Christians, why do you hate Gays?

[Lady B]

When you vote against same-sex marriage, you're voting for things like this:

- when a person is in the hospital, if a hateful hospital staff member wants to kick his or her partner out and deny the patient comfort and companionship in a stressful time, the staff member should have this power.

- if that person becomes incapacitated, his or her care should be decided by a disapproving relative rather than the partner he or she has built a life with.

- a homophobic landlord should have the power to use "no roommates" clauses in the lease to evict same-sex couple tenants.

- when a couple's child is critically ill, only one parent should be able to take time off work to care for them.

- if a child's parent dies, they should go to a distant relative rather than the only other parent they've ever known, and they should have no right to be allowed to see their surviving parent.

... and on and on.

You are causing harm to people. You're causing real harm to same-sex couples and their children.


Frankly, I think this is a red herring - I don't think you do "make God first in my life and vote accordingly". I'm fairly certain that you vote to allow freedom of religion - IOW, freedom to be a heretic - and all sorts of other laws that don't fit within the tenets of your religion.

What does your God say about, say, Islam or Hinduism? Are you trying to "make God first in your life and vote accordingly" on that issue? Do you vote to ban halal food? Do you vote against allowing building permits for Buddhist meditation centres?

I would bet dollars to donuts that you do absolutely nothing - and probably actively support - many laws that enshrine the right for people to be hellbound sinners (in your view, anyhow) in all sorts of ways. Because of this, I can't take you seriously when - on only this one issue, apparently - you demand that everyone in your country or state abides by the tenets of your religion whether they agree with it or not.

You don't vote to force everyone to follow your version of religious morality. No reasonable person does. Don't pretend that you do.

well I can honestly say that I have never voted against or for religious freedom in the manner you are speaking such as voting on Hindu meditation centers and Islamic mosques. It has never come up in my area nor as a constitutional amendment proposal.So no red herring here....as of yet.

 

[Jainarayan]

When you vote against same-sex marriage, you're voting for things like this:

- when a person is in the hospital, if a hateful hospital staff member wants to kick his or her partner out and deny the patient comfort and companionship in a stressful time, the staff member should have this power.

- if that person becomes incapacitated, his or her care should be decided by a disapproving relative rather than the partner he or she has built a life with.

- a homophobic landlord should have the power to use "no roommates" clauses in the lease to evict same-sex couple tenants.

- when a couple's child is critically ill, only one parent should be able to take time off work to care for them.

- if a child's parent dies, they should go to a distant relative rather than the only other parent they've ever known, and they should have no right to be allowed to see their surviving parent.

... and on and on.

You are causing harm to people. You're causing real harm to same-sex couples and their children.

And to intercept the inevitable "Well they can make a will, power-of-attorney, and guardianship papers", let us remind people that those papers can be challenged in court and p.o.a.s cease upon death. And they have been challenged and overturned by vindictive family members. Not to mention that not all states honor papers drawn up in another state. The Full Faith and Credit Clause doesn't have (full faith) or give (credit).

 

[Storm]

well I can honestly say that I have never voted against or for religious freedom in the manner you are speaking such as voting on Hindu meditation centers and Islamic mosques. It has never come up in my area nor as a constitutional amendment proposal.So no red herring here....as of yet.

Is there a reason you totally ignored all the examples of how you're voting to hurt people?

 

[Penumbra]

Paul is an apostle, his letters are scripture and I don't care that some Christians and non-Christians refute his legitimacy,I have no reason to concur with their conclusions. I believe every word in The bible Is the word of God, so arguing with me in this is futile as it is my beliefs and my vote your questioning now.

Do you see what that sounds like?

With the most respect possible, it sounds like the tactic of putting hands over one's ears and shouting so that they cannot hear opposing views. When a person says arguing with them is futile they're essentially saying they're not responsive to reason.

Paul was an apostle in the self-proclaimed sense. He was not one that Jesus picked. He wrote letters after the death of Jesus. Yet his views constitute much of the New Testament and are considered words of God by some people. Over a billion people believe the words of the Qur'an are from God and you probably do not. Do you feel it's possible that it's a mistake to place authority in Paul?

What basis do you have to believe that the Bible in its current configuration has anything to do with God? People voted on which scriptures get to be canon a few hundred years after the death of Jesus. Have you read all of the apocrypha (non-canon Christian texts like the Gospel of Thomas), or are you basing the entirety of your view on god on the gamble that the men who voted on this were correct and without bias? They collected letters from people with self-proclaimed authority and written-down oral stories and packaged them together, and you accept this as the word of God in its entirety?

As for divorce, till now adultery is a legitimate release from marriage as was when Jesus spoke it so I am not sure how your using this argument.It is a Christian concept upheld by our legal system, I am in favor.

The point is clear, I think.

Question 1) Do you feel that the activity of cheating on one's spouse is immoral?
Question 2) Do you feel that immoral behaviors should all be illegal?
Question 3) Should cheating on one's spouse be illegal?

Now take the same approach and apply it to your involvement in the discrimination of marriage based on orientation. Do you believe homosexual sex is wrong? (If so, see any and all previous arguments of mine that you have not responded to.) If yes, then should things you find wrong be unlawful if they don't affect you?

 

[Lady B]

And to intercept the inevitable "Well they can make a will, power-of-attorney, and guardianship papers", let us remind people that those papers can be challenged in court and p.o.a.s cease upon death. And they have been challenged and overturned by vindictive family members. Not to mention that not all states honor papers drawn up in another state. The Full Faith and Credit Clause doesn't have (full faith) or give (credit).

That actually would not be my argument, I am not opposed to these basic rights apart from marriage. I feel each person has the right to leave their children in the care of whom they wish and it should not require a marriage certificate to do so. I also believe no hospital should have the authority to dismiss a persons rights, If their rights are visualized and or documented then they should be upheld by the courts. I would vote for these rights to be given between two consenting adults without marriage even being necessary to attain them.

 

[Lady B]

Is there a reason you totally ignored all the examples of how you're voting to hurt people?

No I am getting to it, please bare with me....

 

[Penumbra]

That actually would not be my argument, I am not opposed to these basic rights apart from marriage. I feel each person has the right to leave their children in the care of whom they wish and it should not require a marriage certificate to do so. I also believe no hospital should have the authority to dismiss a persons rights, If their rights are visualized and or documented then they should be upheld by the courts. I would vote for these rights to be given between two consenting adults without marriage even being necessary to attain them.

That's all marriage is in the eyes of the state.

It's just a legal contract and a set of rights and responsibilities.

 

[Jainarayan]

Is there a reason you totally ignored all the examples of how you're voting to hurt people?

And I'd still like to know why voting for laws based on religious convictions should be binding on me, who does not share that religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And to intercept the inevitable "Well they can make a will, power-of-attorney, and guardianship papers", let us remind people that those papers can be challenged in court and p.o.a.s cease upon death. And they have been challenged and overturned by vindictive family members. Not to mention that not all states honor papers drawn up in another state. The Full Faith and Credit Clause doesn't have (full faith) or give (credit).

Those things wouldn't provide all the rights and protections I mentioned. I don't know of any legal paper that can force a hospital to grant an exception to a rule like "visiting hours end at 10:00 for everyone but spouses and parents" even with a POA or living will.

When my Dad was dying, my Mom stayed by my Dad's bedside all night and all day, and only went home to change and shower before going right back. While the particular staff that cared for my Dad all seemed awesome, in a different hospital, without legal protections, it would be completely possible for a homophobic staff member to say to the same-sex partner of a patient "that's it - visiting hours are over. Come back tomorrow."

And it's not exactly practical to expect that when, for instance, a family is in a car crash and one parent and their child are badly injured, the other parent will have the legal documents right on hand to demonstrate to the Emerg staff that he or she really does have the power to make medical decisions for his or her partner and kid.

Even if a same-sex couple could go to a lawyer and get all the rights of marriage - which they can't, but for argument's sake - being able to say "we're married" cuts through the crap and red tape in a way that can't be duplicated.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

well I can honestly say that I have never voted against or for religious freedom in the manner you are speaking such as voting on Hindu meditation centers and Islamic mosques. It has never come up in my area nor as a constitutional amendment proposal.So no red herring here....as of yet.

So you're against the First Amendment, but just haven't had the chance to vote against it yet?

That would be surprising and troubling, but I suppose it's consistent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And I'd still like to know why voting for laws based on religious convictions should be binding on me, who does not share that religion.

Indeed.

The flipside of a Christian majority saying with their vote "we don't agree with same-sex marriage, so nobody can do it" is that if the country ever gets to the point where the majority is non-Christian, it would be in-bounds for them to say with their vote "we don't agree with attending a Christian church, so nobody can do it." Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and all that.

Lucky for them, I don't think a non-Christian majority would ever subject a Christian minority to the sort of treatment that they're subjecting people to right now.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That actually would not be my argument, I am not opposed to these basic rights apart from marriage. I feel each person has the right to leave their children in the care of whom they wish and it should not require a marriage certificate to do so. I also believe no hospital should have the authority to dismiss a persons rights, If their rights are visualized and or documented then they should be upheld by the courts. I would vote for these rights to be given between two consenting adults without marriage even being necessary to attain them.

So effectively, you're asking for a special head-tax for same-sex couples, only paid to lawyers instead of the state. Hmm.

 

[Lady B]

I am not intending to ignore anyones arguments, But geepers guys It is not easy to keep up and I am responding as fast as I can .

 

[Lady B]

And I'd still like to know why voting for laws based on religious convictions should be binding on me, who does not share that religion.

So your asking me to vote against my beliefs so that my beliefs will not be in majority, hmmmm, when I go to the polls I do not vote to please or displease others, I have no idea If I will be in a majority and thus laws will be made, so why is this an act of hate or of insistence that all people accept my convictions? When you go to the polls and vote how you believe, If you become a majority I would not say you are expecting your views would be binding to me and hateful.

 

[Jainarayan]

That actually would not be my argument, I am not opposed to these basic rights apart from marriage. I feel each person has the right to leave their children in the care of whom they wish and it should not require a marriage certificate to do so. I also believe no hospital should have the authority to dismiss a persons rights, If their rights are visualized and or documented then they should be upheld by the courts. I would vote for these rights to be given between two consenting adults without marriage even being necessary to attain them.

It's commendable that you see it that way, but with all due respect, it's naive. These papers are often worthless, so a gay couple has no rights. Who is going to force a court to uphold these documents? Appeal to a higher court? How long will that take?

As far as "vot[ing] for these rights to be given between two consenting adults without marriage even being necessary to attain them" (I didn't want to retype it ), even civil union bills in state legislatures have been voted down. Vermont was one of the first states to implement civil unions, and it was an uphill battle that was almost lost. The cry was "it's marriage under a different name". No, it was not. Civil marriage confers over 1,100 legal benefits, rights, and privileges. Civil unions, which hardly come close, are even opposed.

 

[Father Heathen]

What if the Geico gecko was gay?

 

[Lady B]

So effectively, you're asking for a special head-tax for same-sex couples, only paid to lawyers instead of the state. Hmm.

No, I don't think this is what I am saying. Your arguments for basic human rights are indeed genuine, such as the right to delegate authority when sick, or in custody battles or bequeathing property. I see no reason to vote against this as I feel anyone person has the right to leave his children or property to anyone he or she so chooses male or female. I don't think a marriage contract should be a necessity for this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So your asking me to vote against my beliefs so that my beliefs will not be in majority, hmmmm, when I go to the polls I do not vote to please or displease others, I have no idea If I will be in a majority and thus laws will be made, so why is this an act of hate or of insistence that all people accept my convictions? When you go to the polls and vote how you believe, If you become a majority I would not say you are expecting your views would be binding to me and hateful.

What do you mean by "your convictions"?

Personally, I distinguish between the rules I make for myself and the rules I think should be imposed on others. Don't you make a distinction like this?

For instance, I think that opposition to same-sex marriage is offensive and harmful, but I wouldn't vote to silence you. In fact, if the matter came to a vote, I'd vote to allow you the freedom to speak your views... as offensive as they may be.

 

[Father Heathen]

So your asking me to vote against my beliefs so that my beliefs will not be in majority, hmmmm, when I go to the polls I do not vote to please or displease others, I have no idea If I will be in a majority and thus laws will be made, so why is this an act of hate or of insistence that all people accept my convictions? When you go to the polls and vote how you believe, If you become a majority I would not say you are expecting your views would be binding to me and hateful.

You know, I strongly disagree with Christianity, yet I would never vote to take away your right to believe, speak and practice as you wish (provided you not violating the rights of others in the process). If you think something is "sinful", then don't do it, but don't try to impose your beliefs upon those who don't share them. How would you like it if you weren't allowed to eat hamburgers just because Hindus believe it's immoral?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I don't think this is what I am saying. Your arguments for basic human rights are indeed genuine, such as the right to delegate authority when sick, or in custody battles or bequeathing property. I see no reason to vote against this as I feel anyone person has the right to leave his children or property to anyone he or she so chooses male or female. I don't think a marriage contract should be a necessity for this.

Those were only examples. There are many, many other rights where it's needlessly cruel to deny them to same-sex couples.

At a certain point, it just becomes stupid to grant every right of marriage piecemeal instead of just granting same-sex couples the right to marry.

And frankly, the word "marriage" does matter.

Edit: when you end up allowing same-sex couples every right of marriage but deny them the term "marriage", then you've lost any rational basis for an argument against same-sex marriage... if there was one to begin with.

OTOH, using the term "marriage" is important for two big reasons:

- making a same-sex union the same under the law as an opposite-sex union makes it more difficult for future governments to turn around and deny same-sex couples to others.

- there are certain countries that recognize foreign same-sex marriages but not same-sex civil unions, and people do travel occasionally.