Quote:
Originally Posted by Invert
1- Lack of marriage, at least in America does mean in many places the partners of gays can't get the same benefits the spouses of employees can get from jobs, like health insurance, etc. It also makes adoption harder, even if it's of the partner's own genetic children. It also means they don't get family rights in relation to their partner in the health system in some places... so for example, they can't find out the status of their partner's health, if their partner has had to go into hospital. As they aren't considered family.
Also, it continues this idea that if gays don't deserve marriage, that they are different, and indirectly reinforces prejudice. Prejudice leads to discrimination.
2- Since when was this thread explicitly, exclusively American, this is discussion on a concept. In fact, there are more non-Americans in this thread then Americans. If you Americans want us to give a shit about your constitution, you better damn well respect the laws of other countries in the same way.
3- Well then, shut up, the only points you made reflected your view on America. If anyone is expected to listen to your views, based on your country, respect others based on their's.
4- You are denying freedom of religion to other people...
Also, just out of curiousity, what makes you a voice on the gay movement and 'agenda'
|
1: There are other routes to take in order to obtain those benefits. And I still don't buy that gays are second class citizens because they don't get certain benefits offered to married couples. To me, second class citizens are the African Americans before the Civil Rights movement. And please don't say that gays today have it as bad as African Americans did back then, it is just demeaning/offensive to those African Americans.
2: I didn't say that. I just assumed since many of my arguments have to do with America that he/she would connect the dots... oh well. I never said anything along the lines of me not respecting Canada, I am just not entirely debating for them.
3: I don't see why this is a big deal for you, it has nothing to do with debate, but I know you get side tracked and its OK. And if you can comprehend what you read, then you would realize that the moral/religious arguments that I have used are international arguments. So again, you are wrong.
4: How so? And "Also, just out of curiosity, what makes you a voice on the gay movement and 'agenda'?"... I am not a voice for the gay movement, as you can see I am against it. If you meant "what makes you a voice against the gay movement" the answer is because I am a voter with an opinion. I am not claiming to speak for everyone on my side like you do, you guarantee that "no gays want to infiltrate the church", therefor you are trying to speak for your entire side when you CAN'T. Some of them clearly do want to infiltrate the church.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Titanium
That is what Christians do. Religion is a political weapon.
You don't go around stoning people even though the old testament allows it, why? Because it isn't socially right (i.e. politically) or buy slaves (which was allowed by the Church) now because it goes against human rights.
You have to understand that a lot of religion policies vary with time according to what people think. Religion is nothing more than a document (like a constitution) that can be edited to suit societies beliefs. I firmly believe it has nothing to do with God.
Spirituality, on the other hand, is what you believe in your heart. The sort of thing nobody can tell you, and no book can guide you. Do you believe in something is a question of spirituality. Religion attempts to brand and market it, and make itself powerful of it.
|
True. But the church evolves through lengthy processes. The beliefs have not changed. People don't get stoned for adultery anymore, but the church still is against adultery. The punishment and the times are different, the morals are the same.