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

[SirDuff]

Well, I hope you are all correct, and there won't be lawsuits filed against churches who decline to perform SSMs. I believe otherwise, and I think it is only a short time until we see them piling up. So, do those who support SSM agree that Brendon Eich should have lost his job at Mozilla? Do you think it was correct to sue the baker & florist who declined to participate in SSMs, even though they cited their religious views as the reason? How do you determine who is genuinely a believer in one man/one woman marriage based on their religious beliefs? Why is it so hard for SSM supporters to understand that many people truly have deeply held religious beliefs concerning SSM? It's not something that one can just dismiss because popular culture calls for it. Chick-fil-a was just voted the number 1 fast food chain in the country. The owner is a deeply religious man, and does not support SSM. His business was threatened to not be allowed to open in Boston & Philadelphia, Boston's mayor & Philadelphia's mayoral candidate stating to stay out. Seriously? How can you say churches & religious institutions aren't going to be threatened with at the very least, losing their tax exempt status? What about the Hobby Lobby lawsuit? Many SSM supporters say live and let live, but that won't happen. You want those opposed to SSM to let SSM supporters "live & let live", but that courtesy will not be reciprocated.

I'd list links to my comments, but I have to find out from the DIS liberal police which websites are permitted, according to their political leanings and say so.

But none of your examples are churches, so I'm not why should make us question whether churches will be threatened.

Let me ask you - if a florist refused to provide flowers for an inter-racial marriage, would you be okay with that? If a bakery refused to bake a cake to celebrate a female getting her driver's license (because, in his belief, women shouldn't drive), would you be okay with that? These are their beliefs, and, based on your post, they shouldn't be called into question just because popular culture demands it. If you are not okay with those examples (i.e. feel that the flowers/cake should be made), why are same-sex marriages different? Honestly asking.

 

[ashley0139]

Well, I hope you are all correct, and there won't be lawsuits filed against churches who decline to perform SSMs. I believe otherwise, and I think it is only a short time until we see them piling up. So, do those who support SSM agree that Brendon Eich should have lost his job at Mozilla? Do you think it was correct to sue the baker & florist who declined to participate in SSMs, even though they cited their religious views as the reason? How do you determine who is genuinely a believer in one man/one woman marriage based on their religious beliefs? Why is it so hard for SSM supporters to understand that many people truly have deeply held religious beliefs concerning SSM? It's not something that one can just dismiss because popular culture calls for it. Chick-fil-a was just voted the number 1 fast food chain in the country. The owner is a deeply religious man, and does not support SSM. His business was threatened to not be allowed to open in Boston & Philadelphia, Boston's mayor & Philadelphia's mayoral candidate stating to stay out. Seriously? How can you say churches & religious institutions aren't going to be threatened with at the very least, losing their tax exempt status? What about the Hobby Lobby lawsuit? Many SSM supporters say live and let live, but that won't happen. You want those opposed to SSM to let SSM supporters "live & let live", but that courtesy will not be reciprocated.

I'd list links to my comments, but I have to find out from the DIS liberal police which websites are permitted, according to their political leanings and say so.

That's great for you, but I don't hold those beliefs. So why should I be bound to them just because you are? That makes no sense.

 

[SirDuff]

Wrong, they took it out of context.

Wrong. Here's the exact sequence of posts for you...

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."

Having quoted this, Ashley says:

Those studies reference having one single parent and one absent parent. That has absolutely nothing to do with same *** couples that are two loving parents to a child.

You, incorrectly, attack with

Please learn to read more carefully, you are quoting me completely out of context. Those links were posted to rebut a point someone made about the absence of a father having no impact. I wasn't stating those studies referenced same you-know-what parents.

Except what was quoted was not a rebuttal - it was your first post on the topic.

 

[dinolounger]

No, you pointed out that being raised by a single parent is bad.

Wrong, every link I posted was referencing the damage that is done when a father is not present. You are trying to twist that into a "single parent" focus (which it was not), I suspect this is because you are deathly afraid of questions ever being raised about whether the absence of a particular gender could be problematic.

 

[ashley0139]

Wrong, every link I posted was referencing the damage that is done when a father is not present. You are trying to twist that into a "single parent" focus (which it was not), I suspect this is because you are deathly afraid of questions ever being raised about whether the absence of a particular gender could be problematic.

Only because the VAST majority of single parents are women.

"According to U.S. Census Bureau,3 out of about 12 million single parent families in 2014, more than 80% were headed by single mothers."

 

[KimR]

Well, I hope you are all correct, and there won't be lawsuits filed against churches who decline to perform SSMs. I believe otherwise, and I think it is only a short time until we see them piling up. So, do those who support SSM agree that Brendon Eich should have lost his job at Mozilla? Do you think it was correct to sue the baker & florist who declined to participate in SSMs, even though they cited their religious views as the reason? How do you determine who is genuinely a believer in one man/one woman marriage based on their religious beliefs? Why is it so hard for SSM supporters to understand that many people truly have deeply held religious beliefs concerning SSM? It's not something that one can just dismiss because popular culture calls for it. Chick-fil-a was just voted the number 1 fast food chain in the country. The owner is a deeply religious man, and does not support SSM. His business was threatened to not be allowed to open in Boston & Philadelphia, Boston's mayor & Philadelphia's mayoral candidate stating to stay out. Seriously? How can you say churches & religious institutions aren't going to be threatened with at the very least, losing their tax exempt status? What about the Hobby Lobby lawsuit? Many SSM supporters say live and let live, but that won't happen. You want those opposed to SSM to let SSM supporters "live & let live", but that courtesy will not be reciprocated.

I'd list links to my comments, but I have to find out from the DIS liberal police which websites are permitted, according to their political leanings and say so.

Why is it so hard for those against SSM to realize that this country does not legislate based upon religion?
If we outlaw everything that goes against certain religious beliefs the following would all be illegal:
divorce
pre-marital sex
contraception
alcohol
caffeine
fertility treatments
organ donation
medical treatments including antibiotics and chemotherapy

 

[TeresaNJ]

That's great for you, but I don't hold those beliefs. So why should I be bound to them just because you are? That makes no sense.

I'm not asking you to hold those beliefs. I'm asking you to respect MY beliefs, as you want yours to be respected.

 

[SirDuff]

Wrong, every link I posted was referencing the damage that is done when a father is not present. You are trying to twist that into a "single parent" focus (which it was not), I suspect this is because you are deathly afraid of questions ever being raised about whether the absence of a particular gender could be problematic.

But it is the father being absent in a single parent family and you cannot (from the studies you cite) disentangle the two. My point is (and has always been) that you cannot extrapolate this results to same sex families. I'm not deathly afraid of anything but people misinterpreting (purposefully or otherwise), the results of studies.

In case you missed it, I have stated that I know that being raised with two dads (or two moms) is different than being raised by one of each. I just take issue with the studies you are using to "prove" your point.

ETA - Look, I get that being raised in a same-*** family is different than being raised in a different-*** family. However, a few things:
1) I don't actually think that legalizing marriage will make a huge increase in the number of children being raised in same-*** families. It will just change the number being raised in same-*** married families.
2) I don't think that usually literature showing that children raised by a single mother tend to do worse than children raised in two parent households to suggest that children raised in same-*** marriages are at risk is valid.
3) I don't think that these worries are a valid reason to question/doubt the recent ruling.
4) I don't believe that there are many, many worse situations for a child to be in than being raised by two same-*** married parents (again, the married bit is the only change that this ruling makes).
5) Just because I think that the families are different does not mean that I think that they are worse (or, frankly, better). Just different.

 

[TeresaNJ]

If we outlaw everything that goes against certain religious beliefs the following would all be illegal:
divorce
pre-marital ***
contraception
alcohol
caffeine
fertility treatments
organ donation
medical treatments including antibiotics and chemotherapy

I'm not asking you to outlaw it. That's not what I said. I asked you to respect that they are many people's beliefs, and not ridicule, criticize or ostracize because of those beliefs.

 

[SirDuff]

I'm not asking you to hold those beliefs. I'm asking you to respect MY beliefs, as you want yours to be respected.

Absolutely. I fully support your choice to:
-not get married to someone of your sex
-not attend the wedding of a same-sex couple
-stop being friends with anyone you know who might marry someone of their same sex (not saying you would, just saying it is your right to do so)
-make comments about your views
-etc., etc.

For me, the problem starts if you (general you) try to prevent someone from marrying their same-sex spouse and/or (as a business) discriminate any such couple (note that I don't think of a church as a business and think that the church should feel free to perform/not perform whatever weddings they'd like).

 

[ashley0139]

I'm not asking you to hold those beliefs. I'm asking you to respect MY beliefs, as you want yours to be respected.

I do respect your beliefs. I don't agree with them, but I respect them. And I will absolutely fight for your right to hold them. The problem comes when you try to force those beliefs on me by banning same sex marriage. That's not respect.

 

[Dizlvr]

Why is it so hard for those against SSM to realize that this country does not legislate based upon religion?
If we outlaw everything that goes against certain religious beliefs the following would all be illegal:
divorce
pre-marital ***
contraception
alcohol
caffeine
fertility treatments
organ donation
medical treatments including antibiotics and chemotherapy

Don't forget eating meat on Fridays

 

[aristocatz]

Wrong, every link I posted was referencing the damage that is done when a father is not present. You are trying to twist that into a "single parent" focus (which it was not), I suspect this is because you are deathly afraid of questions ever being raised about whether the absence of a particular gender could be problematic.

Sorry, I mean no disrespect, but you are just not making much sense here. Maybe I'm just not understanding your style of writing. If that is the case, I apologize.

Based on this, you must be a supporter of same sex MALE couples having children then?

Other than that, from what you have voiced so far, I would think your concerns are better suited on a thread that is against heterosexuals raising children without a male figure involved.....doesn't matter who the male figure is or what their values, morals, or parenting styles are, as long as there is a male involved.

 

[badcramps]

Wrong, every link I posted was referencing the damage that is done when a father is not present. You are trying to twist that into a "single parent" focus (which it was not), I suspect this is because you are deathly afraid of questions ever being raised about whether the absence of a particular gender could be problematic.

So you are talking about studies in which there are MORE than one parent, but none of the parents are fathers? That is the only way to interpret what you are saying here. (Unless you are referring to agender parents or something like that?) Please indeed show me the many, many, many studies that focus on families with MORE than one parent, but no father and which show bad outcomes for children.

(Hint: those would be studies on same-sex couples and they virtually all show similar--or better--outcomes as for children raised by heterosexual couples!)

I'm sure you're aware of literature reviews like this one in amicus briefs: http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/windsor-us.pdf

But hey, how could the APA, AMA, AAP, etc. possibly know more than you?

Though actually looking at the random news articles you cited a page back, maybe you are not familiar with actual research. Do you know what a peer reviewed study is? (Surely someone with your expertise on the subject MUST be aware of them! If so, why are you not citing those in favor of random news pieces?

 

[TeresaNJ]

But none of your examples are churches, so I'm not why should make us question whether churches will be threatened.

Let me ask you - if a florist refused to provide flowers for an inter-racial marriage, would you be okay with that? If a bakery refused to bake a cake to celebrate a female getting her driver's license (because, in his belief, women shouldn't drive), would you be okay with that? These are their beliefs, and, based on your post, they shouldn't be called into question just because popular culture demands it. If you are not okay with those examples (i.e. feel that the flowers/cake should be made), why are same-*** marriages different? Honestly asking.

It is only logical that there will be lawsuits against churches. You can say it hasn't happened in places where SSMs have been legal for a while, but the litigious nature of our country is quite astounding. I would be totally against any business refusing to provide services for inter-racial couples. I don't know of any Christian or Jewish denominations that espouse those convictions. I'm not aware of any religions that forbid women driving. I think it's more of a cultural belief, don't you? As far as SSMs go, you are asking people, I'll use Bible-believing Christians as an example, to just all of a sudden forget everything they have believed over centuries. I don't think it can be adequately explained to a non-believer, at least not by me. I'm sure there are many clergy who could do a much better job of it.

My problem is with the animosity, hatred, ridicule, & vengeance displayed toward those who do not support SSM, and the gay lifestyle, based on their religious convictions. The majority of those people do not hate gay people, and, in fact, love many of them on a personal level (friends, family members, etc). They are not homophobes, but are labeled as such. Why can't they just be accepted for their beliefs, like everyone else wants to be accepted.

 

[badcramps]

I'm not asking you to outlaw it. That's not what I said. I asked you to respect that they are many people's beliefs, and not ridicule, criticize or ostracize because of those beliefs.

Then why in the world are you objecting to the SCOTUS decision? The decision simply makes it the case that SSM is no longer outlawed in any state. If you oppose the decision, then you are indeed asking that states be permitted to outlaw it.

 

[porschegrl]

Do you think it was correct to sue the baker & florist who declined to participate in SSMs, even though they cited their religious views as the reason? How do you determine who is genuinely a believer in one man/one woman marriage based on their religious beliefs?

Businesses have to follow public accommodation laws. If a baker or florist does business in a city or state that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, she must provide the same services to those customers as she would any other. It's just that simple.

In contrast, have you seen the news item in the past couple of days, about the hardware store owner who posted a "no gays allowed" type sign at his establishment? I may think he's the biggest tool in the hardware store, but in Tennessee, the law is on his side. No anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ there.

 

[badcramps]

It is only logical that there will be lawsuits against churches. You can say it hasn't happened in places where SSMs have been legal for a while, but the litigious nature of our country is quite astounding. I would be totally against any business refusing to provide services for inter-racial couples. I don't know of any Christian or Jewish denominations that espouse those convictions. I'm not aware of any religions that forbid women driving. I think it's more of a cultural belief, don't you? As far as SSMs go, you are asking people, I'll use Bible-believing Christians as an example, to just all of a sudden forget everything they have believed over centuries. I don't think it can be adequately explained to a non-believer, at least not by me. I'm sure there are many clergy who could do a much better job of it.

No one is asking that at all. They are just asking those people to stop trying to use their religious beliefs as a reason for laws that restrict other people's rights.

They are also asking for those people to do their jobs regardless of their religious beliefs. Just like everybody else. People who have a religious opposition to eating cows but who go to work in the food service industry are going to have to serve cow to others. If you don't like it, get another job or prepare to be fired. Same for a clerk or a florist or baker or whatever who does not approve of SSM. And if you live in a state in which it is illegal to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation than you must follow the law. (Note the laws in question are totally unrelated to the SCOTUS decision and existed in many states before SSM was legalized!) Feel free to have whatever convictions you like. But you can't break the law because of them.

On the issue of interracial marriage, of course people of faith have understood their religions to oppose such unions (and to support slavery and segregation and the honor killing of women and the separation of the sexes in church and keeping women out of powerful positions, etc.) Of course, *now* most Christians disavowed such racist beliefs, but folks at the time appealed to biblical support for them. (Though I'm not sure if Bob Jones still has the anti-interracial dating rule or not. They did up until the 90s at least I believe. So there you go, a Christian denomination that at least until very recently--and perhaps still--explicitly held racist beliefs as part of their religion.) And no I don't think that the anti-woman aspect of fundamentalist religions are merely cultural. True not all Muslims, all Christians, all Jews etc hold these views about women, but those who do often hold them for explicitly religious reasons.

You seem to think it is somehow more properly Christian to oppose SSM than to believe any of these other things. Well lots of Christian denominations that support SSM disagree with you. But in any case, it is not the govt's job to try to decipher which group has the "right" understanding of their religion. (And how could there be a "right" interpretation at all when we are talking about religions that inherently contradict one another in some of their most basic theological claims?) So I don't see any way to argue that an anti-SSM Christian baker who refuses service to a same-sex couple is on better legal ground than any other kind of legally barred race, gender, or sexuality based discrimination. In all cases--whether real or hypothetical--the govt's response ought to be "that's nice that you have those religious (or non-religious personal) beliefs; feel free to have them, no one is stopping you; but if you violate the law you will be sued and if you won't do your job your boss is free to fire you. we will not let *your* beliefs interfere with other people's right to equal treatment."

 

[bookgirl]

The only thing I have pointed out as bad (which has been inexorably, positively, inarguably proven as bad) is the lack of a paternal influence in the upbringing of a child. The question I have raised (which completely went over the heads of most people here) is whether/how that influence gets embedded in a same-you-know-what parenting situation, particularly a lesbian one. Bottom line at present is we don't know. It's fine to speculate one way or the other, but as I anticipated some are weighing in here not just speculating but implying the question has already been answered, which it most certainly has not.



It would be wonderful if it was that simple. But it's not, because biology strongly suggests parent gender has plenty to do with the nature of their influence.

Except that a poster above did her thesis on a similar subject that found children of lesbian couples did better than children of M/F couples.

 

[SirDuff]

It is only logical that there will be lawsuits against churches. You can say it hasn't happened in places where SSMs have been legal for a while, but the litigious nature of our country is quite astounding. I would be totally against any business refusing to provide services for inter-racial couples. I don't know of any Christian or Jewish denominations that espouse those convictions. I'm not aware of any religions that forbid women driving. I think it's more of a cultural belief, don't you? As far as SSMs go, you are asking people, I'll use Bible-believing Christians as an example, to just all of a sudden forget everything they have believed over centuries. I don't think it can be adequately explained to a non-believer, at least not by me. I'm sure there are many clergy who could do a much better job of it.

Fair enough and thanks for answering. Would a better example be a divorce? Would it be okay for someone to refuse to make then a cake/flowers/whatever, because divorce was against their beliefs?

My problem is with the animosity, hatred, ridicule, & vengeance displayed toward those who do not support SSM, and the gay lifestyle, based on their religious convictions. The majority of those people do not hate gay people, and, in fact, love many of them on a personal level (friends, family members, etc). They are not homophobes, but are labeled as such. Why can't they just be accepted for their beliefs, like everyone else wants to be accepted.

I have to admit, I always have trouble with this. I think it is just the type of person that I am - if I believed strongly that what a person was was wrong, I'm not sure that I could love them as a friend. It's not that I don't believe you/others who say this, just don't think that I, personally, could do it.

I think that for me, personally, part of my problem is that I don't have any strongly held religious convictions that what anyone else is doing is wrong. So, I have trouble getting into the mindset of someone who does and who, thus, can take issue with what someone else is doing/how someone else is living, when it doesn't affect them and doesn't hurt anyone else. Again, a failing of mine - not a reason to ridicule those who do have such beliefs.