Proposition 8 discussion continued - Page 13 - 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, 06:12 PM   #181
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
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.
Yes, the lack of conservatives is George Bush's fault, that guy is responsible for everything
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 06:19 PM   #182
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 12:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Yes, the lack of conservatives is George Bush's fault, that guy is responsible for everything


the debunking and dismantling of the GOP project that began in 1980 and saw the marriage of the Religious Right with Free Market True Believers has absolutely come to an end under George Bush. he's the least popular president in history. American conservatism was smashed last Tuesday and the GOP is now a white, southern, christian, elderly party.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 06:33 PM   #183
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 12:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
the debunking and dismantling of the GOP project that began in 1980 and saw the marriage of the Religious Right with Free Market True Believers has absolutely come to an end under George Bush. he's the least popular president in history. American conservatism was smashed last Tuesday and the GOP is now a white, southern, christian, elderly party.
What about Sarah Palin? What about Jindal?

What about that guy Ron Christie that's been appearing on MSNBC recently?
__________________
namkcuR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 06:45 PM   #184
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 12:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by namkcuR View Post
What about Sarah Palin? What about Jindal?

What about that guy Ron Christie that's been appearing on MSNBC recently?


Palin and Jindal are in the center of the firing squad where the Peggy Noonans and David Brooks' and the other intellectual-ish moderates are squaring off against the traditionalists.

there's no coalition anymore.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 07:28 PM   #185
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 05:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
this isn't about gauzy, vague notions of "what marriage means as a society,"
There's nothing vague about it. It's black and white -- 14 words: "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Quote:
it is about equal protection under the law.
Do you include voting rights in this?

Quote:
it's not about the right to get married, it's about the right to be treated equally under the law.
A right which already exists.

Quote:
there is not a word in Prop 8 about education. no child can be forced against the will of their parents to be taught anything about health and family issues at school.
Ask the Wirthlins in MA. Or the Parkers in MA. Or parents in Hayward, CA. Or parents of Brookline High students.

Schools ask court to dismiss suit over homosexuality discussions - Boston.com
School holds surprise 'Gay' Day for kindergartners
GLSEN Conference and Little Black Book

Quote:
the court decision specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”
Ask the Catholic Charities in MA.
Catholic Charities to halt adoptions over issue involving gays - Boston.com
__________________
nathan1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 07:44 PM   #186
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977
There's nothing vague about it. It's black and white -- 14 words: "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Yes, that is the law, why was it put in place, why do you feel that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry? Why aren't you encouraging people to vote in favor of gay marriage? You don't seem to just oppose a court decision, otherwise you would offer suggestions of how gay marriage should be brought about
Quote:
Do you include voting rights in this?
Civil liberties need protection from democratic tyranny. Things like unpopular or obscene speech, crazy religious beliefs, freedom to choose your sexual partners and other liberties would be threatened if put up to a vote. A liberal democracy can protect minorities and civil liberties when they are threatened at the ballot box. You are on the anti-freedom side, the freedom for gays to get marriage recognition from the state does not and should not involve any coercion of outside parties.
Quote:
A right which already exists.
The right for a gay man to make a straight woman miserable isn't the same as equal recognition for relationships, for the state to not discriminate on the basis of sexuality.
Quote:
Ask the Wirthlins in MA. Or the Parkers in MA. Or parents in Hayward, CA. Or parents of Brookline High students.

Schools ask court to dismiss suit over homosexuality discussions - Boston.com
School holds surprise 'Gay' Day for kindergartners
GLSEN Conference and Little Black Book
Your sources include WorldNetDaily and MassResistance.org, I encourage everyone else to look through those sites and make up their own mind.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 07:44 PM   #187
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Do you include voting rights in this?
Umm...do you even know what "equal protection" means? No, it doesn't mean you have a right to vote a group of people into an unequal status.

Quote:
A right which already exists.
No. Domestic partnerships/civil unions do not cover all the rights of marriage, particularly when it comes to federal rights. Secondly, even if they did, there is the issue of "separate but equal," which was deemed unconstitutional. The sheer fact is that people, straight and gay, pretty clearly see domestic partnerships/civil unions as subordinate to marriage; otherwise, why would straight bigots be so adamant to ban gay marriage, but accept partnerships?

Oh, and to echo A_Wanderer, to say that gays have the "equal" right to marry someone of the opposite sex is as ridiculous as to support anti-miscegenation laws with the argument that blacks had the "equal" right to marry someone of their same race as whites.

Quote:
Ask the Wirthlins in MA. Or the Parkers in MA. Or parents in Hayward, CA. Or parents of Brookline High students.
Were these discussions about graphic depictions of gay sex, or just the mention that gay people exist? Do people have the right to require permission for schools to talk about the existence of blacks or Jews?

Quote:
Eight members of Catholic Charities' board stepped down in protest of the bishops' stance. The 42-member board had voted unanimously in December to continue considering gay households for adoptions.
First off, despite the name, "Catholic Charities" is not a church. It's an organization that provides services at the pleasure of the state. The state is under no obligation to rubber stamp organizations that discriminate, and have every right to presume that organizations that do services for it will abide by anti-discrimination laws just like any secular private organization. Should the state have approved a KKK-sponsored adoption agency that refused to place children in the homes of blacks? Actual churches, on the other hand, are freely able to support and deny whomever they'd like; it's why the KKK and white supremacists still legally operate their own churches, no matter how offensive they are.

Really, for someone who loves to talk about the "slippery slope," you seemingly have no interest in recognizing the errors of your logic. But that's conservatism for you.
__________________
melon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 08:07 PM   #188
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Do you include voting rights in this?

The fact that you keep using this in context of this debate just shows me you have no clue what it truly means.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2008, 08:18 PM   #189
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:44 PM
If Americans voted that the Churches of some denominations should be forcibly shut down by the state because most Americans believed that those churches corrupted public morality would it be alright?

if Americans voted that all guns must be banned would it be alright?

Do you only care about rights that you exercise?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2008, 12:07 AM   #190
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 06:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Ask the Wirthlins in MA. Or the Parkers in MA. Or parents in Hayward, CA. Or parents of Brookline High students.

Schools ask court to dismiss suit over homosexuality discussions - Boston.com
School holds surprise 'Gay' Day for kindergartners
GLSEN Conference and Little Black Book
Robin Wirthlin (of the Boston Globe story you linked) on CNN, April 4 2006, explaining why she objected to the King & King storybook being read to her children: "My problem is that this issue of romantic attraction between two men is being presented to my 7-year-old as wonderful, and good and the way things should be."

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute (from the WorldNetDaily article): "they want to push the gay lifestyle on kindergartners." (The "lifestyle push" in question involved a kindergarten teacher reading to her students then having them sign a pledge stating: “I am taking a stand for a safe and harassment-free school for all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression. As an ally, I pledge to not use anti-LGBT language or slurs.” Which, as one might suspect from the vocabulary, was intended for junior high students, no other grade schoolers signed it, and the school has apologized to parents for the error.)

The Brookline High incident (see here for a far less hysterical article from the Boston Globe) involved an outside community health organization mistakenly leaving about 10 copies of a safe-sex pamphlet intended for gay men ages 18-up on a table where they'd displayed other (age-appropriate) materials, at a conference on gay and lesbian issues for staff and students held at the school (on a Saturday, so obviously not a mandatory event).



You've been presenting yourself as having no problems with gay and lesbian people, just whether their legally formalized relationships could ever fulfill the ideals you feel are conveyed by the word 'marriage'...and yet, here you're citing as supporting arguments articles that clearly aren't about that at all, but rather about parents who object to their children merely hearing it acknowledged in school that men who love men and women who love women exist. Even though that likely describes the families of some kid(s) their kids already know, even though it without a doubt describes some of their children's future classmates, even though gay and lesbian couples and parents will continue to exist whether they like it or not and their children will grow up to know some, just like you do. These parents aren't worried that gay marriage means their kindergartners will be reading picturebooks about fisting and anal sex--they're worried that the first direct acknowledgment of gay and lesbian people's existence their children will hear WON'T be accompanied by an unambiguous message that gay relationships are sinful and unnatural, and people involved in them are bad and wrong. And parents worried about that will oppose gay marriage for exactly the same reasons.

I'm not sure whether you don't see this, whether you cynically don't care, or whether you secretly agree with those parents, and share their fears that exposure to these "lifestyles" might "turn" your children gay or otherwise "unfit" to lead a morally upright life.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2008, 04:56 AM   #191
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: 12:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
someone certainly did after last Tuesday's tsunami.
Snap!

__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2008, 04:57 AM   #192
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: 12:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post

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.
It's comin' though. Just you wait.

Shoot, we already got Phillyfan agitating for the vote.
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2008, 05:05 AM   #193
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: 12:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post

whether you secretly agree with those parents, and share their fears that exposure to these "lifestyles" might "turn" your children gay or otherwise "unfit" to lead a morally upright life.
I think you hit the nail on the head.

The crux of the argument, really is that homosexuality is wrong--if there is a reason, as Toscano suggested, that they don't have the cojones to admit, this basic argument is it. Homosexuality is one of THE defining signs of a society in moral decline, and when society openly approves of something that is morally wrong. . .well, you're looking at the end of society.

Of course he can't make this argument here and I think we all know that. He'd get massacared.
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2008, 05:31 AM   #194
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:44 PM
If there was a hell, this would be a bad thing
Quote:
During an exuberant shopping expedition three years ago, Peg Oliveira made a spontaneous proposal in an aisle of Ikea, blurting, “Marry me!” to her partner, Jennifer Vickery.

Last fall, long before the Connecticut Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, the couple became formally engaged, with Ms. Oliveira explaining that she “wanted there to be a moment when we each consciously chose to be together for the rest of our lives.”

On Wednesday morning, with their 3-month-old daughter, Willow, in tow, Ms. Oliveira and Ms. Vickery became one of Connecticut’s first same-sex couples to wed, in a chilly breeze outside City Hall here. Surrounded by journalists and a few friends, they exchanged rings and shared the Ikea story during their vows, along with a slow, tender kiss.

The state’s highest court ruled on Oct. 10 that excluding same-sex couples from marriage was unconstitutional, and a week ago the court announced that gay marriages could officially be performed starting on Wednesday.

Many same-sex couples said they would wait to apply for their licenses, which expire after 65 days, to have time to prepare for wedding celebrations in the spring and summer. Indeed, advocates for same-sex marriage predicted that there would not be the same rush for licenses on Wednesday that there was in 2004, when Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriages, or in June, when California began performing them. They cited both the short notice and the fact that Connecticut has, since 2005, offered civil unions, which offer similar rights and benefits, for gay couples.

Still, lawyers and supporters of gay marriage called the day momentous, especially as a counterpoint to the passage last week of a ballot measure in California that invalidated a court decision legalizing gay marriage. Connecticut voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposal, backed by opponents of same-sex marriage, for a constitutional convention that would allow for such direct voter initiatives on the ballot.

“Today Connecticut sends a message of hope and promise to lesbian and gay people throughout the country who want to be treated as equal citizens by their government,” said Ben Klein, a senior lawyer with Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, a Boston-based group that litigated the Connecticut case. “It’s living proof that marriage equality is moving forward in this country.”

City Hall here was adorned with bunches of white balloons and giant sprays of long-stemmed red roses as Robin and Barbara Levine-Ritterman, who were among the eight named plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the state, obtained a marriage license, although they did not plan to marry immediately. “We’re thinking about doing it in May,” said Robin Levine-Ritterman, 49, a naturopathic physician and acupuncturist. “But we really wanted to be part of this historic first.”

But Ms. Oliveira, 36, a yoga teacher and early childhood education consultant, and Ms. Vickery, 44, a lawyer, did not wait. Officiating at the simple ceremony, just before 11 a.m., was their friend, Judge F. Herbert Gruendel of the State Appellate Court, who recalled Ms. Oliveira’s saying five years ago on his porch that she would like to be married. “Today I can say to you that you are,” he said.

Before the ceremony, Ms. Oliveira explained why the couple, who have been together for four years, had not entered into a civil union. “We decided that we wanted to hold out for the real thing,” she said. “Parties are fun, but it’s not about the celebrating piece of this. It’s about honoring the magnitude of the rights that we will be granted, and we wanted to jump in and take advantage of that right away.”

Massachusetts and Connecticut are now the only states allowing same-sex marriage. New Jersey, Vermont and New Hampshire have civil unions, and California has domestic partnerships, which are similar.

Across the state on Wednesday morning, couples waited for word that Judge Jonathan E. Silbert of Superior Court here had entered a final judgment in the case, thus putting the new marriage law into effect. It was a ceremonial act, since the Supreme Court had ruled, 4 to 3, that the state’s civil unions violated the constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law.

State Representative Beth Bye and her partner of seven years, Tracey Wilson, paced the West Hartford Town Clerk’s office on Wednesday morning. As Ms. Wilson handed over the $30 check for the marriage license, she asked, jokingly, if the couple would get a refund on their civil union license from December 2005. The couple’s 16-year-old son, Adam Brown, who filmed the seven-minute ceremony, quipped that the only thing making civil unions equal to marriage was the price.

Ms. Bye, who married Ms. Wilson at 9:41 a.m., said she was not necessarily vying to be No. 1 in the state, but did want to be the first to get married in West Hartford — her hometown and part of her district.

“I always knew you were the most competitive person in the world,” said Scott Slifka, the mayor of West Hartford, by way of congratulations.

By 4 p.m., six couples had obtained licenses at West Hartford Town Hall, including Elizabeth Kerrigan and Joanne Mock, the two lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit, who planned to marry in the coming months.

Michael Miller and Ross Zachs handed out white frosted cupcakes with the letters M and R on them after marrying on the steps of Town Hall. As Carole MacKenzie, a Universalist Life minister, concluded the ceremony, saying, “By the authority invested in me by the State of Connecticut,” the crowd erupted in applause.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/ny...ca4&ei=5087%0A
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2008, 05:48 AM   #195
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 06:44 AM
I just heard Connecticut disconnected from the mainland and sank in the ocean. Just like Atlantis.
__________________

__________________
Vincent Vega 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 12:44 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