The Declaration of American Independence states that "All men are created equal." For a country that states this on the founding document of its existence sure took a lot of time to extend the equality to people of colour, women and more recently LGBT people.
It is not important whether or not the LGBT people are born this way. What is more important that they have the fundamental right to live in peace, to not be discriminated against. How can you judge today's society by what was the law 2000 years ago. Your religion tells you to stone people who committed adultery. With changing time you realize the barbarity of the act. Then how do you fail to see that denying someone services, not letting them rent houses in your community, not providing them employment is any less abusive than stoning someone?
Do you think whether the marriage was legal or not stopped anyone from being with the person they wanted to be? I strongly believe that all human beings should have a freedom to act in whatever way they want to act till it is not violating others rights. If someone is LGBT, and wishes to marry another consenting adult LGBT, then who are you to decide whether they should marry or not? The role of law is to support the vulnerable so that their rights are not trampled upon. It totally makes sense to put a age of consent because kids are not mature enough, and they can be subjugated by people of authority. The role of a pastor in the wedding is to ask whether the person agrees to take the other as their lawfully wedded spouse. It is to ensure that someone is not being coerced into marrying the other. Secondly, if the sole purpose of marriage according to religion is procreation, then what about childless couples? Is their marriage any less loving?
You cite the judgement of Sodom as the sole justification of your bigotry. How can you be so sure that the people of Sodom were not punished because they were intimidating, bullying and attempting to violate the guests? Why is the gender of the guests important? Do you believe that the judgement would be any different if the guests were women who were being harassed by a mob of men? Do you actually mean that gang rape of women by men is acceptable by your religion, but gang rape of men results in destruction of the town?
If 2 people want to stay together in joy and sorrow, and in sickness and in health, let our narrow-minded interpretation of religion not do them apart.
It is not important whether or not the LGBT people are born this way. What is more important that they have the fundamental right to live in peace, to not be discriminated against. How can you judge today's society by what was the law 2000 years ago. Your religion tells you to stone people who committed adultery. With changing time you realize the barbarity of the act. Then how do you fail to see that denying someone services, not letting them rent houses in your community, not providing them employment is any less abusive than stoning someone?
Do you think whether the marriage was legal or not stopped anyone from being with the person they wanted to be? I strongly believe that all human beings should have a freedom to act in whatever way they want to act till it is not violating others rights. If someone is LGBT, and wishes to marry another consenting adult LGBT, then who are you to decide whether they should marry or not? The role of law is to support the vulnerable so that their rights are not trampled upon. It totally makes sense to put a age of consent because kids are not mature enough, and they can be subjugated by people of authority. The role of a pastor in the wedding is to ask whether the person agrees to take the other as their lawfully wedded spouse. It is to ensure that someone is not being coerced into marrying the other. Secondly, if the sole purpose of marriage according to religion is procreation, then what about childless couples? Is their marriage any less loving?
You cite the judgement of Sodom as the sole justification of your bigotry. How can you be so sure that the people of Sodom were not punished because they were intimidating, bullying and attempting to violate the guests? Why is the gender of the guests important? Do you believe that the judgement would be any different if the guests were women who were being harassed by a mob of men? Do you actually mean that gang rape of women by men is acceptable by your religion, but gang rape of men results in destruction of the town?
If 2 people want to stay together in joy and sorrow, and in sickness and in health, let our narrow-minded interpretation of religion not do them apart.
No comments:
Post a Comment