I'm going to be replying inside your own post, so I can take your issues point by point, and don't have to repeatedly copy / paste. You might be surprised to find that we actually agree on several points.
@spaceinsomniac: Did Brendan Eich use or not use his financial resources to attempt to make marriages between gays illegal? Please answer.
If something is illegal, it's pretty much always punishable by prison or a fine. In this sense, he did not use his financial resources to attempt to make gay marriage illegal. He used his financial resources to not make gay marriage recognized by our government. More specifically, several years ago, he used his vast financial resources to donate 1000 dollars to an organization that is opposed to gay marriage. That's not the work of someone who wants to destroy gay marriage. It's an action from someone who gave a "charity" a very small donation, likely out of guilt, and likely because he believed that it was the right thing to do, according to his faith.
You seem to be insisting that I'm misrepresenting Brendan Eich when I say that he used his financial resources to promote inequality. That's exactly what happened.
That is exactly what happened. It's very much an issue of inequality, and I roll my eyes every time I hear that stupid passive-aggressive "gay men can legally marry; they can marry any woman they want, because that's what marriage is" argument. But that doesn't make it any less true that marriage, for millions and millions of religious people, is a considered a religious rite between a man and a woman.
He gave money to a specific campaign whose specific purpose is to skip around the Constitution and write off any same-sex marriages, even those of married gay people who enter the state. Find a way to falsify that.
That's a very compelling point, but that's not what you suggested when you said "I will continue to attempt to use my financial resources to make your marriages and relationships illegal and punishable by prison." That was complete hyperbole.
Straight up; do you feel that wanting to outlaw same sex marriage is much different than wanting to outlaw interracial marriage?
Gay sex is considered sin in the Bible. Interracial sex is not. Other than that, they're exactly the same.
Your bit on religious people is categorically erroneous. For one, it doesn't say in the Bible that homosexuality should be punishable by prison, it also doesn't say that gay marriage should be illegal in the nation you live in, and yet here we are. It doesn't say that gay people should be violently attacked and yet that happens. It's because it's not about what it says in the Bible, it's about being taught from the time they were children to hate gays and to not be a gay and to make other gays stop being gay by force. The religious are the reason why homosexuality was punishable by prisons, asylums or worse, for decades upon centuries. For you to claim that they would never, ever harm homosexuals is absolutely ridiculous. They have been campaigning for and occasionally winning the right to imprison, torture and destroy homosexuals since longer than you've been alive. They are not campaigning for it now because no one else would stand for it anymore, but when they could imprison and destroy homosexuals, they did. If they could again, they would. They can get away with it in Uganda, so they do. If they could get away with it here, they would.
Wow. Now THAT is some hate. On your part, that is.
When did I ever claim that the religious never harmed homosexuals throughout history? I'm talking about religious people here and now, in the US, which is what we're actually talking about. Catholics once persecuted Christians with torture, but I don't fear that from the current Pope, or think that "he's not campaigning for it now because no one else would stand for it anymore, but if he could again, he would." That is absolutely ridiculous. Hate and violence go against everything that most religions truly stand for. Turn the other cheek, hate the sin but love the sinner, judge not least ye be judged yourself, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, etc. There's a lot of that in the Bible. You don't have to look too hard to find it.
You "don't buy the argument that religious people should accept gay sex with open arms because of which way the wind is blowing". That's great because I never fucking made that argument. I didn't even fucking mention religious people until you brought it up.
You can't talk about this topic without "even fucking mentioning religious people." That's the entire point of the argument against gay marriage. That's the actual debate here, and what makes this such an interesting topic.
Religious people should afford gay people an equal level of rights and respect as every other person in society, but they don't, and they won't. Instead they'll cling on to their book of nonsense from 3000 years ago and act as if ignorant desert priests who had never seen an ocean knew more about the world than we did. They will use this to justify homosexuals having a different legal standard than heterosexuals, because their stupid book of myths said so. Perhaps next the Norse Church can tell us that blacks can't have their relationships "be recognized by the state", because it would offend Thor.
Thor is great. Especially that second movie. Much better than the first.
Either way, many of these same people also deny themselves birth control, refuse to masturbate, don't have sex until marriage, don't eat pork, give away 10% of their money, etc "because their stupid book of myths said so," as you've put it. So when that same book tells them to not be cool with the whole butt sex thing, it doesn't surprise me that they continue to follow what their religion teaches, and it doesn't automatically make them "hateful bigots" because of it.
The line about "I know a lot of Christians who would never hurt gay people". I know a lot of Christians who are pro-gay marriage, for all the obvious secular, ethical reasons. My best friend is a Christian pastor. However, that does not change the fact that many, many Christians justify their own bigotry and proxy state violence against gays entirely because of what they erroneously believe about the world. There are plenty of examples of what happens when the religious make their laws into national laws.
You bring up some people "forced" to do things against their religion. Most businesses would force their employees to offer service to gays because most businesses are interested in treating their customers well. I find a "religious exemption" from making cakes for gay people would be like a gas attendant claiming a "religious exemption" from filling up the gas tank of anyone they think is a little flitty. That's not someone attempting to be true to their religion's doctrine, that's about pressuring gays and making their lives difficult for no other reason than the stupid Goddamn lies about the world they learned as children.
A little flitty? Is that a typo? Not sure what you're getting at there.
In the case of people who own their own business; I would actually be fine if they want to discriminate against gay customers. Because then I and everyone else with a conscience can discriminate against them as a consumer. But if you tell me that the treatment I receive from the pharmacist at WalMart should be however their religion tells them to treat me, then I'll have to call WalMart's human resources department and make sure that all employees are adhering to their codes of conduct.
I feel the same way. While I personally wouldn't have an issue with a religious baker refusing to create a cake for a gay marriage that they believe to be an affront to God, I absolutely am fine with others not being cool with that, and "voting with their wallet" as it were. I also am fine with OK Cupid's stance on this issue, despite the hypocrisy that others have already pointed out.
Lastly, I find it very odd that you doubled down on Eich's religion, when I had not even mentioned it. I don't even know what Eich's religion is, and I don't know if that's why he decided that gay people were not subject to the same rights and privileges as straights. I only know that he did, and your "nuh uh" does not change what he did.
Religion doesn't change what he did. It explains why he did it. It also doesn't mean that I agree with it.
Seeing as I've answered several of your questions, could you do me the favor of answering several of mine concerning the complications that could arise from this and similar issues?
Do you believe that a Jewish owned and operated restaurants should be forced to offer ham, bacon, and sausage? Probably not.
Do you believe that religious bakers and wedding gown designers should be forced to create cakes and dresses for gay marriages that they believe to be an affront to God?
Do you believe that religious business owners should be allowed to refuse service to gay people, even though the service they provide has nothing to do with marriage?
Do you believe that religious business owners should be forced to provide birth control to their employees, despite it being against their religion?
Do you believe that religious owned and operated hospitals should be forced to provide birth control for their patients, despite it being against their religion?
Do you believe that religious owned and operated hospitals should be forced to provide abortion services for their patients, despite it being against their religion?
These are interesting topics, and what this debate is really all about. Where do religious rights end, and individual rights begin?