Posted by rayww on March 8, 2005, at 9:06:55
In reply to Re: marriage isn't religious.., posted by AuntieMel on March 7, 2005, at 15:59:15
> I'm hoping you will correct me, but it sounds like you are saying that you and others of your faith are the only ones that have "pure religion." Is that so?
<<<<My religion is pure, but that doesn't mean its members all are. Pure religion by definition in the Bible means cariing for the poor and needy, the widow and fatherless. Pure religion is the pure love of charity. People of all faiths can be pure.
> <<<There is always going to be poor and homeless, as well as rich and famous. Each person has their station in life. Some are here to be helped and others are here to help.
>
>
> Gee, by that logic I'd be a rich slave owner. That was my ancestors' station in life.<<<<<<AuntieMel this comment shows that you do not understand the intent of my writing. My thoughts have nothing to do with slavery, but of those to whom much has been given, much is expected. In other words, I have a moral obligation to give as much as I am able (spiritual, emotional, physical, & social). A homeless criple has that same obligation. Each person has something to offer the world. Otherwise life would be a waste.
>
> I myself believe that the poor and homeless have the same rights I do.
>
<<<<<<<What rights are you referring to? I agree, but only as much as you and I are willing to voluntarily give. And what is the perfect system? Not our governments, who rob from the rich to give to the poor. The only perfect welfare system is one that you will have a hard time with, so why should I show it to you? http://www.providentliving.org/
>
> Again, which rights would you deny Nikki or anyone else that has a civil marriage?<<<<<I would deny Nikki or anyone else the right to abolish marriage all together, and how do you know gay marriage wouldn't end up doing that? I would deny Nikki and anyone else the right to dismantle the family, and how do you know that legalizing gay marriage wouldn't lead to that, as it is a step in that direction. I would deny Nikki and anayone else the right to dictate to religious leaders that they must allow homosexuals and lesbians to marry in their churches, and must perform those marriages. How do you know legalizing gay marriage wouldn't lead to that? I believe the ball won't stop bouncing with legalizing gay marriage. It's going to keep bouncing, and it's going down a mountain, so the pace will accellerate. Marriage and family is on the rocks anyway, and if someone doesn't step up to the plate in defense of it, the picture is going to change dramatically. Consider this prophetic.
<<<< We can be equal without having to be given equal rights.
>
> No we can't. Unequal rights means unequal.
><<<<<<< Perhaps we are not understanding equal rights the same way. We are 100% equal in some areas, but are so accountable for our own choices in life, and so vulnerable to our own consequenses of those choices, so why should we who totally abuse our privileges be entitled to all of the same rights as those who live what I would defend as the pure life? It's not defined as religious, it is defined as logic. Those who live the pure life will help and take care of those in need for whatever reason that caused it, whether it was by thier own choice or through no choice of their own. Are we together on this? Can we rein this around a bit? You are judging me becasue of my experience and belief, while I am trying to make it all fit.
I would like to be able to discuss this logically, but it doesn't appear to be possible.
poster:rayww
thread:464602
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050122/msgs/468193.html