Posted by AuntieMel on March 8, 2005, at 9:15:16
In reply to Re: marriage isn't religious.. » AuntieMel, posted by rayww on March 7, 2005, at 17:24:02
> Well, the two hot issues right now are religious ones in my eyes.
>Therin lies the problem. I'm talking civil and social implications and you are talking religious ones. I have - and still have - a strong opinion that the particular religion has a right to make it's own rules.
> I have read AuntieMel's response, but none of the others yet. I'm a little afraid to open them.
>The others aren't frightening. Honest.
> In freedom of speech and equal rights I have the right to say what I honestly believe and so does everyone else. Then, after all is said and done we each have the equal right to our own reaction, to either be angry or not be angry, to love or not love. We don't have the right to cause bodily harm, or destroy another's self esteem. We can choose our response and our reaction. We have the right to life, to individuality, and as a wise person once said, to be well bred, well fed, and well led. I'll probably get criticized for saying that too.
>Don't you think that telling people that they don't have as many rights as others because they are 'different' could hurt someone's self esteem?
How is this different from the stigma attached to mental illness?
> I have the right to try to help others understand my view, and they have the right to help me understand theirs. I have the right to believe in God and to honor his laws even though you have the right to think they are vain imaginations.I never said they were 'vain imaginations.' I merely said I don't believe.
But - you are right, you do have the right to believe what you believe. And I don't have the right to say you are wrong.
> You think I have something in mind of a right or a privilege that should be denied.Only because you said that.
>I have already stated that I do not agree with gay marriage. You have stated your point that you do. Maybe we're both right. I have also said it would be good if both sides could discuss it and each give in a little. My suggestion for a higher law and a lesser law, with rights and privileges granted to both, was I thought a good idea for a compromise. I don't know what the model would look like though.
If by a 'higher law' you are talking about church law and by a 'lesser law' you are talking about civil law then that system is already in place.
Men and women can get married any day under civil law. And they are granted the same *civil* rights as a couple who marries in a church. What is wrong with extending this to same sex adults? The only arguments you've had so far are from a religious vantage point. I (in case you haven't noticed) don't give a whit about religion and *only* care about the civil laws.
But maybe it's just a matter of semantics - nobody calls a civil marriage 'matrimony' as matrimony is a word reserved for the religious rite.
So - should this proposed ammendment be reworded to say that 'matrimony is between a man and a woman?' That would be fine with me, except .....
That *does* put the government in the church's business.
> The example I shared of my one isolated experience living near a gay couple was negative. I'm sure there are many positive experiences. I just haven't had one yet because I don't know any lesbians or homosexuals personally.I'll bet my next paycheck you *do* know lesbians and gays personally. They *are* everywhere, you know. {smile} But is it possible they can sense that talking to you about it wouldn't be a wise move?
> Why don't we start a list of correct principles? Are there any left in this country? America, even though it is a land of promise, has been in trouble from day one on that item.Certainly there are good principles on this continent. But I've also heard:
America got the puritans and Australia got the prisoners. Australia wins.
poster:AuntieMel
thread:464602
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050122/msgs/468195.html