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

[phinz]

What I find comical, going back to early in this thread, is when the closed-minded accuse others of being closed-minded and the oppressors cry about being oppressed.

 

[NHdisneylover]

Topper,

I truly am sorry that the terminology I am using in the discussions about these issues is hurtful and upsetting to you. As I said in my very first response to you about this, I hesitated for years to use the term for that very reason--I was afraid it would hurt some people and I never want to do that.
Do you have another term that you know of that I can use, that most people will know what means, that is also encompassing of all the various people and groups that are not cis heterosexuals? The closest I have seen is GLBT+ or LGBT+ which is awfully marginalizing to those who are just relegated to being added on a + symbol as a clear after thought, so that is really not an acceptable option.

Badcramps already did a lovely job (better than I could) of explaining why the comparison to the N word is not really valid, thanks I would say that would be closer to the F-word (not the four letter one, the one that can mean a cigarette in the UK) if you want a comparison.

The good thing is that it is only in conversations like these that the labels come up very often. In our regular day to day life I am about a million times more likely to "label" my daughter as, well "my daughter" or a "nerd" (there's another word that used to be seen as an insult that has been very much reclaimed and now embraced by the group), a girl scout, a food snob, etc.

Oh, and a final note, which might be interesting to you---in DD's generation, while she is fine with people using the word "gay" and even uses it herself in some situations, THAT is the term that gets used as an insult. "That's so gay" and "you're so gay" being hurled about to mean something is stupid. It is the word that she has to remind herself is not meant in an insulting manner, when it is being used in other ways. If you ever use that word, it has negative associations for her age group in much the same way queer does for yours. It saddens me that there are so MANY words that have been used to insult this community over the years.

What I find comical, going back to early in this thread, is when the closed-minded accuse others of being closed-minded and the oppressors cry about being oppressed.

I truly d not know what you are getting at here--can you please elaborate?

 

[phinz]

I truly d not know what you are getting at here--can you please elaborate?

Those who have been closed minded regarding equal rights for all people are pointing fingers at people who are saying, "This is the law of the land. Get over it." and saying, "You're being closed minded because you won't accept the fact that I'm closed minded!" Oftentimes these are the same people who are shrieking these days that their 70% majority is under attack for being closed minded and medieval, having oppressed many people for centuries with their cherry picked rules.

 

[NHdisneylover]

Those who have been closed minded regarding equal rights for all people are pointing fingers at people who are saying, "This is the law of the land. Get over it." and saying, "You're being closed minded because you won't accept the fact that I'm closed minded!" Oftentimes these are the same people who are shrieking these days that their 70% majority is under attack for being closed minded and medieval, having oppressed many people for centuries with their cherry picked rules.

Thanks for clarifying. I couldn't tell if that was what you meant, or if you were one of those people being all annoyed that people do not take kindly to being told they are sinners, etc. and want to twist THAT into bigotry. It's funny, this is on of those things that really bothers me too (especially with a flood of posts which have shown up in my facebook stream lately) and I actually wrote a blog post about it last night.
Here is a little bit of how I addressed that issue:

These are usually the people who get very upset at being told they are "bigots" or intolerant, etc. The Oxford dictionary defines a bigot as:

A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
So, yes, I do believe that if you set your beliefs up as superior to those of others and insist on insulting people who believe differently, you are in fact acting as a bigot in those times. When you start flinging insults at those who do not share your interpretation of the bible, or do not believe in your holy book at all, you are not respecting the beliefs of those people you are talking about and to. To then turn around and demand to be respected for insulting others is kind of ridiculous when you stop to think about it.

 

[lauch]

All that needs to be said is WOW!!! just WOW!!!

 

[NHdisneylover]

All that needs to be said is WOW!!! just WOW!!!

In reference to? I doubt that is your answer for when you came around on same sex marriage.

 

[Ceila]

All that needs to be said is WOW!!! just WOW!!!

I've seen a spirited, interesting, and informative discussion take place on this thread, and at page 25 you come on to claim that nothing more that "wow" is needed? That's a shame. I personally have enjoyed reading the back-and-forth, and I think there is a lot to be gained by that.

 

[bcla]

So, yes, I do believe that if you set your beliefs up as superior to those of others and insist on insulting people who believe differently, you are in fact acting as a bigot in those times. When you start flinging insults at those who do not share your interpretation of the bible, or do not believe in your holy book at all, you are not respecting the beliefs of those people you are talking about and to. To then turn around and demand to be respected for insulting others is kind of ridiculous when you stop to think about it.

Certainly this and other subjects come close or cross over the line of religious or political topics that may be removed. I don't know if gay marriage (I can't use that other phrase since it gets automatically censored except for the subject line) is inherently a religious or political issue. However, the argument against it typically boils down to a religious objection. Additionally, most forums I frequent will consider it a political topic and may be allowed (or will be moved to) on a no-holds barred political board. I'm kind of surprised this thread has lasted this long given the rampant amount of political and religious discussion. There was one thread that got shut down in 24 hours regarding Planned Parenthood.

I don't necessarily believe that it is a religious discussion. It's a political issue to the degree that our governmental process has adjudicated it. For whatever reason it divides somewhat along partisan lines. However, when it comes down to it, the majority of those opposed will cite religious reasons. Granted there's a certain amount of debate among religious leaders, including some who have no issues with it.

I suppose a somewhat compelling argument is about the effect gay marriage might have on freedom of religion as it pertains to clergy perhaps be required to perform marriage ceremonies they disagree with. However, this generally hasn't been an issue since primarily religious organizations have a wide leeway in the law to practice their religion as they see fit. The closest thing I recall is was a licensed, for-profit wedding chapel that received a cease and desist letter when it was found that they refused to perform SSM ceremonies, but that was well before the current ruling. That's kind of a fine line. I know that freedom of speech or freedom of association has been brought up, but when one operates a business open to the public that often goes by the wayside. If there really was that kind of freedom of association, then civil rights laws that prohibit refusal of service to people on the basis of race, religion, or national origin would be effectively unenforceable.

 

[NHdisneylover]

Yeah, it might be skirting pretty close to the line, though I admit I am utterly confused about what the line is. I am not attacking any particular religion at all or any particular person---I sure know plenty of people of lots of differing faiths and personal beliefs who are capable of applying their moral codes to them-self without acting like everyone else has to adopt the same one. I THINK that is OK, a vague discussion about how some people try to apply their religions (ANY religion) to all and how that is where it crosses a line of no longer being respectful, does not seem the same (to me) as holding up any one particular religions view as better than another or one as bad, etc--which I think is mostly how the rule seems to be dealt with.

The other thread you refer to had a very contentious and politically motivated video embedded in the OP, which might well be the reason it did not last too long (though, to be honest, I was surprised by both how long it did last and how respectful the conversation was).

And I have to say that this thread has been wonderfully respectful and civil throughout---I am impressed with my fellow DISsers.

 

[dinolounger]

I've seen a spirited, interesting, and informative discussion take place on this thread, and at page 25 you come on to claim that nothing more that "wow" is needed? That's a shame. I personally have enjoyed reading the back-and-forth, and I think there is a lot to be gained by that.

Agree. Unfortunately, what we are encountering here is some understandable resistance to discussion that offers perspectives that deviate in any way from the "rah rah rah" mantra that some feel should be the sole focus of this thread. And that creates friction due to the below "law of physics":

 

[Ceila]

Agree. Unfortunately, what we are encountering here is some understandable resistance to discussion that offers perspectives that deviate in any way from the "rah rah rah" mantra that some feel should be the sole focus of this thread. And that creates friction due to the below "law of physics":

Actually, we really don't know what the "just wow" post refers to. Is it that SS marriage is now legal? Is it that there are people who don't agree with it? Is it something else entirely?

As for the pic, it demonstrates a lack of understanding of either freedom of speech or political correctness. Or perhaps both. Hard to tell.

 

[bcla]

Agree. Unfortunately, what we are encountering here is some understandable resistance to discussion that offers perspectives that deviate in any way from the "rah rah rah" mantra that some feel should be the sole focus of this thread. And that creates friction due to the below "law of physics"

What we're having here is a discussion on a private message board. The message on the image you linked shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what free speech is or isn't. Free speech refers to freedom from governmental interference. It doesn't mean freedom from criticism or ridicule in a private forum. In fact what you've posted here has been mostly left intact by the moderators. Freedom of speech also isn't freedom from debate.

 

[lauradis]

Agree. Unfortunately, what we are encountering here is some understandable resistance to discussion that offers perspectives that deviate in any way from the "rah rah rah" mantra that some feel should be the sole focus of this thread. And that creates friction due to the below "law of physics":

I keep asking the disboard for freedom of speech for all words minus the curse words, in lets say just this "community" section or a new section. The answer is always no, more no.... its rather annoying to get points for disagreeing with the pc line.

 

[phinz]

Freedom of speech means the government can't legislate your speech. It doesn't mean that you can say whatever cockamamie phrase comes to mind without repercussions, sanction or derision. This *is* a private forum, owned by a private company. They have every right to ban the word "alfalfa" if they so please. If they want to give you "points" for saying, "I like Muenster cheese" it's within their scope, like it or not.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Agree. Unfortunately, what we are encountering here is some understandable resistance to discussion that offers perspectives that deviate in any way from the "rah rah rah" mantra that some feel should be the sole focus of this thread. And that creates friction due to the below "law of physics":

Yeah all you other posters. Stop creating friction We wouldn't want to do that. Take this friction creating post comparing those that disagree with her to Hitler for example. We don't want any of that.

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.

Oh wait that was you. I suppose we should do as you say and not as you do.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Freedom of speech means the government can't legislate your speech. It doesn't mean that you can say whatever cockamamie phrase comes to mind without repercussions, sanction or derision. This *is* a private forum, owned by a private company. They have every right to ban the word "alfalfa" if they so please. If they want to give you "points" for saying, "I like Muenster cheese" it's within their scope, like it or not.

The violating my free speech rights posts always crack me up. Yeah sure. This site, a privately owned message board free speech doesn't apply to is totally violating their free speech rights.....by letting them continue to post.

 

[lauch]

WOW! In reference to almost 15,000 posts! Sorry I'm off topic.... WOW!

 

[bcla]

The violating my free speech rights posts always crack me up. Yeah sure. This site, a privately owned message board free speech doesn't apply to is totally violating their free speech rights.....by letting them continue to post.

Well, free speech does apply in that the government doesn't censor this website in any way.

Granted, there are specific forums where the overall viewpoint on this particular subject may be more to their liking. I certainly understand that not everyone has come around on the idea of gay marriage, but right now it's the law.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Well, free speech does apply in that the government doesn't censor this website in any way.

Granted, there are specific forums where the overall viewpoint on this particular subject may be more to their liking. I certainly understand that not everyone has come around on the idea of gay marriage, but right now it's the law.

What I meant was the prohibitions against government regarding free speech do not apply to private owners of websites. In any case, nobody is being persecuted. They're still posting.

 

[sunshinehighway]

I keep asking the disboard for freedom of speech for all words minus the curse words, in lets say just this "community" section or a new section. The answer is always no, more no.... its rather annoying to get points for disagreeing with the pc line.

If you want to believe you are only getting points for disagreeing with the pc line, that's your choice but it's most likely wrong.
While I find little rhyme or reason to how exactly something is determined to be points worthy, I can guarantee you I've gotten points when I was agreeing with the pc line.
It seems more about what an individual mod feels like or if your post is directed at a "protected" poster, not if your opinion is pc enough. Also, if I'm remembering correctly, many of your posts are blatantly political.