...which of your civil rights would you have others take from you?
The reason I ask is because one of Christianity's main moral teachings is to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Obviously, you felt it appropriate to take the civil right of homosexuals to marry each other away from them. So, which of your civil rights would you have others take from you?
If you do not list a civil right that you would have others take from you, there is no possibility that you will earn the ten points for answering this question. And, saying that you would have them take your right to marry someone of the same sex is not an appropriate response; since, it is a civil right you care nothing about. It has to be a civil right that is as important to you as gay marriage is to homosexuals. That's only fair.
Oh, and for the purposes of this question, I do not care why you voted against gay marriage. What is relevant, here, is that you would take a civil right from others; so, I want to know which civil right you would have others take from you.
This is a test of your religious teachings and your faith in them. Will you pass? Let's see, shall we?
2009-12-17T07:43:08Z
John K: If your right to marry is inherent, then my right to marry is inherent. The government did not grant you your right to marry - you already had it. You simply went to the trouble of taking it from me. So, you fail. But, thanks for playing!
2009-12-17T07:49:51Z
Bible Chooser: The government does not grant civil rights - it protects them. You already have them. They are not the government's to grant or take away. That is one of the founding principles of this country. Go read a 5th grade social studies textbook please.
2009-12-17T07:54:52Z
Dave: When that "someone higher up the food chain" shows up, I will defer authority to Him/Her/It. Until then, we are in control, here - not imaginary friends. Got it?
2009-12-17T07:57:52Z
So, none of you Christians who voted against gay marriage are willing to give up a civil right that is important to you? That would seem to be the case.
2009-12-17T08:07:18Z
Andie, since when did you become qualified to declare the definition of marriage? Gay marriages have been around since long before Christianity was invented. Christians do not get to define marriage for the rest of the world. Sorry, but they just don't. Get over it.
2009-12-17T08:20:42Z
Oh, and hiding behind a definition of marriage that you chose avoids the thrust of the question and is obviously quite dishonest.
roccopaperiello2009-12-17T12:48:39Z
Favorite Answer
I believe that law and government must protect people and their inherent rights. Of the most basic is the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. One of the roles of the Supreme Courts of our nation is to protect minorities against the will of the majority. And fortunately, many of our court systems have started to recognize gays as a true and recognizable minority and deserve equality under the law.
Therefore I believe that the government DOES have the right to STOP people from bringing harm to others, even when this harm is brought about by "religious belief."
Too many times during the years I was a nurse's aid in a Pediatric Dept in a hospital, I have witnessed children who have been seriously harmed and even killed because of "religious beliefs." But much MORE than physical harm is being visited upon unfortunate children -- especiially gay children -- because of the harmful and erroneous concepts taught by many religions.
The problem however occurs when people or society as a whole, can not understand correctly just what "HARM" to others entails. For example many people can not see that gay marriage is a matter of civil rights. Many do not understand that for a gay person to have even a chance at a joyful successful intimate personal relationship, that person MUST have that relationship with a person of the same sex. Heck, many people refuse to "believe" that sexual orientation even exist and that people "choose" to be gay.
In 1967, the US Supreme Court stated the following in its decision in the case of Loving vs. Virginia: “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court extended this right to marry the person of one’s choice to gay men and women. The effort to enact laws or constitutional amendments, defining marriage as only the union of one man and one woman, may at first thought seem both reasonable and common sense; however, what is also does, is ignore the fact that 5 to 10 percent of our population are exclusively homosexual or lesbian, and to participate in this ‘marriage‘ they must necessarily marry a person of the same sex..
At one time, to enjoy the full rights of citizenship, one had to be a white male. Fortunately, since then, new amendments and new laws have been enacted to allow more people to engage in their rightful place as ‘full’ citizens under the law. But now it would appear that the new definition of a ‘full citizen’ now includes only heterosexuals, we see for the first time by law, an attempt to deny a significant portion of our population the full benefits of citizenship. When enacted, these amendments restrict by law one’s right to marry the one they would fall in love with.
The very concept of civil rights has only progressed substantially in the past few centuries. Not until the 1700s did ANY of the institutional Christian religions start understanding that slavery is NOT God's will and in fact immoral. (Of course it took the Catholic Church until 1890 to finally come out totally against this institution) Women's rights are still being debated. For most of Chroistian history "women were to be subject to the authority of men. And only recently are people becoming aware of the true nature of sexual orientation and homosexuality and bisexuality. And subsequently are people finally coming to the understanding that gay people too deserve EQUAL RIGHTS under the law. =============================== JOHN K: You stated: "Homosexuals never had this legal right so how was it taken away from them?"
Would you then also opine that before universal emancipation of slaves, those slaves had NO RIGHT to their freedom?
And on the face of it you are STILL WRONG. Gays DID have this right in California and Maine, until others TOOK that right away from them.
I have learned in life that if you don't say something or speak out even a bit, and keep your mouth shut, that pretty much means you are for something. People assume you agree. I love gay people and have gay friends. But.... you are right they will keep sinning whether we make the marriage legal or not. But there comes a time when you just have to say, I don't agree. The thing about the marriage is they get benefits. They get to claim each other as a husband and wife would. Otherwise, they are merely two people living together. They want to be recognized by society as a legal couple, so it's not really about the sex per se.
I've learned to stay away from these questions because answering them is a no win for me. I did not vote against gay marriage, although I will if it is put on a ballot in my state.
Why would I do such a thing? The power of your argument (and it is powerful) is that it appeals to my moral convictions. As you rightly point out, arbitrarily denying someone a practice that I engage in is immoral. I cannot quarrel with that. But what of my other moral commitments? I believe, rightly or wrongly, that same gender sexual expression is profoundly immoral. Am I to jettison that belief, sacrificing it at the altar of social pressure? Am I to endorse a practice I consider deeply offensive to my God? And that's what voting yes would be.
You have no reason at all to trust me, but I mean this in all sincerity. If it were possible to vote yes without betraying my deepest convictions I would do so in a heartbeat. If I were unsure of my position, I would vote yes. But I am not and I cannot.
Why do they get to choose which right they lose? They didn't offer us a choice. I say we take away their right to marry. Let them "live in sin," and do without the more than 1000 benefits and rights that legal marriage automatically bestows.
Marriage is a basic civil right, according to the Supreme Court (Virginia v. Loving). So let's see the homophobes do without it for a while.
(and yes, I know that's mean spirited. I suggest it only because I know it won't happen... but I hope it might open up a mind or two.)
Edit for John K and a few others: You clearly don't know your history, either ancient or recent. Same-sex marriage existed throughout the world until the arrival of European colonizers. And in the US, gay people had the legal right to marry in California and Maine... and the people took that right away. So get the facts before you make statements like that.
I don't usually get involved with debates on this topic because homosexuality isn't the issue; Christ is the issue. But I'll chime in this once even though I'll inevitably be attacked for my two cents.
Discrimination is wrong when it violates someone's basic civil or human rights due to something about their beliefs, race, gender, orientation, etc. I would NEVER deny a homosexual person the same rights as any other citizen. So of course they are as free to marry as any heterosexual. Only thing is, the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. There is no such thing as same-sex marriage. Plain and simple. So if someone would like to spend their life with someone of the same sex, so be it. I'll not judge, I'll not deny them the right. But if they want to marry, the only way it can happen and actually be a marriage is with a member of the opposite sex. Otherwise, it is not marriage.