Quote:
Originally Posted by EE-BO
To the first point- they have ever right to express themselves. What I am saying is that it would be too much to expect legal unions to be extended to cover situations where a union of 3+ would be considered.
|
Why not? Polygamist think differently on this issue.
Quote:
And so I am saying you have to draw the line at couples- and in doing so one is making a judgement call.....
|
Which is exactly what "pro"-heterosexual marriage people are doing. They are drawing the line at the one man / one woman definition of marriage.
Quote:
My justification...- you can't please everybody...
|
I feel just as justified in my beliefs as you do yours. And to the second part, I agree.
Quote:
|
This is where I draw the line, others draw it elsewhere.
|
The placement of my line is at a different position than yours
Quote:
|
As to your second point, I appreciate that religion is the equation for some people- but history has shown very well where that leads.
|
Which is where? Some people are very comforted by their religion.
Quote:
|
....- but with the very kind of people most who think "religion is the equation" don't think have a right to decent treatment at all.
|
Quote:
This is the problem with bringing the Bible into a discussion about government policy. Often the Bible itself contains teachings which demonstrate why it should not be used in the formation of government policy that discriminates against any part of the citizenry. That is not part of- to be overly simplistic and general about it- Judeo-Christian morality.
|
Ya know, there is this law firm in town that advertises that they "base" their court proceedings on the Bible.
I feel that we (US) are a nation that while explicitly does not bring the Bible into our laws and governing practices, we do so sometimes implicitly.
Threaded Mode
