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

[JaxDad]

I had to look that one up, Goofy. Pretty funny.

 

[wenrob]

Godwin's Law has been achieved. End of thread.


For those interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

I've been following this thread for days. Every time I go to post I get so caught up in it I forget I was going to. I saw Hitler brought up and thought, /end thread, lol.

I've never been against gay marriage. Someone way back up thread said they find it hard to believe so many people were never against but I think that's because it wasn't brought up in decades past. Once it was, it never occurred to me to be against it. I think gay couples should be afforded the same rights that I have as part of a hetro couple. Especially when it comes parental and spousal rights. My husband can't just take off with my kids (legally) and leave me hanging and the absolute last thing I'd want is for my family to be able to make life of death decisions for me. DH sure as hell doesn't want his family making them for him. We have a legal, binding contract with each other that happens to be called "marriage" that protects us and I think any consenting adult couple should have the same.

As to the argument that it will lead to crazy unions and/or should be called something else? It's a ridiculous argument and gives the impression that gay people are somehow less than. That's not okay in my book no matter what you believe.

On that note, I fully stand behind people having their own views, belief system and opinion and their right to share them. What I'm not okay with is those views being turned into law. Separation of church and state and all that.

The worried about the kids argument holds no water for me, not when crackheads can go out and have as many babies as they want and there's no law against it. I know two men raised by same sex mothers (both couples, by the way have been together for decades), one is a decorated US Marine and the other is well on his way to becoming a doctor. On the flip side I know people who've been raised in loving, mom & dad homes that are about as messed up as you can be.

 

[CampbellzSoup]

It actually dawned upon me when I took a man to the court house and they said nope. At that point I said you know what I should be in favor of this....

 

[TeresaNJ]

I explained this in a different post, but I'm going to assume you have better things to do that to read all my posts. The government could abolish recognition of marriage and only acknowledge civil unions, but that would not make gay marriage go away. Because some religions have no problem with gay marriage, and would continue to perform them. And the government would not be permitted to make a law to stop them.

As for your other quoted points, the SCOTUS decision does not say that you can marry anyone you love. The whole "Love Wins" thing is really a social media concoction. The SCOTUS decision says you can't deny benefits (in this case, the benefit of marriage) to someone because of their gender. It's preventing discrimination, not promoting "love". SCOTUS made no definitions. SCOTUS merely recognized that gay citizens need to be treated the same as non-gay citizens. They granted gay people no rights, they merely include gays in the already existing definition of "people of the United States".

What if a father loves his daughter? Well, for one, is his daughter a minor? If so, she can't contract. And neither could his dog, car, turtle, insert nonsensical analogy that's being thrown around recently. Also, he'll run up against the incest laws present in all states (which, are not gender based, and are thus non-discriminatory). What if first cousins want to marry? Well, I hate to tell you this, but they just have to pick one of the several states that permit that level of consanguineous marriage and have their ceremonies there. It's not just a joke that some states permit kissing cousins.

As for polygamy, the reason that won't be permitted is because...and I can always tell a non-lawyer by their use of that analogy....there would need to be a giant, unprecedented, massive overhaul of a large body of existing laws. To allow gays to marry we change the words "husband and wife" to spouse (and those states that enacted specifically anti-gay marriage laws will have to delete them, of course). It's actually pretty easy. If we were to allow polygamy we would need to completely change the rules of probate, of tax law, of family law, of criminal law....I could go on. Our entire legal system is based on an idea of monogamy, it is not based on discriminating between men and women (or at least, it's not supposed to be). As I've said in another recent thread, I'm not against polygamy as an idea (I'd like a second husband who could stay home, do the cleaning and cook our meals!), I just think it would be well nigh impossible to implement.

As for your point on lawsuits because marriage is now recognized as a civil right, I'm not entirely sure what these lawsuits would be about, so I'm not going to say you're necessarily wrong. But, I would say that marriage was recognized as a civil right after Loving v Virginia and has been one ever since.

Thank you for your explanations. That clears some stuff up for me. My concern with marriage being recognized as a civil right is that I don't understand how churches will be able to deny marrying someone if it is a civil right. I mean, I couldn't be my cousin's little boy's Godmother, as I have been divorced, and the Catholic church doesn't allow divorced people to participate in sacraments in their church. Whatever. I left the Catholic church many years ago due to some of their practices, as I told her, so I couldn't be his Godmother anyway. As it turns out, they also left the Catholic church, they weren't speaking of a religious ceremony anyway. They told me I could be his Fairy Godmother. They are huge Disney fans, lol. So the church could deny me being a Godmother, but if marriage is a civil right, & if I was a member of their church, could they still deny marrying me if I were gay? I don't think so.

 

[bcla]

Thank you for your explanations. That clears some stuff up for me. My concern with marriage being recognized as a civil right is that I don't understand how churches will be able to deny marrying someone if it is a civil right. I mean, I couldn't be my cousin's little boy's Godmother, as I have been divorced, and the Catholic church doesn't allow divorced people to participate in sacraments in their church. Whatever. I left the Catholic church many years ago due to some of their practices, as I told her, so I couldn't be his Godmother anyway. As it turns out, they also left the Catholic church, they weren't speaking of a religious ceremony anyway. They told me I could be his Fairy Godmother. They are huge Disney fans, lol. So the church could deny me being a Godmother, but if marriage is a civil right, & if I was a member of their church, could they still deny marrying me if I were gay? I don't think so.

I'll say for someone using a flag and bald eagle as an avatar, your basic understanding of basic American principles of civil rights is poor.

Freedom of religion grants a wide leeway for nonprofit churches to maintain their tax exempt status. However, church-related organizations like schools and hospitals are not specifically churches and don't have quite the protections that actual churches have.

Also - marriage doesn't belong only to religions. That's the bizarre claim I keep on hearing - that marriage belongs only to religion and that the government should stay out of it after declaring SSM legal. And as was noted, there are many churches and clergy willing to perform SSM ceremonies.

 

[ariel71]

Thank you for your explanations. That clears some stuff up for me. My concern with marriage being recognized as a civil right is that I don't understand how churches will be able to deny marrying someone if it is a civil right.
(snip)
So the church could deny me being a Godmother, but if marriage is a civil right, & if I was a member of their church, could they still deny marrying me if I were gay? I don't think so.

It's admirable that you are willing to at least consider some of the points brought up here. One of the frustrations I have, that you demonstrate above, is that many people form opinions or parrot concerns without knowing facts or the law.

If you are concerned about the church being forced to marry gay people, do you have this same concern about the church being forced to marry divorced individuals? The Catholic church doesn't allow remarriage following divorce without an annulment but many divorced Catholics remarry civilly anyway. "The state" hasn't forced the church to perform these marriages. The IRS hasn't pulled their tax exemption despite not allowing women to be priests. Could a gay couple sue a church? Sure, people bring lawsuits all the time for anything; doesn't mean they're valid. The separation of church and state has held fast for almost all matters like this, including cases heard by SCOTUS. The whole "the church will have to perform gay marriages" argument is a red herring.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

One of the more infamous quotes from Adolf Hitler was "if you tell a big enough lie and tell if frequently enough it will be believed."

Unfortunately, use of that adage appears to be alive and well here. Actually, that's not surprising given the subject matter and background of many of the posters. For decades, many in the LGBT universe have parroted the big, archaic lie that 10% of the population is gay. That is wrong (the actual number is 3.5%), but you can still hear that lie stated regularly, because Hitler was unfortunately correct: repeat the big lie frequently enough and it becomes "truth."

We have a smaller version of this nonsense going on in this thread, where the blatant lie that I cited studies on fatherless children as being ones on gay parenting is being repeated, since some here are furious at the fact I dared to raise questions during their party.

Which is why they are using "repeat the lie frequently" playbook and following it page by page.

Godwin says hello. It is clear from your name calling and inflammatory post that you don't intend to have a legitimate give and take discussion on the matter.

By the way, you misinterpreted and misapplied the quote as well just as you misinterpreted and misapplied your quoted studies.

This is the actual quote with full context and it's from Goebbels by the way.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

It is widely believed that the Nazi international jewish conspiracy theory was an example of the big lie used to inflame bigotry, help rationalize a war, the consequences of which the Nazis shielded their well to do supporters from and exterminate Jews. Contrary to your assertions, whether Gays are 10% or 5% would not be considered the big lie. In fact, the Nazis wouldn't have even cared which is correct. Nor would they give a hoot about what this study said or how to correctly interpret the data. None of that would be considered the big lie. Oh and yeah, you must have missed the fact that the nazis persecuted those men thought to be gay from 1933 to 1945. They arrested over 100,000 for it and convicted and sentenced over 50,000. Most went to prison but between 5,000 and 15,000 went to concentration camps. It is estimated that about half of them died. They were often singled out for unusual cruelty by their captors. And to further the indignity, most that survived were jailed again right after the war. Not until 2002 did the German government issue an apology. Those that survived were arrested again and jailed after the war. And to this day, Nazi sympathizer groups are notoriously anti Gay. Your comparison of those that disagree with you on this issue couldn't be further from the truth. And it is not well taken.

 

[bookgirl]

One of the more infamous quotes from Adolf Hitler was "if you tell a big enough lie and tell if frequently enough it will be believed."

Unfortunately, use of that adage appears to be alive and well here. Actually, that's not surprising given the subject matter and background of many of the posters. For decades, many in the LGBT universe have parroted the big, archaic lie that 10% of the population is gay. That is wrong (the actual number is 3.5%), but you can still hear that lie stated regularly, because Hitler was unfortunately correct: repeat the big lie frequently enough and it becomes "truth."

We have a smaller version of this nonsense going on in this thread, where the blatant lie that I cited studies on fatherless children as being ones on gay parenting is being repeated, since some here are furious at the fact I dared to raise questions during their party.

Which is why they are using "repeat the lie frequently" playbook and following it page by page.

HUH? This post makes no sense what so ever. I didn't say you cited studies on fatherless children as BEING ones on gay parenting, I'm saying that you are extrapolating data on one group of parents to prove your point on a completely different group of parents which is not credible to the conversation. But hey if you want to use Hitler to justify your posts then go ahead. Personally I'm seeing more Cleopatra than Adolf but that's just me.

I may not agree with some of the posters on this thread but at least I respect their POV. At this point I have no respect for yours so I'm done with the conversation.

 

[TeresaNJ]

I'll say for someone using a flag and bald eagle as an avatar, your basic understanding of basic American principles of civil rights is poor.

You know, I've been trying really hard to ignore the condescending comments that have been directed toward me, as I don't want this thread to be shut down, but could you please try to refrain? Are you purposely trying to embarrass me or make me feel bad? Are there avatar police here on the DIS too? Sheesh. If you think I don't understand something, can't you just explain it rather than making a snippy comment?

Freedom of religion grants a wide leeway for nonprofit churches to maintain their tax exempt status. However, church-related organizations like schools and hospitals are not specifically churches and don't have quite the protections that actual churches have.

Also - marriage doesn't belong only to religions. That's the bizarre claim I keep on hearing - that marriage belongs only to religion and that the government should stay out of it after declaring SSM legal. And as was noted, there are many churches and clergy willing to perform SSM ceremonies.

It's admirable that you are willing to at least consider some of the points brought up here. One of the frustrations I have, that you demonstrate above, is that many people form opinions or parrot concerns without knowing facts or the law.

Rather than be frustrated, why don't you just explain the facts or the law for those of us who may not have the entire gasp of it? I'm an RN. When people make comments that I know are incorrect, I either ignore it, or nicely explain to them the correct info. Yes, it can be annoying at times that there is so much incorrect info that people believe regarding medical matters, but that is not their fault. We'd have to spend all day reading to know everything about every subject, for the rest of eternity. Sometimes people believe that they are fully informed, when they're not.

If you are concerned about the church being forced to marry gay people, do you have this same concern about the church being forced to marry divorced individuals? The Catholic church doesn't allow remarriage following divorce without an annulment but many divorced Catholics remarry civilly anyway. "The state" hasn't forced the church to perform these marriages. The IRS hasn't pulled their tax exemption despite not allowing women to be priests. Could a gay couple sue a church? Sure, people bring lawsuits all the time for anything; doesn't mean they're valid. The separation of church and state has held fast for almost all matters like this, including cases heard by SCOTUS. The whole "the church will have to perform gay marriages" argument is a red herring.

Yes, that makes sense. I wasn't thinking of it in that way.

 

[bookgirl]

I'm expecting this to close any minute.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

I'm expecting this to close any minute.

I expected it to close long, long ago.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

I'm expecting this to close any minute.

It's pretty much over.

 

[ariel71]

I can't quote accurately since your comments were within a post.


"Rather than be frustrated, why don't you just explain the facts or the law for those of us who may not have the entire gasp of it? I'm an RN. When people make comments that I know are incorrect, I either ignore it, or nicely explain to them the correct info. Yes, it can be annoying at times that there is so much incorrect info that people believe regarding medical matters, but that is not their fault. We'd have to spend all day reading to know everything about every subject, for the rest of eternity. Sometimes people believe that they are fully informed, when they're not."

No one can know everything, but shouldn't an educated electorate do their own due diligence prior to not only forming an opinion but vehemently arguing that opinion? There's a big difference between being a little misinformed and coming into a discussion guns ablazin' from left (or right) field. Your very first post stated SSM was "illegally passed by the Supreme Court". The checks and balances of our system of government is one of the first things you learn in grade school civics. This isn't the correct forum to provide a history of civil and religious rights, nor do I know more than a drop in the bucket. I do think it's everyone's responsibility to try to understand the opposing position. You can usually find some sources out there that try to boil down the principal arguments in a somewhat unbiased manner.

If you are concerned about the church being forced to marry gay people, do you have this same concern about the church being forced to marry divorced individuals? The Catholic church doesn't allow remarriage following divorce without an annulment but many divorced Catholics remarry civilly anyway. "The state" hasn't forced the church to perform these marriages. The IRS hasn't pulled their tax exemption despite not allowing women to be priests. Could a gay couple sue a church? Sure, people bring lawsuits all the time for anything; doesn't mean they're valid. The separation of church and state has held fast for almost all matters like this, including cases heard by SCOTUS. The whole "the church will have to perform gay marriages" argument is a red herring.

Yes, that makes sense. I wasn't thinking of it in that way.

I'm certainly not the first person to have thought of those examples. They're just common sense. Goes back to the point above about understanding the other side's positions.

I thought I saw a comment somewhere about marriage not being a right in the Constitution but I can't find it. There's case law to support that we have fundamental and civil rights even if they're not enumerated in the Constitution - basically the 9th and 14th amendments.

 

[usd2bmd]

Okay flamers, come and get me.
I honestly don't understand why we could not offer the same benefits of marriage to same gender couples, but for the sake of compromise, call it a civil union rather than marriage.

Because IMO doing this is telling the LGBT community that they don't deserve the same rights and privileges that we do. Just like I didn't chose to love the opposite gender, they did not chose to love the same gender, they were born that way. Telling them they can't call their unions marriages is telling them they are less than we are, and I don't believe they are.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

It's pretty much over.

I've got a feeling it's far from over. At least until it gets closed and/or deleted.

 

[usd2bmd]

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

Don't forget eating meat on Fridays

And is it wearing linen and wool together or cotton and wool. That's outlawed too.

 

[JJZMgailey]

I think gay couples should be afforded the same rights that I have as part of a hetro couple. Especially when it comes parental and spousal rights. My husband can't just take off with my kids (legally) and leave me hanging...

Many, many years ago, my husband had a direct supervisor who was a lesbian. She had been with her partner for going on ten years. They'd decided about 7 years or so before we met them that they wanted to raise a child so they asked a mutual [male] friend to be a donator and one of the ladies was artificially inseminated. We met their little boy at a company picnic when he was about to turn 8.

It was about a year or so later that the woman who actually gave birth to the child decided she wanted a different lifestyle and she up and left...taking the little boy with her...with absolutely no warning. As I'm quite certain you can all imagine, my husband's boss was completely devistated. She had absolutely no rights to the child whatsoever, no recourse, no familly to come home to that evening. It gives me the chills to even share this with you guys and it's been 15+ years since it happened. I cannot fathom the heartbreak of losing a child this way.

Let's try to remember that we are ALL living, breathing human beings with feelings......regardless of our sexual orientation.

 

[usd2bmd]

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.

I will only respond to the bolded... What about SSM does not let those against it live and let live? How does a same sex marriage affect you and your life? They aren't asking you to marry them, or be there. I don't understand how you want them to live by your views and choices, because that does affect them.

 

[wenrob]

Many, many years ago, my husband had a direct supervisor who was a lesbian. She had been with her partner for going on ten years. They'd decided about 7 years or so before we met them that they wanted to raise a child so they asked a mutual [male] friend to be a donator and one of the ladies was artificially inseminated. We met their little boy at a company picnic when he was about to turn 8.

It was about a year or so later that the woman who actually gave birth to the child decided she wanted a different lifestyle and she up and left...taking the little boy with her...with absolutely no warning. As I'm quite certain you can all imagine, my husband's boss was completely devistated. She had absolutely no rights to the child whatsoever, no recourse, no familly to come home to that evening. It gives me the chills to even share this with you guys and it's been 15+ years since it happened. I cannot fathom the heartbreak of losing a child this way.

Let's try to remember that we are ALL living, breathing human beings with feelings......regardless of our sexual orientation.

It gave me chills reading it. I've heard so many stories like this, it's heartbreaking. Can you imagine what it does to the kids? At least now there will be legal recourse if something like this should happen. It's a good thing all around IMO.

 

[JJZMgailey]

It gave me chills reading it. I've heard so many stories like this, it's heartbreaking. Can you imagine what it does to the kids? At least now there will be legal recourse if something like this should happen. It's a good thing all around IMO.

That's what I always think about is that little kiddo and how he must miss his 'other' mom. He thought it was pretty cool that most of his friends only had one but he had two. I think of him often and wonder how he's doing...