View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Debate a question of rights, not of definition

Posted: March 11, 2009 7:06 p.m.
Updated: March 12, 2009 4:55 a.m.
 

I'm responding to the letter by Susan Wachter ("Further clarification on Proposition 8," published Feb. 12) in which she responds to my original letter about Prop. 8. I'm on her side.

Rather than spending time attacking my religion, why don't we concentrate on solving the problem of getting these rights to the gay community?

The voters didn't set up the method of voting on this issue; the government did. If it's deemed unconstitutional, so be it.

The point is to attain these rights for the gay community. I didn't vote to take anything away from anyone.

The question was the definition of marriage - that's what I voted for.

Just because people in the Bible or throughout history had variations on marriage doesn't change God's definition; it just means these people deviated from God's law.

By attacking religion, you make it appear that your main problem is with the morals of religion and not the rights you seek.

Keep it a civil issue and you'll get converts to your view. Bringing religion into it makes it a moral question, which is what's keeping you from making more progress.

Christianity does not own the definition of marriage, but this is a Christian nation. If you don't think so, try gaining these rights in Saudi Arabia or Iran and see what happens.

Remember, true believers in God don't hate gays, don't want to take any rights away from anyone, nor do they wish to impose their morals on anyone else.

They're on your side until you alienate them with your attacks on their religion, which is not in their power to change for you or anyone else.

Comments

Commenting not available.
Commenting is not available.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...