Quote:
Originally Posted by -=RAV=-AdrianShephard
Church should be able to dictate that law and thell ban it.
|
Like in the middle ages? Like in Iran? Like under the Taliban regime?
Quote:
Originally Posted by -=RAV=-AdrianShephard
churches shouldnt have to marry 2 gay people just cause the govt says so.
|
See HangFire's comment.
Besides, I find comments like these to be quite typical among more conservative-thinking people. Whenever there's the freedom to choose something, many conservatives react as if now everybody were
forced to decide for the new alternative.
It was like that when laws concerning funerals were changed here in Germany. For example, these new laws allowed burials on specially reserved areas which do not belong to any graveyard owned by any religious community. Thus, many conservatives cried havoc and rejected these new laws. It is as if the government had decided to allow coffins being painted in pink. As a reaction to this, conservative circles would have protested that they'd never have their coffins painted in pink - but who would force them to do so? They could continue as they pleased, nothing would change for them! Still they protest against anything that allows more freedom...
This is the point where their attitude becomes hypocritical: On one hand, they reserve the right to do as they please, and they would revolt if that right were to be taken from them. On the other hand, they try to deny others the rights they claim for themselves.
Doing so, they deny one of the most fundamental pieces of common sense, general agreement and a precondition for a peaceful coexistence of all kinds of humans, which has found its way into all constitutions of those states that we call civilised: The principle of equality.
No liberal politicians would ever think about banning the conservative Christians' form of partnership - a Christian marriage. Even allowing an alternative form of partnership like some kind of gay marriages would not take anything away from Chrsitian people who want to live according to their belief.
But conservative politicians don't only
think about banning other forms of partnership, they
do it.
This shows an attitude that's quite common among people who belong to an organised religion: "We have God and the absolute truth on our side, thus we are superior and don't have to be equal. We can force others to live by our laws, but not vice versa. We demand that we and our belief be accepted, yet we refuse to accept other people and their respective beliefs."
If this is what they (and you?) think, then you should ask yourselves if it is truly a democracy you desire, or a fundamentalist theocracy - for inspiration, visit the Middle East.
If that's not what you want, then why not accept the idea that on this world, a state allows each man to live after his fashion (as long as it doesn't break other people's fundamental rights), and that it doesn't judge which way of life is the only true and correct one - if there is one at all ?
If you have decided for one and think it's a right decision, congratulations. But like you had the possibility to make that decision by yourself, why don't you leave it to others to decide for themselves in the same way ?
I think that making all these decisions possible without discrimination is the duty of a modern state. Judging which is the right way
for oneself is reserved to each individual, and judging which is the right way
at all is a question above all humans. If you really believe in God, trust in your God to judge, and leave earthly matters that affect all people (religious or not) to earthly institutions that benefit all people (religious or not) without anticipating a final judgement that is not yours to make and forcing this judgement onto others.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable [inalienable] Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."