Gay Rights

Lol same; I try to follow certain morals in my life, and I like to pick and choose the best from the different religions.

 

I get that you have a predisposed hate for the bible, but I'm sure we both agree that if people based their morality on the teachings of Jesus the world would be a much much much better place.

 

Yes, it would be, also there are multiple other sons of a god or deity in other religons that taught similar things.
Also speaking of it Jesus never said anything about being gay etc in the bible.
While we're talking about other religions the idea of "do unto other as they do to you" is actually true in every religion.

And back to the thing about the teachings of Jesus and how someone said that everyone can say the bible supports this and that, the socialist that wrote the pledge of allegiance (no I am not kidding you I have a link to a website that constantly fact checks things like snopes.), was a believer in the idea that Jesus actually supported socialism etc.

http://m.mentalfloss.com/article.php?id=29678

 

I've been really bored today and so I went back and read about 20 pages of this conversation. In doing so I saw many examples of people saying things like "I am a Christian and don't approve of homosexuality." These statements weren't attacking or rude, but were responded to with phrases like "you have issues" or "it's cause people like you the world is a bad place."


Why does tolerance have to be so intolerant? We promote freedom in America, the freedom to chose your worldview and practice it. If you want people to start respecting your beliefs I'd suggest you do the same with theirs. I've come across many gay activists and they are some of the biggest hypocrites ever. They promote their own freedom of expression and opinion but shut down opposing opinions with words like "judgmental" or "homophobic".

You never get anything productive out of debate or discussion unless you're respectful or opposing opinions. Skaros is a great example of someone who has realized this.

Basically I won't respect your opinion if you don't respect mine.

/rant

 

"I don't think two people who have a love for each other should have the same rights as other people based on the fact they share the same sex" doesn't really deserve respect though does it, (at least to people who believe in gay rights). It's like saying respect my racism to someone who believes gays deserve rights. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a rational discussion to find the truth, I'm just saying respect isn't a prerequisite in the fact of the limitations of human rights.
Now we say, is the illegalization of pedophilia an attack on human rights (as a stem to try and prove my prior point). Is pedophilia a mental condition or in twenty years will pedophiles have their own rights parade and movement, which I actually don't find out of the blue with the new political correctness.
I guess I've created more problems than solutions in my typing in the way the my thought process it quite sporadic, but to create another argument I would have to say on human rights topic respect is not something to keep in mind, respect for the debate yes but not the belief.

 

While at first glance the racism analogy seems logical, doesn't really carry over in my opinion.

As a background, I personally believe that there should be no bans on gay marriage.

First, it's not so much a human right issue. Even in states where gay marriage is banned, gay relationships are still practiced. Theres nothing prohibiting that, they have the ability to practice what they wish, the only limitation being the official title and tax benefits of marrige. I have never witnessed or experienced any type of gay "persecution". Never in any time in history have gays had the ability to practice what they want freer.

Second, racism implys something completely different than the majority of people who "oppose" homosexuality. Racism is often associated with hate, and violence. This isn't the same in the majority of the opposition of gays. disagreeing =/= hate. I disagree with many many things in this world. I disagree with lets say adultery, and some cases of divorce. I see these things as destructive factors of society and marrige. Does it mean I hate people who do this? No. Just because someone believes homosexuality is wrong doesn't mean they don't deserve respect. The majority of people who oppose homosexuality are NOT "hateful" "bigoted" or "religious fanatics".

Many times the base of the opposition of gays simply comes out of tradition not necessarily hate. This is common especially among the older generations. Marrige is something that's been the same for the most part for thousands of years. It's hard to change something that people are so used to without opposition.

Third, our government. The constitution allows for states to make their own decisions about things like this. Many states have removed the bans on gay marrige because American culture has changed so much. If the majority of people in a state support gay marrige, then it will be legal. If it's the opposite then it will be banned. State government officials are elected by the people. If the majority of people are Christian they will elect like minded politicians. If these politicians ban gay marrige, so be it. That's the beauty of the constitution. That's the beauty of America.

It's important to respect beliefs.

 

I believe we should all be treated as equals and afforded the same basic human rights, marriage would constitute one of those rights in my mind.
However, I do not feel marriage should entitle one to any sort of financial benefit. It is meant to signify committed love, not save people money on car insurance, nor should it function as a way to cheat the immigration system.

 

To reply to the first (trttf), I can't take this serious. Have you heard of the story of Harvey Milk, did you know of the literal persecution of gays by the Nazis? Even the lesser limitation of the story of the bakers who wont even make gay cakes.

TRTTS, ya nothing really wrong in the second.

Just to mention marraige has not always been the same, the monogamous marriage has as we know it has for the most part been created by our legal state for the purpose of the benefits. Gay marriage has been arround for a long time even to the roman ages.

TRTTT, I'm sorry but this is not the beauty of America. The appeal to popularity is one of the worst fallacies and most common. If you have noticed the masses have for the major part of history been wrong until a minority rises.
Debate over belief.

 

1: when I said "I have never witnessed" I was talking about like in my life.

As for the bakers, as the owners of a company they have the right to deny service to a customer just as the customer has the right to choose the business.

3. Democracies normally represent the beliefs of the people.

 

I really have to disagree with you, especially in your third paragraph. If a law is discriminatory, then it has no place even at a state level. The US system of government works in a way that makes it really hard to pass a law-- especially a controversial law. A majority of Americans may support same-sex marriage, but it would be decades until any federal law is passed to affirm same-sex unions similar or the same rights as those of opposite sex unions. Would it eventually happen? Arguably yes. Are couples affected negatively in the meantime? Yes. Justice delayed is justice denied. There are many laws that I do think should be decided at a state level, but one that involves the civil rights of a minority group just shouldn't depend on someone's zip code.

I don't mean to digress here, but I don't think all issues should be decided by the people and representatives. I also don't want to try to equate LGBT rights to black rights, but I will draw some parallels.
Currently, the Supreme Court of the United States will release a ruling on same-sex marriage (expected by June 29th). They may or may not affirm that same-sex couples and their families deserve the same dignity under the law as oppose sex couples. Some of the major gay rights movements were decided by the Supreme Court. Lawrence v Texas (2003) and Windsor v United States (2013) were 2 very important ones. Many times, even when the majority of people were against the motion, the Supreme Court affirmed basic civil rights for people. Were gays the only ones seeking the Supreme Court to affirm laws? Nope. Many black rights were affirmed by the Supreme Court-- not by the legislative and executive branch. Loving v Virginia and Brown v Board of Education were two very important ones. Even when the majority of people opposed interracial marriage, it was still made legal. Had it not been for the high court, interracial marriage would of waited decades and schools would also of been segregated for years to come. During those extra decades, the families of those couples and the students would of been held as second class citizens, which goes against the very concrete belief that America is founded under. To undermine the very concrete belief that all people are equals goes against the foundation of modern American society and livelihood.

That is our true American system. Checks and balances. The people have power to decide law and elect representatives-- but not enough power to deprive others of their equal protection under the law.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 17, 2015, Original Post Date: Jun 17, 2015 ---

Gay relationships weren't always legal. People were arrested for homosexuality and it was classified as a mental illness. It wasn't until 1962 that the first state legalized same-sex relations. The Supreme Court had to strike down all the remaining bans in 2003. I'm also not understanding your last sentence. Same-sex relations were accepted in some societies, such as some Native tribes, Japan, and ancient Rome + Greece. (few others as well)

Even if you've never witnessed gay persecution, LGBT people live in constant fear of being attacked/bullied/rejected by society. 40% of homeless youth are LGBT people who have been disowned by their families. Not only do LGBT teens make up 40% of homeless youth, but LGBT people are 5x more likely to attempt suicide because of harassment in schools. Workplace discrimination also exists. In most states, you can legally be fired for being LGBT. The same civil rights protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are not protected for LGBT people.




To wrap up my post, I understand your point of view. I simply think you're arguing under the wrong premise. The issue isn't about what someone believes, it's about justice being deprived because of someone's beliefs. People can believe what they want, but they shouldn't deprive rights for others because of what they believe.

 

I could base my morals off Mein Kampf if I was selective enough, being able to base some "morals" off of something doesn't make it great.

 

I agree with pretty much everything you said.

Just so you don't misunderstand me, I'm well aware that gays are abused, and am aware and don't deny the statistics you mentioned. I was just saying that in my personal life in my area, (Florida) I have not witnessed or observed any type of abuse towards gays. (I'm sure there's still abuse).

 

Here's my opinion, and I don't care if you guys like or dislike it.

I think gays should be able to do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't directly affect me.

Keep debating for the next 2000 years guys, it'll never stop.

 

Indeed not. Yet 'Treat others as you want to be treated' is a good moral - although the Bible is certainly not all good. There are good and bad messages, and why can someone not base morals off the good messages?

 

Haha, like 'an eye for an eye'. Except I'm more likely to do 'An eye, hand, foot, and nose for an eye'.

 

But the thing is "treat others as you want to be treated" isn't even prevalent in the Bible haha. I don't want to be enslaved personally.

 

That just goes back to the point I was originally trying to make, you can do that with any book, so what makes the bible special? Here, I will give one "good" moral quote from Mein Kampf "If you want to shine like sun, first you will have to burn like it". In other words, if you want to achieve greatness or be good at anything, you must put great effort into it.

 

"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" - Gandhi. I do not support "An eye for an eye."

Perhaps is isn't prevalent, but it's a good message. It's not about the prevalence, it's about the message. Good message? Support the message, not the source.

That's a good message, so I support the message, not the source. Please note I do not know what that book is about, so I cannot say anything about it.

 

You don't know what Mein Kampf is about... please look it up.

 

Yeah, so good messages can come from bad sources, like the bible. Mein Kampf is bad for sure, it's basically a 700 page hitler whining festival and a nazi manifesto in one book.