So When Did YOU Come Around on Same-Sex Marriage?

[Gumbo4x4]

View attachment 106739

You know, while I personally do not have any issues with gay marriage, I'm also in full agreement with the above.

To assume that someone who disagrees with gay marriage is automatically hateful, ilinformed, unenlightened, illogical, indoctrinated, or just plain ignorant is incredibly insulting. And to make such assumptions while pointing at others and shouting "bigot" is the height of hypocracy. Resorting to insults is the surest way to demonstrate you don't really want an honest, open conversation.

My aunt wrote her own obituary before her death. One of the things she was thankful for in her life was finding a church that was "welcoming to all, even if they didn't all believe all the same things". I thought it was a pretty powerful statement - her youngest daughter (my favorite cousin) is gay.

 

[ZephyrHawk]

Fascinating read from Canada: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/

Well, I don't know much about Canadian news agencies, other than those in lovely Ontario, so I can't comment on whether or not this is a reputable news source (though I'm guessing no). Also it seems to conflict with this one, which I found through a very simple search: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Simo...rica+finally+follows+suit/11171009/story.html

Alberta seems okay with it.

Anyways, the first article rambles a bit, but it seems that the author is rather angry that, "By legally erasing biological parenthood in this way, the state ignores children’s foremost right: their immutable, intrinsic yearning to know and be raised by their own biological parents." Ummm....no. That's not a right. Let alone a foremost right. And as for an "intrinsic yearning", I really don't believe that exists.

 

[SirDuff]

View attachment 106739

Agreed. I may (and will) argue against "facts" that are cited that I feel are incorrect, but I'm not going to assume that anyone who thinks differently than I do is inherently nonsensical.

Fascinating read from Canada: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/

I have no idea where in Canada that person lives (or, why, if they live in Canada they submitted something to the US Supreme Court), but people debate same-sex marriage all the time in Canada - in person, on FB, in editorials, on TV, etc. Haven't seen any of them being taken before a tribunal! Heck, our current PM would probably have to be taken before such a tribunal (if they existed).

 

[badcramps]

You know, while I personally do not have any issues with gay marriage, I'm also in full agreement with the above.

To assume that someone who disagrees with gay marriage is automatically hateful, ilinformed, unenlightened, illogical, indoctrinated, or just plain ignorant is incredibly insulting. And to make such assumptions while pointing at others and shouting "bigot" is the height of hypocracy. Resorting to insults is the surest way to demonstrate you don't really want an honest, open conversation.

My aunt wrote her own obituary before her death. One of the things she was thankful for in her life was finding a church that was "welcoming to all, even if they didn't all believe all the same things". I thought it was a pretty powerful statement - her youngest daughter (my favorite cousin) is gay.

Well there are two different ways to "oppose" same-sex marriage aren't there? One way is to be against it in a personal sense--i.e. it's against my religion/ethics so *I* won't do it, but I am not about to use the coercion of the law to tell anyone else what they can or can't do. e.g. Some people oppose any birth control religiously or won't eat pork, but they do not suggest that the law prevent others from being able to do those things because their religion happens to be against them. I don't think many people on this thread or in real life had said much in objection to that sort of thinking applied to same-sex marriage. Live and let live IS what the new ruling institutes. I think most people are willing to shrug on this and just say sure sounds good, I don't care what you personal belief is unless you are trying to force it on me.

But the other way to be against same-sex marriage (or any other issue) is to want the law to restrict what other people can do--that is, to treat same-sex couples unequally in ways that both tangibly and intangibly harm them. This is where the shrugging stops and terms like bigot begin to apply. And why wouldn't they? What would you call a (white) person who says I have nothing against blacks, I just think they should not be allowed in white schools--separate but equal is fine? Or a person who says nothing against Christianity and all, but my religion says that lifestyle is wrong and therefore I think Christians should not get be allowed to be "married." We can make up some other term that no one understands to call their relationships. Or I'm not sexist, but I just think the law should require that you have to be a man to be president (or in any other high level, high power position); after all, for thousands of years women have not held power in any society so obviously that is the way it should stay. So do these people count as being bigoted?

If those people do count as bigoted, then why not all of the people who say the same about same-sex marriage? I don't have anything against lgbq people--I just think you should be denied equal treatment under the law. I don't care if without marriage you can't secure rights to your own children. I don't care how significant the financial penalties are. I don't care if you might end up not being able to make medical decisions or decisions about burial with your significant other. I don't care about 1000+ rights that go along with marriage. It is more important to me that your relationship is treated unequally than that we provide any of those things to you, just because you are in a same-sex relationship. I don't care that calling you relationship something else will obviously imply that it is a lesser relationship and will probably make it a practical impossibility to actually give all of the tangible benefits mentioned above in any other way than connected to marriage. But oh well. What is really important here is not any of those ways you are harmed, but that my religious view of marriage is put into law.

Now how is that not bigotry??? Do you have to actually be beating a gay person to death or lynching someone to count as a bigot? If you have to actually outwardly profess hate to count as a bigot, then it will turn out that most of the racists, sexists, etc. throughout history weren't actually bigoted at all. Some white families felt affection for their slaves after all! They were protecting them from their inability to run their own lives. Slaves were part of the family! Same for many supporters of segregation. The black domestic workers who raise their children and kept their home? No doubt they felt real affection for them even as they considered them inferior and thought it proper that they be treated unequally in every way. Same for lots of sexism. So isn't it going to turn out that bigotry played little part in all of the mistreatment and oppression that has gone on in the history of the U.S.? And that is just absurd. Of course all of that is bigotry!

Now surely you are correct that telling someone they are a bigot is a conversation stopping move. But why should we keep the conversation open and going at this point? It sounds like a kind of coddling--like oh, don't actually be honest about what the usual word to describe views that encourage treating others differently in ways that harm them on no legitimate basis. We wouldn't want to hurt their feelings I guess?

But why should we care about hurting their feelings? They sure don't care about hurting ours! Nor about hurting us in all sorts of other ways as well.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Well there are two different ways to "oppose" same-*** marriage aren't there? One way is to be against it in a personal sense--i.e. it's against my religion/ethics so *I* won't do it, but I am not about to use the coercion of the law to tell anyone else what they can or can't do. e.g. Some people oppose any birth control religiously or won't eat pork, but they do not suggest that the law prevent others from being able to do those things because their religion happens to be against them. I don't think many people on this thread or in real life had said much in objection to that sort of thinking applied to same-*** marriage. Live and let live IS what the new ruling institutes. I think most people are willing to shrug on this and just say sure sounds good, I don't care what you personal belief is unless you are trying to force it on me.

But the other way to be against same-*** marriage (or any other issue) is to want the law to restrict what other people can do--that is, to treat same-*** couples unequally in ways that both tangibly and intangibly harm them. This is where the shrugging stops and terms like bigot begin to apply. And why wouldn't they? What would you call a (white) person who says I have nothing against blacks, I just think they should not be allowed in white schools--separate but equal is fine? Or a person who says nothing against Christianity and all, but my religion says that lifestyle is wrong and therefore I think Christians should not get be allowed to be "married." We can make up some other term that no one understands to call their relationships. Or I'm not sexist, but I just think the law should require that you have to be a man to be president (or in any other high level, high power position); after all, for thousands of years women have not held power in any society so obviously that is the way it should stay. So do these people count as being bigoted?

If those people do count as bigoted, then why not all of the people who say the same about same-*** marriage? I don't have anything against lgbq people--I just think you should be denied equal treatment under the law. I don't care if without marriage you can't secure rights to your own children. I don't care how significant the financial penalties are. I don't care if you might end up not being able to make medical decisions or decisions about burial with your significant other. I don't care about 1000+ rights that go along with marriage. It is more important to me that your relationship is treated unequally than that we provide any of those things to you, just because you are in a same-*** relationship. I don't care that calling you relationship something else will obviously imply that it is a lesser relationship and will probably make it a practical impossibility to actually give all of the tangible benefits mentioned above in any other way than connected to marriage. But oh well. What is really important here is not any of those ways you are harmed, but that my religious view of marriage is put into law.

Now how is that not bigotry??? Do you have to actually be beating a gay person to death or lynching someone to count as a bigot? If you have to actually outwardly profess hate to count as a bigot, then it will turn out that most of the racists, sexists, etc. throughout history weren't actually bigoted at all. Some white families felt affection for their slaves after all! They were protecting them from their inability to run their own lives. Slaves were part of the family! Same for many supporters of segregation. The black domestic workers who raise their children and kept their home? No doubt they felt real affection for them even as they considered them inferior and thought it proper that they be treated unequally in every way. Same for lots of sexism. So isn't it going to turn out that bigotry played little part in all of the mistreatment and oppression that has gone on in the history of the U.S.? And that is just absurd. Of course all of that is bigotry!

Now surely you are correct that telling someone they are a bigot is a conversation stopping move. But why should we keep the conversation open and going at this point? It sounds like a kind of coddling--like oh, don't actually be honest about what the usual word to describe views that encourage treating others differently in ways that harm them on no legitimate basis. We wouldn't want to hurt their feelings I guess?

But why should we care about hurting their feelings? They sure don't care about hurting ours! Nor about hurting us in all sorts of other ways as well.

I'm not getting into all that. I'm simply talking about people not being permitted to express a contrary opinion (one "I" don't share) without being looked down upon as somehow less evolved.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

Marriage has been defined traditionally as the joining of a husband and wife, but has now been amended. I think it would have been a decent compromise for those against it based on it being called something other than marriage but with the same rights and privileges. A lot of those opposed to same gender marriage would agree to this. Some benefit for both sides.

I used to feel this way, but thought it was too complicated and somewhat insulting. Why would a man and a woman apply for a "marriage license" while two men have to apply for a "civil union license" when both grant the same type of rights, and the only difference is gender?

If the government wants to call them all "civil unions", then I'd be fine with that. The only reason the government is in the "marriage business" to begin with is because of tax, estate, privacy laws, and to protect minors. To me, it's just a word. From my perspective, the big problem is the connotation of the word "marriage" with a religious ceremony where you promise to God that you will love, honor, and respect another person and live with them as one family until death. Not all heterosexual marriages are done in a church. Not all marriages are between religious people. Why do we need to use different language for different types of people?

 

[mnrose]

I love how the headline of that story "Churches could lose tax exempt status" is so misleading. It claims that the attorney arguing for the Obama administration "admitted" that churches could lose tax exempt status if they refuse to perform gay marriages.

Then the ACTUAL quote is about "colleges and universities" losing their tax exempt status if they do not recognize same sex marriage.

Do you not see that those are two different things? A college or university is NOT a church. They might be sponsored by a church or be affiliated with a church, but last I checked, colleges and universities do not perform weddings. They educate people. Duh.

Read beyond the headline. Apply some logic to this. Please.

I'm looking for the story that says a CHURCH (not a university, college or business) will be "forced" to perform same sex weddings (actually perform the ceremony) or lose their tax exempt status as a church. Not holding my breath that anyone will find one, because it hasn't happened. Not in any country where SSM is legal (some going on 15 years) and not in any state where SSM is legal (some over 10 years). And, you know why? Because no one thinks any church can be compelled to perform SSM against their will because of this little thing called "religious freedom."

Colleges and universities are an entirely different matter.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

I don't know when I was for same-sex marriage. It's been years. As as said before, I was for the "civil union" idea, but realized that was just nit-picking. I still struggle with how I feel about whether my church specifically should perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Fortunately, I don't have to be involved in that decision.

I also don't buy into the fear some are spreading about churches being forced into performing these ceremonies. Churches don't have to marry anyone they don't want to. Catholic churches don't marry non-Catholics, for example. I don't see this as any different. The 1st Amendment is clearly on the side of the churches in this regard.

 

[ZephyrHawk]

I'm not getting into all that. I'm simply talking about people not being permitted to express a contrary opinion (one "I" don't share) without being looked down upon as somehow less evolved.

You are entitled to your opinion. So is everyone else. One person may hold the opinion that gay marriage is wrong, and I will fight to the death to allow them the right to have and express that opinion. Others may feel that people who oppose gay marriage are somehow less evolved. I will fight to the death to ensure that they have the right to have and express that opinion.

Having an opinion does not give you the right to be free from ridicule. Even if the opinion is sincerely held.

Also, allow me to point out the railing of conservative individuals that gay people are abominations, affronts to God, hell-bound, disgusting, etc. Once again, I support their right to have and express their opinions. But it's sort of hard to knock the comments of those who support gay marriage as being "mean" to anti-marriage supporters, while ignoring the decades worth of "mean" things that have been said about gays.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

You are entitled to your opinion. So is everyone else. One person may hold the opinion that gay marriage is wrong, and I will fight to the death to allow them the right to have and express that opinion. Others may feel that people who oppose gay marriage are somehow less evolved. I will fight to the death to ensure that they have the right to have and express that opinion.

Having an opinion does not give you the right to be free from ridicule. Even if the opinion is sincerely held.

Also, allow me to point out the railing of conservative individuals that gay people are abominations, affronts to God, hell-bound, disgusting, etc. Once again, I support their right to have and express their opinions. But it's sort of hard to knock the comments of those who support gay marriage as being "mean" to anti-marriage supporters, while ignoring the decades worth of "mean" things that have been said about gays.

There's a big difference between someone who says, "Gays are an abomination" and someone who says, "You know, I'm just not sure I approve. But, I won't get in the middle of it".

The former is absolutely deserving of ridicule, the latter, not so much. That IS my opinion & I will continue to direct MY ridicule not only at the former, but also at anyone who would attack the latter. IMO, such people are two sides of the same coin.

Again, I am for gay marriage, but I won't bash those who are less than enthused as long as they remain respectful.

 

[aristocatz]

View attachment 106739

While I agree with the above statement, in this situation, it is not even close to being as simple.

Disagreeing with another person's lifestyle, doesn't make you a hateful person. It makes you an honest person.

Turning your personal beliefs into actions that lessen the quality of life of another individual is cruel & wrong.

People who are so worried about the "definition of marriage" baffle me, and make me wonder if its the "definition of marriage" they are worried about or the definition of their own marriage.

Why not just take that energy & put it into focusing on your own relationships, making those relationships what you strive them to become, instead of meddling into relationships of strangers who share no connection to you?

I don't know, until the Supreme Court starts forcing individuals into marriages that they don't want to participate in, I just can't understand the opposition's rationale or motives. Everyone should be able to voice their thoughts & beliefs. But the beliefs of one group should bear no effect on the happiness of another.

 

[badcramps]

I'm not getting into all that. I'm simply talking about people not being permitted to express a contrary opinion (one "I" don't share) without being looked down upon as somehow less evolved.

So isn't my opinion that those people are bigots also something you shouldn't criticize or look down upon or call intolerant etc.? Thus no one is allowed to ridicule or look down upon anyone?

I don't understand what you are getting at. Yes you can put forth any opinion you want without the government punishing you for it. I support that 100%. I support the right of Nazis, white supremacists, the Westboro baptist people, the person in CA who wanted to start a ballot initiative supporting the execution of gay people, etc. to be able to say what they want, have marches, etc. without punishment. But do I look down upon them when they express those opinions? Of course I do! And I'd bet a lot of $ that you do too.

So what is your actual position here? Of course we all look down on, judge, see as bigoted, etc. some people's opinions. And rightfully so. (Otherwise why actually have the concept of bigotry at all if no opinion could ever possibly instantiate it?) Seems the only question is where the draw the line--when an opinion is bigoted and when it is not. I draw the line at when one's opinion is that other people should be treated unequally/harmed (particularly by government means no less!) for no legitimate reason.

Maybe your line is differently placed, but surely you have one as well.

 

[badcramps]

There's a big difference between someone who says, "Gays are an abomination" and someone who says, "You know, I'm just not sure I approve. But, I won't get in the middle of it".

The former is absolutely deserving of ridicule, the latter, not so much. That IS my opinion & I will continue to direct MY ridicule not only at the former, but also at anyone who would attack the latter. IMO, such people are two sides of the same coin.

Again, I am for gay marriage, but I won't bash those who are less than enthused as long as they remain respectful.

Ah, see I think these two are completely different things (and I tried to distinguish them in my earlier response to you!) I generally agree as I think most people on this thread have. I think the position of "I'm not going to ask the law to stop you even if I don't personally like what you are doing" is not at all likely to get the "you're a bigot" response. I mean, you won't be getting same-sex marriage invitations or friend requests from lgbq people with that point of view, I'm sure, but I don't think there is a lot of "bigotry!" responses to that point of view.

I believe numerous people on this thread said something along the lines of their faith disapproving of it (which I take to mean that they disapprove of it, if they agree with their faith on that point) but that they don't think the law should be dictated by their faith. I don't believe anyone on this thread called them bigots or objected in any way. I believe it was only folks who specifically said that the law should treat same-sex couples differently who got any push back at all.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

So isn't my opinion that those people are bigots also something you shouldn't criticize or look down upon or call intolerant etc.? Thus no one is allowed to ridicule or look down upon anyone?

I don't understand what you are getting at. Yes you can put forth any opinion you want without the government punishing you for it. I support that 100%. I support the right of Nazis, white supremacists, the Westboro baptist people, the person in CA who wanted to start a ballot initiative supporting the execution of gay people, etc. to be able to say what they want, have marches, etc. without punishment. But do I look down upon them when they express those opinions? Of course I do! And I'd bet a lot of $ that you do too.

So what is your actual position here? Of course we all look down on, judge, see as bigoted, etc. some people's opinions. And rightfully so. (Otherwise why actually have the concept of bigotry at all if no opinion could ever possibly instantiate it?) Seems the only question is where the draw the line--when an opinion is bigoted and when it is not. I draw the line at when one's opinion is that other people should be treated unequally/harmed (particularly by government means no less!) for no legitimate reason.

Maybe your line is differently placed, but surely you have one as well.

You're free to ridicule anyone you want, as am I. And in my opinion, ridiculing someone just because they don't 100% agree with your stance is pretty ridiculous in & of itself. That IS my whole point.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

You're free to ridicule anyone you want, as am I. And in my opinion, ridiculing someone just because they don't 100% agree with your stance is pretty ridiculous in & of itself. That IS my whole point.

But, what if I feel their disagreement is based on what I view as ignorance? I think ridicule might be a bit strong in my opinion, but I'd have a hard time respecting and having a discussion with someone I feel is ignorant. Not disagreeing with you completely here Gumbo, but I don't think it's as black and white as we all want it to be.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

But, what if I feel their disagreement is based on what I view as ignorance? I think ridicule might be a bit strong in my opinion, but I'd have a hard time respecting and having a discussion with someone I feel is ignorant. Not disagreeing with you completely here Gumbo, but I don't think it's as black and white as we all want it to be.

It's never black & white. And I think perhaps that demonstrates my point better than I did. For people at opposite extremes of any debate, it usually IS black or white for them. Reality is more likely to be various shades of gray.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

It's never black & white. And I think perhaps that demonstrates my point better than I did. For people at opposite extremes of any debate, it usually IS black or white for them. Reality is more likely to be various shades of gray.

I think my biggest issue with it is when someone with an apposing view tries to impose that view to everyone. It's fair to disagree with whatever you want, but it isn't fair to force others to follow your views. If it creates no negative impact on your rights then why would it be important to you at all? (You in the general you, not you personally, Gumbo)

 

[dinolounger]

I'm less focused on the right for people of the same gender to marry and much more focused on the issue of how this impacts childrearing.

That's because there is a good chunk of solid, solid evidence that children who grow up without a father don't do nearly as well in life as those that do. I haven't seen the same data for what happens to kids who grow up without a mother, although that doesn't mean their presence isn't likely just as influential.

My intent here is not to open a new debate on whether the traditional parenting roles (paternal and maternal influence) can be effectively created in same you-know-what (I'm sick of the Dis asterix thing) marriages with children. I can assure there is no credible research whatsoever on that yet, so please don't respond with links to pseudo-scientific "the kids aren/aren't fine" studies by partisan advocacy entities - or references to "Heather has Two Mommies."

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I think my biggest issue with it is when someone with an apposing view tries to impose that view to everyone. It's fair to disagree with whatever you want, but it isn't fair to force others to follow your views. If it creates no negative impact on your rights then why would it be important to you at all? (You in the general you, not you personally, Gumbo)

Agreed, that's when the line is crossed.

 

[SirDuff]

I'm less focused on the right for people of the same gender to marry and much more focused on the issue of how this impacts childrearing.

That's because there is a good chunk of solid, solid evidence that children who grow up without a father don't do nearly as well in life as those that do. I haven't seen the same data for what happens to kids who grow up without a mother, although that doesn't mean their presence isn't likely just as influential.

My intent here is not to open a new debate on whether the traditional parenting roles (paternal and maternal influence) can be effectively created in same you-know-what (I'm sick of the Dis asterix thing) marriages with children. I can assure there is no credible research whatsoever on that yet, so please don't respond with links to pseudo-scientific "the kids aren/aren't fine" studies by partisan advocacy entities.

You cannot extrapolate that data to same sex marriages though. The data of children growing up without a father (and doing less well) is greatly confounded by the fact that they are raised in single parent households and, often, in poorer households. It is impossible (given the current data) to attribute the "doing less well" specifically to the lack of a male parent in the household - which would be the only difference between a same-sex (male) couple and a different-sex couple (e.g. there would still be two parents and, based on research I've seen, not as likely as a single parent household to be low income).