be an intelligent person ("puerile" gets a rare word score!) and yet you claim this amendment is about redefining marriage. You know that is a lie. The amendment is about constitutionalizing the current law on marriage. Nothing is being redefined. Nothing is being defended. As for "live and let live," Jesus said we are to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. That's pretty similar and as such your decision to take offense is a bit forced.
Marriage as we know it has not existed since biblical times, and frankly hasn't even been around for half a millenium. Marriage was redifined from bible "intentions" when it was no longer required for a man to marry his brother's widow if no male heir was present, and when inter-racial marriages were permitted. The bibical excuses are just that - excuses. The fundamental social institution is family - whether that be by marriage or by choice.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
Poll: How are your seasonal allergies this year?
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks