11 states vote on gay marriage - Page 12 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-08-2004, 05:22 PM   #166
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 01:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
I don't think that person is allowed here anymore Irvine, but that doesn't make what you said in your reply any less valid or important
I was wondering, but afraid to ask, if all the scary people disappeared over the weekend while I was away.
__________________

__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 11-08-2004, 05:41 PM   #167
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:48 AM
Checked the banned members thread. Two of the "scary ones" were banned.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-08-2004, 06:10 PM   #168
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 01:48 AM
Thank you.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming...
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 11-08-2004, 06:14 PM   #169
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 03:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer


Irvine disagrees with this axiom and declares that marriage should just celebrate the union of two individuals. Hence the different conclusion.

that's mostly correct, but my view is much more utilitarian and far less romantic. marriage, as we see in many other countries, is a financial arrangement. it's about two people choosing to stick it out together, and marriage is a way for them to merge their assets and legal protections. this is why the whole debate about "gay marriage" and how it relates to the election misses the point. it's not about marriage, even, because most of those amendments -- most crucially, and not incidentally in Ohio and Michigan -- banned not only marriage, but "all legal incidents thereof." ask yourselves, you married heterosexuals, how you would feel if your spouse could not visit you in the hospital. or could not make decisions for you should you become incapacitated. or could not adopt your children. or could not inherit your wealth if you were to die. this is the reality gay couples now face in many states across the country, and don't think for a second that this language "legal incidents thereof" wasn't carefully worded and pitched to a specific audience. no, these amendments weren't about the preservation of the traditional idea of marriage, they were an attack on the homosexual "lifestyle." though, in this case, the lifestyle these amendments destroyed was one of family and commitment.

this is why i call those who called for, and then voted for, these amendments bigots, because of that phrase: "all legal incidents thereof."
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-11-2004, 07:26 AM   #170
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 03:48 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

Roey Thorpe, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon, shared a personal story that she believes illustrates the prejudice that a gay person cannot love as truly or as deeply as a heterosexual.

The Portland, Oregon, woman said an employee who was grieving over the death of her husband asked Thorpe, "Do your people feel sad when your person dies?"

"It tells it all," Thorpe said. "I said, 'you saw me as a little less human and for me to realize it breaks my heart.' "
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 11-11-2004, 07:42 AM   #171
Blue Crack Addict
 
MissVelvetDress_75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: basking in my post-concert glow still mesmerized by the orbit of his hips..Also Holding Bono Close as he requested.
Posts: 25,776
Local Time: 03:48 AM
I felt there was no need for this to be on the GA ballot.
__________________
MissVelvetDress_75 is offline  
Old 11-11-2004, 07:59 AM   #172
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 03:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

Roey Thorpe, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon, shared a personal story that she believes illustrates the prejudice that a gay person cannot love as truly or as deeply as a heterosexual.

The Portland, Oregon, woman said an employee who was grieving over the death of her husband asked Thorpe, "Do your people feel sad when your person dies?"

"It tells it all," Thorpe said. "I said, 'you saw me as a little less human and for me to realize it breaks my heart.' "

that captures so much. it astonishes me when people who say they are "against" homosexuality and compare it -- like, say, Pat Buchanan -- to something like kleptomania. even people on this list have compared homosexuality to a married man wanting to boff the intern, and that you should "just say no." it's so naive it's shocking, not to mention self-serving and self-deceiving in order to advance a specific kind of "moral values" that are political in nature. it's not about sex, it's about sexual orientation. while physical desire is a large and important part of this identity, it's only a part, and the reduction of homosexuality to sex and only sex is at the absolute center of this pernicious agenda. it's about dehumanizing an Other.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-11-2004, 08:11 AM   #173
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 03:48 AM
That quote just really stood out for me, made me very sad. If a heterosexual person can ever understand what it's like, maybe it's through quotes like that. (and of course many other things, but maybe that's one small step )
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 11-11-2004, 12:16 PM   #174
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 03:48 AM

Did you guys ban GOP_Catholic?

If so, that's disturbing to me. I see that he/she was pretty adamant about their position, but to ban them?

I've been dropping into FYM for 4 years now, and have seen soooo much worse than this.

I've said it before, I'd love to see free speech reign somewhere on this forum. Make an unmoderated section! I want to hear it all. Let only the brave enter.

Mark
__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 11-11-2004, 02:11 PM   #175
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 01:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris
Did you guys ban GOP_Catholic?

If so, that's disturbing to me. I see that he/she was pretty adamant about their position, but to ban them?

I've been dropping into FYM for 4 years now, and have seen soooo much worse than this.

I've said it before, I'd love to see free speech reign somewhere on this forum. Make an unmoderated section! I want to hear it all. Let only the brave enter.

Mark
Yes, free speech should reign, but there is a difference between free speech and a troll. GOP_Catholic was a troll. We have had huge fights in FYM between sincere people with passionate, differing viewpoints and no one was banned. GOP_Catholic wasn't that. He/she was simply a troll and didn't belong here.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 11-11-2004, 03:04 PM   #176
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 04:48 AM
If you have a question about why a particular member was banned, I refer you to the "banned members" thread in IB, which is where an admin will mention banned posters and why they were banned as they happen.

And, as I believe I mentioned in here a little while back, unkind comments about homosexuals/homosexuality cloaked as "personal beliefs" aren't going to fly in here. We wouldn't let someone post about Jews, African-Americans, Swedes, Taoists, or whatever in such a manner. We won't allow it towards gay people either.

End of discussion. Please get the thread back on track or it will be closed.


















isn't everyone just tickled to have me back?
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 11-11-2004, 03:06 PM   #177
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 04:48 AM
Why is it that people always defend gay marriage with all this talk about if two individuals love each other, they should be allowed to marry?

What if a man loves a pig, or what if a man loves a five year old boy? I just don't see it going in the right direction.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 11-11-2004, 03:07 PM   #178
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 03:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora

And, as I believe I mentioned in here a little while back, unkind comments about homosexuals/homosexuality cloaked as "personal beliefs" aren't going to fly in here. We wouldn't let someone post about Jews, African-Americans, Swedes, Taoists, or whatever in such a manner. We won't allow it towards gay people either.
i wish the GOP was as civil and respectful as FYM.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-11-2004, 03:08 PM   #179
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 03:48 AM
sorry about the above -- don't know how it came out like that.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-11-2004, 03:10 PM   #180
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 04:48 AM
The difference between an adult man marrying another adult man, and one of those men marrying a pig or a five-year-old, is that two adult men are able to CONSENT to such a union. A marriage to an animal or a child is very clearly out of bounds because neither can rationally consent to such a union.

For other good reasons, too, of course, but I imagine that would be the legal argument.

Now, again, back on track with the thread and no more talk about pigs and young children. This issue is about the right, or lack thereof, of rational adults to marry other rational adults regardless of gender.

Thank you.
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
 

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 03:48 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