Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III

[deep]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

I would. And I am part of an interracial marriage, so it's not just talk with me.

You may want to rethink this.
If you truly believe every business has this right, then you and your wife and child could find yourself accepting Jim Crow style denial of services and public accommodations.

[maycocksean]

So here's the thing.

I think now is exactly the wrong time to decide that with the tides moving inexorably towards full equality there is no longer any need to try to change the minds of SOME opponents of gay marriage. It's exactly at this moment that people who are willing to try to understand the opponents of gay marriage and get them to change their minds can really make a big difference.

It's important to understand that not all anti-SSM folks are the same (just as not all racists are the same). The reasons, motivations, and most importantly attitudes of such people do actually vary, and I've always felt it's short-sighted to paint them all with the same "hate-filled homophobe" brush. I say this because I was one of those people when I first joined this forum a mere seven years ago, and it was partly because of people on this forum (special mention to Melon, who probably deserves lifetime credit as one of the most influential people in my life for helping me formulate this change in my understanding, and of course the ever faithful Irvine) that I came to a complete 180 on my views on homosexuality and SSM. Many of you were there to see it happen and could probably go back in the archives and find the conversations where the turnaround happened.

Further I would counter the JiveTurkey conventional wisdom that says the religious people are the most hopeless in terms of convincing them of the error of their ways. I would argue that a religious person in the proper frame of mind is a better bet to convince than a non-religious one. After all, if the only "reasons" to oppose gay marriage are religious than any one who still is against it without a religious reason is truly beyond reasoning as they have no reason to argue with. You will find many religious people, I promise you, that are finding that the traditional take on homosexuality from scripture is dissonant with the spirit of their faith which calls for love and acceptance. And for many of these people, a brusque command to junk their silly superstitions is not going to cut it. Indeed, there are many gay people who don't care to give up their religious faith thank you very much but based on what they hear from the JT's and INDY's of the world (strange bedfellows, indeed) feel that they are forced to choose between their identity as a gay person and their belief in God.

Look, I get that it feels good to sneer at the other side for their idiocy. I get the argument that some "arguments" deserve mockery and scorn. And if your only goal is to enjoy the good feeling of being right, then fine. But if you want to change some one's mind--and I for one thing, think that's kind of important--mockery, scorn, dismissal is not the way to go about it.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by deep

You may want to rethink this.
If you truly believe every business has this right, then you and your wife and child could find yourself accepting Jim Crow style denial of services and public accommodations.

Fair point.

Re thinking now.


It's two kids now, BTW

[BVS]

OK, I see what you are referring to digitize, and like deep points out it becomes a pretty gray area. I believe the florist, photographer, etc do have the right to say no, they provide a service that isn't necessary and can be a dime a dozen.

[deep]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

So here's the thing.

.....

Thank you for taking the time to write all that out.

My opinion has changed on marriage for all, too.
Awhile back I was at 'civil unions' for gays. Let marriage remain as we have always understood it to be.
Civil Unions with all the same rights as marriage seemed like a fair compromise, gays get the same treatment, effect and religious, older, traditional people get to keep their little ownership of the term, 'marriage'. Where is the harm?
Certainly a more tolerant, and inclusive attitude than people that hate gays and want their behavior criminalized.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by deep

You may want to rethink this.
If you truly believe every business has this right, then you and your wife and child could find yourself accepting Jim Crow style denial of services and public accommodations.

Originally Posted by maycocksean

Fair point.

Re thinking now.

I don't know, deep. I think there is a fine line. . .clearly I wouldn't be okay with Jim Crow style denial of service. But at the same time, I don't feel that the expression of racist ideas should be outlawed. I'm not sure where a situation like the one with this florist falls (the article itself is very annoying with it's sanctimonious tone and all). I'm sure she feels oh so noble having condescended to even hire gay people and such, but bravely and boldly drawing the line in what she imagines is such a principled way. Speaking as a believer, any time you find yourself in a position to congratulate yourself on your own righteous decision even as someone else is hurt by it, you really ought to check yourself.

That said. . .I guess I revise my opinion. While I still might personally not sue, I can support the government's choice to sue. Outside of the strictly religious confines of the church itself, you have every right to whatever discriminatory ideas you want to have as long as those ideas don't bear out in a denial of service to someone else.

[deep]

Originally Posted by BVS

OK, I see what you are referring to digitize, and like deep points out it becomes a pretty gray area. I believe the florist, photographer, etc do have the right to say no, they provide a service that isn't necessary and can be a dime a dozen.

Why? Because these are personal services? A lot of towns are small and don't have many other competing services.

If a business is open to the general public, why should whole groups or classes be excluded?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by digitize

I'm going to go out on a limb here and state my agreement with Indy that business owners shouldn't be forced to recognize gay marriage and should be allowed to, for instance, not support gay weddings. I do support gay marriage, and I think that business owners who do things like that are doing a wrong thing. I have a problem with them doing it. But I don't think that the government should block them. In all honesty, the free market will probably end up hurting them over time.

Do you think business owners shouldn't be forced to recognize interracial marriages?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

While "corporate/group marriages" are not a part of the Gay Rights Movement, I am curious what your view on them would be.

Should this be allowed? Should the government endorse/prevent any man or group of men be permitted to marry any woman or group of women, if they are all consenting adults.

I have no opinion on the subject.

I really don't. Why would I?

[deep]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

I don't know, deep. I think there is a fine line. . .clearly I wouldn't be okay with Jim Crow style denial of service. But at the same time, I don't feel that the expression of racist ideas should be outlawed. I'm not sure where a situation like the one with this florist falls (the article itself is very annoying with it's sanctimonious tone and all). I'm sure she feels oh so noble having condescended to even hire gay people and such, but bravely and boldly drawing the line in what she imagines is such a principled way. Speaking as a believer, any time you find yourself in a position to congratulate yourself on your own righteous decision even as someone else is hurt by it, you really ought to check yourself.

That said. . .I guess I revise my opinion. While I still might personally not sue, I can support the government's choice to sue. Outside of the strictly religious confines of the church itself, you have every right to whatever discriminatory ideas you want to have as long as those ideas don't bear out in a denial of service to someone else.

The law/ government is not telling people what they can or can not think or even say. And religions can still discriminate and say gays and jews go straight to hell, or no gays or jews allowed.


This person chose to own a business in the State of Washington.

This is the law in WA State.

RCW 49.60.030
Freedom from discrimination — Declaration of civil rights.


(1) The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:

(a) The right to obtain and hold employment without discrimination;

(b) The right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;

(c) The right to engage in real estate transactions without discrimination, including discrimination against families with children;

(d) The right to engage in credit transactions without discrimination;

(e) The right to engage in insurance transactions or transactions with health maintenance organizations without discrimination: PROVIDED, That a practice which is not unlawful under RCW 48.30.300, 48.44.220, or 48.46.370 does not constitute an unfair practice for the purposes of this subparagraph;

(f) The right to engage in commerce free from any discriminatory boycotts or blacklists. Discriminatory boycotts or blacklists for purposes of this section shall be defined as the formation or execution of any express or implied agreement, understanding, policy or contractual arrangement for economic benefit between any persons which is not specifically authorized by the laws of the United States and which is required or imposed, either directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, by a foreign government or foreign person in order to restrict, condition, prohibit, or interfere with or in order to exclude any person or persons from any business relationship on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability, or national origin or lawful business relationship: PROVIDED HOWEVER, That nothing herein contained shall prohibit the use of boycotts as authorized by law pertaining to labor disputes and unfair labor practices; and

(g) The right of a mother to breastfeed her child in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement.

RCW 49.60.030: Freedom from discrimination — Declaration of civil rights.

[maycocksean]

I find it strangely backwards that it is often Christians who throw down the whole "polygamy" argument when really if any one should be marshalling a possible defense of polygamous marriages, it would have to be Christians since it's all over the Bible and it is considered acceptable through much of Scripture.

[Irvine511]

I find it amazing that this is even much of a discussion anymore.

With the under 40s, it is settled.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by deep

The law/ government is not telling people what they can or can not think or even say. And religions can still discriminate and say gays and jews go straight to hell, or no gays or jews allowed.


This person chose to own a business in the State of Washington.

This is the law in WA State.




RCW 49.60.030: Freedom from discrimination — Declaration of civil rights.

I see, thanks for clarifying. It makes sense to me.

[deep]

and yes that first article link I posted was terrible (and funny),
I skimmed about six and then just grabbed one, I should have chose better.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

So here's the thing.

I think now is exactly the wrong time to decide that with the tides moving inexorably towards full equality there is no longer any need to try to change the minds of SOME opponents of gay marriage. It's exactly at this moment that people who are willing to try to understand the opponents of gay marriage and get them to change their minds can really make a big difference.

I don't see how this relates to the particular discussion here.

I agree with you that there are people who are undecided, or who just don't think about this issue very much because it's not personal to them, or whose religious beliefs run contrary to SSM but they maybe know gay people and feel differently and therefore their position is muddled, etc.

INDY is not these people. I think that it is a pointless exercise to try to change his mind. And frankly the remnants of this "debate" right now are being carried out with people precisely like INDY. The rest of us have moved on and don't see this as an issue. People like my parents, who are religious, are not vocal supporters of SSM like I am, but they have accepted it as the law of the land, they have invited my gay friends into their home and welcomed them and they just don't really see SSM as something that is worth "debating" or fighting over. For them, the debate is over. INDY is not those people.

[Irvine511]

FWIW, I think INDY is just playing a role on here an mimicing the various anti-SSM articles out out by colonists who themselves aren't actually anti-gay but, like most US Senators, know they have a knuckle-dragging audience to play to. No one who writes a column for NRO isn't an urban elitist, no matter what they say in their columns. rush Limbaugh paid $1m for Elton John to play at his 4th (5th?) wedding. Likewise, every senator in the Senate has gay staff. It's impossible not to in DC. They know gay people. But they also know who their constituents are.

This is the trick the conservative media-entertainment complex has played on the gullible.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by anitram

INDY is not these people. I think that it is a pointless exercise to try to change his mind. And frankly the remnants of this "debate" right now are being carried out with people precisely like INDY. The rest of us have moved on and don't see this as an issue. People like my parents, who are religious, are not vocal supporters of SSM like I am, but they have accepted it as the law of the land, they have invited my gay friends into their home and welcomed them and they just don't really see SSM as something that is worth "debating" or fighting over. For them, the debate is over. INDY is not those people.

Oh, I agree about INDY. I sense his main pleasure is tweaking the liberals in here rather than actually changing anyone's mind.

But is it true for AEON and nbc (both of whom have suddenly returned after long absences? Might there be others, maybe lurkers. . .I don't know)? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But at the very least their tone is different.

I do think what I'm saying is germane to the discussion because the consensus of the majority here seems to be that the time for trying to change hearts and minds has past--and the implication doesn't seem to be limited to FYM but to society in general. That all the reasonable people have already been won over, and the rest are beyond saving. I just feel that is a little premature.

To decide that there's no point in trying to change a person's mind is actually a kind of disrespect. Sometimes that disrespect is earned--if a person demonstrates repeatedly that they are absolutely closed well then fair enough, and yes, I agree that there are some people-as has been mentioned--that fall into that category. But sometimes that disrespect is unearned. I guess I'm lucky I was looking for tickets to a Tokyo U2 show in 2006 because if I'd arrived here today would there be any one left who would have bothered to take the time to help turn around my thinking? (Granted, my thinking might have changed any way, but my point is that it was people in this forum who happened to play a large role).

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by anitram

And frankly the remnants of this "debate" right now are being carried out with people precisely like INDY.

My mom, for example, who I've been discussing this issue with for awhile is anti-SSM and trust me she is nothing like our friend from Indiana.

I believe she could be won over.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

colonists

For a minute there I was trying to figure out your sophisticated use of the word colonists here. "In what sense does he mean colonist? Is it some sort of reference to a colonial worldview? Some sort of urbane euphemism that I just don't get?"

And then I realize you meant columnists.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

This is the trick the conservative media-entertainment complex has played on the gullible.

Truth.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

For a minute there I was trying to figure out your sophisticated use of the word colonists here. "In what sense does he mean colonist? Is it some sort of reference to a colonial worldview? Some sort of urbane euphemism that I just don't get?"

And then I realize you meant columnists.

Sorry. Damn you autocorrect.