marriage equality in California - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-06-2008, 06:08 PM   #46
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 10:00 PM
wink

__________________

__________________
diamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 06:10 PM   #47
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:00 AM
so ... i've got to go be all gay and get to spinning class, but just one question as it relates to marriage, and is applicable to gay and straight alike: is monogamy the same thing as fidelity?

discuss.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 06:11 PM   #48
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


I think I've done a pretty good job of summing up my thoughts on the subject of monogamy and its place in society, as well as the issues I've raised -- and in a constructive manner.
Yes you've done a great job explaining your thoughts on the subject of monogamy, but you've completely ignored what this means to this conversation.

Obviously both heterosexuals and homosexuals can be monogamous, but why do only heterosexuals deserve the rights of marriage for making that commitment? That you've completely ignored.

Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977

But I guess, as with my ultra-Right friends who can't fathom that I'd even consider gay marriage as a legit option, there are people on the far Left who think I'm an idiot too. Happy to oblige, BVS, happy to oblige.
Little defensive eh ? I'm just pointing out that you really seem to be talking around the subject. I think at least your ultra-Right friends are honest with their stance on the subject.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 06:35 PM   #49
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 09:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


See my earlier question of uncertainty as to whether marriage is a legal right.
Why is this usually brought up when gay rights is under discussion?

It seems that rather than extend the right, many people prefer to talk about the legitimacy of marriage itself. Some here have even proposed doing away with marriage altogether rather than let the gays get married.
__________________
martha is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 06:35 PM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 05:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Obviously both heterosexuals and homosexuals can be monogamous, but why do only heterosexuals deserve the rights of marriage for making that commitment? That you've completely ignored.

No, I haven't. I've pointed out that civil unions don't exactly encourage it, which is why I said gay marriage would be good, in that would encourage such monogamy.

Quote:
Little defensive eh ?
Little obnoxious eh? (Jumping into a conversation by screaming DOUBLE STANDARD!!! doesn't exactly kick things off on a good note. Nor does putting words in my mouth about wills.)
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 06:37 PM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 05:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Why is this usually brought up when gay rights is under discussion?
I'd actually suggest the reverse -- that people who argue for gay rights bring up marriage. Equating marriage "rights" with gay rights is a question mark I have, nothing more or less. I've yet to see someone argue that marriage is a legal right.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 06:40 PM   #52
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 09:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977
I've yet to see someone argue that marriage is a legal right.
See. This is what I'm talking about. Let's discuss the legitimacy of marriage rather than the separate but equal system we're under now. That'll make me seem hip without addressing the issue.
__________________
martha is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 06:53 PM   #53
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 05:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


See. This is what I'm talking about. Let's discuss the legitimacy of marriage rather than the separate but equal system we're under now. That'll make me seem hip without addressing the issue.
If I wanted to "stay hip," I would stay out of FYM.

Separate but equal had to do with rights to access to schools and resources and education.

Separate but equal does not yet apply to marriage because no one has yet proved that marriage is a RIGHT that should be accessible to all.

And since we're in the middle of conversations about redefining family, redefining cultural perceptions of sexuality, yes, we are indeed talking about redefining marriage. Which is an entirely legitimate conversation.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 07:13 PM   #54
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977
And since we're in the middle of conversations about redefining family, redefining cultural perceptions of sexuality, yes, we are indeed talking about redefining marriage. Which is an entirely legitimate conversation.
Yes, I think that's probably true. One of the advantages of the marital contract historically in most societies would be that it was seen as a means of bringing up kids in a stable environment. (Most of us, for example, will have heard of cases of married couples who are not getting on but opt to stay together 'for the sake of the kids'.) Clearly, with gay couples, this does not necessarily arise.

So it is quite a significant development that is being proposed.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 07:13 PM   #55
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 09:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977

Separate but equal does not yet apply to marriage because no one has yet proved that marriage is a RIGHT that should be accessible to all.
So do we get rid of it altogether rather than let the gays get married? Why do you get to do it and not Irvine?
__________________
martha is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 07:14 PM   #56
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 09:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy

So it is quite a significant development that is being proposed.
Not especially. I got married with absolutely no intention of ever having children. And I made sure of that medically soon after my wedding. Where do I fit in?
__________________
martha is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 07:18 PM   #57
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Little defensive eh ? I'm just pointing out that you really seem to be talking around the subject. I think at least your ultra-Right friends are honest with their stance on the subject.
You're never prepared to give any conservative argument the benefit of the doubt, are you?

Conservatives' motives are ALWAYS suspect, aren't they, because, hey, they're probably only making up arguments to hide their deep-seated homophobia and hatred of all things good, liberal, progressive and true.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 07:22 PM   #58
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Not especially. I got married with absolutely no intention of ever having children. And I made sure of that medically soon after my wedding. Where do I fit in?
Well, of course there are indeed plenty of heterosexual couples who get married without intending to have kids. After they get married, some change their minds and do decide to have kids. Others never have kids, for various reasons.

I'd suggest, however, that the majority of heterosexual couples who never have kids - probably the vast majority - did in fact want to have kids, but found that they couldn't conceive.
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 07:23 PM   #59
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977


No, I haven't. I've pointed out that civil unions don't exactly encourage it, which is why I said gay marriage would be good, in that would encourage such monogamy.
BUT, then you further went on to say "don't seem to need the "M" status to define their relationship", and this is where I have the problem. There are many hetero couples who choose not to have "M" define their relationship either, but at least they have the choice. You don't seem to be willing to give anyone else that choice, unless they have "the greater conversation". Which you've failed to define.

Until you define that, we're just running in circles.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2008, 07:24 PM   #60
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 11:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


Well, of course there are indeed plenty of heterosexual couples who get married without intending to have kids. After they get married, some change their minds and do decide to have kids. Others never have kids, for various reasons.

I'd suggest, however, that the majority of heterosexual couples who never have kids - probably the vast majority - did in fact want to have kids, but found that they couldn't conceive.
But this doesn't matter one bit. It doesn't matter in the biblical definition and it doesn't matter in a legal definition.
__________________

__________________
BVS 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 12:00 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