Obama's pandering is really making me sick! Allows anti-gay activist to speak - Page 9 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-15-2009, 05:42 PM   #121
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Chemistry, biology, and thousands of years of human sociological and cultural development are incidental?

Huh.
Chemistry has nothing to say about homosexuality.

Biology says that there are millions of years of homosexual behaviour in other animals.

Human sociological and cultural development show that homosexuality is a part of humanity, that it has been practiced across most cultures, often in a socially acceptable fashion, and modern society doesn't make value judgements about ones sexual orientation. Invoking social development, which I might consider to be increasing liberties and equality, as a justification for holding back gay marriage is nonsense.

When you say thousands of years, are you deliberately ignoring the millions of years when our ancestors were living in close knit groups, or the evidence that monogamy stretches back into our history? One could interpret you to mean that when God created man 6000 years ago he made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2009, 06:16 PM   #122
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 11:32 AM
Worth repeating

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
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.
Well said.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2009, 03:13 AM   #123
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,428
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
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.
So a thousand years ago men and women didn't marry each other?

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Chemistry has nothing to say about homosexuality.
But it has more than a little to do with gender differences, wouldn't you say? Which was my point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Invoking social development as a justification for holding back gay marriage is nonsense.
So is the willful ignorance of biology, chemistry, sociology, etc.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2009, 03:18 AM   #124
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,428
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Double Post.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2009, 03:19 AM   #125
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 03:32 AM
I'd say, why can't we all just get along, but that would be silly, and highly naive. We can't and won't.

I will just say that I'm glad there are internet forums for tedious trench warfare of this kind. Nobody gets hurt here. I'll not be reading this one any further though.
__________________
Kieran McConville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2009, 07:48 AM   #126
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
So a thousand years ago men and women didn't marry each other?
A thousand years ago men married women, men married multiple women and there were still gay people.

Ethnic cleansing, racism, misogyny, homophobia, slavery and human sacrifice have all been part of traditional cultures at various places and times; your appeal to tradition is unjustifiable.
Quote:
But it has more than a little to do with gender differences, wouldn't you say? Which was my point.
Thats a question of biology, and it is well documented that gay brains are different from straight brains, if you want to invoke gender differences you have to be able to recognise gay, bisexual and transgender people.


Quote:
So is the willful ignorance of biology, chemistry, sociology, etc.
You know that you are being biased as fuck.

Biology says homosexuality is natural, you don't derive a moral justification from nature, but its a fact. Chemistry has nothing to do with it, developmental biology is distinct. Sociology, while not a science, demonstrates a wide range of human sexual behaviour and forms of marriage.

You are ignoring the evidence to further your reactionary agenda, it has reached a point where you are clinging to a word and trying to claim it for traditional family values while undermining the integrity of gay families.

It doesn't matter that labeling you as a soft bigot reinforces your opinions, your opinion is doomed to obsolescence, societies can move forward and gay marriage eventually becomes normalised; so the minority of the population that is gay can have recognition for their relationships and straight people can continue to get married.

Gay marriage has very little effect on my life as a heterosexual man, it doesn't deny me any rights or cheapen my concept of marriage, although if Australia would jump on board it would make this countries hard wired conservatism a little more bearable.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2009, 08:10 AM   #127
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
A thousand years ago men married women, men married multiple women and there were still gay people.

Ethnic cleansing, racism, misogyny, homophobia, slavery and human sacrifice have all been part of traditional cultures at various places and times; your appeal to tradition is unjustifiable.
But a fallacious appeal to tradition is all the "biased" have left, and so they will just repeat that mantra ad infinitum.
__________________
melon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2009, 09:42 AM   #128
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 11:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
So a thousand years ago men and women didn't marry each other?
No. Fathers married off their daughters. Men gained property and married many women.

But keep holding tight onto that 1000 year fantasy definition...
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2009, 10:26 AM   #129
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 12:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
So a thousand years ago men and women didn't marry each other?


would you relationship -- i'm assuming a relationship built on love, trust, choice, equality, and respect -- be at all recognizable to a marriage done over a thousand years ago when the goal was property and having enough children to work the farm?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2009, 01:15 PM   #130
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 12:32 PM
boston.com

Obama once supported gay marriage

Posted by Michael Paulson January 15, 2009

Barack Obama, who while campaigning for president attributed his opposition to same-sex marriage to his deeply held religious beliefs, in 1996 told a gay newspaper in Chicago that he supported same-sex marriage.

This is from a story in the Windy City Times, referring to questionnaires Obama filled out for Outlines, a Chicago newspaper that no longer exists, and IMPACT, a gay rights organization, when he was a candidate for state Senate:

"Obama's answer to the 1996 Outlines question was very clear: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” There was no use of “civil unions,” no compromise whatsoever. The IMPACT marriage question was a bit less direct. It asked if Obama would support a Marriage Resolution being considered at the time, which read in part “Because marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice, RESOLVED, the state should not interfere with same-gender couples who [ choose ] to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities and commitment of civil marriage.” Obama responded: “I would support such a resolution.”

But by 2004, Obama had changed his tune, telling a radio interviewer, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Gay rights did not play a prominent role during the campaign, but the issue has gained prominence since California voters overturned same-sex marriage in that state on Election Day. Obama drew criticism for choosing Rick Warren, an evangelical pastor who opposes same-sex marriage, to give the invocation at the inauguration; he then chose V. Gene Robinson, an Episcopal bishop who is gay and who supports same-sex marriage, to give the invocation at a pre-inaugural event Sunday.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2009, 01:35 PM   #131
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 09:32 AM
^ Of course he did/does. It's too politically dangerous to support it right now.
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2009, 01:43 PM   #132
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 09:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
what's the difference between myself and Memphis and Martha and Steve?

the question remains.

Since nathan found it easier to ignore this question, rather than address it, I'll have a go.

What Irvine and Memphis have that Martha and Steve don't have:
--taller average height
--the desire to be parents

What Martha and Steve have that Irvine and Memphis don't have:
--higher average age
--more motorcycles in the garage
--full protection under the US and state Constitutions and state and federal laws

That's all I can come up with.

Did I miss anything?
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2009, 02:00 PM   #133
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 12:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
That's all I can come up with.

Did I miss anything?


we both have partners who aren't the biggest of U2 fans, but seem to like us anyway.

oh, wait, that's a similarity.



oh, you guys live in California and we don't.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2009, 11:53 PM   #134
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 06:32 PM
nathan, as a fellow religious parent I have a question.

If your teenaged son or daughter were gay, how would that affect the guidance and advice that you would give him or her concerning intimate relationships specifically? What would be the moral vision and ideal there that you would offer, and how and why might it be different from the one you would offer your other children?
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2009, 11:03 PM   #135
Refugee
 
U2Fan101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 1,196
Local Time: 11:32 AM
I like the fact Obama is crossing over the other side. You have to hear the other side and let them speak in order to make progress and get what you want. If you shut them out and don't include them in things, nothing will get resolved. While I am against this anti-gay bashing person, I think it's a smart political move for Obama to include EVERYONE even if that persons political beliefs are different. The Bush administration for the most part shut out the liberals. Obama is a making an effort to include the conservatives. You have to for political success, I think.
__________________

__________________
U2Fan101 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 12:32 PM.


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