equality blooms with spring, pt. II - Page 10 - 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 11-16-2009, 03:28 PM   #136
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
You're trying to make marriage into an exclusive, religion-only activity. I mean, this is stiflingly stupid. I actually can't believe it.
Before you identify something as as "siflingly stupid" you might want to consider re-reading the post.

Perhaps you missed this part...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON
...or any secular group wishing to perform marriages are free to do so
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-16-2009, 03:59 PM   #137
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Anything that challenges the hegemony of the ruling group is suspect.
Is this a univeral law? (something that always, or almost always, happens)

If it is, would the next "ruling group" be less defensive to the challenges of its hegemony? Or is it your hope the next "ruling group" would be so enlightened that it would freely surrender its hegemony once it achieves it?
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-16-2009, 04:27 PM   #138
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:45 PM
i feel confident that we've successfully demonstrated that there's no logical reason to bar gay people from the institution of civil marriage. either we have to turn to universal laws given to us from a supernatural source thousands of years ago, or we have to abandon the thing altogether.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-16-2009, 04:31 PM   #139
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post

Where have I called for the eradication of marriage? Religious organizations or any secular group wishing to perform marriages are free to do so.
So basically if your church decided it would marry two women you would be ok with that? Since now there is no governing body deciding if a marriage is legal or not, then you've pretty much opened it up to anyone...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 11-16-2009, 04:37 PM   #140
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:45 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Why won't you answer the question?

If people can get married and not have children, why is a vagina so important for marriage?
It's the model that God set.
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 11-16-2009, 04:39 PM   #141
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
It's the model that God set.
We do not live in a theocracy.

Next.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 11-16-2009, 04:42 PM   #142
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,296
Local Time: 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamond View Post
It's the model that God set.
Which God?
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 11-16-2009, 04:49 PM   #143
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Which God?

this one?

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-16-2009, 04:55 PM   #144
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
So basically if your church decided it would marry two women you would be ok with that?
There are a great many "churches" one can belong to. Some would permit same sex marriages - others would not. I do not align myself with any church over any single issue, but a host of issues. I currently attend/belong to a "non-denominational" church that teaches an interpretation of the Bible that does not support homosexual marriages. Should they decide to teach a different interpretation of the Bible , I would be skeptical - but open. I would react the same way with any "change" in interpretation.

Quote:
Since now there is no governing body deciding if a marriage is legal or not, then you've pretty much opened it up to anyone...
Sure. Why not? Have at it. I just advocate that the state has nothing to do with it.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-16-2009, 04:59 PM   #145
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
There are a great many "churches" one can belong to. Some would permit same sex marriages - others would not. I do not align myself with any church over any single issue, but a host of issues. I currently attend/belong to a "non-denominational" church that teaches an interpretation of the Bible that does not support homosexual marriages. Should they decide to teach a different interpretation of the Bible , I would be skeptical - but open. I would react the same way with any "change" in interpretation.

Sure. Why not? Have at it. I just advocate that the state has nothing to do with it.
So now all those reasons you had in the past about changing definitions, changing it's meaning, keeping the sanctity are all thrown out the window?

So none of that really mattered to you?

True colors...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 11-16-2009, 04:59 PM   #146
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
That is an unfortunate picture. It is unfortunate because 1) children are involved, and 2) it is not the theology of a God most of us believe in - across the denominations.

It would also be very sad if it is a forgery for the purpose of propaganda to incite hatred against Christians.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-16-2009, 05:00 PM   #147
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Before you identify something as as "siflingly stupid" you might want to consider re-reading the post.

Perhaps you missed this part...
Are you just making these up? I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 11-16-2009, 05:04 PM   #148
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
It would also be very sad if it is a forgery for the purpose of propaganda to incite hatred against Christians.


check out the website.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-16-2009, 05:04 PM   #149
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 09:45 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Which God?
Whichever one you can make up

I remember a couple of people asking whether gay marriage has demonstrably damaged societies like Canada and the Netherlands. Are we ever going to get an answer to that?
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 11-16-2009, 05:05 PM   #150
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:45 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
What about it?



Quote:
Home / Globe / Opinion / Op-ed Jeff Jacoby

Wedded to vitriol, backers of gay marriage stumble
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / November 11, 2009
E-mail this article To: Invalid E-mail address Add a personal message80 character limit) Your E-mail: Invalid E-mail address
Sending your articleYour article has been sent. E-mail| Print| Reprints| Yahoo! Buzz| ShareThisText size – + ON ELECTION DAY, voters in Maine repealed a six-month-old state law authorizing same-sex marriage. Maine was the 31st state in which the legal definition of marriage was put to a vote, and the 31st in which voters rejected gay marriage. And once again, the response from many on the losing side was bitter.

Discuss
COMMENTS (602)
“Bigotry trumps compassion,’’ wrote commentator Michael Stone, calling the vote “a shameful display of ignorance, bigotry, and hate.’’ In the Maine Campus, the newspaper of the University of Maine, columnist Samantha Hansen denounced the voters who “let hatred, confusion, misinformation, and ignorance emerge victorious over liberty.’’ When will it occur to supporters of same-sex marriage that they do their cause no good by characterizing those who disagree with them as haters, bigots, and ignorant homophobes? It may be emotionally satisfying to despise as moral cripples the majorities who oppose gay marriage. But after going 0 for 31 - after failing to make the case for same-sex marriage even in such liberal and largely gay-friendly states as California, Wisconsin, Oregon, and now Maine - isn’t it time to stop caricaturing their opponents as the equivalent of Jim Crow-era segregationists? Wouldn’t it make more sense to concede that thoughtful voters can have reasonable concerns about gay marriage, concerns that will not be allayed by describing those voters as contemptible troglodytes?

I oppose same-sex marriage for reasons previous columns have explored. I think it would be reckless to jettison the understanding, as old as civilization itself, that society has a deep interest in promoting families anchored by a married man and woman. It seems to me nonsensical to claim that men and women are utterly interchangeable, or to deny that children are likeliest to thrive when they are raised by both a mother and a father. I believe that timeless moral standards must not be casually overturned and that doing so is apt to have unintended and unfortunate consequences. And I am sure that legalizing same-sex wedlock would fuel demands for further radical change - legalizing plural marriage, for example.

But strongly opposing gay marriage doesn’t mean I don’t understand why many people just as strongly favor it. I can sympathize with committed gay and lesbian couples who feel demeaned by the law’s rejection of same-sex marriage or who crave the proof of societal acceptance, the cloak of normalcy, that a marriage license would provide. I don’t regard the redefinition of marriage as a civil rights issue; nor do I buy the argument that laws barring same-sex marriage are comparable to the laws that once barred interracial marriage. But I recognize that many people - sincere and decent people - do. By my lights they are mistaken, not evil.

Why do so many same-sex marriage advocates find it so hard to see marriage traditionalists in the same light?

In a recent paper for the Heritage Foundation, Thomas Messner surveys the “naked animus’’ that was directed against supporters of Proposition 8, the California marriage amendment that voters approved last year. His meticulously footnoted study makes chilling reading, with example after example of the blacklisting, vandalism, intimidation, loss of employment, anti-religious hostility, and even death threats to which backers of Prop. 8 were subjected.

Of course not all proponents of gay marriage display such vehement intolerance. But far too many do to shrug it off as insignificant. And voters don’t have to be paranoid to wonder: If this is the kind of abuse that opponents of gay marriage can be subjected to now, how much more intolerance will dissenters face if gay marriage becomes the law?

After 31 losses in 31 states, it’s time for same-sex marriage activists to seriously consider a piece of advice Barney Frank offered a few years ago. “There’s something to be said for cultural respect,’’ the nation’s most prominent gay political figure said in 2004.




“Showing a bit of respect for cultural values with which you disagree is not a bad thing. Don’t call people bigots and fools just because you disagree with them.’’
Go Barney.

<>
__________________

__________________
diamond 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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Random Risque U2 Pictures (PT II) FallingStar PLEBA Archive 147 07-28-2003 03:01 PM
MERGED --> When will Cleveland II be? + Rock Hall Celebration (Spring) CMM Interference Gatherings 80 04-14-2003 10:02 PM
Getcher Classical on! Psst...Dieman. Johnny Swallow Lemonade Stand Archive 8 03-07-2003 04:53 PM
the Europe photos pt. II (including interferencers!!!) sulawesigirl4 Lemonade Stand Archive 61 01-05-2003 03:29 PM
When hormones go bad Pt. II: MacPhisto WildHonee PLEBA Archive 9 11-02-2001 07:36 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:45 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