• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why do YOU have the right to vote on MY rights?

Jaymes

The cake is a lie
When gay marriage comes up to the ballot, what gives anyone the right to vote against something that will affect my rights?This goes doubly so if someone is straight, since it won't affect them at all.

This isn't a democratic society. We aren't allowed to vote on if Christians or atheists or Wiccans or Taoists or Buddhists or Muslims or black people or white people or green people get rights. Why do we vote on whether gays get rights?
 

LongGe123

Active Member
So, you're saying that only people who support the proposal should be able to vote? Or are you saying that only gay people should be able to vote on this?

While no political system is perfect, I do think that giving everyone the vote is designed to allow the result to reflect the feelings of the majority of the people. Whether people are gay or not, they may have perfectly reasonable views for or against the idea of gay marriage, and they must be allowed to express their view through a vote.

In a society where democracy is the preferred system, denying people a vote based on sexuality is unlawful and is abandoning the very essence of the system. If issues were voted on by the only people that particular issue affects, then it's not a representative system.

In addition, who are YOU to say who it does and doesn't affect? How could you possibly know how it will affect every single person JUST based on their sexuality? All objections must be noted and taken into account. That means everyone (old enough) gets a vote.
 

Buttons*

Glass half Panda'd
i didnt realize homosexuality was a religion.

Why do people who are pro life get to vote on a ballot when i'm pro choice?
 

Ori

Angel slayer
You should move over here Jensa if you want to get married. :)

I don't think people should be allowed to vote against you or anyone else that is percieved as being different, what you do in your private life is yours and I hope you have agreat time doing it.

I hope one day the people of the world will finally wake up and turn this planet into paradise, there has sure been enough Hell.

Good luck in the future.
 

Jaymes

The cake is a lie
LongGe123 said:
So, you're saying that only people who support the proposal should be able to vote? Or are you saying that only gay people should be able to vote on this?
I'm asking why a straight person should have any right to tell me when I do and don't deserve rights when they usually have no idea what it's like to be gay.
While no political system is perfect, I do think that giving everyone the vote is designed to allow the result to reflect the feelings of the majority of the people. Whether people are gay or not, they may have perfectly reasonable views for or against the idea of gay marriage, and they must be allowed to express their view through a vote.
Are you willing to extend that to everything? Would you trust your country to vote on all your rights?

It stops being an opinion and starts being oppression when their vote determine my rights.
In a society where democracy is the preferred system, denying people a vote based on sexuality is unlawful and is abandoning the very essence of the system. If issues were voted on by the only people that particular issue affects, then it's not a representative system.
I'm not suggesting that people be unallowed to vote on gay marriage unless they're gay. I'm saying it shouldn't be voted on at all. Rights aren't something that society decides at whim.
In addition, who are YOU to say who it does and doesn't affect? How could you possibly know how it will affect every single person JUST based on their sexuality? All objections must be noted and taken into account. That means everyone (old enough) gets a vote.
Unless they're a straight person intending to marry someone of the same sex, it won't affect their life at all. I can say that with confidence. If it does affect their life, it will be nowhere near the degree it affects the thousands and thousands that are barred from marriage, despite being longtime partners.
Buttons* said:
i didnt realize homosexuality was a religion.
Where did I say it was?
Why do people who are pro life get to vote on a ballot when i'm pro choice?
I see that the same way... To borrow a view from Maesi, I see it as "if it's not your body or your life and nobody's getting hurt, butt out."
 

LongGe123

Active Member
While I personally agree with you that marriage is something that should be allowed for all people regardless of sexuality, there is something else...

The problem is that it's far too easy to say that something is your right, and in such a society as western society, there are so many differing views, that votes are necessary on these kind of issues. There are bound to be people who would put up an argument against it being a right, based on religion or whatever, which means that a different task becomes clear.

If you are so convinced, as you so obviously are (and I agree), that it's your right, then it becomes your job to convince others, that's what it's all about. If people have objections, then that too is their right, and they have a right to express this rejection. We live in a world of no absolutes which means nothing can be said categorically, no matter how strong your conviction. Who are you to say what people's rights are and aren't? If we're to follow what we all believe to be our rights, the world would become an EVEN MORE unstable and crazy place. Society is mankind's answer to chaos.

You can't tell others what to think - if you took away someone's right to vote on an issue they felt strongly about one way or the other, even for a seemingly positive cause then it makes you an oppressor.
 

Revasser

Terrible Dancer
I agree, it should not be something that is put up to vote at all.

Should we let the people vote on whether black people could get married? Should we let the people vote on whether women can own property? Should we vote on whether we should be able to beat up Arabs in the street? Should we vote on whether we're allowed to steal someone's property, as long as they're over 6' tall?

You don't put basic rights up to vote. That is an entirely ludicrous suggestion. It is an especially ludicrous suggestion to put the rights of an unpopular minority up to majority vote. I know it's rather overused, but the phrase "tyranny of the majority" springs immediately to mind.
 

Jaymes

The cake is a lie
If it's not my right to marry a consenting adult, then it's not anyone else's, either, and we should be able to vote on all marriage. Who's ready to vote on whether we should allow 20 year olds and 50 year olds to marry? Interracial couples? Infertile couples?

There is a vast difference between up and saying "well, it's my right to poke you all in the eyes!" and demanding the rights everyone else has.
 

Buttons*

Glass half Panda'd
Jensa said:
This isn't a democratic society. We aren't allowed to vote on if Christians or atheists or Wiccans or Taoists or Buddhists or Muslims or black people or white people or green people get rights. Why do we vote on whether gays get rights?
Well, you're saying that we dont get to vote for religions rights, but we get to vote for gay rights. Are religions in the same league as homosexuality?
 

robtex

Veteran Member
I am thinking the way to look is this is to look backwards in the cause and effect relationship of laws that impede freedoms and why they exist. To start with some examples, we do not have the freedom to carry a gun in an airport. We don't have the freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded building. We don't have the freedom to force our way into someone elses residence univited.In many cities and states you can't smoke in a public building.

The restriction of those freedoms have to do with the central theme that those actions harm or restict freedoms of someone else. For someone to legally argue the neccessity of a gay-marriage ban they would have to show, in my mind, how it hurts the community at large. How gay marriage will have a negative impact on society and more directly how it will harm others outside the consenting marriage. Only than will the proposals and laws banning gay marriage have equal merit to other laws which demostrate safety and rights need of the community at large.
 

Jaymes

The cake is a lie
Buttons* said:
Well, you're saying that we dont get to vote for religions rights, but we get to vote for gay rights. Are religions in the same league as homosexuality?
This is getting off topic. Are 'black' and 'white' and 'green' religions?
 

Buttons*

Glass half Panda'd
Jensa said:
This is getting off topic. Are 'black' and 'white' and 'green' religions?
no, but that's what i was trying to point out, why compare things that arent remotley like one another?
 

Jaymes

The cake is a lie
If it bothers you that much, ignore my initial comparison. But let's get back on topic, shall we?
 

WeAreAllOne

Member
Jensa said:
When gay marriage comes up to the ballot, what gives anyone the right to vote against something that will affect my rights?This goes doubly so if someone is straight, since it won't affect them at all.

This isn't a democratic society. We aren't allowed to vote on if Christians or atheists or Wiccans or Taoists or Buddhists or Muslims or black people or white people or green people get rights. Why do we vote on whether gays get rights?
Great post Jensa, I agree with you. Personally I see Gay rights being turned into a Civil rights issue. And I really, really wish people could just pull their heads out of their backside, and learn form history. I wish they would save us the problems, and Leave you guys, and girls, alone.
You were 100% correct in saying we have no idea what it's like to be gay, But I bet we might have an idea what it's like to be gay and in love. I don't doubt for a second it's just as special, loving, and caring as any other relationship. I'm with you. Good luck to all of you.
:rainbow1: :hug:
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Jensa said:
When gay marriage comes up to the ballot, what gives anyone the right to vote against something that will affect my rights?This goes doubly so if someone is straight, since it won't affect them at all.

This isn't a democratic society. We aren't allowed to vote on if Christians or atheists or Wiccans or Taoists or Buddhists or Muslims or black people or white people or green people get rights. Why do we vote on whether gays get rights?
Unfortunately, the founders of this nation were clouded by their own prejudices, so that when they wrote that all men were created equal, they didn't mean men of color, women, or anyone else that they happened to be prejudiced against. Since those days we have had to struggle with our own prejudices to correct their shortcomings. We have come to recognize that black men and women are also created equal and therefor deserve equal freedom, equal rights, and equal protections under the laws of the nation. But it's been a struggle, and the struggle continues.

You are absolutely right in that we should not be voting on whether or not any citizen in this nation should be treated equally under the law. It should already be understood that we are all equal under the law, and that should already be reflected in our laws. But sadly, there is and has always been a lapse between the ideal of equal freedom and justice for all citizens, and the reality of our prejudice infecting common beliefs, practices, and even our written laws.

Keep in mind that it was only a few short decades ago that we were able to finally face our racism and eliminate "Jim Crow" laws that should have been eliminated 75 years before, during emancipation. The civil war ended slavery, but it couldn't end the effect of racial prejudice on our laws because the racism remained long after the war was over.

The new "******s" in America are now the homosexuals. People who would not feel comfortable overtly condemning their fellow citizens because of their skin color currently feel free to condemn their fellow citizens loudly and proudly based on their sexual orientation. People of weak character and self-esteem need to make scape-goats of other people as a way of building themselves up at the other's expense. This is what prejudice against race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc., is all about. And at this time and place in America their current scape-goats are the homosexuals.

It's very difficult for our society as a whole to overcome this kind of prejudice because prejudice is in us all to some degree, and none of us likes looking at ourselves, critically, and admitting that we're being prejudiced against other people because we're feeling weak in ourselves. Many of us will simply refuse to challenge ourselves in this way and so it will take generations to overcome our prejudice.

So even though you're absolutely right in pointing out that such a vote on homosexual rights should not be happening, or even be necessary, the sad reality is that the American people have not yet faced their prejudice against homosexuality fully and clearly enough to recognize your point.

The good new is that we have faced many of our prejudices, and corrected the laws to reflect the essential ideals of equal freedom and justice for all. And I do believe that we will eventually do so for our homosexual fellow citizens, too. Sadly, though, it will take some time, yet.
 

LongGe123

Active Member
Yes, that's what I was thinking before. If people firmly believe that they could demonstrate this, then it DOES become something that should be voted on. If we're talking about things that could affect the fabric of society, then we must turn to society to try to resolve the issue.

Another thing, if there is something that truly is an inherent right of all people, then no amount of legalistic mumbo jumbo will hold it back forever. If it's something that truly is a right, then it surpasses and transcends man's laws, which are nothing more than big books of overly complex words. Let it go to the vote, if it wins then great, if it doesn't, then you exercise your rights to protest, appeal and try to show people WHY this is something they should support. If people agree with you on it being a right, then a vote is merely a formality.
 

LongGe123

Active Member
I have one more thing to say before I go. If we're talking about inherent rights, then isn't it also the inherent right of others to hold whatever objections they might to this issue. They may object strongly on religious grounds which to them mean everything. As ludicrous as it may sound, allowing gay marriage as an inherent right, disregarding all the objectors would be an act of prejudice too, because...in all fairness, what if they're right?

Of course, I'm not saying they are. I'm having fun playing devil's advocate. With all the possible objections that could be thrown against it from various groups, it's bringing things to a vote which keeps it all "fair". With it being wrong to silence the views of others, bringing this thing to the vote is the only way.
 

Revasser

Terrible Dancer
LongGe123 said:
Yes, that's what I was thinking before. If people firmly believe that they could demonstrate this, then it DOES become something that should be voted on. If we're talking about things that could affect the fabric of society, then we must turn to society to try to resolve the issue.
Bold emphasis is mine.

You know, I see this "fabric of society" nonsense thrown around a lot, but so few people seem willing to back up their claim that letting gay people marry each other will damage this nebulous "fabric of society" of theirs. Those that do actually have a go are either forced to fall back on a few ambiguous lines from their chosen scripture, which frankly have no place in the debate at all, or their arguments are so fallacious it would be laughable if the issue wasn't going to affect the rights of human beings.

Would anyone like to give it a shot? Seriously, if gays getting married is going to damage this "fabric" that society has, I'd love to know why and how.
 

robtex

Veteran Member
Revasser good post. Why don't you start a thread on that subject? It would be a great topic for today.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
WeAreAllOne said:
Great post Jensa, I agree with you. Personally I see Gay rights being turned into a Civil rights issue. And I really, really wish people could just pull their heads out of their backside, and learn form history. I wish they would save us the problems, and Leave you guys, and girls, alone.
You were 100% correct in saying we have no idea what it's like to be gay, But I bet we might have an idea what it's like to be gay and in love. I don't doubt for a second it's just as special, loving, and caring as any other relationship. I'm with you. Good luck to all of you.
:rainbow1: :hug:
Nice post; fruballs to you! let's have a group hug on that one. :hug:
 
Top