equality blooms with spring - Page 62 - 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 11-14-2009, 04:38 PM   #916
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 10:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
FDR and JFK are remembered for their rather cowardly records on civil rights.
In grade school, I don't recall hearing anything negative about these two president's at all.

As a college student taking history - of all the knocks against FDR, I usually heard more about his handling of the Depression and the delayed entry into WWII. The negatives on JFK were Vietnam escalation and Bay of Pigs (and personal life).

I really have not read or heard too many negative comments about their civil rights track records. If such criticism is around - it doesn't seem to have made it to the top of the list.

And please correct me if I'm wrong - wasn't Clinton also seen as a civil rights president? Didn't people refer to him as the nation's "first black president?"
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 04:42 PM   #917
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 11:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Again, I simply agree with Obama and Clinton that gay marriage is not a marriage because a marriage is between a man and a woman. There can be no protection of something that does not even exist.

If you accept the definition that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman (as I do - along with these Democratic heroes), then that automatically excludes any other possible combination.
Previously you stated that marriage is the union of a man and woman, ordained by God. Does that mean that, in your opinion, civil marriages are not actual marriages? I'm sure you know that the government recognizes and gives full benefits and rights to marriages that are not officiated by clergy or ordained ministers. Heck, in California (and I'm sure several other states), you can have family members or friends deputized for a day in order to legally officiate your wedding. So it seems pretty clear that God does not have to enter the picture in order to legitimize a wedding, at least in the eyes of the government.

So if God doesn't enter the picture for government recognition and application of rights and benefits, why should gays not be allowed to gain those same rights and benefits, and even title? Does it really boil down to "well, that's not what the definition of marriage is?" Because I find that a truly baffling position to take, especially coming from someone as intelligent as you, AEON.

I guess what I'm trying to wrap my head around, and would love for you to articulate more is precisely why this change would be unacceptable to you. It must be more than just trying to prevent a minor change in the words used to define it. Only a relatively short while ago in our own Western culture marriage out of love was hardly the prevailing notion. And yet our culturally accepted definition of marriage changed as times did.

What ill or harm to society are you trying to prevent here?
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 04:43 PM   #918
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 10:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
How much time needs to pass before you will be able to determine something?
I am not trying to determine anything here. Anitram used these countries as examples - and I'm saying those examples are not yet valid.

If you are asking when I would accept these as valid examples - I would think it would take a generation or two.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 04:43 PM   #919
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 09:42 AM
AEON, you're the only one here who keeps holding up Clinton and Obama has "heroes" of the left. Everyone else here who supports full Constitutional rights for gays and lesbians has repeatedly expressed their unhappiness with and disdain for these two men in this area. One would think that either you weren't paying attention, or that your only argument for your position rested entirely on Clinton's and Obama's support for your position.

So, now, instead of addressing people's legitimate questions and counter-arguments, you're discussing the relative merits of dead presidents. It's a fascinating topic, of course, but I think it's one that you can too easily hide behind.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 04:46 PM   #920
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 11:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
In grade school, I don't recall hearing anything negative about these two president's all.

As a college student taking history - of all the knocks against FDR, I usually heard more about his handling of the Depression and the delayed entry into WWII. The negatives on JFK were Vietnam escalation and Bay of Pigs (and personal life).

I really have not read or heard too many negative comments about their civil rights track records. If such criticism is around - it doesn't seem to have made it to the top of the list.
You're right, I don't think text books will touch upon these types of issues, even at the college level, but most of the docs I've seen on History Channel or any book that goes deeper into their lives definately touches upon these aspects. I'm sure the same will go for Bush and Obama. I think the text book version of his legacy will be somewhat positive, but in depth looks will more than likely not...

But I think overall the social conservative movement, the loud voices will make the text books and not in a favorable way.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 04:52 PM   #921
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 10:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
AEON, you're the only one here who keeps holding up Clinton and Obama has "heroes" of the left. Everyone else here who supports full Constitutional rights for gays and lesbians has repeatedly expressed their unhappiness with and disdain for these two men in this area. One would think that either you weren't paying attention, or that your only argument for your position rested entirely on Clinton's and Obama's support for your position.
The reason I use Clinton and Obama as examples is to illustrate that 1) opposition to gay marriage is more "mainstream" than you are leading people to believe, 2) that this opposition cannot be disregarded as some "right wing conspiracy" when someone as liberal as Barack Obama also opposes it, and 3) they are two men known for championing civil rights - the fact that they have not championed gay marriage indicates that even these two liberal leaders do not consider this a civil rights issue.

I believe it is important that people realize that opposition to gay marriage runs across party and ideological lines. To paint those in here that oppose gay marriage as dishonorable, mean spirited, bigots - is to also paint the current face of American liberalism with the same brush.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 05:08 PM   #922
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 11:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
The reason I use Clinton and Obama as examples is to illustrate that 1) opposition to gay marriage is more "mainstream" than you are leading people to believe, 2) that this opposition cannot be disregarded as some "right wing conspiracy" when someone as liberal as Barack Obama also opposes it, and 3) they are two men known for championing civil rights - the fact that they have not championed gay marriage indicates that even these two liberal leaders do not consider this a civil rights issue.

I believe it is important that people realize that opposition to gay marriage runs across party and ideological lines. To paint those in here that oppose gay marriage as dishonorable, mean spirited, bigots - is to also paint the current face of American liberalism with the same brush.
To be completely honest, I think this is a slightly naive stance.

I wouldn't be suprised if Clinton and Obama truly had a much more liberal stance on this in their hearts, but they know they would lose voters. Just like I would venture to say that many Republicans deep down are probably not as pro-life across the board as some may seem(I think if they were they would try harder to actually do something about it rather than it just be a platform stance), I'm sure some would support it in certain cases. This, unfortunately is the ugly side of politics.

I know a lot of Republicans that support gay marriage, in fact they pretty much hate their party's stance on most social issues and they think the ultra right social conservatives are a bunch of yahoos that ruined their party, but they don't vote on social issues. Just like I know there are a few Democrats that are either on the fence or don't support gay marriage.

I don't paint those that are against gay marriage as bigots. I think most are ignorant, and I honestly believe that term can be used in a non-mean spirited way, and then there are many that are indeed bigots. I think the ignorant are those that have really trully given much thought to why they are against it but that the change scares them, I know of at least two conservatives that have fit into that category and have changed their stance since posting in FYM. I think the very vocal ones that have had their arguments shut down time and time again and cannot be honest as to why they truly are against gay marriage are the ones that history will judge.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 05:19 PM   #923
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Again, I simply agree with Obama and Clinton that gay marriage is not a marriage because a marriage is between a man and a woman.



really?

Quote:
Bill Clinton Backs Same-Sex Marriage
By Michael Tracey

July 14, 2009


Bill Clinton Backs Same-Sex Marriage


Michael Tracey: The former president's reversal is the highest-profile one to date. It may also have political implications for the future of the Defense of Marriage Act.

After speaking at the Campus Progress National Conference in Washington, DC, on July 8, the former president was asked if he supported same-sex marriage. Clinton, in a departure from past statements, replied in the affirmative.

Clinton opposed same-sex marriage during his presidency, and in 1996, he signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which limited federal recognition of marriage to one man and one woman. In May of this year, Clinton told a crowd at Toronto's Convention Centre that his position on same-sex marriage was "evolving."

Apparently, Clinton's thinking has now further evolved. Asked if he would commit his support for same-sex marriage, Clinton responded, "I'm basically in support."

This spring, same-sex marriage was legalized in Iowa, Vermont, Connecticut, Maine and New Hampshire. In his most recent remarks on the subject, Clinton said, "I think all these states that do it should do it." The former president, however, added that he does not believe that same-sex marriage is "a federal question."

Asked if he personally supported same-sex marriage, Clinton replied, "Yeah." "I personally support people doing what they want to do," Clinton said. "I think it's wrong for someone to stop someone else from doing that [same-sex marriage]."

The former president joins a string of prominent Democrats who have recently switched their position on the issue, including former Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean, New York Senator Charles E. Schumer, New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine and Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd.

"Bill Clinton joins other important public figures in stepping solidly into the twenty-first century in support of same-sex marriage equality," said the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's executive director Rea Carey. "We certainly hope other elected officials, including President Obama, join him in clearly stating their support for equality in this country. Same-sex couples should not have to experience second-class citizenship."

Clinton's reversal is the highest-profile one to date. It may also have political implications for the future of the Defense of Marriage Act. President Obama has pledged to repeal the law, but in June, the Justice Department filed a brief in federal court defending the law's constitutionality.

A recent Gallup poll found that a majority of Democrats favor same-sex marriage.

Print: Bill Clinton Backs Same-Sex Marriage
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 05:24 PM   #924
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 10:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
really?
Well, I guess you changed his mind...

Now I only have Barack Obama in my corner (oh my). Is he ignorant or willfully intolerant?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 05:25 PM   #925
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
To paint those in here that oppose gay marriage as dishonorable, mean spirited, bigots - is to also paint the current face of American liberalism with the same brush.


the following people are allowed to marry:

1. atheists
2. a man and a woman of any age difference so long as they are able to consent
3. agnostics/the irreligious
4. people who are infertile
5. post-menopausal women
6. people who never plan to have children

so, tell me, what can an opposite-sex couple do that a same-sex couple cannot do? it seems that "ordained by god" is entirely moot, since there's no religious requirement to getting married, nor are people required to have children in order to get married.

please tell me why opposing genitalia is so critical to civil marriage.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 05:27 PM   #926
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Well, I guess you changed his mind...

Now I only have Barack Obama in my corner (oh my). Is he ignorant or willfully intolerant?


my guess is that if Obama sails to a 2nd term, which seems likely if the economy continues to approve (a big *if* though, anything can happen), we'll see more progress in his 2nd term.

it's also understood that DADT is likely going to be removed as part of the 2011 defense appropriations bill.

every last poll shows that the younger you go, the more people are in support of marriage equality. why do you think the kids feel this way? are they wrong?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 05:29 PM   #927
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 10:42 AM
Irvine,

Could you please offer YOUR definition of marriage? We know from above posts that BVS would potentially support group marriages between financially independent 16 years olds - I'm curious what your definition is and why the nation should accept your definition over the one currently in place.

And Martha, what is your definition?

And Melon? Yours? Diemen? A_Wanderer?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 05:36 PM   #928
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Irvine,

Could you please offer YOUR definition of marriage?


two consenting adults who wish to commit their lives to one another.

i'd like to ask you -- the definition of "a man and a woman" is what has risen up in response to same-sex marriage. that law has not been on the books for decades. it is something that has been added in order to specifically bar gay people from access to the special rights and privileges of marriage.

that language is an active assault on gay people and their families.

i want to know why that distinction -- which serves only to exclude gay people -- is so critical to marriage. i want to know what will happen to marriage if gay people are allowed to get married.

you realize you are free to teach your children that marriage is only between a man and a woman and that the only real marriages are those performed by your church. and if your son is gay and he gets married to another man in the state of CA you can look him in the eye and tell him that his marriage isn't real and isn't ordained by god.

you are free to do that.

but why do you need to bar gay people -- around 5% of the population -- from marriage? what good is accomplished by this?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 05:40 PM   #929
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 09:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
And Martha, what is your definition?

Two non-related, mentally competent adults who love each other and are willing to enter into the commitment that makes a marriage.

And, no, AEON, I'm not going to travel down your ludicrous path and answer questions about children, animals, or any other stupid dodge you can think up.

You tell me why my definition is inferior to yours.

And then tell me one more time why you get to decide Irvine and Memphis can't get married.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 05:54 PM   #930
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 11:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post

Could you please offer YOUR definition of marriage? We know from above posts that BVS would potentially support group marriages between financially independent 16 years olds -
You know what, this is cheap and a purposeful perversion of my words, and you are quite aware of this. And as tactful as you often try to come off as, it's this passive agressiveness that makes it hard to take that sincere sometimes. For this was not my definition of marriage.

As the definition stands now, 16 year olds can get married under certain circumstances, and in many cultures including many stories in the Bible this age was quite appropriate.

And as I've said before, I DO NOT THINK it is possible to creat a legal union of group marriages where it's truly consentual therefore not equal, unfair, and not something I would support. But yes I could be wrong and if such a way was possible I would support it, that is the difference between you and I, an open mind and the willingness to know that I do not have all the absolutes.

As it stands now my definition is the union between two consenting adults. It's not that difficult.
__________________

__________________
BVS 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 12:42 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