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

[ashley0139]

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?



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.

And on the other end of this, being a gay person in a "friendship" where the friend is nice to you but disagrees with part of the very being of who you are is no fun either.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

And on the other end of this, being a gay person in a "friendship" where the friend is nice to you but disagrees with part of the very being of who you are is no fun either.

And that doesn't sound like much of a friendship at all. Some of the best friends my wife and I have are same sex couples that we've known for years. I don't think it would be possible to find any more loving, caring and thoughtful people no matter their sexual orientation. "Accepting" a friend when there are such negative feelings about them as a person sounds more like someone that is tolerated as opposed to a loved friend.

 

[SirDuff]

And on the other end of this, being a gay person in a "friendship" where the friend is nice to you but disagrees with part of the very being of who you are is no fun either.

Most definitely. I was just addressing the end that was being discussed.

 

[ashley0139]

Most definitely. I was just addressing the end that was being discussed.

I was just adding to your point.

I don't want anyone to pat themselves on the back for being such good "friends" with gay people even though they do not agree with the "lifestyle" at all. That is always the argument. "But I have so many gay friends who I love even though they're gay and they know I don't support same sex marriage." That's not being a friend.

And that doesn't sound like much of a friendship at all. Some of the best friends my wife and I have are same *** couples that we've known for years. I don't think it would be possible to find any more loving, caring and thoughtful people no matter their sexual orientation. "Accepting" a friend when there are such negative feelings about them as a person sounds more like someone that is tolerated as opposed to a loved friend.

Exactly.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Duplicate. Deleted

 

[NHdisneylover]

I have to agree on the friend comments above.

As far as the issue of the baker, florist, etc not being allowed to refuse service to the queer community in places where it is illegal to discriminate on that basis:

most places in the US (maybe all by now?) it is illegal for a business to discriminate based on religion. Thus, a kosher butcher could not refuse to sell meat to Christians, even if he believes that meat is likely to end up being cooked in a non kosher kitchen. That is not his call and he is not participating in the meal anymore than the baker is participating in the wedding.


And, honestly I DO think it is possible that some loony tune or another might try to sue a church that refuses to perform a SSM. Loony tunes sue for all kinds of totally stupid and obviously not winnable reason in the US all the time. It won't get far though, and it won't happen often if it happens at all. And, for the record, I will steadfastly defend that church's right not to perform the ceremony--that would not be a religious community I would ever be a part of, or one I would look overly kindly on, but I would sure as heck defend their right to their beliefs within the confines of their own church.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

I believe otherwise, and I think it is only a short time until we see them piling up.

Your beliefs are not grounded in reality and not supported by the evidence.

So, do those who support SSM agree that Brendon Eich should have lost his job at Mozilla?

The Mozilla corporation can decide who it wants to be the face of the company.

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?

Sure do. Supplying flowers or a cake isn't participating in a wedding. Nobody said they had to be a bridesmaid or a groomsman. Neither my florist or baker even attended mine. What they are doing is discriminating by refusing service.

How do you determine who is genuinely a believer in one man/one woman marriage based on their religious beliefs?

It is irrelevant whether the baker or florist genuinely believes what they said. Their beliefs didn't get em in whatever trouble they're in. Their actions did.

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.

It's not hard to understand in the least and nobody is asking them to dismiss said beliefs.

Chick-fil-a was just voted the number 1 fast food chain in the country.

Well if the people that voted like over salted garbage, that's their taste.

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?

Perhaps you missed the update where it was said no punitive measures would be taken against Chick Fil-A?

Seriously? How can you say churches & religious institutions aren't going to be threatened with at the very least, losing their tax exempt status?

1. Because none of the examples you gave was a church. 2. Because I go by the evidence, not by conspiracy theories. The evidence doesn't lead me to that conclusion.

What about the Hobby Lobby lawsuit?

What church does Hobby Lobby attend? What religion is Hobby Lobby?

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.

You do not play the martyr well. You have been shown a lot of courtesy.

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.

Again, you do not play the martyr well.

 

[dinolounger]

Rearing children while in a committed and stable SSM has got to be better than a lot of the childrearing that goes on in unstable hetero homes these days!

No argument with stability in any family household being critical. That stated, while it may not have been intentional. your post is written in a way that almost seems to be implying that gay households tend to be "stable and committed" and hetero ones "unstable." Here are some facts that may interest you:

First, divorce rates among hetero and gay married couples are virtually identical. Or put more bluntly, the relationship "failure" rate is the same for each group:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ame-sex-divorce-rate-not-as-low-as-it-seemed/

http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/divorce-rates-similar-among-gay-and-straight-couples-100914

And this article from Slate -- which is hardly some conservative mouthpiece -- reports some interesting findings from one of the few major longitudinal studies ever done on children who had one or more parents who engaged in same gender you-know-what (yes, I searched and finally found what I thought hadn't been done yet).

Please, read the whole article, not just the front sections, since the article describes the changes in thought among experts about outcomes of same-you-know-what parenting . In particular, read the points they make about family stability in a certain demographic in the last paragraph on page one.

http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...ay_parents_are_they_really_no_different_.html

And in case some want to start playing mis-quote-out-of-context games again (or people don't want to crawl through the well-written but relatively long article), here's said last page 1 paragraph:

"The basic results call into question simplistic notions of “no differences,” at least with the generation that is out of the house. On 25 of 40 different outcomes evaluated, the children of women who’ve had same-sex relationships fare quite differently than those in stable, biologically-intact mom-and-pop families, displaying numbers more comparable to those from heterosexual stepfamilies and single parents. Even after including controls for age, race, gender, and things like being bullied as a youth, or the gay-friendliness of the state in which they live, such respondents were more apt to report being unemployed, less healthy, more depressed, more likely to have cheated on a spouse or partner, smoke more pot, had trouble with the law, report more male and female sex partners, more sexual victimization, and were more likely to reflect negatively on their childhood family life, among other things. Why such dramatic differences? I can only speculate, since the data are not poised to pinpoint causes. One notable theme among the adult children of same-sex parents, however, is household instability, and plenty of it. The children of fathers who have had same-sex relationships fare a bit better, but they seldom reported living with their father for very long, and never with his partner for more than three years."

To be fair, the article does not quantify the scale of "more apt to report." We don't know if they're only 2% or 200% more likely. It just states that children of parent(s) who engaged in same-you-know-what were "more" (which I suspect represents some level of statistical significance, but again it's not clear) ) likely to report negative behavior than those of hetero parents. Note that it's stated that this higher likelihood exists even when controlling for all the factors some here were probably hoping they could -- but now cannot -- cite as "non-parental" reasons for the differences.

Lastly, hopefully no one is imprudent enough to try and dismiss the study based upon the methodology. If they do, it will show they either didn't bother to read (or got lost trying to comprehend) the second page of the article, which contains a detailed walk through of the study sample and fieldwork technique, pointing out how it was specifically designed to address flaws in prior attempts to study this subject.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

This is starting to look like the old debate board.

 

[dinolounger]

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.

Oh, really? We'll believe that when a credible link (i.e. showing the academic institution, her name, degree program and the complete thesis) is provided here. That will allow those of us with degrees in sociology and statistics to assess the existence and credibility of said thesis. Until then, the fact she "said" she did this and "proved" something is nothing more than an undocumented, anonymous claim and what in a court of law would be thrown out as inadmissible hearsay.

 

[badcramps]

Oh, really? We'll believe that when a credible link (i.e. showing the academic institution, her name, degree program and the complete thesis) is provided here. That will allow those of us with degrees in sociology and statistics to assess the existence and credibility of said thesis. Until then, the fact she "said" she did this and "proved" something is nothing more than an undocumented, anonymous claim and what in a court of law would be thrown out as inadmissible hearsay.

Oh wow, one study you found eh? (Again, why are you citing news articles about the study and not the actual peer-reviewed sources, which, obviously given you are presenting yourself as an expert here--more so than the American Psychological Association and such apparently since you keep ignoring my citations to them!--you must have them.) Well you must be right then. Indeed, that's how science works! We should ignore all of the many, many, many studies and the expert opinion provided in the amicus brief cited above (which explicitly responds to the Regenerus study and explains what is wrong with it and why it does not show that children of SS couples are likely to do worse off.)

So where did you get YOUR credentials in this area I wonder since you are curious about the previous poster?

By the way, for anyone interested here is the story of the ONE (one!) study dinolounger refers to: http://www.regnerusfallout.org/the-story You'll see that large numbers of social scientists have condemned it as shoddy work and I believe the journal in which it was published has come out with an independent investigation which concluded it should not have passed peer review.

And again, actual *experts* on this topic:
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx
http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/windsor-us.pdf

Further, I note you didn't cite any of the contradictory commentary from Slate itself. Surely you've read it, including the piece on how the judge who put forth the decision overturning of Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage had some not so kind words for the worth of Regenerus's study:“The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration,” he wrote in what must be one of the most stinging and decisive repudiations of an expert witness in memory. He cited evidence that the conservative research was “hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder” which clearly expressed its wish for skewed results.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...k_down_along_with_fake_regnerus_research.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...igan_same_sex_marriage_case_his_study_is.html

Since I'm sure you are very familiar with the serious controversy over (and significant condemnation of) the study you refer to, I do have to wonder why you have not said a word about it. Were you just hoping that other posters would simply take your word for it? Or you didn't think anyone else here was actually familiar with the peer reviewed literature on this topic (and actually ALL of it, rather than this one shoddy study)?

 

[cedricandsophie]

I have never understood why anyone would care. I've been married 32 years to a man, but how would two men or two women getting married ever affect me. Two people who love each other and are willing to commit to each other should have that right. If a church doesn't want to marry them because of religious reasons, that's fine with me and I can understand thst. But my husband and I were married by a judge...so what?

 

[mnrose]

Oh wow, one study you found eh? (Again, why are you citing news articles about the study and not the actual peer-reviewed sources, which, obviously given you are presenting yourself as an expert here--more so than the American Psychological Association and such apparently since you keep ignoring my citations to them!--you must have them.) Well you must be right then. Indeed, that's how science works! We should ignore all of the many, many, many studies and the expert opinion provided in the amicus brief cited above (which explicitly responds to the Regenerus study and explains what is wrong with it and why it does not show that children of SS couples are likely to do worse off.)

So where did you get YOUR credentials in this area I wonder since you are curious about the previous poster?

By the way, for anyone interested here is the story of the ONE (one!) study dinolounger refers to: http://www.regnerusfallout.org/the-story You'll see that large numbers of social scientists have condemned it as shoddy work and I believe the journal in which it was published has come out with an independent investigation which concluded it should not have passed peer review.

And again, actual *experts* on this topic:
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx
http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/windsor-us.pdf

Further, I note you didn't cite any of the contradictory commentary from Slate itself. Surely you've read it, including the piece on how the judge who put forth the decision overturning of Michigan's ban on same-*** marriage had some not so kind words for the worth of Regenerus's study:“The Court finds Regnerus’s testimony entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration,” he wrote in what must be one of the most stinging and decisive repudiations of an expert witness in memory. He cited evidence that the conservative research was “hastily concocted at the behest of a third-party funder” which clearly expressed its wish for skewed results.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...k_down_along_with_fake_regnerus_research.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...igan_same_sex_marriage_case_his_study_is.html

Since I'm sure you are very familiar with the serious controversy over (and significant condemnation of) the study you refer to, I do have to wonder why you have not said a word about it. Were you just hoping that other posters would simply take your word for it? Or you didn't think anyone else here was actually familiar with the peer reviewed literature on this topic (and actually ALL of it, rather than this one shoddy study)?

You rock. I was hoping someone would come along to explain the Regnerus crap. I'm always VERY skeptical of third party studies, from groups I've never heard of, because I wonder who paid for it. Studies by industry groups (like those cited by you) tend to be more reliable simply because they represent the views of a broad consensus of professionals. If the "best' they can do is a single study by a discredited professor, they definitely have problems.

 

[TeresaNJ]

I am not patting myself on the back for being friends with gay people. I think it is very insulting to even imply that. I was friends with my friends long before they came out. I didn't just stop loving them when they did. Maybe some people acquire gay friends to show how tolerant they are, but that wasn't my case. I grew up with one of my friends. We went to grade school together, then she went to a Catholic all girls HS, & I went to public HS. We went to cosmetology school together after HS. I was in her wedding. We had our sons months apart. After a few years she divorced her husband. She later married her partner. We had lost touch for a few years between her divorce & her coming out. When we reconnected, she was the same person to me as she was before. I ran into her in the grocery store the night before Thanksgiving. She invited my husband & I to her home. She roundabout asked if I knew who she lived with. I knew, as you know how the grapevine is in small towns. Her and her partner had been married for a while. The question of whether I believed in SSM never came about. It wasn't a factor in our friendship.

My other long time friend & I went to HS together. We lost touch for a while after getting married, & having children. She was divorced & remarried three times. I didn't reconnect with her until after she was with her partner. She was the first person to send me flowers & come see me after my mastectomy. I love her, whether I believe in SSM or not. I will have to ask her if she thinks I just tolerate her. Considering all we've been through together over the years, I don't think she tolerates me or thinks I tolerate her. We just are P & T. We plan get togethers with our other long time HS friends, and chat on FB when we can't get together. I can't ask my other friend what she thinks, as sadly she passed away a few years ago from ovarian cancer.

The third person in my life who is gay is a young man I've known since he was a kid. He grew up next door to my brother, and was friends with my nephew. We took him with us to WDW many times. He came out to me in a private message on FB last year, after telling me he was very hurt by a few articles I linked to on my FB page. The articles pertained to the whole Chick-fil-A/Dan Cathy uproar. He & I talked at length. It killed me to think I hurt his feelings. I feel about him as a son. We parted on mutual respect terms. I'm more careful now about what I post, as I don't ever want to intentionally hurt any of my friends or family.

 

[TeresaNJ]

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.

I believe marriage is a sacrament between one man and one woman, therefore, I cannot "come around" to supporting SSM. I wish the SCOTUS had done it differently. Perhaps leaving marriage as a religious ceremony, and from here forward calling all unions civil contracts, or something of that nature. I don't think they were clear in their definition, and I do think it leaves the door open for polygamy, incest, etc. If we go by the SCOTUS' explanation, how can anyone be denied the right to marry someone if they say they love them? If a father loves a daughter romatically, two first cousins, etc. Sounds crazy, but you know it's going to happen. Now no one can be denied the right to marry the one they say they love. I also think it leaves the door open for lawsuits, by making marriage a civil right. No where in the constitution is marriage listed as a civil right, for anyone.

 

[bookgirl]

Oh, really? We'll believe that when a credible link (i.e. showing the academic institution, her name, degree program and the complete thesis) is provided here. That will allow those of us with degrees in sociology and statistics to assess the existence and credibility of said thesis. Until then, the fact she "said" she did this and "proved" something is nothing more than an undocumented, anonymous claim and what in a court of law would be thrown out as inadmissible hearsay.

Yeah Really,

Psychology Today

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...-finds-children-lesbian-parents-may-be-better

Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/lesbian-parents-teens-study_n_2082658.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...pier-and-healthier-than-peers-research-shows/

Time Magazine
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html

Boston University

http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/

in Conjunction with the American Academy of Pediatrics

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/18/peds.2013-0377

American Psychological Association

http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec05/kids.aspx

University of Missouri (though it looks like the author is accredited through the University of Virginia)

http://web.missouri.edu/~segerti/2210/gayparents.pdf

I especially loved this one because it makes a point that the GENDER of parents or their spouse/partner is not a case in either view point because it's less important then the quality of parenting. Which is what I actually believe. It's all about the parenting, not the sexual orientation of the parents.


Does parental sexual orientation have an important impact on


child or adolescent development? Results of recent research

provide no evidence that it does. In fact, the findings suggest that

parental sexual orientation is less important than the qualities of

family relationships. More important to youth than the gender of

their parent’s partner is the quality of daily interaction and the

strength of relationships with the parents they have.


As someone who SAYS they have degrees in Sociology and Statistics I'm assuming that at least some of the above source are familiar to you and considered credible.

If you want I can pull more....after all as some one with degree's in both EDUCATION and LIBRARY and INFORMATION Studies I assure you I can pull actual references all day long..

 

[badcramps]

I am not patting myself on the back for being friends with gay people. I think it is very insulting to even imply that. I was friends with my friends long before they came out. I didn't just stop loving them when they did. Maybe some people acquire gay friends to show how tolerant they are, but that wasn't my case. I grew up with one of my friends. We went to grade school together, then she went to a Catholic all girls HS, & I went to public HS. We went to cosmetology school together after HS. I was in her wedding. We had our sons months apart. After a few years she divorced her husband. She later married her partner. We had lost touch for a few years between her divorce & her coming out. When we reconnected, she was the same person to me as she was before. I ran into her in the grocery store the night before Thanksgiving. She invited my husband & I to her home. She roundabout asked if I knew who she lived with. I knew, as you know how the grapevine is in small towns. Her and her partner had been married for a while. The question of whether I believed in SSM never came about. It wasn't a factor in our friendship.

My other long time friend & I went to HS together. We lost touch for a while after getting married, & having children. She was divorced & remarried three times. I didn't reconnect with her until after she was with her partner. She was the first person to send me flowers & come see me after my mastectomy. I love her, whether I believe in SSM or not. I will have to ask her if she thinks I just tolerate her. Considering all we've been through together over the years, I don't think she tolerates me or thinks I tolerate her. We just are P & T. We plan get togethers with our other long time HS friends, and chat on FB when we can't get together. I can't ask my other friend what she thinks, as sadly she passed away a few years ago from ovarian cancer.

The third person in my life who is gay is a young man I've known since he was a kid. He grew up next door to my brother, and was friends with my nephew. We took him with us to WDW many times. He came out to me in a private message on FB last year, after telling me he was very hurt by a few articles I linked to on my FB page. The articles pertained to the whole Chick-fil-A/Dan Cathy uproar. He & I talked at length. It killed me to think I hurt his feelings. I feel about him as a son. We parted on mutual respect terms. I'm more careful now about what I post, as I don't ever want to intentionally hurt any of my friends or family.

I think different posts of yours give a very different picture of what you actually believe. In some posts you seem to be railing against SCOTUS and acting as if every case in which SSM is legal is a horrible instance of overriding the will of the people (thus indicating that you think other people should get to vote on whether same-sex couples and that you did not object to it being illegal in numerous states.)

In others you seem to just be talking about your own personal beliefs--e.g. that it is wrong or against your religion--but not that you actually want the law to prevent anyone from being married.

It's very confusing which you actually mean. But I can sort of maybe understand what it would mean to be a friend and really love someone in the latter situation. There are people in my life who I don't agree with on things (e.g. they are religious and I am an atheist). But I don't believe or advocate for them being treated any differently than anyone else.

The differential *legal* treatment and your support/advocacy for it is the sticking point I think. These friends that you are talking about, that you seem to have real affection for. So let me ask, how does that work together with your believing they ought not to be legally married, believe it would be better if SCOTUS had ruled the other way. Suppose you have a lesbian dear friend and a straight dear friend who both have a spouse of decades unexpectedly die in their early 60s. In both cases finances are a significant worry. But wait, the heterosexual friend realizes she will be able to collect her SSI benefits for the spouse which will mean the difference between financial disaster and just a rough time. But the lesbian friend can't do this. Her relationship of decades isn't recognized legally and so she gets not a cent. How do you comfort her? What do you say when she cries about how unfair it is when in fact you prefer it this way?

Suppose the young man/kid you speak of falls in love and commits to a lifetime with his partner. But his partner is in a field that requires them to move very frequently from state to state. This makes your friend unable to obtain regular employment, but that is okay. He is willing to take part time work or be a stay at home parent or whatever in order to benefit his partners's career. But wait, since they are not able to be legally married, your loved one cannot get health insurance through his partner's insurance at many public and private employers in states that don't allow SSM. Since they move so frequently, he cannot obtain full time work that would give him benefits either. Buying insurance on the open market is extremely expensive. Obamacare isn't much help since it will count domestic partner's income in many situations even if the partner is not one's legal spouse. Your friend is not sure what to do and this is putting a horrible strain on him and his relationship. All of this could easily be avoided if only he were able to be legally married. How do you rectify the idea that you love your friend with the fact that you support the situation he is, that you think it is right that he not be allowed to be legally married?

Or suppose your dear friend and their long-term partner decide to adopt a child together. But since they are not married, they cannot both adopt--only one person can be the legal parent. And so though they raise the child together for years, your friend has no legal rights to the child. Your friend obviously acts as a parent in every way that matters and the child is attached to your friend like any child loves a parent. But the law doesn't see it that way in many states that only allow adoption/second-parent adoption for married couples. So when the child is 10 and the couple goes through a messy divorce, your friend's partner decides to leave the state with the child and deny your friend all future contact. Your friend might try to involve a court, but the court will in almost all cases side with your friend's partner. Your friend never hears from or sees her child again and her partner has every legal right to do this to her. All that was needed to change the situation would be for the couple to have been allowed to marry legally. How do you rectify your friend's grief with your own support for the situation she is in?

All of these cases, note, are real life cases. These are the things lgbq in the states where SCOTUS just legalized SSM had to deal with (or try to prepare for) as par for the course. So while I believe you can disagree about things and still be friends and really love others, I don't believe you can support laws that lead directly to people being in the situations I just described and then claim that you truly are their friends. I mean if that is what a friend is, I'd hate to see what you think an enemy is.

 

[TeresaNJ]

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-*** 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."

I'm not sure what you mean when you say I think it is more properly Christian to oppose SSM than to believe the other things. Sorry. I truly am confused about that. I personally wouldn't refuse to bake a cake, photograph, or whatever business I was in for a SSM, but I would also be honest with them and say I don't support it, and if they still wanted to use my services, which I don't think they would, at least it's out in the open. That being said, I don't think people should be sued either, should they refuse on religious grounds, as I think that is prohibiting the exercise of their religious practices, which is protected by the 1st amendment.

 

[TeresaNJ]

I think different posts of yours give a very different picture of what you actually believe. In some posts you seem to be railing against SCOTUS and acting as if every case in which SSM is legal is a horrible instance of overriding the will of the people (thus indicating that you think other people should get to vote on whether same-*** couples and that you did not object to it being illegal in numerous states.)

In others you seem to just be talking about your own personal beliefs--e.g. that it is wrong or against your religion--but not that you actually want the law to prevent anyone from being married.

It's very confusing which you actually mean. But I can sort of maybe understand what it would mean to be a friend and really love someone in the latter situation. There are people in my life who I don't agree with on things (e.g. they are religious and I am an atheist). But I don't believe or advocate for them being treated any differently than anyone else.

The differential *legal* treatment and your support/advocacy for it is the sticking point I think. These friends that you are talking about, that you seem to have real affection for. So let me ask, how does that work together with your believing they ought not to be legally married, believe it would be better if SCOTUS had ruled the other way. Suppose you have a lesbian dear friend and a straight dear friend who both have a spouse of decades unexpectedly die in their early 60s. In both cases finances are a significant worry. But wait, the heterosexual friend realizes she will be able to collect her SSI benefits for the spouse which will mean the difference between financial disaster and just a rough time. But the lesbian friend can't do this. Her relationship of decades isn't recognized legally and so she gets not a cent. How do you comfort her? What do you say when she cries about how unfair it is when in fact you prefer it this way?

Suppose the young man/kid you speak of falls in love and commits to a lifetime with his partner. But his partner is in a field that requires them to move very frequently from state to state. This makes your friend unable to obtain regular employment, but that is okay. He is willing to take part time work or be a stay at home parent or whatever in order to benefit his partners's career. But wait, since they are not able to be legally married, your loved one cannot get health insurance through his partner's insurance at many public and private employers in states that don't allow SSM. Since they move so frequently, he cannot obtain full time work that would give him benefits either. Buying insurance on the open market is extremely expensive. Obamacare isn't much help since it will count domestic partner's income in many situations even if the partner is not one's legal spouse. Your friend is not sure what to do and this is putting a horrible strain on him and his relationship. All of this could easily be avoided if only he were able to be legally married. How do you rectify the idea that you love your friend with the fact that you support the situation he is, that you think it is right that he not be allowed to be legally married?

Or suppose your dear friend and their long-term partner decide to adopt a child together. But since they are not married, they cannot both adopt--only one person can be the legal parent. And so though they raise the child together for years, your friend has no legal rights to the child. Your friend obviously acts as a parent in every way that matters and the child is attached to your friend like any child loves a parent. But the law doesn't see it that way in many states that only allow adoption/second-parent adoption for married couples. So when the child is 10 and the couple goes through a messy divorce, your friend's partner decides to leave the state with the child and deny your friend all future contact. Your friend might try to involve a court, but the court will in almost all cases side with your friend's partner. Your friend never hears from or sees her child again and her partner has every legal right to do this to her. All that was needed to change the situation would be for the couple to have been allowed to marry legally. How do you rectify your friend's grief with your own support for the situation she is in?

All of these cases, note, are real life cases. These are the things lgbq in the states where SCOTUS just legalized SSM had to deal with (or try to prepare for) as par for the course. So while I believe you can disagree about things and still be friends and really love others, I don't believe you can support laws that lead directly to people being in the situations I just described and then claim that you truly are their friends. I mean if that is what a friend is, I'd hate to see what you think an enemy is.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. They would all be tragic circumstances, and no, I wouldn't want to see that happen. I wish SCOTUS had left marriage to be one man/one woman as it's been forever, and relegated it to religious ceremonies, and made everyone have legal government contracts between two spouses which would cover all the above that you stated, with exclusions such as parent/child or brother/sister, that kind of thing.

 

[badcramps]

I believe marriage is a sacrament between one man and one woman, therefore, I cannot "come around" to supporting SSM. I wish the SCOTUS had done it differently. Perhaps leaving marriage as a religious ceremony, and from here forward calling all unions civil contracts, or something of that nature. I don't think they were clear in their definition, and I do think it leaves the door open for polygamy, incest, etc. If we go by the SCOTUS' explanation, how can anyone be denied the right to marry someone if they say they love them? If a father loves a daughter romantically, two first cousins, etc. Sounds crazy, but you know it's going to happen. Now no one can be denied the right to marry the one they say they love. I also think it leaves the door open for lawsuits, by making marriage a civil right. No where in the constitution is marriage listed as a civil right, for anyone.

But how would leaving marriage as a religious ceremony have prevented SSM? Plenty of religious organizations support SSM and conduct SSMs! So if SOCTUS had done something like that (which would have been MUCH more activist than what they did--talk about changing the course of history), there would still be plenty of SSM. It seems like you are just ignoring that there are any religions out there other than yours that have the opposite view on marriage as yours does. (This would also end up being discriminatory against non-religious people. Why should those who aren't religious have to have a different word for their union than they have always had before?)

Further, IF (and this is a big if because I think most of this slippery slope stuff is ridiculous) SCOTUS did open the door to people wanting to marry their adult children, how would calling marriage "civil contracts" for state purposes change that? Do you object less to fathers marrying adult daughters if they just don't call it marriage? Or do you object to the actual occurrence of incestuous relationships?

I agree that no where in the constitution is marriage explicitly listed as a civil right, but it IS held to be a fundamental right in Loving v. Virginia. That case is precedent--unanimous precedent at that. So do you think *that* case was wrongly decided? Is it okay for states to ban interracial marriage? (After all, if ever there was a slippery slope, isn't the allowing interracial marriage what started it all? That is certainly what opponents argued at the time after all. And certainly there were religious people at the time whose faith strongly opposed interracial marriage. Did the court fail to respect their religious beliefs by legalizing interracial marriage?) Further even marriage wasn't a fundamental right, the constitution does explicitly require equal protection and the situation same-sex couples faced prior to the decision was obviously not equal in any way.