I am against divorce, unless it is under the most extraordinary circumstances – such as if a man abuses his wife or a woman commits adultery.
He's against divorce? Well, at the age of 23, he clearly thinks he still has all the answers.He's welcome to be against divorce - and not get one. As for the rest of us, he can STFU and stay out of our lives.
He's single right?
Poor little puppy.Wait til he gets married.
Hang on, wait a minute.Read the article. This kid is saying 3 important things (although I admit he needs to work on the wording.):1. He disagrees with divorce, but he would never support legislation banning it.2. He is using his disagreement with divorce as an analogy; he's showing that just because he disagrees with gay marriage, it doesn't mean he would support a ban on it.3. He is also saying that until heterosexuals get their own house in order, they have no right to claim that homosexual marriage will 'destroy the institution of marriage'.Given that the conclusions the kid reaches are ones that most progressives wish right-wingers could get their heads around, let's not be too hard on him. He's actually pointing in the right direction.
Yeah, but then he said in his comments:Andrew Smith said...OK, stop the nit-picking, obviously it's wrong if either gender commits adultery. I think adultery should be a criminal offense. I used a man as an example for abuse and a woman for adultery - I was giving equal time to each gender, not letting the other one off.If he wants to criminalise adultery, I think he'd have no problem criminalising/banning a lot things that don't fit his conservative elitist *snick* world-view.That boy jest ain't right. I smell home-schooling.
Deanna:I agree with you to a point, that point unfortunately being the exact one Ti-Guy points out. If someone is willing to criminalize adultery it is not unreasonable to believe they will be in favour of criminalizing other moral/ethical matters based on his spiritual beliefs. Now, if we were in a theocratic society that would be acceptable, but we live in a secular society for our legal/governance structure where theology has no place being. This allows those of us of various Faiths and no Faith at all to be able to live side by side and receive equal treatment/consideration under our laws.If this blogger had not added that last part in his comments I would not have had any problem with what he said. It is very dangerous to try and legislate morality and religious doctrines/beliefs into common law, it is also an infringement on the right of each of us to believe or not believe as our own sense of Faith/Spirituality calls us. After all, if God calls to us we should be able to respond in whichever mode that call comes from, be it Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, Taoist, Wiccan, whatever. When you legislate a particular religion’s morality as the law all must follow one clearly infringes upon that most basic gift of God (At least according to Christian belief) to man, free will.
Ah, mea culpa. I admit I couldn't be arsed to read the comments. I thought I was doing well in reading the article.
Post a Comment