Obama's pandering is really making me sick! Allows anti-gay activist to speak - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-13-2009, 01:35 PM   #106
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: 02:30 AM
But did the gay bishop ever equate heterosexuals with criminals and pedophiles?
__________________

__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2009, 10:24 PM   #107
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 10:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
again, nathan, i await your answer to the question: what specific rights must gay couples be denied?
You should try reading, Irvine. In my post a couple weeks ago, when I posted the CA laws as applied to marriage and civil unions, I pointed out that the rights are exactly the same.

So the answer, at least in CA, is none. None rights.
__________________

__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2009, 11:06 PM   #108
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
You should try reading, Irvine. In my post a couple weeks ago, when I posted the CA laws as applied to marriage and civil unions, I pointed out that the rights are exactly the same.

So the answer, at least in CA, is none. None rights.


except that they're not.

Quote:
Differences from Marriage

While domestic partners receive most of the benefits of marriage, several differences remain. These differences include, in part:

Couples seeking domestic partnership must already share a residence, married couples may be married without living together.

Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older, minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents.

California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage, there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record.

Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan, domestic partners are not.

There is, at least according to one appellate ruling, no equivalent of the Putative Spouse Doctrine for domestic partnerships.

In addition to these differences specific to state law, should the Defense of Marriage Act be found unconstitutional or repealed, married persons in California might enjoy all the federal benefits of marriage, including Constitutionally-required recognition of their relationships as marriages in the rest of the United States under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

In addition to these differences specific to the United States, some countries that recognize same-sex marriages performed in California as valid in their own country, (e.g., Israel [4]), do not recognize same-sex domestic partnerships performed in California.

Many supporters of same-sex marriage also argue that the use of the word marriage itself constitutes a significant social difference,[citation needed] and in the majority opinion of In Re Marriage Cases, the California Supreme Court agreed, suggesting an analogy with a hypothetical that branded interracial marriages "transracial unions."

but setting that aside ...

so all you care about is the name? that's it? after all this talk of 5,000 years, the talk of how only children can make a marriage real, the inalienable and timeless gender differences ... you've arrived at this? the last (intellectually serious) standing person in FYM opposed to marriage equality?

if so, i'm proud of you. you're demonstrating real growth.

so why deny the name?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2009, 02:12 PM   #109
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 10:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post

so all you care about is the name? that's it? after all this talk of 5,000 years, the talk of how only children can make a marriage real, the inalienable and timeless gender differences ... you've arrived at this? the last (intellectually serious) standing person in FYM opposed to marriage equality?

if so, i'm proud of you. you're demonstrating real growth.
Because I think there are basic rights (visitation, property, etc) that can and should be expanded?

My previous arguments re the importance of marriage still stand. However, unlike some, I can accept conference of some fundamental rights without demanding that a society completely revamp its understanding of a time-tested and honored concept.

A rose by any other name.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2009, 02:20 PM   #110
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Because I think there are basic rights (visitation, property, etc) that can and should be conferred regardless of who you're having sex with?

yes, that's all Memphis and i do -- have sex.


Quote:
My previous arguments re the importance of marriage still apply. However, unlike some, I can accept conference of some fundamental rights without demanding that a society completely revamp its understanding of a time-tested and honored concept.

A rose by any other name...?


except that said time-tested and honored concept today would be quite foreign to people living even as little as 200 years ago, and that's due to the changing role of gender fostered by heterosexuals.

however, while it is true that what matters, practically, are rights -- and i'll note that you're careful with your language, the word "some" rights jumps out, as does the assertion that allowing homosexuls to marry somehow "completely revamps" something -- why, still, the resistance to the word?

is this not precisely separate but equal? like, the exact definition of separate but equal? like, blacks have their schools and drinking fountains, and so do whites, so what's the problem? if all the rights are as you want them to be, which, by your current position, has to be exactly the same, then why maintain a semantical wall of separation?

but i admire you for recognizing the need for equal treatment under the law and the admission that there is worth in a gay relationship that's worth protecting.

still, and i note this because i know how smart you are and how carefully you choose language, i do notice an omission of a few fundamental words. though you're revising your post as i revise mine, so i'll wait and see ... (and respond much later tonight because i've got to sign off momentarily).
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2009, 07:18 PM   #111
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 10:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
is this not precisely separate but equal? like, the exact definition of separate but equal? like, blacks have their schools and drinking fountains, and so do whites, so what's the problem?
If we're going to raise the whole notion of separate but equal, we're going to find a history of racial prejudice and discrimination in terms of inferior socio-economic policies, inferior employment access, and inferior education access -- restriction of access at just about every level specifically designed to engender racial division. It is difficult to argue that the same kinds of discrimination are at work against gays today. I'm not saying that there isn't discrimination, and I am glad to endorse hate crimes legislation and policies of non-discrimination, but the separate but equal argument doesn't really hold up.

Quote:
if all the rights are as you want them to be, which, by your current position, has to be exactly the same, then why maintain a semantical wall of separation?
The significance of gender in marriage is merely semantics?
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2009, 07:45 PM   #112
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:30 PM
I think from a position of state recognition the answer is yes.

The state isn't regulating the dynamics of couples and how well their marriage fits with some idealised gender norms, they aren't punishing stay at home dads or working mums, or prohibiting marriages with dominant women.

I think that by arguing that the definition of marriage is rooted in gender you are stepping beyond the question of the state recognising relationships.

A religious or cultural tradition may well argue that marriage is between a woman and a man (see, I'm upsetting gender perceptions with syntax) but that shouldn't excuse the state from discriminating against people who don't follow those traditions.

Just because you feel that marriage is a particular cultural tradition doesn't mean you get to impose that definition on everybody. Allowing gays to marry will not impact your tradition. The "redefinition" argument is the end of the line for opposition, it isn't explicitly homophobic and its arguing for a civil contract that should be indistinguishable from marriage, which leaves no real barrier to granting the rights and the title.

There ought to be gay marriage in quite a few US states within the next ten years, and hopefully a rollback of federal level discrimination.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2009, 09:48 PM   #113
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 04:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
The significance of gender in marriage is merely semantics?
Yes.

The fact that you find that so difficult is appalling, but very telling...
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2009, 11:54 PM   #114
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
If we're going to raise the whole notion of separate but equal, we're going to find a history of racial prejudice and discrimination in terms of inferior socio-economic policies, inferior employment access, and inferior education access -- restriction of access at just about every level specifically designed to engender racial division. It is difficult to argue that the same kinds of discrimination are at work against gays today. I'm not saying that there isn't discrimination, and I am glad to endorse hate crimes legislation and policies of non-discrimination, but the separate but equal argument doesn't really hold up.

you can be fired for being gay in many states. name me a state where you can be fired for being black. gays are still beaten and murdered for being gay. we don't even need to get into the history of "sodomy" (just the term is offensive, and inaccurate) laws. it is legal to refuse gay tenants in many states. what is opposition to gay partnerships -- be it marriage or otherwise -- than something designed to engender division (and, thusly, conferred superior status) between sexual orientations?

also, the perceived notion that gays are successful and affluent is due, in part, to the fact that it's much easier to come out when you are successful and affluent and, generally speaking, gay whites face much less cultural prejudice than their black and hispanic brothers and sisters.

so, no, it is quite easy that there are many kinds of discrimination at work against gays today. just look at the law that was passed a few years ago in VA.



Quote:
The significance of gender in marriage is merely semantics?

gender is incidental to the relationship. it might be primary and central to the individuals at stake -- a gay person could only have a legitimate marriage to one of the same sex, a straight person could only have a legitimate marriage to one of the opposite sex -- but in terms of what couples can and cannot do, and what couples are deserving of legal status and protection, and which one's aren't, then, yes, gender is not nor should it be a barrier.

what's the difference between myself and Memphis and Martha and Steve?

the question remains.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2009, 10:25 AM   #115
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 05:30 AM
Gay America Prepares To Party at Obama Inauguration - FOXNews.com Transition Tracker

Unprecedented inaugural celebrations for President-elect Barack Obama by gay activist groups, social organizations and ordinary citizens suggests many view Obama's election as a signal of a forthcoming sea change for the gay rights movement in America.

The Rev. Gene Robinson, a gay Episcopal bishop, will say a prayer at an inaugural event at the Lincoln Monument on Sunday; a gay and lesbian marching band will take its place in the official presidential parade; and a slew of gay parties and inaugural balls will be held in the nation's capital before and after Obama takes the oath of office.

But the gay-themed events have some conservative critics expressing concerns that while the celebration may be gay-friendly, it won't be family-friendly.

Jennifer Giroux, founder and president of Women Influencing the Nation, a group that focuses on restoring traditional family values, said, “I think (the) inauguration should be kept away from that. Christians may love the individual, but they are offended by the gay lifestyle. It’s unhealthy — spiritually, emotionally and physically.

"It’s not a day where a group that feels like it has some payback coming should be putting its decadent lifestyle on display.”

Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, an organization that describes itself as "devoted exclusively to exposing and countering the homosexual activist agenda," is worried less about what happens in public and more about what may go on behind closed doors.

“I think most Americans would be put off if they knew what went on at these parties," LaBarbera said. "Every special interest group has a ball of some sort, but this is not just any special interest group. More than half the country considers their behavior immoral.”

But the organizers of next week's gay events are not overly concerned with whatever negative responses their groups incur.

"We hope any protesters along the route, for whatever issue, would challenge themselves to rise above their personal concerns and help celebrate this new era for America," says Robb Blackwell, vice president of the Lesbian and Gay Band Association, which will participate in the inauguration parade.

"Our participation in the parade is a positive action; any negative reactions are entirely beyond our control as an organization. At least we know they'll be entertained by our dazzling musicianship."

Likewise, Kirsten Burgard, of The People's Inaugural "Gayla," which will be held at the Historical Society of Washington D.C., says her group is not expecting any backlash. "As a matter of fact, one of our musical acts is a Christian inspirational hip-hop group," she said.

Though Obama has said very little about gay issues and has said he does not support gay marriage, there is overwhelming optimism among gays that his presidency will reverse what many of them consider the intolerance of a Republican administration.

"We're looking for an uplift in attitude," says Bill Capello, general manager of the DC Eagle, a gay bar located a block away from the convention center where several events will take place.

"It already seems to be more upbeat, friendlier. We believe Obama will be a friend to gay America. We don't see him vetoing any measures that come across his desk. He may not be on the fringe of gay activism, but we expect him to be an ally."

Said Blackwell: "I believe LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) Americans, like all Americans, are looking forward to a president who will bring positive change to this country. That's why we've chosen ‘Brand New Day’ as one of the pieces we'll be playing in the Inaugural Parade, to reinforce our view that this inauguration is ushering in an entirely new era for all Americans."

But not everyone shares their enthusiasm. LaBarbera’s group hopes to disrupt the Mid-Atlantic Leather Weekend, held annually on Martin Luther King weekend for men with an interest in motorcycles and leather, by releasing details about the group’s plans.

"They keep their hotel location top-secret because they don’t want conservatives to find out. But we know it, and we’re going to try to get it stopped," he said. "This is the most vile event, and it’s being held at a swanky hotel where conferences regularly occur. Groups coming in after MAL won’t know what went on there before they got there.”

Other groups that oppose the gay rights movement said they do not plan to use the inauguration as a chance to demonstrate, and that they hope the week’s festivities go smoothly.

"I hope that everyone at the inauguration — on both sides — has manners and shows respect. Isn’t that what we’re taught to do?” Christian Coalition president Roberta Combs said.

The Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, said, "The Christian community embraces the idea of openness and tolerance, and believes that all should be welcome at the inauguration."

But there is some lingering resentment toward the gay community for its reaction to the passing of Proposition 8 in California, when demonstrators protested outside some houses of worship. "We would never choose the route of bigotry or hatred," Mahoney said, "as the gay community did when they lost Prop 8, by defacing and vandalizing churches and places of worship, and attacked people of faith because they did not share their beliefs.

"For all their cries of inclusion and openness, there are few groups out there more intolerant and hateful than the gay community."

James T. Harris, a Christian conservative radio host who famously told John McCain to “go after” Barack Obama at a rally in Wisconsin, said he thinks the inauguration will provide a chance for conservatives to showcase their tolerance.

“The gayer inauguration, the better," Harris said. "I hope that all of San Francisco turns out, and turns the inauguration into a gay pride festival. Then liberals can see how open and tolerant conservatives are.

"Let America see liberalism in all of its self-absorbed lunacy. Then maybe America will only have to tolerate four years of the madness.”
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2009, 11:06 AM   #116
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: 02:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
Gay America Prepares To Party at Obama Inauguration - FOXNews.com Transition Tracker


James T. Harris, ... said he thinks the inauguration will provide a chance for conservatives to showcase their tolerance.

“... Then liberals can see how open and tolerant conservatives are.
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2009, 11:26 AM   #117
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 10:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
gender is incidental to the relationship.
Chemistry, biology, and thousands of years of human sociological and cultural development are incidental?

Huh.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2009, 11:47 AM   #118
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Chemistry, biology, and thousands of years of human sociological and cultural development are incidental?

Huh.


to the legal rights that are conferred upon a relationship between people that has legal status, absolutely.

i'm sure that gender is central to your relationship, nathan, just as it is central to mine. however, the gender differences in our respective relationships are absolutely incidental to the fact that each relationship is deserving of legal status and protection.

so we're back to the "thousands of years of ..." nonsense, i see. don't you think, nathan, that the relationship you have with your wife has much more in common with my relationship with Memphis than it has with male/female marriages in the 17th century? i think you're getting quite myopic to think that what you have with your wife -- a relationship based on love, choice, and equality -- would be at all recognizable to people living even 100 years ago.

the fact remains that all your "thousands of years of ..." has always changed, and will continue to change, over the next thousand years, and the fact remains that there's no requirement for marriage that a straight couple can meet that a gay couple can't.

whether you like it or not, we're not different at all, nathan. heterosexuality is exactly the same as homosexuality. yes, there's a difference, but that difference is no more different than the difference that lies between all relationships. so you can have a biological child that's 50% you and 50% your wife and i can't? that's incidental to marriage. biological children, and children altogether, are incidental to marriage. there is no requirement that says one must have children. a marriage might indeed be the "best" place for a child to be raised, but that does not mean, 1) it is the *only* place for a child to be raised, or, 2) a marriage isn't a marriage unless a biological child is produced. further, many gay couples have children, and how they go about having children is exactly the same as how many straight people have children.

again, gender is inconsequential to the quality and worth of the relationship. there are horrible gay relationships just as there are horrible straight relationships. but the point is that those horrible straight people have options that a gay couple is denied based upon a difference that is not only involuntary and harmless but also incidental to the actual criteria at hand.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2009, 04:10 PM   #119
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 04:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Huh.

I love it that you can be so smug while being so obtuse to the fact that a thousand years ago the definition of marriage was completely different than what you want now. And that's all you are fighting for, a definition of a word, a word that you obviously don't realize has already changed definition again and again...
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2009, 05:20 PM   #120
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 05:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
Gay America Prepares To Party at Obama Inauguration - FOXNews.com Transition Tracker

Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, an organization that describes itself as "devoted exclusively to exposing and countering the homosexual activist agenda," is worried less about what happens in public and more about what may go on behind closed doors.


omg, i checked out this guy's website, and it's amazing. in that he's totally and completely obsessed with gay sex and describes it in detail to point out how "immoral" or whatever it is. it makes me wonder if he'd describe heterosexual sex parties with the same disgusted-yet-turned-on fervor that he does with whatever private groups who are in town for MLA may or may not be doing.

he's so screamingly transparent, it's hilarious. i think he masturbates as he writes about all the sin.
__________________

__________________
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 05:30 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