Palestinians celebrate death of children.

[gsvol]

How would legalizing gay marriage suppress the views of christians? If it is legal no one is forced to do it. It's just available. Christians would still be able to be against gay marriage, but people that do not practice Christianity would be able to have more freedom in marrying whomever they want.

Personally I believe a business owner should be able to deny services to whoever they want. But the government shouldn't.

I fail to see what your obsessive focus on homosexual matrimony has to do with the topic of this thread. :crazy:

 

[VOLatile]

I fail to see what your obsessive focus on homosexual matrimony has to do with the topic of this thread. :crazy:

 Elderly Gay Man Stoned to Death in Pa. | News | The Advocate

 

[rmsmith]

Please see this post that I replied to. Then ask them the same question

How is telling someone that they are doing something wrong and will be judged by God for it qualify as being hateful or preventing them from living the way they want? Is it terrorism when homosexuals want to impose themselves on Christian landlords? Employers? Are homosexual rallies where people threaten to come after children or "stomp" out the bigotry of others terrorist rallies?

Is it an act of terrorism when a mother tells their child that a hot stove will burn their hand? Is it unloving when parents tell their teens about the graphic dangers of texting and driving?

EVERY warning involves the fear of some undesired consequence... at what point do you PC police stop with the free speech suppression... Wait. Isn't that terrorism too?

How are they imposing? They just want the same rights that come along with marriage.
personally I could care less if the church recognizes it. But the state cannot discriminate against someone based upon sexual orientation when we have freedom of religion. Homosexuality may be frowned upon by christians but not all of them do.

 

[sjt18]

How would legalizing gay marriage suppress the views of christians? If it is legal no one is forced to do it. It's just available. Christians would still be able to be against gay marriage,

You already said how. You said a Christian business owner could not deny spousal benefits. What if Christians didn't want their child to be influenced by a teacher in a same sex marriage? How about the landlord that didn't want to lease to them? How about when a Christian adoption agency does not want to place kids in those homes? What about the cost increase to everyone's group insurance?

but people that do not practice Christianity would be able to have more freedom in marrying whomever they want.

They have that ability now. People are doing it in every state in the union. They simply can't get a license or state endorsement of it.

Personally I believe a business owner should be able to deny services to whoever they want. But the government shouldn't.

If everyone were willing to carry that to its logical end then I'd oppose it less.

 

[rmsmith]

You already said how. You said a Christian business owner could not deny spousal benefits.

Correct, if they want to be in business then they would susceptible to equal rights laws.

What if Christians didn't want their child to be influenced by a teacher in a same sex marriage?

I dont know about you're school but my teachers kept their private lives out of the classroom. I did not know if they were gay, straight, married or single.

How about the landlord that didn't want to lease to them?

they would be susceptible to equal housing rules.

How about when a Christian adoption agency does not want to place kids in those homes?

that again would be discrimination

What about the cost increase to everyone's group insurance?
[/quote
Why would it go up? Because there are more participants in the plan?

They have that ability now. People are doing it in every state in the union. They simply can't get a license or state endorsement of it.

there are many legal advantages of being married. For instance, only a spouse can decide about continuing life support if their significant other is in a hospital. They do not have the same legal right to life insurance payouts if they are not married. The list goes on and on.

On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:

joint parenting;
​

joint adoption;
​

joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
​

status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
​

joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
​

dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
​

immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
​

inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
​

joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
​

inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
​

benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
​

spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
​

veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
​

joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
​

wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
​

bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
​

decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
​

crime victims' recovery benefits;
​

loss of consortium tort benefits;
​

domestic violence protection orders;
​

judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

​

So tell me why homosexuals couples shouldn't have the same benefits?

 

[rmsmith]

.

 

[sjt18]

*Elderly Gay Man Stoned to Death in Pa. | News | The Advocate

Thanks for highlighting this. Interesting that the killer is the guy's heir.

It is noteworthy because you probably won't find many Christians or their children celebrating. You won't find many willing to say that this guy should not be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

thanks for helping to prove the point.

 

[sjt18]

Correct, if they want to be in business then they would susceptible to equal rights laws.

So basically you are endorsing discrimination based on religion, right? If you deem someone's religious beliefs "wrong" then they lose their Constitutional rights concerning property and association, correct?

I dont know about you're school but my teachers kept their private lives out of the classroom. I did not know if they were gay, straight, married or single.

That is not the norm in my experience... having lived in several different states.

they would be susceptible to equal housing rules.

so once again you would deny someone's property rights because they disapproved of a chosen behavior.

that again would be discrimination

Adoption agencies discriminate all the time based on the behavior of the prospective parents. Who are you to tell private agencies what standard they must use or to deny them the right to provide such services unless they bend to your view of morality? THAT indeed IS discrimination based on religion.

What about the cost increase to everyone's group insurance?
[/quote
Why would it go up? Because there are more participants in the plan?

Because homosexuals and particularly the men have a higher incidence of many different types of infection that are difficult and expensive to cure. They are much more likely to contract HIV which is VERY expensive to treat.

there are many legal advantages of being married. For instance, only a spouse can decide about continuing life support if their significant other is in a hospital.

Not true. You can do that through a civil contract.

They do not have the same legal right to life insurance payouts if they are not married.

Not true. You can name anyone you like as a beneficiary... and you have yet to give one valid reason that the privilege of a marriage license should be extended to homosexuals other than some angst with religious people for opposing it. At the same time, you have very well detailed why Christian fears concerning homosexual marriage are VERY valid. Their rights according to you WILL be subverted so that privilege can be extended to homosexuals.

So tell me why homosexuals couples shouldn't have the same benefits?

Because in most states they do not meet the qualifications for attaining a marriage license.

 

[rmsmith]

So basically you are endorsing discrimination based on religion, right? If you deem someone's religious beliefs "wrong" then they lose their Constitutional rights concerning property and association, correct?

Just like you say, it's a choice. They choose to go into business.

Adoption agencies discriminate all the time based on the behavior of the prospective parents. Who are you to tell private agencies what standard they must use or to deny them the right to provide such services unless they bend to your view of morality? THAT indeed IS discrimination based on religion.

Private agencies? That receive public funds to care for those children? Yeah the government can tell them what to do.

Because homosexuals and particularly the men have a higher incidence of many different types of infection that are difficult and expensive to cure. They are much more likely to contract HIV which is VERY expensive to treat.

So is cancer, are we going to stop treating that?
Or since homosexuality is a choice how about we never treat another person that gets lung cancer because they smoke? Or mouth cancer because they chew tobacco. Or reattach an ACL after a football players rips his apart because he chose to play football.

Not true. You can do that through a civil contract.
Not true. You can name anyone you like as a beneficiary... and you have yet to give one valid reason that the privilege of a marriage license should be extended to homosexuals other than some angst with religious people for opposing it.

It has nothing to do with religion, this is why we have separation of church and state. I'm only asking the state to recognize gay marriage, could care less if churches do.
Although I do think they should lose their tax exempt status for doing so.

At the same time, you have very well detailed why Christian fears concerning homosexual marriage are VERY valid. Their rights according to you WILL be subverted so that privilege can be extended to homosexuals. Because in most states they do not meet the qualifications for attaining a marriage license.

That has only been changed in the past few years with amendments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Constitutional_Amendment_1_(2004)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Amendment_1_(2006)
Wonder why these amendments passed? People telling other people what they can and cannot do? Seems to be that you're ok with telling people what they can do but when it's reversed it's not received very well.

 

[sjt18]

Just like you say, it's a choice. They choose to go into business.

Umm no. You evaded the question. Why? Is it because you know that you are absolutely wrong about this?

Being in business is part of property rights... a right guaranteed by the USC. Right to associate is also a USC right. There is no such animal as a right to marry. So basically you are denying someone's constitutional rights because you disagree with their morality.

Private agencies? That receive public funds to care for those children? Yeah the government can tell them what to do.

So the gov't can tell homosexuals what they can and can't do too, right?

WRONG. Gov't should NOT tell private adoption agencies what their morality should be nor should it dictate morality to homosexuals. What part of mutual respect for each others' REAL rights do you struggle with?

So is cancer, are we going to stop treating that?
Or since homosexuality is a choice how about we never treat another person that gets lung cancer because they smoke? Or mouth cancer because they chew tobacco. Or reattach an ACL after a football players rips his apart because he chose to play football.

You seem to have missed the point or else are trying diversion again. I never said to stop treating anything. I said that forcing an extension of benefits to homosexual partners amounted to an undue burden on others in the plan. FWIW... I think people who smoke, chew, drink excessively, eat too much, or engage in other unhealthy CHOSEN behaviors should pay more for insurance... or companies should have the option of dropping them altogether if they refuse to quit.

It has nothing to do with religion, this is why we have separation of church and state. I'm only asking the state to recognize gay marriage, could care less if churches do.

Wow. This has EVERYTHING to do with Religion and conscience. You think that because YOU think homosexuals are somehow being mistreated that YOU are entitled to trample the rights of others and force them to behave as you like. You've admitted that several times in our conversation already.

FWIW, the USC does not establish a separation of church and state. It declares that Congress will make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free practice thereof. The men who wrote and signed those words with risk of life and fortune routinely invoked religious principles and the Christian worldview when legislating.

You would specifically prohibit the free practice of religion for anyone who disagreed with you concerning homosexual marriage.

And you STILL have not given a compelling reason that the state should risk the rights of millions simply to affirm homosexual unions.

Although I do think they should lose their tax exempt status for doing so.

If I suggested that you should lose your tax deductions because you disagreed with me concerning this issue you'd flip, right? Your problem is really with freedom it seems.

That has only been changed in the past few years with amendments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Constitutional_Amendment_1_(2004)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Amendment_1_(2006)
Wonder why these amendments passed? People telling other people what they can and cannot do? Seems to be that you're ok with telling people what they can do but when it's reversed it's not received very well.

Those laws had not been enforced in years. But to your point, two wrongs do not make a right. These laws wrongly intruded upon who people associated with and what they did on their own property. That's exactly what you propose to do to those who disagree with you.

 

[sjt18]

FTR, I have consistently said that homosexuals should be able to do whatever they like within the scope of their rights and the law. However their rights end at the tip of my nose. Tolerance does not mean acceptance. It means respecting the rights of others even when they disagree and even when respecting their rights isn't convenient to you.

Before states put themselves in the position of endorsing homosexuality over and above peoples' right to free conscience, they should get out of the marriage business and let it be done altogether privately through private contracts. A marriage contract could easily be standardized the way real estate contracts are. Companies could make their own choices regarding their group insurance eligibility... and everyone's rights would be respected.

 

[IPorange]

sjt setting up straw men like it's Halloween at the pumpkin patch. Yup, two adults being legally married stomps all over his rights. Monogamous married couples are well known for their STD problems, I'm sure.

 

[rmsmith]

This is pointless, neither one of us are changing our minds.

 

[rmsmith]

sjt setting up straw men like it's Halloween at the pumpkin patch. Yup, two adults being legally married stomps all over his rights. Monogamous married couples are well known for their STD problems, I'm sure.

Yeah, wonder why a blood test is required for a marriage license? The only license homosexuals can't get.

 

[sjt18]

sjt setting up straw men like it's Halloween at the pumpkin patch. Yup, two adults being legally married stomps all over his rights. Monogamous married couples are well known for their STD problems, I'm sure.

Did you actually read the thread and why I said that? rm openly stated that a business owner who conscientiously objected to providing benefits to a homosexual spouse would have to make the choice between violating his religious convictions and going out of business.

There are no "straw men" here. If homosexuals can use the legitimacy of a "license" to force people engaged in private activities to include running their businesses to violate their religious convictions then there is reason to worry.

Folks like you keep handwaving as if the threats do not exist... quite possibly because you do not care if they exist. Anyone who has thought it through on either side knows the stakes.

You need to read up on homosexual monogamy. The consensus from all sides seems to be that few homosexuals even in "committed relationships" are monogamous. Just search "homosexual monogamy". Disease spreads quickly in this "community" because of this very fact.

 

[sjt18]

This is pointless, neither one of us are changing our minds.

I don't expect you to. However there are people who are undecided who read stuff like this. Presenting our cases the best we can may help them decide.

What I would really like from you before it would ever come to a real confrontation is simple respect for my right to disagree with you AND act according to my conscience. I offer you that courtesy... and am not really willing to accept anything less in return. If you wonder what caused the Tea pot to boil... it is things like this. Some of us really, really don't like to have our rights violated.

 

[rmsmith]

I don't expect you to. However there are people who are undecided who read stuff like this. Presenting our cases the best we can may help them decide.

What I would really like from you before it would ever come to a real confrontation is simple respect for my right to disagree with you AND act according to my conscience. I offer you that courtesy... and am not really willing to accept anything less in return. If you wonder what caused the Tea pot to boil... it is things like this. Some of us really, really don't like to have our rights violated.

If i came across as not respecting your rights then I apologize.
I do have one more question, why would a business owner ask an employee his/her sexual orientation? I've never seen it on any application i've filled out.

 

[IPorange]

Did you actually read the thread and why I said that? rm openly stated that a business owner who conscientiously objected to providing benefits to a homosexual spouse would have to make the choice between violating his religious convictions and going out of business.

There are no "straw men" here. If homosexuals can use the legitimacy of a "license" to force people engaged in private activities to include running their businesses to violate their religious convictions then there is reason to worry.

Folks like you keep handwaving as if the threats do not exist... quite possibly because you do not care if they exist. Anyone who has thought it through on either side knows the stakes.

You need to read up on homosexual monogamy. The consensus from all sides seems to be that few homosexuals even in "committed relationships" are monogamous. Just search "homosexual monogamy". Disease spreads quickly in this "community" because of this very fact.

Where in the Bible are you commanded not to offer benefits to a homosexual's partner?

 

[IPorange]

Also, if disease is the problem I assume you have no objections to offering Lesbian partners benefits.

 

[VOLatile]

sjt setting up straw men like it's Halloween at the pumpkin patch. Yup, two adults being legally married stomps all over his rights. Monogamous married couples are well known for their STD problems, I'm sure.

Exactly why I hardly ever respond to his comments anymore.

 

[sjt18]

If i came across as not respecting your rights then I apologize.
I do have one more question, why would a business owner ask an employee his/her sexual orientation? I've never seen it on any application i've filled out.

I honestly don't know any who do. You have debated me enough to know that I think homosexuality is immoral... however I have not and would not discriminate against an employee or co-worker who engaged in the behavior.

But the issue changes when you demand that a business owner respect a homosexual marriage. Marriage a "God designed" institution to serious Christians.

 

[sjt18]

Where in the Bible are you commanded not to offer benefits to a homosexual's partner?

Last verse of Romans 1.

 

[sjt18]

Exactly why I hardly ever respond to his comments anymore.

Yeah, right.

 

[IPorange]

Last verse of Romans 1.

Sounds like something out of the Koran. Shall benefits also be withheld from those who practice premarital sex?

 

[rmsmith]

But the issue changes when you demand that a business owner respect a homosexual marriage. Marriage a "God designed" institution to serious Christians.

Wouldn't this apply also?

Shall benefits also be withheld from those who practice premarital sex?