-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
can someone please explain to me the difference
- Thread starter waitasec
- Start date
Gharib
I want Khilafah back
Who can't practice their religion?
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
If the religious fundamentalists who push these amendments had their way, both phrases would be equal under the law. Of "my religion" would be their religion.
waitasec
Veteran Member
in the states, no one....because it's a ludicrous statement and it's unconstitutional
what i want explained to me is the difference between that and saying "i can get married but you can't"
Gharib
I want Khilafah back
I don't want to go into that. I'll keep my distance from homosexuality threads. I was just wondering who was it that wasn't allowed to practice their religion.
waitasec
Veteran Member
So it's OK to practice your own religion but it's forbidden to marry the person you love? How can you justify that?
waitasec
Veteran Member
Yerda
Veteran Member
The person whose religion affords equality before the law.
What right do you see being violated? The right to "do whatever I want"?
waitasec
Veteran Member
no. the difference between the violation of the right to practice religion and the right to marry.
HerDotness
Lady Babbleon
Willamena, do I understand you to be saying that getting married to the person you love represents the right "to do whatever I want"?
waitasec
Veteran Member
Fraleyight
Member
For one homosexuality is hardly mentioned in the bible. I do not know why so many people waste their time on something that is obviously not a big concern to their god.
The biggest thing here is what is the harm on two people getting married? It will not affect anyone else around them let them do it. The ones objecting to it are the only ones doing anyone any harm.
The biggest thing here is what is the harm on two people getting married? It will not affect anyone else around them let them do it. The ones objecting to it are the only ones doing anyone any harm.
I don't see a difference. And it infuriates me that religion is used to justify it.
I'm a religious guy, and follow as best I can. But that doesn't mean I think everybody should be forced to abide by the things I choose to follow.
I mean if we're going to use Biblical ordinances to dictate secular law, where are the legal prohibitions on pork and shellfish? Shaving? Tattoos?
Come on people; if you're going to do it, don't do it half *****. Go all the way.
I'm a religious guy, and follow as best I can. But that doesn't mean I think everybody should be forced to abide by the things I choose to follow.
I mean if we're going to use Biblical ordinances to dictate secular law, where are the legal prohibitions on pork and shellfish? Shaving? Tattoos?
Come on people; if you're going to do it, don't do it half *****. Go all the way.
Ghost of a Rider
Member
Think about this: what if your religion stipulated that you are to marry a person of the same sex just as some Christians say that Christianity stipulates that you are to marry a person of the opposite sex? Would this not mean then that in this case, the Christians are saying: "I can practice my religion but you can't"?
Put another way, what if a homosexual Christian believes that it's okay to marry a person of the same sex while a hetero Christian says it's not? Again, wouldn't this mean that the hetero Christian is telling the homosexual Christian "I can practice my religion but you can't"?
One last thing to think about, if gay marriage is allowed then the hetero Christian has the choice not to marry a person of the same sex according to his beliefs while at the same time, a homosexual has the choice to marry a person of the same sex according to his beliefs. But if gay marriage is banned by hetero Christians then they still have the choice to marry according to their beliefs but are in effect denying that choice to homosexuals. What gives them this right?
Put another way, what if a homosexual Christian believes that it's okay to marry a person of the same sex while a hetero Christian says it's not? Again, wouldn't this mean that the hetero Christian is telling the homosexual Christian "I can practice my religion but you can't"?
One last thing to think about, if gay marriage is allowed then the hetero Christian has the choice not to marry a person of the same sex according to his beliefs while at the same time, a homosexual has the choice to marry a person of the same sex according to his beliefs. But if gay marriage is banned by hetero Christians then they still have the choice to marry according to their beliefs but are in effect denying that choice to homosexuals. What gives them this right?
They are offset by the right to vote and the rights of the state to govern the people. I'm not sure about the United States, but in Canada's Charter we have a statement that says that no right shall "abrogate or derogate" from any other. If this is what the people voted, then this is what the people want and the state is right to make it law, until and unless the people vote again.
Ghost of a Rider
Member
To begin with, where marriage is concerned, don't heterosexual Christians have the right to do whatever they want? Secondly, homosexuals are not asking to "do whatever they want", they're only asking to be allowed to marry people of the same sex.
No. That's anarchy.