equality blooms with spring, pt. II - Page 6 - 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 11-15-2009, 09:35 PM   #76
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
yes, of course there is a difference. a penis is the male sex organ, a vagina is a female sex organ.

now, why is having one of each absolutely so critical to the definition of marriage?

i'm trying to actually give you something here. both Sarah Palin and Hillary Cilnton are always going to have their vaginas, no matter how untraditional (or traditional) they may define their own gender roles.
Because the number of spouses may have changed with time. The method of arrangement as well. But gender has never, ever been irrelevant to the structure of marriage until the current debate.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 09:36 PM   #77
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Irvine, thank you for your patience. Unfortunately, I must ask for even more patience from you - so please bear with me as we walk through this. One of the problems in our past discussions is that we make some assumptions and points get missed, questions go unanswered (or misunderstood), and we go off on yet another tangent. I seriously believe I have something to learn from you - a beautiful, wonderful human being that is obviously very intelligent, thoughtful, and downright funny. If nothing else, we both love U2 so we have that to build on.


that is very kind of you, thank you, same back at you.


Quote:
which would you consider more important to the health and survival of any given human society, successful biological reproduction or personal sexual fulfillment?

firstly, i reject that either of these is critical to a marriage, or that they are mutually exclusive.

however, i would actually say that sexual fulfillment is more important. why? sex creates children, and sexually fulfilled people are likely to be happier people, and happier people tend to be better parents, citizens, etc. the earth is overpopulated as it is, and as people tend to become wealthier and more educated, they tend to have fewer children. quality over quantity, imho.

as another thought: we all agree that children do best in stable households. would it not be an unambiguous positive if there were more gay people, unable to have children of their own, who are in stable, committed, protected marriages who might then be more inclined to adopt children in need of homes.

in fact, don't we all benefit when adults -- especially, dare i say it, adult males -- have an investment in their own stability?

(this is not to say, however, that one can't be perfectly happy and productive as a single adult, or that one can't be the same without children -- there are many, many ways to live, and there are many for whom societal conventions aren't a good fit).
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 09:38 PM   #78
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Some of us have come around on civil unions or domestic partnerships because we agree that equal protection should apply to same-sex unions. Doesn't mean we want to call that union a marriage however.

But who's stopping gays from entering into a monogamous, committed relationships?

Aeon? No
Indy? No
The citizens of California, Maine and all the other states that voted in support of traditional marriage? No


why do you want more government in our lives? isn't this the opposite of freedom? isn't this more tyranny, the creation of an entire second class set of relationship?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 09:42 PM   #79
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Because the number of spouses may have changed with time. The method of arrangement as well. But gender has never, ever been irrelevant to the structure of marriage until the current debate.


i'll first point to the Jefferson quote, and i'll also point to the fact that the financial independence of women and the untethering of marriage to childbirth has changed "traditional" marriage far more dramatically than same-sex marriage ever will.

also, we're dealing with a small minority -- 5% or so of the population -- who were all but socially invisible even a generation ago.

it is new. i understand that. but i also haven't seen a single argument put forth that references anything other than "that's the way it's always been."

it's intellectually indefensible, and that's why the opponents go for the gut -- your children will be taught how to be gay in schools! -- and they put it up to a popular vote, something to which african-americans were never subjected.

minority rights are a very, very tough sell to the majority, and it could be seen as rather remarkable that nearly 50% of people in ME and CA were on board with same-sex marriage. further, clear majorities endorse either SSM or a civil union, and the younger you go, the clear the support for SSM is.

ask yourself -- why are you on the wrong side of history on this? why don't the kids agree with you?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 09:47 PM   #80
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 01:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Because the number of spouses may have changed with time. The method of arrangement as well. But gender has never, ever been irrelevant to the structure of marriage until the current debate.
So now we're back to INDY's favorite: STATUS QUO...

Life must be easy for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Some of us have come around on civil unions or domestic partnerships because we agree that equal protection should apply to same-sex unions.
Similar to the health care debate, this is one good thing that is coming out of these debates, you're SLOWLY coming around to doing the right thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
But who's stopping gays from entering into a monogamous, committed relationships?
You still want seperate but equal, well actually in most cases seperate and unequal.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 10:20 PM   #81
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 11:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Some of us have come around on civil unions or domestic partnerships because we agree that equal protection should apply to same-sex unions. Doesn't mean we want to call that union a marriage however.

But who's stopping gays from entering into a monogamous, committed relationships?

Aeon? No
Indy? No
The citizens of California, Maine and all the other states that voted in support of traditional marriage? No
When Maine voted against Gay Marriage by a 53 - 47 margin
Washington voted for Gay Civil Unions, it was called everything but marriage - all the same rights and benefits, by a margin of 52 -48.


Aeon, Indy and people that think like them are not the ones that are preventing gays from having equal rights.

If California and Maine had the same ballot as Washington, very good chance at least 2-3 per cent would have been swayed to vote the other way and gays would have equal protection.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 10:46 PM   #82
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post


that is very kind of you, thank you, same back at you.





firstly, i reject that either of these is critical to a marriage, or that they are mutually exclusive.

however, i would actually say that sexual fulfillment is more important. why? sex creates children, and sexually fulfilled people are likely to be happier people, and happier people tend to be better parents, citizens, etc. the earth is overpopulated as it is, and as people tend to become wealthier and more educated, they tend to have fewer children. quality over quantity, imho.

as another thought: we all agree that children do best in stable households. would it not be an unambiguous positive if there were more gay people, unable to have children of their own, who are in stable, committed, protected marriages who might then be more inclined to adopt children in need of homes.

in fact, don't we all benefit when adults -- especially, dare i say it, adult males -- have an investment in their own stability?

(this is not to say, however, that one can't be perfectly happy and productive as a single adult, or that one can't be the same without children -- there are many, many ways to live, and there are many for whom societal conventions aren't a good fit).
I thought you would give at least a few kudos to the biological function of reproduction, but you don't seem think this is important.

Do you think it is possible, that society "thought it prudent" (as Melon would say) to incentivize marriage in order to encourage the survival and stability of the society? In other words, it is not that other relationships are necessarily denied anything, they are simply not incentivized. Therefore, there is no violation of any civil rights.

If it is no longer prudent, as you seem to point out above, then perhaps you would contend the fair solution is just to remove the incentives?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 10:47 PM   #83
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Since we cannot productively discuss my spiritual views on this particular matter (I'm not belittling that - you wish to keep this tangent on a social, legal, and biological level and I will try and respect that), I would like to ask you - which would you consider more important to the health and survival of any given human society, successful biological reproduction or personal sexual fulfillment?
Gay marriage does nothing to interfere with successful biological production, nor is it an inherently superior form of personal sexual fulfilment over heterosexual sex. As such, I call "false dichotomy."
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 10:49 PM   #84
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:53 PM
Quote:
Very simple. Write a law that replaces all current legislation that makes reference to marriage as "a man and a woman" and replace it with "two people."

All related state concerns regarding marriage ages, the permitted degree of cousin marriages, polygamy, etc. etc. etc. are already addressed in other laws, so by merely amending the basic marriage law to be gender neutral, no further cans of worms are opened. If future generations wish to alter laws to contract or expand how close of a cousin you can be or to even legalize polygamy across the board, for instance, then they would have to amend those laws specifically at a later time and would cover everyone equally across the board. Gender discrimination in marriage, however, is increasingly unacceptable in light of contemporary revelation.
Melon
The fact that the state regulates marriage already shows that it is not in fact a universal human or civil right (as others here argue). Marriage has always been a privilege bestowed by a compelling state interest on some and denied to others. Your solution would only continue that practice.
Your solution would, however, change marriage from being seen as the bridge between generations and the ideal arrangement for the procreation and rearing of children, to just a legal affirmation of adult romance.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 10:53 PM   #85
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
The fact that the state regulates marriage already shows that it is not in fact a universal human or civil right (as others here argue).
But, apparently, some argue that the lesson of "Loving v. Virginia" is that marriage is only a universal human or civil right when it involves interracial marriage.

Jest aside, there is Supreme Court precedent that marriage is more than "state privilege."

Quote:
Your solution would, however, change marriage from being seen as the bridge between generations and the ideal arrangement for the procreation and rearing of children, to just a legal affirmation of adult romance.
And "legal affirmation" is all that it is, considering that child bearing is not a requirement of heterosexual marriage, and no amount of gay bashing or wishful thinking would make it so.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 10:54 PM   #86
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
I thought you would give at least a few kudos to the biological function of reproduction, but you don't seem think this is important.

what? where did i say this? you've surely put words in my mouth here.


Quote:
Do you think it is possible, that society "thought it prudent" (as Melon would say) to incentivize marriage in order to encourage the survival and stability of the society? In other words, it is not that other relationships are necessarily denied anything, they are simply not incentivized. Therefore, there is no violation of any civil rights.

yes, i absolutely thinks that society thinks it prudent to incentivize marriage, it encourages stability and provides the potential for an optimal environment to raise children. i think marriage is a good thing. i've been saying this over and over.

but, yes, AEON, i, a homosexual, am DENIED access to these benefits on the basis of my sexual orientation. therefore, that becomes a violation of my civil rights. it's not that i have the civil right to get married, the government does not need to find me a spouse. but i should have the civil right to marry a person who also chooses me.

as for fertility, that's entirely moot. we have infertile people who get married, and those who choose not to have children, as well as people who get married later in life. these relationships are surely granted the same privileges as anyone else who enters into the institution.



Quote:
If it is no longer prudent, as you seem to point out above, then perhaps you would contend the fair solution is just to [i]remove[/] the incentives?

no, i have contended, and continually contend, that all gay people want is to be allowed into the same tent.

stop putting words into my mouth and ascribing theories that i have not even come close to offering.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 10:55 PM   #87
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 02:53 PM
AEON and INDY: Do either of you think allowing gay marriage to occur will somehow cause a problem with population shortage?
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 10:56 PM   #88
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
As such, I call "false dichotomy."

which i also pointed to, but AEON took my humoring the question and ran with it into a direction that was entirely disingenuous.


Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
The fact that the state regulates marriage already shows that it is not in fact a universal human or civil right (as others here argue). Marriage has always been a privilege bestowed by a compelling state interest on some and denied to others. Your solution would only continue that practice.
Your solution would, however, change marriage from being seen as the bridge between generations and the ideal arrangement for the procreation and rearing of children, to just a legal affirmation of adult romance.

i look forward to your support of marriages not being granted until a couple produces a biological child belonging to the two parents.

as such, i am denied, on the basis of an immutable characteristic that harms no one, barred from ever being considered for said "state interests."

upon what grounds, INDY, is it not in the state's interest to provide Memphis and myself with the title of a marriage?

if you do nothing else tonight, INDY, please answer me that.

what is it that's so awful about us?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 11:03 PM   #89
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 11:53 AM
If I weren't so lazy, or in the middle of trying not to spend $1000 to go see Steve's grandma turn 100 years old, I would do a search and find this exact same conversation with the exact same words and the exact same players from a few years ago. Good gravy. AEON and INDY will repeat their pointless justifications for fear and exclusion, using Jesus and children as shields, and the rest of us will grow impatient with them. Meanwhile, the world will spin forward, and this kind of thinking will fall out of favor.


__________________
martha is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 11:11 PM   #90
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 01:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Marriage has always been a privilege bestowed by a compelling state interest on some and denied to others. Your solution would only continue that practice.
Your solution would, however, change marriage from being seen as the bridge between generations and the ideal arrangement for the procreation and rearing of children, to just a legal affirmation of adult romance.
Every intelligent being, including yourself knows the faults in this statement.
__________________

__________________
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


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 02:53 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