Pope Says Gay Marriage Poses A Threat To 'Justice And Peace' In World Day Of Peace 2013 Address

Werbung:
I understand his position but when you come to religions that have notions related to human rights that are incompatible with society, then you have a problem. Most societies are not ok with being not only free to harm people but called upon to kill them for a difference of opinion. One example from current events.
law and faith are different.
 
I understand his position but when you come to religions that have notions related to human rights that are incompatible with society, then you have a problem. Most societies are not ok with being not only free to harm people but called upon to kill them for a difference of opinion. One example from current events.
The people who religion is calling on people to kill also have rights. What we're talking about here is letting people be what they were born to be regardless of someone's interpretation of ancient writings.
 
Religion is personal to the person....faith. Human rights is a modern transitional neo-political construct.
My favourite colour is blue... no that's wrong we all think it should be red... Oh!...okay my favorite colour is now red....hmmm

So, religious rights are like any other, their freedom begins where the next guy's nose begins.
 
At the moment In Australia we are having a postal ballot to see if we approve of gay marriage.
I agree with most of Dr Who comments natural sexual marriageis is impossiblrle for gays. I think gays should have equal lrgal rights including a civil recognise uinion With the same leg rights as hetrosexuals. THe word marriage should be preserved for non gays unions. I do not think gays pose any threat.
I once made a similar argument, saying that marriage was like a brand name. I could start a soft drink company and sell a product that was identical to Coca Cola, but I couldn't call it that. Gay marriages could be identical to heterosexual marriages, but let's just call them something else. In fact, let the government call all marriages "civil unions," but let the churches dub the ones they approve of "marriages." It's just a word, after all, but words can be valuable.

Gay rights activists take a dim view of that argument, but it looks solid to me.
 
So, religious rights are like any other, their freedom begins where the next guy's nose begins.
I've no idea what "religious rights" are.

In the case of Aus I'm assuming he has a personal issue; being a man of faith and having to decide how his faith matches with his perspective of gay folk getting married. His church will have a position, possibly not allowing gays to be married in church or not regocnising gay marriage at all or just being plain old abivalent to the issue. In which case, as Dog says, its a matter of his own choice based on his own convictions. Judging by his comments he does not feel he wants to support gay marriage... so vote no.

So going back to your comment, i'm a proponent in this case of what a person believes (faith) is more important that what the herd decides you should believe (human rights) - as long as its within the law - which is what is being decided.
 
The people who religion is calling on people to kill also have rights. What we're talking about here is letting people be what they were born to be regardless of someone's interpretation of ancient writings.
Nothing preventing people being what they wish. But marriage just isn't between people of the same sex.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top