can we please, please call this argument settled? - Page 3 - 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 03-15-2005, 08:15 PM   #31
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,255
Local Time: 08:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
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
Thank. You. I don't need to say any more, for you've got it all covered .

Angela
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 03-15-2005, 08:25 PM   #32
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 01:16 PM
I've only skimmed the last half of this thread, so ignore this as rambling if you've all already gone over it. But what has family building got to do with the gay marriage argument? Gay couples wont produce families in the way heteros will. By either denying or allowing these marriages does not make one scrap of difference to this religious and moral family building rhetoric that is spewed hatefully as a reason for banning it. Same sex couples who wish to start a family need to go about acquiring their family through other means. Any gay person who wants kids, wont turn to heterosexual marriage to acquire that. It thus, wont damage any existing notion of marriage and family values because homosexuality is not going to disappear by removing rights.

On another point too, it makes me ill to see people state that those opposed to it are entitled to their opinion. Why should they be entitled to such opinion? Not much can be done to change people's view, but allowing it and murming that it's a right to feel like that, is passive acceptance of hate mongering.
I'm again inclined to start my campaign "Back of the bus for you, homo!"
__________________

__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 03-15-2005, 08:45 PM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,255
Local Time: 08:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
I've only skimmed the last half of this thread, so ignore this as rambling if you've all already gone over it. But what has family building got to do with the gay marriage argument? Gay couples wont produce families in the way heteros will. By either denying or allowing these marriages does not make one scrap of difference to this religious and moral family building rhetoric that is spewed hatefully as a reason for banning it. Same sex couples who wish to start a family need to go about acquiring their family through other means. Any gay person who wants kids, wont turn to heterosexual marriage to acquire that. It thus, wont damage any existing notion of marriage and family values because homosexuality is not going to disappear by removing rights.
Exactly. Besides that, can somebody please tell me what business it is of anyone else's how somebody makes a family or whether they even want a family or whatever? Isn't that something each person must decide on their own, and not society as a whole?

Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
On another point too, it makes me ill to see people state that those opposed to it are entitled to their opinion. Why should they be entitled to such opinion? Not much can be done to change people's view, but allowing it and murming that it's a right to feel like that, is passive acceptance of hate mongering.
I don't agree at all with the opinions of those who are opposed to homosexuality/gay marriage/gay adoption, etc.-I've made that quite clear throughout my time here. But free speech is still something that every person is entitled to have, no matter how offensive their thoughts may be to others, so long as nobody's trying to impose their views on everybody around them. Besides that, by censoring the views of homophobes/racists/sexist people/etc., we're essentially sweeping the issue under the rug and acting like those thoughts don't exist. That doesn't solve the problem-all it does is make those who hold those views angrier, and makes them move to more extreme measures to have their opinion heard, no matter how violent those measures may be. The only way we can deal with prejudice and ignorance in this world is by confronting it head on, and that means hearing out those who hold those kinds of views.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 03-15-2005, 08:47 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 09:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
I've only skimmed the last half of this thread, so ignore this as rambling if you've all already gone over it. But what has family building got to do with the gay marriage argument? Gay couples wont produce families in the way heteros will. By either denying or allowing these marriages does not make one scrap of difference to this religious and moral family building rhetoric that is spewed hatefully as a reason for banning it. Same sex couples who wish to start a family need to go about acquiring their family through other means. Any gay person who wants kids, wont turn to heterosexual marriage to acquire that. It thus, wont damage any existing notion of marriage and family values because homosexuality is not going to disappear by removing rights.
If you do bring kids into a gay marriage, then the question becomes: can a state make laws conferring a special status on a family with one mother and one father? Seems to me that if it is constitutional for the state to distinguish between a two-parent household and a one-parent household, it is also constitutional for the state to distinguish between a mom-and-dad household and a household with two moms.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 03-15-2005, 08:48 PM   #35
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer
If you do bring kids into a gay marriage, then the question becomes: can a state make laws conferring a special status on a family with one mother and one father? Seems to me that if it is constitutional for the state to distinguish between a two-parent household and a one-parent household, it is also constitutional for the state to distinguish between a mom-and-dad household and a household with two moms.
"L'état, c'est moi." Or, at least, I wish I could say that.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-15-2005, 08:50 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 09:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


"L'état, c'est moi." Or, at least, I wish I could say that.

Melon
Touche.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 03-15-2005, 09:55 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BrownEyedBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Pedro Sula, Honduras
Posts: 3,510
Local Time: 08:16 PM
I'll support this for the sake of having less threads about this over and over.
__________________
BrownEyedBoy is offline  
Old 03-16-2005, 04:54 AM   #38
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,331
Local Time: 06:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer
Childless couples keep their benefits because it's generally expected that they'll eventually have kids.
I got married to a man, and I never ever ever intended to have children. I can't now, due to organ removal. Do I lose my benefits retroactively?

In your world, do I have to sign documents stating my intention to either have children and get married or not have children and only have a civil union?
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 03-16-2005, 05:39 AM   #39
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 02:16 AM
No argument from here irvine.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 03-16-2005, 05:56 AM   #40
Anu
Editor
 
Anu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: There ain't no place I'd rather be, baby won't you carry me back to Tennessee
Posts: 1,695
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Looking over old arguments, essays, blogs, and books, I'm so pleased to connect with how tolerant and progressive U2 have been on the issue of gay lib.
It's a sad day when the word "activist" has come to have such pejorative connotations, especially when the right-wing pundits creating this bogus paradigm are themselves brilliant activists.
long live the art of doublespeak,
Anu
__________________
Stand up to rock stars!
Anu is offline  
Old 03-16-2005, 06:36 AM   #41
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 09:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer
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.

sorry, this holds no water.

lesbians can have their "own" children -- a woman can be artificiall inseminated, give birth to her "own" child, and the partner can then adopt that child making him/her "theirs." some gay men are now finding surrogate mothers. there is no biological difference between these relationships, where a child has two parents but is only biologically related to one, and a heterosexual 2nd marriage.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-16-2005, 11:17 AM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,428
Local Time: 02:16 AM
A dissenting perspective from the Boston Globe....

Marriage newspeak

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | March 13, 2005

BACK IN 2003, a few days after the highest court in Massachusetts unveiled a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, I ventured a prediction.

''Sooner than you think, it will become improper to speak of unique sex roles in family life," I wrote. ''The meanings and status associated with words like 'husband' and 'wife' will be erased from the law; most likely, the words themselves will be replaced in statutes with the unisex 'spouse,' just as 'father' and 'mother' will give way to 'parent.' "

The changes soon began. Massachusetts rolled out a new marriage license shorn of any reference to bride and groom. Couples getting married were now to be officially identified as ''Party A" and ''Party B." The department of public health has proposed a similar rewrite of the state's birth certificate, replacing ''mother" and ''father" with ''Parent A" and ''Parent B."

Meanwhile, others have gone far beyond Massachusetts in embracing the brave new world of unisex marriage. Last month, lawmakers in Ontario enacted Bill 171, stripping the statute books of all references to gender in connection with marriage. No longer do Ontario's laws use words and phrases like ''husband," ''wife," ''widow," ''widower," or ''persons of the opposite sex." And it is not just family and marriage laws that have been de-sexed. Bill 171 eliminates the traditional language of matrimony from more than 70 provincial statutes, including the Gasoline Tax Act and the Public Libraries Act.

What is underway here is not simply a tweaking of legal terminology. The crusade for same-sex marriage has never been aimed merely at adjusting the familiar boundaries of married life to make it more inclusive. The real target is the significance of marriage itself -- the idea, fundamental to human happiness and all successful societies, that the purpose of marriage is to bring men and women together for their mutual welfare and for the protection and well-being of any children they create or adopt. It is that deeply ingrained belief that the marriage radicals are determined to do away with. One purpose of the official marriage newspeak is to make such thoughts increasingly unthinkable.

Already it is becoming hazardous to speak of marriage as an opposite-sex institution or to suggest that one of its core functions is to provide children with fathers and mothers. Just ask actress Jada Pinkett Smith or Governor Romney.

When Pinkett Smith received an award at Harvard two weeks ago, she used her acceptance remarks to splash cold water on the idea that family obligations can make it difficult for married women to reach the top of the career ladder -- a hypothesis recently voiced by the university's president, Lawrence Summers.

''Women," Pinkett Smith told the audience, ''you can have it all -- a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career. They say you gotta choose. Nah, nah, nah. We are a new generation of women. We got to set a new standard of rules around here. You can do whatever it is you want."

That was all it took to arouse the wrath of Harvard's Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance. It denounced Will Smith's wife for her ''extremely heteronormative" comments, which ''made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable." The group demanded -- and received -- an apology. And those who brought Pinkett Smith to campus will now undergo reeducation: The Harvard Crimson reports that the Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations is working with the BGLTSA ''to increase sensitivity toward issues of sexuality." Translation: There will be no more talk of loving men or devoted husbands at Harvard. At least not from married women.

Romney's offense against the new marital correctness was more serious. In a couple of speeches to Republican groups out of state, he condemned same-sex marriage on the grounds that ''every child has the right to have a mother and a father."

The words were hardly out of his mouth before protesters were at his State House office, blasting him as ''mean-spirited." Editorial writers launched an attack on his ''ignorance" and ''mean-spirited politics." In the Berkshire Eagle, one columnist slammed his statement of the obvious -- that every child deserves a mom and a dad -- as ''really disturbing" and the brainless ''fuzzy stuff of 1940s movies." He was accused elsewhere of succumbing to the kind of thinking that once barred blacks from white lunch counters.

This is just the start. The assault is not going to let up until the heteronormative deviants among us have been silenced. You think the marriage radicals have gone too far? You ain't seen nothin' yet.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 03-16-2005, 12:02 PM   #43
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 09:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977
A dissenting perspective from the Boston Globe....

Marriage newspeak

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | March 13, 2005

BACK IN 2003, a few days after the highest court in Massachusetts unveiled a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, I ventured a prediction.

''Sooner than you think, it will become improper to speak of unique sex roles in family life," I wrote. ''The meanings and status associated with words like 'husband' and 'wife' will be erased from the law; most likely, the words themselves will be replaced in statutes with the unisex 'spouse,' just as 'father' and 'mother' will give way to 'parent.' "

[...]

What is underway here is not simply a tweaking of legal terminology. The crusade for same-sex marriage has never been aimed merely at adjusting the familiar boundaries of married life to make it more inclusive. The real target is the significance of marriage itself -- the idea, fundamental to human happiness and all successful societies, that the purpose of marriage is to bring men and women together for their mutual welfare and for the protection and well-being of any children they create or adopt. It is that deeply ingrained belief that the marriage radicals are determined to do away with. One purpose of the official marriage newspeak is to make such thoughts increasingly unthinkable.

[...]

The words were hardly out of his mouth before protesters were at his State House office, blasting him as ''mean-spirited." Editorial writers launched an attack on his ''ignorance" and ''mean-spirited politics." In the Berkshire Eagle, one columnist slammed his statement of the obvious -- that every child deserves a mom and a dad -- as ''really disturbing" and the brainless ''fuzzy stuff of 1940s movies." He was accused elsewhere of succumbing to the kind of thinking that once barred blacks from white lunch counters.



fucking. bullshit.

first, can you tell me what, in this day and age, are the exclusive, male-only husbandly duties in a marriage? and are the exclusive, female-only wifely duties in a marriage? other than the actual birthing of a child, and breast-feeding (something which many married women choose not to do), what, pray tell, is there in the institution of marriage that requires opposite genders? what are these unique sex roles other than merely misogynistic disguises that have been used for years to tell women what they can and cannot do, and men what they can and cannot do.

he also doesn't seem to think that gay people can adopt, or have biologically related children, and that child-rearing is the exclusive province of the heterosexual. THIS DRIVES ME ABSOLUTELY CRAZY. i will show you 10 homosexuals who will make better parents than 99% of the heterosexuals out there. should we deny children the right to great parents simply because they are gay? are a bad mother and father better than two good gay dads? does this so-called "right" to opposite-gendered parents trump the far more basic "right" for a child to have *good* parents?

please, please, please -- marriage is much, much, much more than about raising children. is a healthy marriage the ideal place to raise children? probably. is it the only place to raise children? of course not. do all healthy marriages produce children? no. Jeff Jacoby -- who used to write for the Hartford Current, and i thought he was an idiot even then -- has an a priori definition of marriage that he simply assumes to be the correct one, and posits it as if it were uncontestable truth.

ugh. he's probably not even worth my time, or my rant, but i've written it out so i'll post it anyway.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-16-2005, 01:34 PM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,428
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

first, can you tell me what, in this day and age, are the exclusive, male-only husbandly duties in a marriage? and are the exclusive, female-only wifely duties in a marriage? other than the actual birthing of a child, and breast-feeding (something which many married women choose not to do), what, pray tell, is there in the institution of marriage that requires opposite genders? what are these unique sex roles other than merely misogynistic disguises that have been used for years to tell women what they can and cannot do, and men what they can and cannot do.
"Mysogynistic disguises"... doesn't sound that far from those who refer to marriage simply as legalized rape. In a way this seems to prove Jacoby's point that part of this whole conversation is about refusing to recognize the very differences that define us as men and women in the first place.

It's interesting to me that gay activists seem to use the "I'm made this way/I can't change it" argument when defending homosexuality, but seem to argue the reverse when it comes to the conversation of sexuality and marriage. If you want to argue that you're genetically a certain way, that's fine -- but isn't part of the point of this argument that you can't change, that you are a certain way and can't help it, which automatically moves you into a predetermined process? So why wouldn't it be any different when the conversation turns to the differences between male and female? (Arguably an even more important distinction than sexual orientation/preference.)

The way you are means certain things, and it seems to me that rebelling against the genetic programming (or intelligent design, depending on your choice of martini) that defines men and women as such, and which further defines fathers and mothers, is pointless. Men and women ARE different creatures -- biologically, emotionally, etc. They are, they have been since the dawn of time, and to rail against it seems to be pissing into the wind.

I'll share my take on the uniquely husbandly duties in a marriage, but it would be from a faith-based perspective that has previously been disregarded elsewhere on this message board. (Too much heteronormativity.) However, as the Judeo-Christian perspective is one that has defined Western civilization, I'll post it anyway...

"Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her...feed(ing) and car(ing) for her, just as Christ does the church"

Bang. A specific call for husbands. Gender-specific, not one mirrored in the words for wives, but central to the marriage relationship. If the marriage relationship was designed by God to illustrate His relationship with us, then you can't separate out gender identifications, because God is the very One throughout the Bible -- New and Old Testament (the book of Hosea comes to mind) Who draws those lines in the first place.

When I was getting married, my mentor told me, "The best way to be a good father is to be a good husband." My children will watch me and my habits and learn and replicate them...for better or worse. Hopefully, they will learn how women should be treated, they will learn how love and affection are shown, they will learn what love is. Moreover, many of us on this board can probably pinpoint the strengths and failures of our fathers, and how they've impacted us. There is something unique and specific that children learn about the world from they interact with their fathers....again, for better or worse. There's a reason scripture talks about how the sins of the father are passed down to the third and fourth generations.... I know that it's true that much of my father's brokenness is my own. Why else do the sons of deadbeat dads often turn into deadbeat dads themselves? (A unique but growing reality, particularly in the inner city.)

Additionally, women who adopt lament that they do not have the same connection with their children that birth mothers do with theirs. There is something unique that happens between a woman and her child in pregnancy and birth -- a connection forged -- that cannot be denied. It is true of my wife and our baby. Does it mean that my friends who have adopted (from places as far and wide as the Philippines, Russia, and Korea) are somehow second-class parents? Of course not -- the love for their children is amazing, particularly since they had to sacrifice economically up front for their children. But there is something special and unique in the biological process of birthing a child that happens... something that cannot be denied.

Quote:

he also doesn't seem to think that gay people can adopt, or have biologically related children, and that child-rearing is the exclusive province of the heterosexual. THIS DRIVES ME ABSOLUTELY CRAZY. i will show you 10 homosexuals who will make better parents than 99% of the heterosexuals out there. should we deny children the right to great parents simply because they are gay? are a bad mother and father better than two good gay dads? does this so-called "right" to opposite-gendered parents trump the far more basic "right" for a child to have *good* parents? please, please, please -- marriage is much, much, much more than about raising children. is a healthy marriage the ideal place to raise children? probably.
I'll take your "10 vs. 99%" comment as hyperbole and leave it there, though I have yet to see studies indicating that two gay dads are the optimal, or even preferable, solution when placed in comparison with a home where there is a mother and father who love each other. Additionally, by far the majority of all homes with children -- 83% -- have a mother and a father, according to recent reports. This seems to quash your numbers -- it makes me think that the majority of parents love their kids and are working hard to take care of them.

I think it is critical that children be given the best place possible to live, develop and grow. You yourself admit that a healthy marriage is "probably" the ideal place to raise children. What happened to promoting the ideal, instead of settling for something less than that?

I don't think Jacoby is saying that gay parents *can't* parent. It comes down to a question of what is *best.* I think we would do better as a society to focus on promoting the ideal. There are hundreds of thousands of husbands and wives out there desperate to be parents who either A) can't afford the thousands and thousands of dollars it takes to adopt or B) get lost in the process somewhere. The government doesn't seem to be helping them -- instead they being forced to respond to a small but vocal minority that is demanding equal access, one which refuses to acknowledge that the very children they profess to care about would be better off in homes with loving husbands and wives. And instead of being able to affirm that condition, the government are being lobbied to adjust their language to eliminate the acknowledgement of this very fact -- to acknowledge men and women, mothers and fathers, husbands and wives. And to what end?

I'm not trying to piss you off, Irvine...I just don't think this argument can be considered closed.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 03-16-2005, 01:52 PM   #45
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nathan1977
I think we would do better as a society to focus on promoting the ideal.
Two loving parents. Period. And so what are you going to do for those who don't get the ideal? Shall we set up a concentration camp for single mothers, divorcées, step-parents, day care center owners, nannies / au-pairs, and gay parents, because they don't "fit the ideal"?

Bible-schmible. While people can have their heads in the clouds, let's wake up to reality. And the reality is that heteros don't automatically make good parents. And there are great single mothers, divorce happens, step-parents are often better than the biological parents, day care centers fill a need, same with nannies / au-pairs, and gay parents are equally capable of being great parents.

"Ozzie and Harriet" was a goddamn fictional TV show.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon 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 09:16 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