So the question is: if the heathen tries to stop and look at the 2x4 in his eye, why do the christians keep staring at those splinters ( of course some closet-minded people could also secretly be staring at some other stick :roll: )
Not being christian, I can only guess the staring would lessen the time spent looking at ones own splinters, and enable comparitive separation from the heathen - instead of understanding the heathen is no different from the christian (in the sense that Jung expressed above).
Posted on 2004-11-06 13:24:42 by bitRAKE
The problem is there are rights in both directions, freedom of worship is one of them in most western societies and not having the state impose content on the worshiper is one of those freedoms.

If and when the state imposes law on a religious organisation to mary people of the same sex, it is imposing on the freedom of worship of the organisations members. The alternative is when people of that particular disposition have religious views imposed on them by weight of law.

The practical solution is to seperate the two institutions so that men and women get married in the historical manner and same sex couples can be protected with property disputes on the way out of relationships with another form of legal arrangement.

The real problem is same sex candidates WANT to be treated as different gender to their origins and this is the underlying friction between religious organisations and gay rights activists.
Posted on 2004-11-07 01:37:59 by hutch--
The real problem is same sex candidates WANT to be treated as different gender to their origins and this is the underlying friction between religious organisations and gay rights activists.
The part in bold is where culture has taken a turn away from the nature of things. True there are two sexes, but they are extremes to a diverse continuum - in terms of physiology, socialality, psychology, sexuality, etc. The idea that gender extremes must be induced in the population is absurd - there is no orgin of sex beyond our shallow view between the legs of the baby. Society, the child, the parents and the doctor can disagree on this orgin and all be correct.
Posted on 2004-11-07 09:28:40 by bitRAKE
you can't impose law on a religion organisation with relation to internal terms and registration.


religious marriage has ZERO legal value, the only thing that matters is the civil one. No government does(?) or should care wether religions marry monkeys and humans or people of the same or different sex, since it has no value or use to it whatsoever, people waste time in lots of different ways where the .gov is concerned.

However by putting a definition of marriage in a constititution you block the only legal, relevant marriage, the civil one for same-sex couples.

You can't call discriminating jews "nazism" and discriminating homo-sexuals "that's different" only because a bunch of hypocrits thinks its right.
Posted on 2004-11-07 09:54:00 by Hiroshimator