THE HOLY STATE OF MATRIMONY
Philip M. In England thinks Robert Locke is going to win his bet with him that human-animal marriage will be legal in at least one state of the Union by 2020.
CHURCH OF ENGLAND LITURGY FOR THE UNION OF MAN AND BEAST IN THE HOLY STATE OF MATRIMONY, AS AGREED AT LAMBETH CONFERENCE 2019 A.D. THIS LITURGICAL TEXT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE MOST HOLY GRAND AYATOLLA OF CANTERBURY AS FULLY SHARIA-COMPLIANT - - Vicar: Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today in the sight of Cod to join together this man and this beast in a state of Holy Mackerel. Congregants: Thanks be to God.
In some countries this is a legal practice now and is considered a cross species act.
They argue this way; Of course it “sounds absurd” to suggest marriage between a human and an animal. And I don't believe it was the intent of this thread to make it sound less absurd. The point is that if we recognize one form of sexual deviance, how can we rightly exclude another? I myself don't suggest that we should wed animals, but I think the author has a position. At what point do we say that one has deviated too far from social norms so that we may not acknowledge him that right?
It's not an argument for or against homosexuals, homosexuality, or homosexual marriage. The point is that we need to consider the floodgate effect that such a monumental change could incur. It all comes down to where do we draw the line? Currently as it stands, we do not recognize under law deviant forms of marriage.
If you are proponent of homosexual marriage, yet you are willing to castigate deviant forms of marriage such as polygamy and polyandry then you, my friend, are no more "open minded" than Christians who do likewise to homosexual marriage. In fact, if you are a proponent of one and not the other, one might even find the word "hypocrite" more applicable.
After reading the above I conclude that the writer is intelligent and thoughtful but without convictions concerning human behavior in the sight of GOD.
While these extremes are easy to reject and to be offended by, they are no less wrong than some of the practices Christians accept today.
People today have live in relationships “With benefits” and justify it by some proposed future act such as, “We're planning on getting married later.” Not only is it an acceptable practice by the participants but also acceptable by their acquaintances.
The Holy State of Marriage is a contract agreed upon between a man and a woman before witnesses and including GOD as a member of the action. Anything less than that is a farce whether perverted politicians say it’s legal or not. It is not a legal question, it is whether GOD is a party to it or not.
The Holy State of Marriage cannot be altered or changed by man. He can only settle for something else and call it marriage.
The moral; all deviant marriage is not acceptable and should be avoided at all costs.