Proposition 8 discussion continued - 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 11-09-2008, 03:46 PM   #46
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:24 PM
i was reading through the "Yes" on Prop 8 website, and came across this lie, that was probably extremely convincing to people who don't know any gay people:


Quote:
Proposition 8 is NOT an attack on gay couples and does not take away the rights that same-sex couples already have under California’s domestic partner law. California law already grants domestic partners all the rights that a state can grant to a married couple. Gays have a right to their private lives, but not to change the definition of marriage for everyone else.

Passing Proposition 8 protects our children and places into the Constitution the simple definition that a marriage is between a man and a woman.


make no mistake, the "Yes" crowd ran a much, much better campaign.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 04:06 PM   #47
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,290
Local Time: 01:24 PM
I still haven't heard an explanation for how gay marriage would hurt children.

Society hasn't fallen apart in Canada, Belgium, The Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, and Spain as a result of the legalization of gay marriage, and supporters of proposition 8 have never been able to adequately or sufficiently explain that.

Until an explanation for that is given, proposition 8 supporters have no ground to stand on.
__________________

__________________
namkcuR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 04:11 PM   #48
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by namkcuR View Post
I still haven't heard an explanation for how gay marriage would hurt children.

Society hasn't fallen apart in Canada, Belgium, The Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, and Spain as a result of the legalization of gay marriage, and supporters of proposition 8 have never been able to adequately or sufficiently explain that.

Until an explanation for that is given, proposition 8 supporters have no ground to stand on.


much like with gay parenthood, all the studies show that absolutely nothing happens. kids do just as well with gay parents as with straight ones. the canard that "kids do best with a mother and a father" is derived from studies that show, on average, kids do better with two parents than with a single parent. when kids with two parents are compared -- two gay parents and two straight parents -- there is nothing to show that kids are somehow disadvantaged by having gay parents, nor advantaged by having straight parents. so the only thing that can be derived from this is that kids do better with two parents, rather than one, but we all know that single parents can do a remarkable job as well.

in fact, many gay parents tend to have, in droves, the things that adoption agencies are looking for. they tend to be a bit older, tend to be very well educated, and they tend to have really, really thought through their decisions to be parents.

but none of this matters to the state of Arkansas, apparently.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 04:20 PM   #49
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by namkcuR View Post
Society hasn't fallen apart in Canada, Belgium, The Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, and Spain as a result of the legalization of gay marriage, and supporters of proposition 8 have never been able to adequately or sufficiently explain that.
diamond has repeatedly told us that these other places don't matter and that Americans are suspicious of them anyway and that the USA is waaaaaay more fantastical.
__________________
anitram is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 04:28 PM   #50
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
diamond has repeatedly told us that these other places don't matter and that Americans are suspicious of them anyway and that the USA is waaaaaay more fantastical.
Massachusetts hasn't fallen apart either, and they have had the lowest divorce rate in the country too. I think most of this country could learn from their example.
__________________
melon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 04:29 PM   #51
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
Massachusetts hasn't fallen apart either, and they have had the lowest divorce rate in the country too. I think most of this country could learn from their example.


but what about thousands of years of tradition?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 04:42 PM   #52
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
but what about thousands of years of tradition?
People should take a look at the ruins of Pompeii sometime, if they want to turn the romantic idea of "tradition" on its head.
__________________
melon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 04:42 PM   #53
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: all around in the dark - everywhere
Posts: 3,531
Local Time: 01:24 PM
what do marlon brando look-alikes have to do with anything?
__________________
Se7en is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 05:05 PM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by intedomine View Post
Mind you, I've always felt that the man and a woman thing is an essence that only exists because our ancestors were horrid scumbags who got a sad kick out of asserting their authority...
Or perhaps they realized that only "the man and woman thing" would allow them to become ancestors.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 05:14 PM   #55
Refugee
 
toscano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,032
Local Time: 11:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Or perhaps they realized that only "the man and woman thing" would allow them to ever become ancestors.
The man and many women thing was part of 'tradition' too. Still is in LDS-affiliated circles. I'm sure it's based on solely a need for more successors....

I'm sure you're right and that homosexuality is just a 20th century flirtation with sexual experimentation.
__________________
toscano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 05:15 PM   #56
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Or perhaps they realized that only "the man and woman thing" would allow them to become ancestors.


same-sex marriage is going to stop teenagers in Wasilla from getting knocked up and then forced into shotgun weddings?

and are we now not going to let, say, post-menopausal women get married later in life?

however, since INDY and nathan point to "thousands of years of tradition" and the need for procreation, we should certainly then see them advocating the need for a return to polygamy. after all, if we want lots of children, we need to realize that one man can fertilize many women, but a woman can only be pregnant one at a time. so it seems to make sense, as it did to our ancestors, that powerful men with resources should take multiple brides so he can keep them in various stages of pregnancy in order to further along our species. one man with one women might get, at most, 8-10 kids. but one man and 4-5 women is going to give that man as many children as he can provide for.

*that's* tradition.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 05:18 PM   #57
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 12:24 PM
Actually, he is right in that it takes two members of the opposite sex to naturally create offspring. But since bearing children isn't a requirement of marriage, the point doesn't really bear much relevance to this discussion.
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 05:19 PM   #58
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
People should take a look at the ruins of Pompeii sometime, if they want to turn the romantic idea of "tradition" on its head.


__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 05:19 PM   #59
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Actually, he is right in that it takes two members of the opposite sex to naturally create offspring. But since bearing children isn't a requirement of marriage, the point doesn't really bear much relevance to this discussion.
I'm not sure that "relevance" ever mattered much to the Religious Right anyway, when it came to their arguments.

__________________
melon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2008, 05:20 PM   #60
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Actually, he is right in that it takes two members of the opposite sex to naturally create offspring. But since bearing children isn't a requirement of marriage, the point doesn't really bear much relevance to this discussion.


it's not?

i thought it was the purpose of getting married, that this is why marriage must be protected because the very fate of our species is dependent upon it's exclusionary status.
__________________

__________________
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 01:24 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