You misread me, but in practican terms, we agree
Submitted by d on September 3 2001 20:51:43
In reply to Precisely submitted by A.I. Watcher on September 3 2001 11:48:44
|
I beleive God does grant rights to people, but it is up to people, through governments or other institutions, to protect these rights. The practical effect is the same as if the rights were granted by the governments. So in practical terms we agree what the outcome is, even though we disagree in theoretical and philosophical terms. A question: If there were no religion, but say 70% (or even 55%) of the country thought homosexual sex should be forbidden and managed to not make it a "protected right" how would you argue in favor of such protection. Remember, there are a lot of things which do not have "protected" status in most cases, such as dress, bad breath, "bad attitudes," too little education or experience (when applying for a job), and many other things. Without the "they are discriminating me because of their religion" card, how would you argue that the majority (again, supposing 55-70% of the people agree participating in homosexual acts is not a "protected right") are wrong and that it should be a "protected right"? One more thing - your arguement must be not only logical, but persuasive. Remember, bone-headed people aren't always going to listen to logic, sometimes they have to have other reasons to buy into an arguement. Note - I'm not saying it shouldn't be a protected right, but you have to be able to argue the issue in the absence of a religious context. Perhaps this is a good issue for Religious Debate Chat. -d, david, d_fpc@operamail.com |
Follow ups: