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

[aristocatz]

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.

Are you really quoting Hitler???????? Wow. What did you mean by "background of many of the posters"? I didn't quite understand that.

As for the point you were trying to make in your quote, I actually feel a very similar thing is going on with many who oppose or are fearful of SSM, especially when there is too much exposure to news media or websites/blogs with extremist political agendas-I'm going to guess that's where some of these over reaching fears come from.

That's ok though-to each their own. I choose to not live my life getting myself into a tizzy about relationships that have nothing to do with my own. Or being afraid of things that may or may not happen-what a sad way to live life. I choose to celebrate the happiness of myself & others. Not everyone in this world gets to have the honor & privilege of experiencing true love-those who do are very lucky & I hope they hold on to it for a long long time.

Signing off now-you lost me at Hitler

 

[dinolounger]

I can cite evidence

I have no reason to doubt that, but where is it? You just describe your conclusions but don't present any of the supposed evidence that led to them. Nor do you provide any detail on how the control group was defined and how you measured differences between it and your (in all likelihood very small) test group.
Bottom line: anyone can wander into a forum like this and claim to have done rigidly scientific analysis that proves "X", but short of providing credible links to said research, this comes back to what I originally described it as: undocumented claims, which again in legal terms are inadmissible hearsay.

Of course I did not want to imply that children of heterosexual couples weren't well adjusted or successful.

I didn't assume you did, although at least one other poster here insinuated that.

 

[ZephyrHawk]

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'm also a godmother! An incredibly irreligious godmother! In fact, the parents needed to have another set of godparents to stand up with us to be the "official" godparents in the ceremony. But the parents have made it very clear that if something happens to them, it's me and DH they want raising my godson. Now, here's the thing: There is absolutely no legal or other right conferred upon me and my husband by that religious ceremony. None. It means jack and you know what to the government. I will take care of that boy if something happens to his parents, because I'm going to write them a will that explicitly makes me and DH the kid's guardian. That is an official legal document that the government cares about. The government does not care what you do in your church. It cannot force you to do anything, or not do anything, in your church (well, okay....it can force your church to have fire exists and stuff like that, but you get my point). Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The gay marriage debate is about the civil, governmental side of "marriage"; nothing more. No priests will be required to marry gay persons, but court clerks (who are government employees) will be. Similarly, were the SCOTUS case to have gone the other way, the government could not have done anything to prevent churches who favor gay marriage from performing those ceremonies...they could have just refused to provide government marriage benefits to those people.

So, the question is: Is marriage a legal or religious institution? Most people would say both. And as long as there is some governmental aspect to it, the government has a right to weigh in on the governmental portions of it. It never has the right to weigh in on the religious aspects. Just as the government would not look upon the religious ceremony I participated in as having any meaning whatsoever. If I want to protect my godson, I have to take action the the government can and will recognize.

 

[dinolounger]

By the way, you misinterpreted and misapplied the quote

No I didn't, but you did.

Hitler coined the concept and originally expressed it in Mein Kampf, Goebbels picked it up and used variants later. And in citing the quote I described to a T what you and several others continue to do, which is to lie and distort citations I made. Keep lying as long as you want, but as I stated in another thread, my lineage goes back to a certain well known sailing vessel which means we've been around a long, long time and know how outlast anyone and anything.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

And in citing the quote I described to a T what you and several others continue to do, which is to lie and distort citations I made. Keep lying as long as you want, but as I stated in another thread, my lineage goes back to a certain well known sailing vessel which means we've been around a long, long time and know how outlast anyone and anything..
.

From name calling and inflammatory posts to the more name calling and I didn't you did response. More proof you have nothing constructive to add. Godwin says hello again.

 

[SirDuff]

No I didn't, but you did.

Hitler coined the concept and originally expressed it in Mein Kampf, Goebbels picked it up and used variants later. And in citing the quote I described to a T what you and several others continue to do, which is to lie and distort citations I made. Keep lying as long as you want, but as I stated in another thread, my lineage goes back to a certain well known sailing vessel which means we've been around a long, long time and know how outlast anyone and anything.

The couldn't outlast those they left behind in Europe, could they? What a weird thing to say - some people you can trace back in your family tree came over in the Mayflower and, somehow, that means you can outlast people? And even if it did mean that (which is doesn't) how is that a could trait to have in the context of this thread? You'll continue posting and misconstruing things until everyone else gives up, even when you're wrong? Great trait to have.

And by the way that quote was not in Mein Kampf. Here is the quote from the book:

“In this they [the Jews] proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds, they more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads, and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others.…” (p. 231 of the Manheim translation)

Not quite the same meaning as you attributed to it.

 

[ariel71]

my lineage goes back to a certain well known sailing vessel which means we've been around a long, long time and know how outlast anyone and anything.

Your ancestors' ability to procreate isn't really a medal-worthy achievement and has no bearing on the future. That statement goes beyond non sequitur to just bizarre.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

I'm reminded of a candy, but I'll leave it at that.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Are you really quoting Hitler???????? Wow. What did you mean by "background of many of the posters"? I didn't quite understand that.

Looked like an attempt at insulting many of the posters.

 

[Jennasis]

I don't believe any business has a leg to stand on by citing "religious" objections to SSM...according to the Bible, all sins are equal. So unless they plan on refusing to bake cakes or arrange flowers for the wedding of someone who is divorced, has ever lied/cheated/stolen, masturbated, had pre-marital sex, etc, then they have no right to pick and choose which "sin" they discriminate against.

In other words...shut up and bake the friggin' cake. And if you can't handle that due to your religious objections, then (like I'd suggest to the county clerks of the country trying to hold out on issuing marriage licenses) you need a new line of work.

My mother was a medical assistant for many years for a gynecologist. At one point her doc joined his practice to another doc. So my mom went to work at the other doc's twice a week. When she got there, she discovered the other doc performed abortions in his office. As this was something she objected to, she went to her boss (the original doc she worked for) and sadly told him she could, after 9 years of loyal service, fantastic pay and amazing benefits, no longer work for him if she was going to have to work in an office where abortions took place.

 

[mnrose]

Looked like an attempt at insulting many of the posters.

I believe she was referring to the fact that some posters here are (gasp...prepare yourself) gay. Newsflash.

LOL. I've seen this argument in the past, maybe not from her, but from others claiming this is a "gay friendly" place and gay topics get a "pass" on the no-religion or no-politics rule. As if being "gay friendly" is a bad thing.

I'm not gay, and I 100% disagree with just about everything she wrote. So, I wonder how she explains people like me. Not gay. Still think she's dead wrong.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

Godwin's Law is getting a workout today.

 

[ariel71]

I'm reminded of a candy, but I'll leave it at that.

Funny, I had a sudden urge to listen to Barry Manilow.

 

[Goofy_Disney_Dad]

Funny, I had a sudden urge to listen to Barry Manilow.

Funny, those urges.

 

[bookgirl]

Your ancestors' ability to procreate isn't really a medal-worthy achievement and has no bearing on the future. That statement goes beyond non sequitur to just bizarre.

Not sure what a persons roots have to do with the currant conversation either.

Don't worry not only did my ancestors come over on the same boat, but my other ancestors met that boat and kept their butts from dying off.

I guess that makes me the ultimate suvivor. LOL Or the thread winner, at least by that logic.

Of course by her logic I'm also dumb and gay and have a agenda. None of those are true but in her world I guess it makes her feel better to think so.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

I believe she was referring to the fact that some posters here are (gasp...prepare yourself) gay. Newsflash.
LOL. I've seen this argument in the past, maybe not from her, but from others claiming this is a "gay friendly" place and gay topics get a "pass" on the no-religion or no-politics rule. As if being "gay friendly" is a bad thing.
I'm not gay, and I 100% disagree with just about everything she wrote. So, I wonder how she explains people like me. Not gay. Still think she's dead wrong.

It's a common argument. I guess this site is persecuting them......... By allowing them to hang around.

 

[Topper]

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

I use a Ouija board.

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

According to one survey. The same survey, done the year before, concluded that Papa John's was number one. I don't think much of that survey.

 

[NewmanFamily6]

It's never been an issue in our family. Everyone deserves a chance at happiness.

 

[bcla]

I'm also a godmother! An incredibly irreligious godmother! In fact, the parents needed to have another set of godparents to stand up with us to be the "official" godparents in the ceremony. But the parents have made it very clear that if something happens to them, it's me and DH they want raising my godson. Now, here's the thing: There is absolutely no legal or other right conferred upon me and my husband by that religious ceremony. None. It means jack and you know what to the government.

Total tangent here......

Well - a marriage ceremony is merely a ceremony - basically a means to legal status. One that every state allows to be performed by clergy, although the list of who else varies. And in the end it's just a ceremony. A state or the federal government don't really care other than that the state recognizes the marriage. They don't place a higher value on marriages officiated by clergy, or judges, civil marriage officiants, or politicians (that's actually a category in my state).

Of course many fixate on just that, while either deliberately or not so deliberately arguing about what it may mean for clergy if they're uncomfortable or refuse. It's a common reason cited for why SSM is wrong. In the meanwhile, no lawsuit has gone anywhere when a Catholic priest has declined to officiate an atheist's or protestant's wedding ceremony. It hasn't even gone anywhere in states where SSM has been legal. If anything, that's a pretty good freedom of religion exercise, whether it's about the clergy's right to decide who they will serve vs the potential married couple's "rights" to be served regardless of their religious background (or lack thereof).

I don't know if maybe we'd be better off going to the European model. Sure there can be a religious ceremony, but it's no more official to the government than having a wedding reception. The official stuff happens in front of a civil servant, and that's what makes the marriage legal in the eyes of the law.

 

[NHdisneylover]

I have no reason to doubt that, but where is it? You just describe your conclusions but don't present any of the supposed evidence that led to them. Nor do you provide any detail on how the control group was defined and how you measured differences between it and your (in all likelihood very small) test group.
Bottom line: anyone can wander into a forum like this and claim to have done rigidly scientific analysis that proves "X", but short of providing credible links to said research, this comes back to what I originally described it as: undocumented claims, which again in legal terms are inadmissible hearsay.



I didn't assume you did, although at least one other poster here insinuated that.

It's too bad she did not feel comfortable leaving it up (likely because there were only a handful of authors and it would be too easy for some crazy person from here to figure out who she is)--it was posted and it was good research which I found really interesting, but by the time I was done skimming it, that post on the thread read "duplicate post" or something like that and the link was gone.
Anyway, I will confirm its existence -- you can believe her on that point.