marriage equality in California - Page 20 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-18-2008, 02:14 AM   #286
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Can you find equal protection in the Constitution?
Then you have to allow consensual polygamy marriages between adults. How can you not? And is also why I wouldn't be against civil unions.

Watch 20/20 Friday night.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 02:46 AM   #287
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:32 PM
By that logic we should ban marriage altogether, consensual straight marriage must demand consensual polygamy.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 03:14 AM   #288
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:32 AM
Quote:
what difference is there between a gay couple and a straight couple other than opposing genitalia?
Quote:
I think it's only fair to point out that our gender roles are purely social constructions
Quote:
I think a lot of what we traditionally view as "innate" differences are actually socialized.
Sorry to disagree, but this is exactly what I meant about much of modern society having forgotten something previously understood as manifestly true.

Goofy feminist claptrap aside, science has proven beyond a doubt that men and women differ in more ways than just their naughty bits. They differ in genetics, physiology, psychology, endocrinology and neuroscience. There is no unisex brain, they differ in structure and hormones. Boys are wired to be boys and girls to be girls. They learn in different ways and at different rates.

Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. How quickly they forget.

So, if men and women are inherently different, isn't it dishonest to suggest that a man marrying a man is the precise equivalent of marrying a woman?
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 03:25 AM   #289
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:32 PM
Do you acknowledge the biological determinism that explains homosexual behaviour? The evidence that gay brains have structural differences from heterosexuals of the same gender?

Arguing biology is fine but it has nothing to do with the validity of homosexual relationships. I fail to see how gender roles factor into it, two working men who are lovers in a long term relationship may each be breadwinners, but it doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to get married just like a straight couple would.

Just because the dynamics of gay relationships are not the same as cardboard cutout heterosexual ones and they are starting to get legal recognition is not cause to bemoan the downfall of modern society. I am opposed to politically correct agendas ignoring and suppressing science, you can hardly label me a postmodern progressive.

Your opposition to gay marriage doesn't seem well thought out, there is nothing to be gained by opposing it.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 03:38 AM   #290
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
By that logic we should ban marriage altogether, consensual straight marriage must demand consensual polygamy.
I believe there are very good reasons for outlawing polygamy. But a stronger case could, could I say, be made for it than for same-sex marriage. Not only was it once universally accepted, but it continues to this day in many countries and cultures. Same-sex marriage has no such history and remains unrecognized in all but a few countries.
My avatar would certainly would approve.
Quote:
General "Buck" Turgidson:
Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?
Dr. Strangelove:
Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 04:05 AM   #291
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:32 PM
The appeal to tradition doesn't say anything, slavery was once universally accepted and continues to this day in many countries and cultures but that doesn't make it acceptable. I am not making any equivalence I am just highlighting the fallacy, arguing that because something has been accepted before says nothing about it's validity today.

As it happens I think that genuinely consensual polygamous marriages could and should be given recognition, if only to guarantee women legal recognition of their relationship that otherwise wouldn't exist. But that is irrelevant to the argument, the open questions over polygamy are ones of consensuality not reproductive benefit, gender roles or faggotry.

Consensual gay and straight relationships between two individuals are equivalent in principle and as such deserve equal protection under the law. Part of that equal protection is having gay marriage recognised. That there isn't an established history of gay marriage says more about the progression of individual liberties than the validity of such a contract.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 04:17 AM   #292
I serve MacPhisto
 
unforgettableFOXfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,053
Local Time: 05:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Sorry to disagree, but this is exactly what I meant about much of modern society having forgotten something previously understood as manifestly true.

[...]

Boys are wired to be boys and girls to be girls. They learn in different ways and at different rates.

Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. How quickly they forget.

So, if men and women are inherently different, isn't it dishonest to suggest that a man marrying a man is the precise equivalent of marrying a woman?
You're being reductionist again, and assuming that all boys fit into the boys camp, and all girls fit into the girls camp. Studies have demonstrated that not all men are from mars and not all women are from venus in terms of brain development. Do all people have identical hormone balances at all stages of life? No. Do all women have identical hormone balances at all stages of life? Also no. Same with men. Some women develop in a manner that makes them more like men, some more like women. And it doesn't just become three groups, "Men", "Women" and "those in between", it changes the definition of man and woman entirely, between two poles and all the shades of difference in between. Yes, probabilistically people tend to be more in line with their physical sex, but not everyone does. The book 'The Boys and Girls Learn Differently' by Michael Gurian elucidates on this point.

While I can't say that these differences in brain chemistry are responsible for women becoming lesbians, or men becoming gay, I can say that it lends credence to the suggestion that this is just a 'the penis has to enter the vagina for marriage to be okay' argument.

A woman with the brain development and physiological chemistry of a "Woman" could marry a man with the brain development and physiological chemistry closer to a "Woman", and that'd be okay because they'd still technically be hetero even though they'd be closer to 'lesbians' the way we understand it; on the other hand, a woman with the development/chemistry of a "Woman" could be involved with a woman with the development/chemistry closer to a "Man", and even though it's closer to the 'ideal' dichotomy of "Man" and "Woman", we have to reject them because they're technically not hetero.

My point was this: for the people who do not fit the pole of the correlation, for the outliers, what are we doing to make them feel included in society by telling them that they aren't "proper Men" or "proper Women" when it's their biology that is responsible for painting them as the shade of grey? We no longer have that luxury. What basis do we have to say someone is 'more of a man' than someone else or 'more of a woman' if people are demonstrably heterogeneous? If the signifiers for "Manly" behaviour and "Womanly" behaviour suddenly don't mesh up with the physical sex we've associated them with? We can't. Those things are socialization, and not nature, and we can demonstrate them.

We say someone is a man not because of our ideas about what a "Man" is (likes sports, wears blue, wins the bread, loves women, great at manual labour, terrible at intellectual activities, etc) , we say they're men because of their biology. Fact of the matter is, you simply can't reduce it to a matter of a "Man" and a "Woman" because it isn't an absolute reduction.

Maybe it was traditionally "manifestly true" that men were "Men" and women were "Women" before contemporary science, but it certainly isn't true now.


My suggestion isn't that a man marrying a man is precisely the same as a "Man" marrying a "Woman", my suggestion is that there's no such thing as a "Man" marrying a "Woman" and to throw that argument out because that ideal case has not been precisely true of all marriages between men and women anyway. The only constant in the old terms is that penis was marrying vagina. That's it.
__________________
unforgettableFOXfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 04:32 AM   #293
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:32 PM
Quote:
Maybe it was traditionally "manifestly true" that men were "Men" and women were "Women" before contemporary science, but it certainly isn't true now
Tell that to the traditional eunuchs
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 04:36 AM   #294
I serve MacPhisto
 
unforgettableFOXfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,053
Local Time: 05:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Tell that to the traditional eunuchs
While we're at it, let's not forget the castrati
__________________
unforgettableFOXfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 05:32 AM   #295
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 05:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
They differ in genetics, physiology, psychology, endocrinology and neuroscience. There is no unisex brain, they differ in structure and hormones.
I agree. I was referring to the gender ROLES--not any of the above. I just think that a lot of what we may have assumed as connected to the above might actually be socialized. I'm guessing you believe that the traditional gender roles naturally come out of biology
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 07:56 AM   #296
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Goofy feminist claptrap aside, science has proven beyond a doubt that men and women differ in more ways than just their naughty bits. They differ in genetics, physiology, psychology, endocrinology and neuroscience. There is no unisex brain, they differ in structure and hormones. Boys are wired to be boys and girls to be girls. They learn in different ways and at different rates.

Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. How quickly they forget.

So, if men and women are inherently different, isn't it dishonest to suggest that a man marrying a man is the precise equivalent of marrying a woman?
If they are "inherently different," good luck trying to determine "how" in a consistent manner. Pre-literate Europe and some ancient Near East cultures (~3000-1500 B.C.) show strong evidence of egalitarian cultures. In fact, I believe even the pre-Greek Minoan civilization on Crete showed evidence of male and female warriors. And in some African tribes, some stereotypically "male" and "female" gender roles are reversed, where the men dress up in heavy makeup and try to look pretty to attract women to choose them, rather than the other way around, and beyond that, there are plenty of extant rituals regarding women doing the pursuing, rather than the other way around.

I think too many people are conflating "tradition" with "biology," primarily because they are unaware that what it means to be "a man" or what it means to be "a woman" has dramatically varied through time. The only constant has been the genitalia.
__________________
melon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 07:57 AM   #297
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:32 PM
That and the ability to read a map.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 10:21 AM   #298
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 02:32 AM
You know, INDY, you can go ahead and keep repeating your misogynist views, your "some of my best friends are gay" crap, your insistence that you really do believe the gays are almost our equals, your Christian justifications for limiting access to rights, and your equating simple gay marriage with polygamy (which has been addressed repeatedly).

None of this is going to change the progress of time. Democracy itself has been successfully redefined to meet the needs of modern humans. Now that non-property owners, blacks, and (God forbid) women can vote, democracy has survived and improved with universal participation. Redefining marriage to include gays and lesbians won't hurt you, it won't hurt me, and it can only strengthen marriage and families.

So wring your hands, make offensive comments, be smug in your assumptions of Christian righteousness, but be ready to stand aside for progress and inclusiveness when the time comes.

I'm excited that melon and Irvine and others can finally share the joy I've experienced in my marriage. My marriage isn't diminished by the happiness and love being recognized by a few enlightened states; it's made even better knowing that more people can have that opportunity for happiness and love and growth.
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 10:23 AM   #299
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 02:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
That and the ability to read a map.
I can read any map, anytime, anywhere. I'll challenge you to a drive off. Name the country and provide the maps, dear.
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-18-2008, 10:25 AM   #300
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 05:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Do you acknowledge the biological determinism that explains homosexual behaviour? The evidence that gay brains have structural differences from heterosexuals of the same gender?


someone please answer this.

if we're so into the essentialness of male/female-ness, are homosexuals not as hardwired?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com