Proposition 8 discussion continued - Page 12 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-12-2008, 03:09 PM   #166
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 03:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
You voted for the side of Proposition 8 that was totally against separation of church and state. You do realize that, don't you? You're for a group that overwhelmingly voted for Proposition 8 on religious grounds.

As Irvine said, there's nothing here about the rights of churches that would change.

Please stop ignoring facts.
Yeah, this is by the craziest of arguments I've seen. I think some folks are truly confused and mainly because the church has done a good job at selling the lie.

THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGE IN THE RIGHTS OF THE CHURCH. A church can still deny a marriage just like they could deny the marriage of heterosexual couple they see unfit.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 03:17 PM   #167
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 04:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post

All Californians have the right to marry anyone they want. Of the opposite sex. If we're going to redefine what marriage means as a society, then we should be allowed to vote on it. Just because the ACLU and Lambda Legal don't think we should have that right, doesn't make it so.

And yes, both parental notification (as was the case in MA) and the rights of churches to perform marriage ceremonies (or not) are indeed at risk. And clearly, based on the results of all this, so are democratic rights of representative government and "one citizen, one vote."
That's incredibly weak. Were citizens allowed to vote regarding the redefinition of what it meant to be a black person in American society? If that were the case, blacks would still be at the back of the bus.

Churches here can refuse to marry gay couples. Just as, if I'm not mistaken, they can refuse to marry anyone, gay OR straight, as they see fit.

In a casual classroom conversation about families, why should parents be notified if gay or lesbian-headed families are mentioned? Do they need to be notified about the mention of single parent families? Of blended hetero families? Of families headed by grandparents? That argument is nothing bullshit, to borrow Martha's apt description, designed to raise another generation of bigots.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
just an observation, and i totally plead guilty here, but i will say that it must be tough to defend a position in here when 5-6 people come at you from all angles.

but, if the argument is worth making, i suppose that shouldn't matter.
It's hard to resist joining the fray when the argument presented to you is sanctimonious crap, couched in false complexities.
__________________

__________________
VintagePunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 03:21 PM   #168
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 03:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by toscano View Post
They know why. They just don't have the cojones to say it.
True, but I do have to admit it's a little more nuanced than that...

I do believe there are different variations of bigotry.

For example in this scenario there are those that are just flat out bigots and attack homosexuality, or believe they're going to rape children, or they're going to turn us all gay, not even based on religion etc...

And then there are those that are acting out of bigotry but the bigotry is second hand. For I do know many of people who struggle with the fact that their religion says this but they honestly don't understand why is says this...

And there are many variations in between, but no matter what camp you come from you can't legislate based on bigotry or religion.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 03:25 PM   #169
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 01:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
All Californians have the right to marry anyone they want. Of the opposite sex. If we're going to redefine what marriage means as a society, then we should be allowed to vote on it.
All Alabamans have the right to sit where they want on the bus. As long as blacks sit in the back.

And if they want to change the fundamental racial order of society, the way God intended it (see the Loving vs. Virginia ruling for specifics), then we should be allowed to vote on it.

Ok. I see how it works now.
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 03:27 PM   #170
Blue Crack Supplier
 
elevated_u2_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: I'm here 'cus I don't want to go home
Posts: 31,694
Local Time: 04:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
just an observation, and i totally plead guilty here, but i will say that it must be tough to defend a position in here when 5-6 people come at you from all angles.

but, if the argument is worth making, i suppose that shouldn't matter.
isn't this the essence of almost 99% of the threads in FYM though?

There are rarely any threads on here where the opposing sides are split 50/50...
__________________
elevated_u2_fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 03:30 PM   #171
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 04:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by elevated_u2_fan View Post
isn't this the essence of almost 99% of the threads in FYM though?

There are rarely any threads on here where the opposing sides are split 50/50...


that's true. i remember once getting ganged up on by a bunch of Canadian women.

there was a more equal ideological spread a few years ago, but i think the pendulum has swung quite a bit (at least in the US), and things just aren't as contentious as they were in 2003/4 at the peak of the Bush administrations excesses and the Iraq War.

that and the fact that U2 haven't released an album since then, and you just get lower traffic than you used to.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 03:31 PM   #172
Blue Crack Supplier
 
elevated_u2_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: I'm here 'cus I don't want to go home
Posts: 31,694
Local Time: 04:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
that's true. i remember once getting ganged up on by a bunch of Canadian women.
that's hot
__________________
elevated_u2_fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 03:46 PM   #173
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 01:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
there was a more equal ideological spread a few years ago, but i think the pendulum has swung quite a bit (at least in the US), and things just aren't as contentious as they were in 2003/4 at the peak of the Bush administrations excesses and the Iraq War.

Plus, when you're constantly called out on stuff and have to actually defend the things you say, well, some people take their ball and go home, don't they?
__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 03:49 PM   #174
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 04:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Plus, when you're constantly called out on stuff and have to actually defend the things you say, well, some people take their ball and go home, don't they?


someone certainly did after last Tuesday's tsunami.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 05:10 PM   #175
BAW
The Flower
 
BAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The OC....!!!!
Posts: 11,094
Local Time: 01:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Yeah, this is by the craziest of arguments I've seen. I think some folks are truly confused and mainly because the church has done a good job at selling the lie.

THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGE IN THE RIGHTS OF THE CHURCH. A church can still deny a marriage just like they could deny the marriage of heterosexual couple they see unfit.
Unfit hetero couple chiming in!

I was turned down by 2 churches when I was planning my second wedding, one because we were not members of their congregation and the other because they didn't approve of the dresses my bridesmaids were going wear. I wasn't slighted or offended in the least nor did I have any thoughts of suing or trying to force them into it.

And the woman who did end up performing our ceremony spent 2 hours interviewing us before she would agree to marry us and made it clear she could turn us down for any reason.
__________________
BAW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 05:12 PM   #176
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 04:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BAW View Post
I was turned down by 2 churches when I was planning my second wedding, one because we were not members of their congregation and the other because they didn't approve of the dresses my bridesmaids were going wear. I wasn't slighted or offended in the least nor did I have any thoughts of suing or trying to force them into it.

And the woman who did end up performing our ceremony spent 2 hours interviewing us before she would agree to marry us and made it clear she could turn us down for any reason.



to piggyback on this, you know what's amazing about these arguments that say, "once gays start to marry, who's next?"

you know what i've noticed? it's been almost 90 years since women got the right to vote, and still, animals and children don't have the right to vote.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 05:57 PM   #177
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 03:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BAW View Post
Unfit hetero couple chiming in!

I was turned down by 2 churches when I was planning my second wedding, one because we were not members of their congregation and the other because they didn't approve of the dresses my bridesmaids were going wear. I wasn't slighted or offended in the least nor did I have any thoughts of suing or trying to force them into it.
I need to see this dress...
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 06:11 PM   #178
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Those rights already exist under registered domestic partnerships and civil unions, which CA recognizes. So, to use Martha's language from earlier in the thread, that's bullsh*t.



All Californians have the right to marry anyone they want. Of the opposite sex. If we're going to redefine what marriage means as a society, then we should be allowed to vote on it. Just because the ACLU and Lambda Legal don't think we should have that right, doesn't make it so.

And yes, both parental notification (as was the case in MA) and the rights of churches to perform marriage ceremonies (or not) are indeed at risk. And clearly, based on the results of all this, so are democratic rights of representative government and "one citizen, one vote."
Denying other people choices is not an individual right, you want to put liberties to the vote, a mob rule which effectively abolishes the point of a constitution.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 06:11 PM   #179
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 04:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
to piggyback on this, you know what's amazing about these arguments that say, "once gays start to marry, who's next?"

you know what i've noticed? it's been almost 90 years since women got the right to vote, and still, animals and children don't have the right to vote.
The voting age is too high. I was totally competent and aware of my choices this year, and was denied the right to vote due to being two months younger than 18 years on November 4th.

The funny thing about people my age is that those who are aware of the issues WILL vote, and those who are not won't bother registering. I don't understand why we're not allowed to.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 06:12 PM   #180
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 04:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Denying other people choices is not an individual right, you want to put liberties to the vote, a mob rule which effectively abolishes the point of a constitution.
Exactly. The points of the supreme courts making these decisions is to prevent the tyranny of the majority from taking away liberties and rights.
__________________

__________________
phillyfan26 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 04:21 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