Posted by AuntieMel on February 23, 2005, at 8:38:43
In reply to Re: Political wrest » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on February 23, 2005, at 0:34:09
There are degrees of bigotry, you know. There is the bigotry (which is natural and harmless) that says 'I think my way is better' and there is the (in my opinion harmful) that says 'if you don't agree with me you are evil.'
And there is the traditional use of 'bigotry' that defines it as hatred toward a person or class of people for being what they were born to be. In my opinion that it the worse of all - as it says that what nature, or god, created is bad.
I believe (don't hurt me, Dr. Bob) that you are showing the first type of bigotry. The same kind all of us have to one degree or another.
I think both of us see the outcomes, but don't view them in the same manner.
So - to the questions and my take on them.
------------------------------------
"always thought sex outside of legal marriage was fornication or adultry"I respect that this is what you believe and I would fight for your right to believe it. However it is a belief based on your religion and not all people feel the same.
Either way, I believe that sex outside of legal marriage is a personal decision, between the person and his maker/conscious. And I believe governments have no right messing with it. [this goes with my 'as long as you don't hurt anyone' philosophy. note that it also means adults for the same reason]
------------------------------------------------
"But if the law tries to tell a Mormon bishop that he has to perform a marriage....."
To me this would be denying the Mormon bishop his freedom of religion. And I believe that is also not the government's right. Under US and Canadian constitutions and under what I consider simple human morality.
Tolerance goes both ways.
-------------------------------------------------
"Why can't we call gay union something beside marriage? There is nothing wrong with giving gay couples certain rights, but why call it marriage? The term marriage has been taken and is sacred, or should be."
There is what I consider the whole problem. What rights and what to call it.
One problem is that marriage has had dual definitions for years. It refers to both the religious status *and* the legal status. People that go before a judge for the legal status are called married, though not recognized by any religious organization. And religious ceremonies are not recognized by the state without the proper registration.
I believe that a gay couple should have the same status as any couple that goes before a judge. Give it another name? Sure, as long as same sex civil unions are called the same thing.
-----------------------------------------------
"I am concerned that Canada is no longer considered a Christian nation. Canada hasn't learned that you can't give all the rights to everyone and not infringe on someone's."
Two points. Why should Canada be considered a Christian nation? As opposed to any other religion or none at all. Why does a government have to be associated with any creed at all?
I'm hoping that your answer won't go back to the 'majority bowing to a vocal minority' theme from another thread.
Second point: How can giving rights to anyone infringe on someone else's rights?
----------------------------
Thank you for listening to my views. I'm really enjoying this discourse. I have to admit {grin} that when I saw how much you posted on faith that I wouldn't have guessed we could see eye to eye on anything. It just goes to show that not all preconcieved notions {really big grin} about Christians are true.
poster:AuntieMel
thread:461623
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050122/msgs/462189.html