haha. what a bullshit comment. "I believe in equal rights to all, save for certain rights". haha. seriously give yourself an uppercut.
What exactly is "bullshit" about my comment? I was merely pointing out the flaw in what you had stated earlier when you said that Gillard was opposed to equal rights for gay people. Pretty fucking broad statement there and not quite accurate but by all means call me out as bullshit.
The point of what I wrote was that inclusiveness in society and in sport is a very worthwhile debate to be had but it is also one where you need to choose your words carefully. Yes marriage is one right that she is opposed to but please enlighten me as to what other rights of gay people she has opposed. Clearly there must be a shit ton of them for you to make such a broad and sweeping statement.
But then again, going by the last sentence you wrote on that post, as BH has pointed out (bolded or not), choosing your words carefully may not be your strong point.
It's pretty simple mate. you either believe that everyone should have the same rights, or you don't. That is what equal rights is all about.
Rule 10 boys.
I am not opposed to gay marriage but have serious issues with "celebrity weddings," they cause more harm to the institution of marriage than anything else. But this is a bit off topic.
That would make sense if the concept of marriage was only something done by those in the Christian faith.
Marriage predates Christianity by a very long way.
That would make sense if the concept of marriage was only something done by those in the Christian faith.
Marriage predates Christianity by a very long way.
Italy didnt invent pasta but it is now associated with it (poor example i know)
point is just because we didnt come up with marriage doesnt mean it isnt a integral part of our religion and i think what we see today in western society in terms of marriage is based on what christians have developed from the concept, after a couple of thousand years im pretty sure we can claim it as our own.
anyway thats hopefully the last ill say on the topic dont want to make it into a religious debate, but if anyone would like to question further you can PM me
I would argue that marriage is an integral part of all societies and transcends religion. It is a commitment to another person and has no more or less meaning depending on what your religion is or isn't.
Over the last couple of thousand years, customs, laws and what is acceptable have changed greatly and I would argue that the concept of marriage like many things is defined as being what a society wants it to be.
No one is asking for the Christian, Muslim or any other religion to conduct gay marriages in their churches. Marriage for many people now is a civil ceremony because they are not religious.
true but the term "marriage" is christian, why are they lobbying for marriage and not a nikah (muslim) or a nissuin (jewish) why not lobby for civil unions instead?
I would argue that marriage is an integral part of all societies and transcends religion. It is a commitment to another person and has no more or less meaning depending on what your religion is or isn't.
Over the last couple of thousand years, customs, laws and what is acceptable have changed greatly and I would argue that the concept of marriage like many things is defined as being what a society wants it to be.
No one is asking for the Christian, Muslim or any other religion to conduct gay marriages in their churches. Marriage for many people now is a civil ceremony because they are not religious.
I understand what you're saying BH but to say that it has no more or no less meaning to someone depending on your religious beliefs is not up to you to say. This is the crux of the issue. It means different things to different people and if I was told that something that I believed in deeply wasn't actually as important I felt it was - I would get defensive.
The inability of the religous types to argue thier case without sounding bigoted and the inability of the non-religious types to argue their case without trivialising the religious sides beliefs is why this is such a big issue.
I'm not certain I've made perfect sense there but it's not an easy argument to convey via text only! I'm not having a crack at anyone here.
I understand what you're saying BH but to say that it has no more or no less meaning to someone depending on your religious beliefs is not up to you to say. This is the crux of the issue. It means different things to different people and if I was told that something that I believed in deeply wasn't actually as important I felt it was - I would get defensive.
The inability of the religous types to argue thier case without sounding bigoted and the inability of the non-religious types to argue their case without trivialising the religious sides beliefs is why this is such a big issue.
I'm not certain I've made perfect sense there but it's not an easy argument to convey via text only! I'm not having a crack at anyone here.
For the record, I was raised Roman Catholic, but I support gay marriage.
I think there are a large number of people in the 21st century that are using their religion to hide their bigotry.