can we please, please call this argument settled? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-15-2005, 04:09 PM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,763
Local Time: 12:11 PM
If someone wants to marry their sibling, I really don't give a rat's ass. Why should I care? Just think about it: someone's probably banging their sister right now. And now. And wait.................now. The world hasn't crumbled and they can deal with it. If someone wants to marry 10 people, I don't care either. It already happens in most of the world and is described in the Old Testament with no formal revocation.

But, as I've said, the "domino effect" argument is ridiculous. If people are really genuinely afraid of people marrying their immediate family (telling someone they can't marry a handful of people versus an entire gender of people is a big difference), if people are afraid of polygamy (forcing people to choose one person isn't that big of a demand, I'd like to think, and if you're tired of that person, we have divorce and extramarital affairs), if people are afraid of animals and inanimate objects (they can't consent anyway, so how can you marry them?), then write an amendment that bans that. Again, this is not about "defending marriage." It's about blatant homophobia.

I'm tired of fucking heteros telling me what I can and can't do. It's none of your business, and now I know why black people became militant. I'd resent a bunch of stupid white folk telling me what I can and can't do as well.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-15-2005, 04:19 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,318
Local Time: 08:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer

marriage ..... as a popularly determined model for the nuclear family,



Quote:
nuclear family

A type of family made up only of parents and their children

speedracer

all childless hetero couples do not fit your definition of "marriage"

and the state should not recognize their unions.

If you are an honest person?
.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-15-2005, 04:28 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,508
Local Time: 11:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
If someone wants to marry their sibling, I really don't give a rat's ass. Why should I care? Just think about it: someone's probably banging their sister right now. And now. And wait.................now. The world hasn't crumbled and they can deal with it. If someone wants to marry 10 people, I don't care either. It already happens in most of the world and is described in the Old Testament with no formal revocation.

But, as I've said, the "domino effect" argument is ridiculous. If people are really genuinely afraid of people marrying their immediate family (telling someone they can't marry a handful of people versus an entire gender of people is a big difference)
My argument was that as long as the set of people I am forbidden to marry contains the set of people I desire to marry, it's too big. It doesn't matter if the set of people I desire to marry consists of one sister or 3 billion men. If marriage is completely about individual rights, you are correct to assert that incest and polygamy should be accorded equal footing with two-person nonincestuous marriage.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 03-15-2005, 04:34 PM   #19
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 04:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer


My point is that the legal rights of marriage do not just apply to certain categories of relationships; they apply to individual relationships as well. If marriage is nothing more than a set of extra rights, it seems discriminatory to deny the protections of marriage to any relationship.

If, on the other hand, marriage is some ideal of society, then it is best to argue that gay marriage is good for society, and that it should be placed on an equal footing with heterosexual marriage for precisely this reason. If I understand Judge Kramer's ruling correctly (I'm reading the entire text of the decision right now), it seems to me like fool's gold.

Sorry, i haven't read this ruling yet (just the news reports), but shouldn't the judge's judgement be, uh, judged on how he answers the questions posed to him...the case in front of him? And it seems the question was the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage in California, not to decide whether gay marriage is good or bad for society. (I guess the point the Judge made was that living up to the ultimate rule of law -- the constitution -- is good for society.)
__________________
Judah is offline  
Old 03-15-2005, 04:39 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,763
Local Time: 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer
My argument was that as long as the set of people I am forbidden to marry contains the set of people I desire to marry, it's too big. It doesn't matter if the set of people I desire to marry consists of one sister or 3 billion men. If marriage is completely about individual rights, you are correct to assert that incest and polygamy should be accorded equal footing with two-person nonincestuous marriage.
Sounds good to me, as long as all is consentual. And truly consentual.

Why I don't imagine that there would be too many instances of incestuous marriages (although, really, they already happen, since it is legal to marry one's first cousin in some states and, hypocritically, these marriages are recognized even in states that don't allow it) is that most all siblings genuinely don't want each other mutually. Most instances we hear about involves either sexual abuse (father molesting daughter) or an obsessed sibling with the other completely repulsed by it. In short: no mutuality.

The same goes with polygamy. The ones in Utah are generally abusive, with the man taking on minors as "wives."

But hey...whatever. There's abusive heterosexual marriages too, and we don't see the government intervening to stop them from even being performed, now do we?

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-15-2005, 04:44 PM   #21
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 04:11 PM
Good "slippery slope" or "domino effect" story here...from last year if anyone's interested (especially the last quarter of the article):

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100824/
__________________
Judah is offline  
Old 03-15-2005, 04:45 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,508
Local Time: 11:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep

speedracer

all childless hetero couples do not fit your definition of "marriage"

and the state should not recognize their unions.
Come on. Lots of couples don't "plan" to have kids, they just happen. Childless couples keep their benefits because it's generally expected that they'll eventually have kids.

Yeah, I know this reply is horribly incomplete, but I want to get to the next statement:

Quote:

If you are an honest person?
.
No, I am not an honest person. Depending on what the phase of the moon is at the time you ask me, I support either civil unions or gay marriage. I just think that the issue is often argued very poorly. This thread in particular had turned into an echo chamber that desperately needed a gong.

Edit: This previous paragraph seems quite condescending. I apologize. I do maintain that these sorts of arguments often descend into demeaning caricaturizing (is that a word?) that obscure the salient issues and arguments.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 03-15-2005, 04:49 PM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,763
Local Time: 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer
No, I am not an honest person. Depending on what the phase of the moon is at the time you ask me, I support either civil unions or gay marriage. I just think that the issue is often argued very poorly. This thread in particular had turned into an echo chamber that desperately needed a gong.
I pretty much assumed this was your position from the start, so I tried to stick to the issues (although this issue above all makes me start becoming a bit more irrationally angry).

I think, as a society, we need to stop passing laws based on the "ick" factor and according to religious precepts. After all, we're trying to foster secular democracies in the Middle East supposedly, and, yet, we're hardly setting an example. Whatever happened to "freedom of religion"?

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-15-2005, 04:52 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,508
Local Time: 11:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Judah



Sorry, i haven't read this ruling yet (just the news reports), but shouldn't the judge's judgement be, uh, judged on how he answers the questions posed to him...the case in front of him? And it seems the question was the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage in California, not to decide whether gay marriage is good or bad for society. (I guess the point the Judge made was that living up to the ultimate rule of law -- the constitution -- is good for society.)
Well, yes, the judge answered the question about the constitutionality of the ban on gay marriage. However, he defined it in a way that will have all the legal repercussions I have talked about if it is to be taken as a serious precedent.

My meta-argument that it is best to argue for gay marriage on its merits and not on an equal-protection footing is a separate matter.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 03-15-2005, 05:09 PM   #25
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 38,362
Local Time: 10:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer


Childless couples keep their benefits because it's generally expected that they'll eventually have kids.

So my grandmother who remarried at 60 is expected that she'll have kids? I better tell her, she's 83 now, and has had any yet.

The shit's getting thick in here.

If this is your plan than why not only give benefits to those who actually have kids?

It's all bullshit.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 03-15-2005, 05:29 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,508
Local Time: 11:11 AM
Back to devil's advocate mode.

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

So my grandmother who remarried at 60 is expected that she'll have kids? I better tell her, she's 83 now, and has had any yet.
I think you glossed over the word "generally". Anyway, your grandmother theoretically still relates to the children from her first marriage.

If one takes the standpoint that marriage is supposed to reward the creation of families, then awarding marriage to childless couples isn't an injustice; it just means that couples who do not have children are getting some fringe benefits.

Quote:

If this is your plan than why not only give benefits to those who actually have kids?
One could do that, yes.

Quote:

It's all bullshit.
The existence of some legal inconsistencies doesn't negate the fact that lots of people see marriage as a family-building institution.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 03-15-2005, 05:38 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,318
Local Time: 08:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer


Come on. Lots of couples don't "plan" to have kids, they just happen. Childless couples keep their benefits because it's generally expected that they'll eventually have kids.

Yeah, I know this reply is horribly incomplete, but I want to get to the next statement:



No, I am not an honest person. Depending on what the phase of the moon is at the time you ask me, I support either civil unions or gay marriage. I just think that the issue is often argued very poorly. This thread in particular had turned into an echo chamber that desperately needed a gong.
sorry,


I could have phrased that better.

I should have asked
if you would be consistent in your argument
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-15-2005, 05:40 PM   #28
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 38,362
Local Time: 10:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer

I think you glossed over the word "generally". Anyway, your grandmother theoretically still relates to the children from her first marriage.
You don't make laws on "generally"

If you use then theory. Then she shouldn't be allowed to remarry.



Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer

If one takes the standpoint that marriage is supposed to reward the creation of families, then awarding marriage to childless couples isn't an injustice; it just means that couples who do not have children are getting some fringe benefits.

How does this make sense?

Why doesn't this expand to homosexuals? Your logic is extremely flawed and I think you see that hence the "devils advocate" disclaimer.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 03-15-2005, 06:10 PM   #29
Blue Crack Supplier
 
dazzledbylight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: in the sound dancing - w Bono & Edge :D
Posts: 32,546
Local Time: 11:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


speedracer

all childless hetero couples do not fit your definition of "marriage"

and the state should not recognize their unions.

If you are an honest person?
.
Deep,

I was making the same question/point to A Wander in DMA's "ask the..." thread. Where he was talking about gay marriages not fullfill the marriage model.

And at the point in my life when I still had the stronger thought about being married, but at the same time i knew from a quite young age that I didn't ant to have children....I could have ended up in the 'married without chidren willingly hetero-couple' catagory.

And if I still had practiced Christianity then, I would have wanted the sanctification of a religious marriage.

And I [unlike when i was in my early teens] see no reason to prevent loving gay,or lesbian couples {for those who would treasure it} from experiencing/being enveloped in that kind of deeply satisfying/centering sanctifying ritual.

Just to be clear, I'm not 'knocking' the Christian marriage ritual- should anyone think I am [this all such sensitive issues]. If i ever do get married, I'd ant to have some manner of spiritual acknowldgement/sanctification of it. It just wouldn't be a Christian ceremony.

Everyone has rituals. It's just that when you are so steeped in your own culture's , they are as breathing the air itself, so often anyting difference can be unsettling or worse to some people observing the differences.

which slides into[was it you Melon]the other quite big obsticles to more equality in Humankind-- about [besides homophobia] rascism & mysogynism.

DMA - consider that since traditional christianity is the faith of at least till more reccent years the dominant faith in AMerica.....that tradition as ayou mentioned...it IS like breathing. So they weren't coming from 'outside' to imopse their beleifs. It's the "WAY things ARE'/ have been from "thre inside" for so long.

That unfortuanety can take time to change. That change varies from person to person, institutions to institution. Which at least if laws can be put on the books, then Enforced and properly Funded to BE enforced- then things start to move, qhile e try to change m more peoples minds so that those 'isms' have less & less power over time.

Unfortunaely these 'isms' are still 'like breathing' - it 'just IS' for a lot of people. It's hard to begin to understand it as a social construction that can be changed......if you truely believe in a much more, equitable society. At least my not-so-humble opinion.

good stuff irvine, melon, DMA & deep.
__________________
dazzledbylight is offline  
Old 03-15-2005, 06:22 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,508
Local Time: 11:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

You don't make laws on "generally"
I can think of several other examples, but I wish to stick to the argument at hand.

Quote:

How does this make sense?

Why doesn't this expand to homosexuals? Your logic is extremely flawed and I think you see that hence the "devils advocate" disclaimer.
Homosexual couples aren't capable of having their own children.
Heterosexual couples are capable of having their own children, and it's more trouble than it's worth to weed out the couples who aren't able to have kids/don't plan to have kids/shouldn't have kids because their reproductive cells are horribly mutated/etc.

Going back to what I really believe, I realize that there are other benefits to marriage that center around the couple itself. Therefore, I support civil unions at a minimum.
__________________

__________________
speedracer 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 11:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com