Opposition to same sex marriage ruling

[missy]

I am still having trouble grasping the thought process of those who oppose gay marriage. How does it affect your life and your marriage? Why are those who oppose gay marriage sticking your noses into other people's private matters? How does it make your life less (less good, less worthy, less important, less happy)?

Limiting someone's civil and/or human rights for what reason? I am not trying to stir up more trouble but genuinely having a difficult time understanding why those who are opposed are opposed to this?

Is it because you think they are less worthy of getting married? Should they not be able to enjoy and share a happy union with the love of their life and enjoy all the benefits (and of course consequences too) associated with marriage? Why don't they deserve the same benefits straight couples have? Why is it OK to separate people into different groups deeming some more worthy of others of enjoying rights such as legal marriage?

I think religion has too much of a stronghold on this country and that should never be OK. Everyone matters and everyone counts and one religion is not better than another and atheists are not less worthy than religious individuals who are not less worthy than agnostics and so on and so forth. I wish we would stop dividing and separating people based on differences and instead embrace others for who they are and not what religion they follow, for who they love, how they dress or how they see themselves gender wise etc etc etc. Let's please just stop the madness and let's love or at least respect each other for who we are and show each other some kindness, acceptance and tolerance. The world would be a whole lot better off if we could do that. In many ways it reminds me of a high school clique with the cool kids deeming the others unworthy. What's that song high school never ends.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OsjBYxrR0c


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r5M2gZoc_0

 

[Gypsy]

One momentous step toward equality by no means lessens the issues facing the gay community. Women's right to vote was granted in 1029, the civil rights act was passed in 1964. Do women and the black community have nothing else to complain about? Equality is a never ending battle and its an individual's duty not to get complacent with one victory, regardly how big.

I agree that complacency isn't the way to go... otherwise, we'd never change or move forward. My issue is with those who make it a point to have such hate for our society and everyone in it to the point that nothing will ever make them content...

I don't think this is your point. I think this is your interpretation of what you think of Kenny's position.

I don't think he's bitter. Any more than any other group that has been harmed by the majority of small minded bigots in this country.

Gay right still has a large way to go. One victory in a war doesn't mean that the war is over. And it isn't bitter or hateful to point that out. And it doesn't mean that they are never going to be content.

As long as there is such a large amount of intolerance in this country toward gays then the war is not won. Just like the war isn't won for blacks. Or hispanics. Or women.

And posts like yours, in this thread, that actually DENY that there has been harm done to people who are denied equality (direct quote from you is "No one was actually being harmed by the old ban on same sex marriages. LOL.") DEMONSTRATE that the war is not won.

Frankly posts like this just make me see red. "There are just some people who can't focus on any good in their lives because they are too focused on being miserable, too wrapped up in their own victim mentalities."

You do not know Kenny and yet you are personally attacking him. It not your place to judge whether or not he has a 'victim' mentality or not. The fact of the matter is: what looks like paranoia and victim mentalities is just a reality that is different from yours. So you feel you have the RIGHT to demean it. That's just wrong.

 

[missy]

I am still having trouble grasping the thought process of those who oppose gay marriage. How does it affect your life and your marriage? Why are those who oppose gay marriage sticking your noses into other people's private matters? How does it make your life less (less good, less worthy, less important, less happy)?

Limiting someone's civil and/or human rights for what reason? I am not trying to stir up more trouble but genuinely having a difficult time understanding why those who are opposed are opposed to this?

Is it because you think they are less worthy of getting married? Should they not be able to enjoy and share a happy union with the love of their life and enjoy all the benefits (and of course consequences too) associated with marriage? Why don't they deserve the same benefits straight couples have? Why is it OK to separate people into different groups deeming some more worthy of others of enjoying rights such as legal marriage?

I think religion has too much of a stronghold on this country and that should never be OK. Everyone matters and everyone counts and one religion is not better than another and atheists are not less worthy than religious individuals who are not less worthy than agnostics and so on and so forth. I wish we would stop dividing and separating people based on differences and instead embrace others for who they are and not what religion they follow, for who they love, how they dress or how they see themselves gender wise etc etc etc. Let's please just stop the madness and let's love or at least respect each other for who we are and show each other some kindness, acceptance and tolerance. The world would be a whole lot better off if we could do that. In many ways it reminds me of a high school clique with the cool kids deeming the others unworthy. What's that song high school never ends.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OsjBYxrR0c


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r5M2gZoc_0

 

[Gypsy]

Quoting msop: " HL is a private company..."

Hobby Lobby uses public-paid and maintained roads for the transport of their goods, those roads are patrolled by public-paid security (law enforcement). Without this, there is no Hobby Lobby.

Everyone does... that isn't really a valid argument.

That's because it's the wrong argument.


Here's what you are missing. Yes, Hobby Lobby is a private company. But private companies of a certain size that engage in "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" are REQUIRED by federal law to provide certain things. Why? Because of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. Additionally, government relies on this clause in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" other powers the Constitution grants it. The federal government argues that health insurance mandate is a "necessary" element of its regulation of the health care market under the commerce clause. The court has previously defined "necessary" broadly as anything that might be "useful" or "convenient." This is the logic for Obamacare. That is is within Federal Government authority because it is necessary and proper.

Now, does that mean that Congress can do anything it wants. NO. The powers of the government are balanced against the liberty of the individual.

That's how it has always been. That's why the government can't do everything it wants. But in this case what the Government wanted in the ACA is that all companies of a certain size engaged in interstate commerce be required to provide prescription coverage that includes birth control. The ACA became the law of the land.

Hobby Lobby objected saying that it went against their religion to do this. Why? Because even though birth control DOESN"T work SCIENTIFICALLY they way think BELIEVE IT DOES. And even though their beliefs are WRONG. They still shouldn't have to provide coverage for perscriptions. And should not be subject to the law. Because of their religious beliefs.

So their religion trumps the federal government. AND trumps the rights of the individuals working for them to birth control coverage.

And here's the problem with that. It is a corporation NOT a person. But SUDDENLY a privately held company has all the RELIGIOUS RIGHTS an individual does thanks to Citizens United. How is that okay? How is it okay that a COMPANY has the same rights and an individual?

It's not. And that in a nutshell is the problem with Hobby Lobby. If you follow the logic of Hobby Lobby then all these large companies would have to do is declare they are Christian Scientist companies and that their beliefs are "closely held' even if they are DEAD WRONG and because Christian Scientist DO NOT BELIEVE IN MODERN MEDICINE, and BOOM! They can deny Health insurance altogether.

Is that okay? Msop, do you REALLY think that is okay?

Should the rights of a CORPORATION trump the rights of the Federal Government AND the individual? No.

And that's the problem of Hobby Lobby. It's not really Hobby Lobby that's the problem. It's CITIZENS UNITED. The minute that is overturned, Hobby Lobby and it's slipper slope of bad logic goes away.

 

[Gypsy]

I am still having trouble grasping the thought process of those who oppose gay marriage. How does it affect your life and your marriage? Why are those who oppose gay marriage sticking your noses into other people's private matters? How does it make your life less (less good, less worthy, less important, less happy)?

Limiting someone's civil and/or human rights for what reason? I am not trying to stir up more trouble but genuinely having a difficult time understanding why those who are opposed are opposed to this?

Is it because you think they are less worthy of getting married? Should they not be able to enjoy and share a happy union with the love of their life and enjoy all the benefits (and of course consequences too) associated with marriage? Why don't they deserve the same benefits straight couples have? Why is it OK to separate people into different groups deeming some more worthy of others of enjoying rights such as legal marriage?

I think religion has too much of a stronghold on this country and that should never be OK. Everyone matters and everyone counts and one religion is not better than another and atheists are not less worthy than religious individuals who are not less worthy than agnostics and so on and so forth. I wish we would stop dividing and separating people based on differences and instead embrace others for who they are and not what religion they follow, for who they love, how they dress or how they see themselves gender wise etc etc etc. Let's please just stop the madness and let's love or at least respect each other for who we are and show each other some kindness, acceptance and tolerance. The world would be a whole lot better off if we could do that. In many ways it reminds me of a high school clique with the cool kids deeming the others unworthy. What's that song high school never ends.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OsjBYxrR0c


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r5M2gZoc_0

I'm with you.

I do not understand why the opponents of gay marriage can't see that the solution to their problem is simple. If you don't believe in gay marriage. Don't get gay married. There is NO infringement on your rights. Religious or otherwise.

NO ONE in the opposition has even ONCE tried to explain to me why this isn't good enough for them? And how this infringes on ANY of their rights.

 

[Tekate]

Citizens United was one of the worst SCOTUS decision for our country. We cannot treat organizations as people, whether they are right or left, as best we can, corporate or PAC money should be kept out of elections.

Quoting msop: " HL is a private company..."

Hobby Lobby uses public-paid and maintained roads for the transport of their goods, those roads are patrolled by public-paid security (law enforcement). Without this, there is no Hobby Lobby.

Everyone does... that isn't really a valid argument.

That's because it's the wrong argument.


Here's what you are missing. Yes, Hobby Lobby is a private company. But private companies of a certain size that engage in "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" are REQUIRED by federal law to provide certain things. Why? Because of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. Additionally, government relies on this clause in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" other powers the Constitution grants it. The federal government argues that health insurance mandate is a "necessary" element of its regulation of the health care market under the commerce clause. The court has previously defined "necessary" broadly as anything that might be "useful" or "convenient." This is the logic for Obamacare. That is is within Federal Government authority because it is necessary and proper.

Now, does that mean that Congress can do anything it wants. NO. The powers of the government are balanced against the liberty of the individual.

That's how it has always been. That's why the government can't do everything it wants. But in this case what the Government wanted in the ACA is that all companies of a certain size engaged in interstate commerce be required to provide prescription coverage that includes birth control. The ACA became the law of the land.

Hobby Lobby objected saying that it went against their religion to do this. Why? Because even though birth control DOESN"T work SCIENTIFICALLY they way think BELIEVE IT DOES. And even though their beliefs are WRONG. They still shouldn't have to provide coverage for perscriptions. And should not be subject to the law. Because of their religious beliefs.

So their religion trumps the federal government. AND trumps the rights of the individuals working for them to birth control coverage.

And here's the problem with that. It is a corporation NOT a person. But SUDDENLY a privately held company has all the RELIGIOUS RIGHTS an individual does thanks to Citizens United. How is that okay? How is it okay that a COMPANY has the same rights and an individual?

It's not. And that in a nutshell is the problem with Hobby Lobby. If you follow the logic of Hobby Lobby then all these large companies would have to do is declare they are Christian Scientist companies and that their beliefs are "closely held' even if they are DEAD WRONG and because Christian Scientist DO NOT BELIEVE IN MODERN MEDICINE, and BOOM! They can deny Health insurance altogether.

Is that okay? Msop, do you REALLY think that is okay?

Should the rights of a CORPORATION trump the rights of the Federal Government AND the individual? No.

And that's the problem of Hobby Lobby. It's not really Hobby Lobby that's the problem. It's CITIZENS UNITED. The minute that is overturned, Hobby Lobby and it's slipper slope of bad logic goes away.

 

[chrono]

I was very disappointed when the US Law recognized a corporation as a person, having the same rights as an individual.

 

[liaerfbv]

My religion say I can have many wives, but the law say I can only have one on record,so is my civil rights being violated?

Here's a pretty interesting article about the argument this ruling does not extend to polygamy.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/06/is_polygamy_next_after_gay_marriage_chief_justice_roberts_obergefell_dissent.html?wpisrc=obinsite

I personally do not have any moral issues with polygamy, but I think it would be difficult to regulate in terms of spousal benefits. I haven't done enough research to say whether I think civil liberties are being denied in that case.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

First let me clear up the fact that hobby Lobby owners are plain old baptists. All benefits such as vacation time and, health benefits have always been at the discretion of the employer, except for union negotiations. The Gov't tried to mandate certain benefits and you had a court case that came out in favor of hobby Lobby. I doubt anyone would leave a job over paying for birth control pills.

I don't recall anyone in this thread who opposes gay marriage. I do agree that one "ought" to enjoy and appreciate a hard won victory.
I read an Op ed piece from one of the fellows who was the plaintiff in the 2008 case, which was won by David Boise (Democrat) and George Bushes Inspector General-- Republican(I'm not looking up his name) who was jubilant at the ruling. I watched the Documentary on that case and if those two different lawyers could work together over this issue it seems that people on pricescope could look at what they do agree on.

Sure there is work ahead. But if you can't enjoy, gloat, anything positive by such a big victory, which really does show the times are changing, you miss the joy you could feel. Thats a big deal!

Annette

 

[blackprophet]

One momentous step toward equality by no means lessens the issues facing the gay community. Women's right to vote was granted in 1029, the civil rights act was passed in 1964. Do women and the black community have nothing else to complain about? Equality is a never ending battle and its an individual's duty not to get complacent with one victory, regardly how big.

I agree that complacency isn't the way to go... otherwise, we'd never change or move forward. My issue is with those who make it a point to have such hate for our society and everyone in it to the point that nothing will ever make them content...

I don't think this is your point. I think this is your interpretation of what you think of Kenny's position.

I don't think he's bitter. Any more than any other group that has been harmed by the majority of small minded bigots in this country.

Gay right still has a large way to go. One victory in a war doesn't mean that the war is over. And it isn't bitter or hateful to point that out. And it doesn't mean that they are never going to be content.

As long as there is such a large amount of intolerance in this country toward gays then the war is not won. Just like the war isn't won for blacks. Or hispanics. Or women.

And posts like yours, in this thread, that actually DENY that there has been harm done to people who are denied equality (direct quote from you is "No one was actually being harmed by the old ban on same sex marriages. LOL.") DEMONSTRATE that the war is not won.

Frankly posts like this just make me see red. "There are just some people who can't focus on any good in their lives because they are too focused on being miserable, too wrapped up in their own victim mentalities."

You do not know Kenny and yet you are personally attacking him. It not your place to judge whether or not he has a 'victim' mentality or not. The fact of the matter is: what looks like paranoia and victim mentalities is just a reality that is different from yours. So you feel you have the RIGHT to demean it. That's just wrong.

So much love for the post. +1000000000000000000000000000

However in msop04's defence she did say she was not referring to any one in this thread specifically.

HOWEVER, I have seen msop04's sentiment expressed over and over by different people in my short time here on PS. And Gypsy has responded beautifully. As Elliot stated it comes from a place of privilege.

People don't hate society, they hate the way they are treated. Rulings like these change they law, but it will be a while until things like this truly change how people in these groups are treated by society. Womens rights movements won rulings like this 100 years ago. Yet women are still fighting for wage equality, among other struggles. Should they just be happy they even have jobs?

This is truly something to celebrate, a momentous occasion. But society can only truly move on when as a society we've changed how we treat these groups. This is a good start. But that's all it is, a good start, a very good one at that.

 

[msop04]

One momentous step toward equality by no means lessens the issues facing the gay community. Women's right to vote was granted in 1029, the civil rights act was passed in 1964. Do women and the black community have nothing else to complain about? Equality is a never ending battle and its an individual's duty not to get complacent with one victory, regardly how big.

I agree that complacency isn't the way to go... otherwise, we'd never change or move forward. My issue is with those who make it a point to have such hate for our society and everyone in it to the point that nothing will ever make them content...

I don't think this is your point. I think this is your interpretation of what you think of Kenny's position.

I don't think he's bitter. Any more than any other group that has been harmed by the majority of small minded bigots in this country.

Gay right still has a large way to go. One victory in a war doesn't mean that the war is over. And it isn't bitter or hateful to point that out. And it doesn't mean that they are never going to be content.

As long as there is such a large amount of intolerance in this country toward gays then the war is not won. Just like the war isn't won for blacks. Or hispanics. Or women.

And posts like yours, in this thread, that actually DENY that there has been harm done to people who are denied equality (direct quote from you is "No one was actually being harmed by the old ban on same sex marriages. LOL.") DEMONSTRATE that the war is not won.

Frankly posts like this just make me see red. "There are just some people who can't focus on any good in their lives because they are too focused on being miserable, too wrapped up in their own victim mentalities."

You do not know Kenny and yet you are personally attacking him. It not your place to judge whether or not he has a 'victim' mentality or not. The fact of the matter is: what looks like paranoia and victim mentalities is just a reality that is different from yours. So you feel you have the RIGHT to demean it. That's just wrong.

If you'd read, you would have known that I made it a point to say that I was not speaking of kenny or anyone in particular. Your post made mine above about kenny, not me. For that matter, YOU do not know kenny either. I wasn't attacking anyone.

But it seems sad to gripe and moan when a huge step forward to equality has been made. I just think we should be grateful for such victories. I also feel that there are some people who will always feel the world is out to get them and will never be content. (and I'm not at all referring to anyone on this thread -- I'm merely making an observation)

It seems in the minds of our society, their are people/groups who simply cannot be discriminated against, no matter what. "Unless your view is the same as mine, you're wrong..."

 

[msop04]

...Sure there is work ahead. But if you can't enjoy, gloat, anything positive by such a big victory, which really does show the times are changing, you miss the joy you could feel. Thats a big deal!
Annette

...and this is all I was trying to express. [emoji17]

 

[amc80]

...Sure there is work ahead. But if you can't enjoy, gloat, anything positive by such a big victory, which really does show the times are changing, you miss the joy you could feel. Thats a big deal!
Annette

...and this is all I was trying to express. [emoji17]

::Like button::

Other than to say that, I'm staying out of this thread.

 

[Tekate]

Hi!

What if a Muslim owned company required all female employees (if they hired them) to wear a hijab or worse a niqab? but did not force men to have beards? We have slid down a slippery slope with the Hobby Lobby decision...

It's true that all companies are not required to offer bennies such as vacation, but there are some requirements for health plans... but companies have found that it is to their detriment not to offer some benefits. During our version of the great depression benefits were cut back, no raises etc.. hard times.. but during good times when the supply and demand may become out of whack then you will see benefits and enticements to lure the best employees.

Hobby Lobby pays above minimum wage to their employees and should be commended for this. As times continue to improve they may find their work force - of women anyway - is less than stellar because the benefits women of child bearing age probably include birth control coverage, which can be much more expensive than in my day..

People should rejoice in the fact that the Supreme Court of America has ruled that same sex marriage is legal and I think people are happy, but not everyone is rejoicing and therein lies the problem for those so affected - gay people - but this ruling was huge, wonderful and joyous for sure! Those that don't feel joy - tough nuggies.

Still much more work to be done in our great country for equality for all!!! but gotta love the wins!

Hi,

First let me clear up the fact that hobby Lobby owners are plain old baptists. All benefits such as vacation time and, health benefits have always been at the discretion of the employer, except for union negotiations. The Gov't tried to mandate certain benefits and you had a court case that came out in favor of hobby Lobby. I doubt anyone would leave a job over paying for birth control pills.

I don't recall anyone in this thread who opposes gay marriage. I do agree that one "ought" to enjoy and appreciate a hard won victory.
I read an Op ed piece from one of the fellows who was the plaintiff in the 2008 case, which was won by David Boise (Democrat) and George Bushes Inspector General-- Republican(I'm not looking up his name) who was jubilant at the ruling. I watched the Documentary on that case and if those two different lawyers could work together over this issue it seems that people on pricescope could look at what they do agree on.

Sure there is work ahead. But if you can't enjoy, gloat, anything positive by such a big victory, which really does show the times are changing, you miss the joy you could feel. Thats a big deal!

Annette

 

[Calliecake]

Missy, Gypsy, Elliot, Matata and Kenny, Thank you so much for your posts in this thread!!!

 

[packrat]

Ugh, dangit, I'm going to thread jack and I'm sorry, but I have a question about Hobby Lobby. Does that mean they can pry into your personal life? For instance, if divorce is a big deal to them, could they fire you for getting divorced? Or not hire you b/c you were divorced? Or b/c you're not married and get pg? Does that give them the right to ask more personal questions in interviews/applications etc?

I don't understand the mindset anyone had when they made a corporation a person w/rights. Does that mean *all* corporations are "people" now, or just HL? I don't know anything about legal mumbo jumbo but it just seems like it opened up a whole new batch of crazy.

 

[chrono]

I don't understand the mindset anyone had when they made a corporation a person w/rights. Does that mean *all* corporations are "people" now, or just HL? I don't know anything about legal mumbo jumbo but it just seems like it opened up a whole new batch of crazy.

Yes, all corporations are now recognized as having the some of the same legal rights as an individual would.

 

[Matata]

I am still having trouble grasping the thought process of those who oppose gay marriage. How does it affect your life and your marriage? Why are those who oppose gay marriage sticking your noses into other people's private matters? How does it make your life less (less good, less worthy, less important, less happy)?

Having grown up in a family of religious adherents, here's what I saw: The idea of people living in sin, no matter what the sin is, rankles believers to their core and strikes an emotional response that is difficult for non believers to understand. Christian religions, at least the ones I was exposed to, put responsibility on their members to spread the word of the bible and try to "save" those who do not believe. I think the failure to save sinners is seen as personal failure among believers who seem personally affected by the thought that non believers will go to hell. And then there's the whole issue of their belief that the actions of certain non believers is evidence of the devil's work on earth.

There are things that affect me daily and make my life less happy -- humans who do not have food, shelter, medical care, opportunities for education; environmental degradation; the war and strife that seems to be consuming a goodly portion of our planet; the knowledge that we are the instruments of our own destruction. Who someone marries and sleeps with, not so much.

 

[kenny]

I personally do not have any moral issues with polygamy,

In theory I wouldn't have any moral issues with polygamy but, because of the way I see polygamy practiced in America, I do.
I'm okay with polygamy for truly consenting adults.
It's none of my business and it doesn't harm me.

But I believe the vast majority of women in polygamous marriages (in America) are not truly consenting.
These women were isolated and brainwashed from birth.

I've read about polygamy in 'communities' closed off from society, sometimes literally behind locked gates in Utah and surrounding states.
Girls are raised to believe the only way to heaven is to be one of the multiple wives of one man.
How nice for the men who get a new teen bride every decade of their lives.
It's easy for boys/men to be tossed out of these communities because of simple numbers; there aren't enough women to go around.
If the powerful men have several wives there are no women for the less-powerful men.

Once again this kind of polygamy is not just another perspective that coexists and is morally equal to monogamy.

All beliefs are not okay, and any PC-ness that dictates this is hogwash.
When acting on beliefs results in harm to others those beliefs are not okay and equal.

 

[chrono]

Many Muslim countries allow and practise polygamy, usually up to a maximum of 5 wives, based on the Quran teachings. However, the reverse is not allowed. Would such a marriage be considered legal or illegal here in the US?

 

[kenny]

Missy, Gypsy, Elliot, Matata and Kenny, Thank you so much for your posts in this thread!!!

Thanks.

This is a very very upsetting topic for many.
It's so important, so personal, and so polarizing.
One side got its way and the other side is now expected to just turn on a dime, flip a switch and be okay with something they have been taught is very wrong ... not easy.

Six days ago our country changed in a massive way.
The topic of this thread is the elephant in the living room in many lives ... on both sides.
It will be a long long time before this topic is not the center of my attention, and I believe I also speak for many who oppose the ruling.

It will take generations for this to calm down, and I believe there will always, always, be pockets of resistance.
Even 152 years after the Emancipation Proclamation a certain superiority still consumes some Americans.

Equality removes superiority.
Those who got to feel superior their whole lives don't like losing their status.

 

[gregchang35]

Missy, Gypsy, Elliot, Matata and Kenny, Thank you so much for your posts in this thread!!!

Thanks.

This is a very very upsetting topic for many.
It's so important, so personal, and so polarizing.
One side got its way and the other side is now expected to just turn on a dime, flip a switch and be okay with something they have been taught is very wrong ... not easy.

Six days ago our country changed in a massive way.
The topic of this thread is the elephant in the living room in many lives ... on both sides.
It will be a long long time before this topic is not the center of my attention, and I believe I also speak for many who oppose the ruling.

It will take generations for this to calm down, and I believe there will always, always, be pockets of resistance.
Even 152 years after the Emancipation Proclamation a certain superiority still consumes some Americans.

Equality removes superiority.
Those who got to feel superior their whole lives don't like losing their status.[/quote]
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
HI Kenny,

+1 - i really like the bolded part.
Well said.

 

[Indylady]

So in effect, you are saying that no ones beliefs are valid but your own.

It's not about my beliefs are valid and yours aren't.
It's about doing harm.

Beliefs that results in voting to deny rights to others does harm so such beliefs are wrong and must/will eventually be dropped.

I'm not stupid, this will not happen 100% or even happen in our generation.
Slavery was abolished long ago but thinking of blacks as inferior lives on today.

Marriage equality harms nobody.
Denying it does.

Actually, DS makes a good point, Kenny. Does marriage inequality do actual harm?? Not really. Is it right? Not to me. I'm glad this law passed. It doesn't affect me whatsoever, and I believe everyone should be able to legally marry the person they want, regardless of sexual preference.

What if a person is in love with an animal (or a car or whatever you can think of) and wants to marry it and use it as a tax deduction? They may think it's harmful to them that they aren't able to legally do so. Well, that's beastiality, you say, "just plain weird" or even cruel and devious, and not at all like what we're discussing. It's not what the majority believe as traditional or even "normal", but to that person, it's very real. It may seem crazy to bring up something like that, but it's the same principle.

Why is this post still on the board? Why is this poster this on the board?

 

[liaerfbv]

I personally do not have any moral issues with polygamy,

In theory I don't, but in practice I do.

I'm okay with polygamy for truly consenting adults.
It's none of my business and doesn't harm me.

But I believe the vast majority of women in polygamous marriages (ETA, in America) are not truly consenting.
In practice these women were isolated and brainwashed when growing up.

I've read about polygamy in 'communities' closed off from society, sometimes literally behind locked gates.
Girls are raised to believe the only way to heaven is to be one of several wives of one man.
It's easy for boys/men to be tossed out of these community because of simple numbers; there aren't enough women to go around.
If the powerful men have several wives there are no women for the less-powerful men.

Once again this kind of polygamy is not just another perspective that coexists and is morally equal to monogamy.
It's wrong.
I'm not a bigot for saying so.

All beliefs are not okay.
When acting on beliefs results in harm to others those beliefs are not okay and equal.

Any type of closed community indoctrinates their members. Are the actions they then take as adults are not consenting because that's the way they were raised? Even in an open community of beliefs (church), people are raised with certain ideals and told that's the only way to get heaven. The actions they subsequently take and the way they lead their lives are still based on their free will.

Obviously I'm not talking about the girls who are literally locked away from the world, and I would agree with you that if they do not have the physical free will to leave that's a completely different conversation. But for example, look at the TLC show Sister Wives about a group of polygamists. From what I have read (never seen the show), they are raising children in a polygamist family in a largely Mormon community. Do you think their daughters have the capacity to truly consent to a polygamist marriage themselves as adults, or is that the result of brainwashing?

To be clear, I do not disagree with you and your above example. This is a very complex topic I have not given much thought to, honestly.

 

[kenny]

So in effect, you are saying that no ones beliefs are valid but your own.

It's not about my beliefs are valid and yours aren't.
It's about doing harm.

Beliefs that results in voting to deny rights to others does harm so such beliefs are wrong and must/will eventually be dropped.

I'm not stupid, this will not happen 100% or even happen in our generation.
Slavery was abolished long ago but thinking of blacks as inferior lives on today.

Marriage equality harms nobody.
Denying it does.

Actually, DS makes a good point, Kenny. Does marriage inequality do actual harm?? Not really. Is it right? Not to me. I'm glad this law passed. It doesn't affect me whatsoever, and I believe everyone should be able to legally marry the person they want, regardless of sexual preference.

What if a person is in love with an animal (or a car or whatever you can think of) and wants to marry it and use it as a tax deduction? They may think it's harmful to them that they aren't able to legally do so. Well, that's beastiality, you say, "just plain weird" or even cruel and devious, and not at all like what we're discussing. It's not what the majority believe as traditional or even "normal", but to that person, it's very real. It may seem crazy to bring up something like that, but it's the same principle.

Why is this post still on the board? Why is this poster this on the board?

In msop04's defense what she (he?) posts is logical ... IMO silly because allowing marriage to dogs or cars just won't happen ... but logical, and the last sentence of his/her post is for me an adequate disclaimer.

 

[kenny]

I personally do not have any moral issues with polygamy,

In theory I don't, but in practice I do.

I'm okay with polygamy for truly consenting adults.
It's none of my business and doesn't harm me.

But I believe the vast majority of women in polygamous marriages (ETA, in America) are not truly consenting.
In practice these women were isolated and brainwashed when growing up.

I've read about polygamy in 'communities' closed off from society, sometimes literally behind locked gates.
Girls are raised to believe the only way to heaven is to be one of several wives of one man.
It's easy for boys/men to be tossed out of these community because of simple numbers; there aren't enough women to go around.
If the powerful men have several wives there are no women for the less-powerful men.

Once again this kind of polygamy is not just another perspective that coexists and is morally equal to monogamy.
It's wrong.
I'm not a bigot for saying so.

All beliefs are not okay.
When acting on beliefs results in harm to others those beliefs are not okay and equal.

Any type of closed community indoctrinates their members. Are the actions they then take as adults are not consenting because that's the way they were raised? Even in an open community of beliefs (church), people are raised with certain ideals and told that's the only way to get heaven. The actions they subsequently take and the way they lead their lives are still based on their free will.

Obviously I'm not talking about the girls who are literally locked away from the world, and I would agree with you that if they do not have the physical free will to leave that's a completely different conversation. But for example, look at the TLC show Sister Wives about a group of polygamists. From what I have read (never seen the show), they are raising children in a polygamist family in a largely Mormon community. Do you think their daughters have the capacity to truly consent to a polygamist marriage themselves as adults, or is that the result of brainwashing?

To be clear, I do not disagree with you and your above example. This is a very complex topic I have not given much thought to, honestly.

Sorry, I'm at a loss as to how to respond.

 

[Laila619]

I am still having trouble grasping the thought process of those who oppose gay marriage. How does it affect your life and your marriage? Why are those who oppose gay marriage sticking your noses into other people's private matters? How does it make your life less (less good, less worthy, less important, less happy)?

Limiting someone's civil and/or human rights for what reason? I am not trying to stir up more trouble but genuinely having a difficult time understanding why those who are opposed are opposed to this?

Is it because you think they are less worthy of getting married? Should they not be able to enjoy and share a happy union with the love of their life and enjoy all the benefits (and of course consequences too) associated with marriage? Why don't they deserve the same benefits straight couples have? Why is it OK to separate people into different groups deeming some more worthy of others of enjoying rights such as legal marriage?

I think religion has too much of a stronghold on this country and that should never be OK. Everyone matters and everyone counts and one religion is not better than another and atheists are not less worthy than religious individuals who are not less worthy than agnostics and so on and so forth. I wish we would stop dividing and separating people based on differences and instead embrace others for who they are and not what religion they follow, for who they love, how they dress or how they see themselves gender wise etc etc etc. Let's please just stop the madness and let's love or at least respect each other for who we are and show each other some kindness, acceptance and tolerance. The world would be a whole lot better off if we could do that. In many ways it reminds me of a high school clique with the cool kids deeming the others unworthy. What's that song high school never ends.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OsjBYxrR0c


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r5M2gZoc_0

From the people I know who oppose gay marriage, here is what I have gathered...1) they are upset because the definition of "marriage" has been sullied in their mind. It is between one man and one woman. Not two women, not two men. 2) They worry that the country is in moral decay and that this is a slippery slope. Next people will want to allow three people to get married, or an adult and an underage child, or a brother and a sister, or a person and his pet. What will be next? 3) They do not believe that a gay marriage is the optimal environment for a child to grow up in. Children need both a mother and a father. Neither parent is replaceable. 4) Their religion tells them that it is a sin. They very much believe it is.

Note: these are not my opinions. These are merely what I have heard from opposers of gay marriage.

Can we have a mature and calm discussion about those points?

 

[chrono]

Laila,
Do you know whether these same people (that you know) also believe that divorce should not be legal and permissible? It is mind boggling if they believe that a child is better off in a dysfunctional male+female marriage than in a happy and committed same sex marriage.

 

[Laila619]

Laila,
Do you know whether these same people (that you know) also believe that divorce should not be legal and permissible? It is mind boggling if they believe that a child is better off in a dysfunctional male+female marriage than in a happy and committed same sex marriage.

These same people are very vocal about divorce and don't believe in it. It is basically "avoid at all costs."

 

[chrono]

Laila,
Do you know whether these same people (that you know) also believe that divorce should not be legal and permissible? It is mind boggling if they believe that a child is better off in a dysfunctional male+female marriage than in a happy and committed same sex marriage.

These same people are very vocal about divorce and don't believe in it. It is basically "avoid at all costs."

Thanks for your response.