Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 176 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 95% |
Arguments: | 173 |
Debates: | 2 |
Well, when the government tries to limit freedoms such as marriage, I believe it to be oppressive by definition. That may not fulfill the stereotyped actions of an oppressive government found in history and media (ones that are overthrown), but it is still oppressive in nature.
Marriage isn't exactly a religious term. Many cultures have a marriage system and those cultures are very diverse when it comes to religion.
They could replace the word, but I think the hypocrisy of religious citizens in the matter is the real problem. But that is a problem that must be eliminated with careful diplomatic intervention in a way that will show them that Christianity is designed in such a way to "give people a choice between right and wrong."
I think all we would have to do is add a religious denomination modifier. For example, Methodist marriage. Or perhaps even broader, such as Christian marriage. I believe individual denominations have the right to refuse to marry homosexuals, but for them to want an oppressive government who tells us want we can and can't do is not only silly, it is the polar opposite of Jesus's teachings. Jesus taught people to not put others down even if they are different (too bad Jehovah is not the same). Also, according to the monotheisms, Jehovah created free will to give humans a choice to "commit sin" or "ask for forgiveness and be pure in the eyes of the Lord. So trying to restrict that free will is going against Jehovah's will. It's almost like trying to pass a bill that would require everyone alive to be armless to reduce murders.
I believe you can vow for that, but I believe that worse should be limited to the both of you still being able to be happy together. If that ability doesn't exist anymore, it is time to divorce in most cases. So yes, I believe you can, but the vow should be extended before anyone makes it.
All your argument are belong to us.
|