MERGED (yet again): All Gay Marriage Discussion Here Please - Page 13 - 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 02-11-2004, 12:14 AM   #181
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


You're such a rebel.

No seriously that's cool. If I ever changed my view of marriage and got remarried, I'd ask you to do the ceremony...of course I'd have to move...so maybe not.
I can check.....HEHE>..I believe I am valid in all 50 states. I just have to make certain what legal papers I need.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-11-2004, 01:21 AM   #182
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 01:02 PM
To clarify for the last time, I dont think religious views are bullshit. Using them as a one size fits all for a national ruling on gay marriage is.
Big difference.
__________________

__________________
<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 02-11-2004, 02:34 AM   #183
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 09:02 PM
I think my religious beliefs put me at an opposition to a lot of stuff these days, but the difference is that I would never try to impose my beliefs on someone else and try to convince them that they should change their mind.

Say, for example, my religion said eating candy was wrong. So I think eating candy is wrong, and I won't support it or do it, but since the person next to me is not of my religion, I don't really care if she eats candy or not. But then the person next to me not only chooses to eat candy, but then turns to me and tells me that I should eat candy b/c NOT eating candy solely based on religious beliefs is stupid and I am wrong, even though I never tried to convince her to not eat candy in the first place.

Basically, what I'm trying (and probably failing) to get across is that I believe what I believe and no one can change that. If your belief is different than mine, I will not try and change your mind because your belief is your decision whether I like it or not. But please don't try and change my mind or tell me I should not base my beliefs on religion. I make personal decisions based on religion, but I would never use my religious beliefs to try to change legislation, b/c I support seperation of church and state.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-11-2004, 04:42 AM   #184
Refugee
 
thrillme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: <---over that'a way
Posts: 1,947
Local Time: 06:02 PM
Well I had a biology book that said an organism is only fit if it passes on its genes, a monogamous homosexual couple, (without modern medical procedures) won't do so. Homosexuality is unfit as a biological process, because it doesn't pass on genes.

You want to view this from a scientific, no emotion, no religious, no societal influence, there it is, homosexuality, in humans, doesn't result in reproduction of genes, therefore unfit. Being celebate is unfit. Not having children makes you an unfit organism.

Sure I'd say that's very cold, harsh, but that's what the biology book stated, an organism is only biologically fit, if it passes on its genes.

--------
Marriage is just fecked up in America anyway, if there were no entitlements to marriage, the right to see your loved ones, inheritances, its partly an economic issue isn't it?

Do gay couples need a license saying their relationship is valid? Many heterosexual couples don't. If the only thing a marriage meant, was that 2 people, could live together, and only be with each other, not have relations with any one else, I don't know if most people would do it, because if they already do that, why go through the ceremony?


A marriage in this country, (and others) allows hospital visitation rights, inheritances, children rights, etc.
__________________
thrillme is offline  
Old 02-11-2004, 06:47 AM   #185
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 03:02 AM
From a purely scientific point of view, there really is no such thing as an unfit organism.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 02-11-2004, 08:43 AM   #186
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 10:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by thrillme
Do gay couples need a license saying their relationship is valid? Many heterosexual couples don't. If the only thing a marriage meant, was that 2 people, could live together, and only be with each other, not have relations with any one else, I don't know if most people would do it, because if they already do that, why go through the ceremony?


A marriage in this country, (and others) allows hospital visitation rights, inheritances, children rights, etc.
I don't think the point isn't saying a relationship is "valid" or not. The point is to have the privilage and option of marriage available to everyone regardless of sexual orientation. There are legal issues when two people are married, which bind their finances and inheritences, hospital visits like you mentioned and other things I don't know enough about. At this point, if a gay couple were facing a situation where they needed to rely on laws that protect married people, they would not have that protection. And that's wrong.

I hope Massachusetts is strong and honest enough to stand up for what is right and for equal for all. That's what this country has always stood for, at least theoretically, and I'd be proud to be a citizen of a state that took such a stand.

On the other hand, I'm disappointed in the leaders of (my) the Catholic Church and their resistance. Don't they realize they are pushing people away from God rather than doing what should be more important, and that is accepting?
__________________
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 02-11-2004, 11:05 AM   #187
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 06:02 PM
Still no answers from the other side. Maybe they've given up on this thread. Maybe they have no clear legal, non-theological base for wanting homosexual marriage to be illegal.

I was looking forward to their answers. I wanted to understand their position.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-11-2004, 11:51 AM   #188
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 03:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by martha
Maybe they have no clear legal, non-theological base for wanting homosexual marriage to be illegal.
There isn't one, but that doesn't stop the leader of the free world from taking rights away from homosexual couples.

Report: Bush plans to endorse marriage amendment

Quote:
Bush plans to make a public statement shortly endorsing a constitutional amendment proposed by Colorado Republican Marilyn Musgrave that would define marriage in the United States as the union of a man and a woman, the newspaper said.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 02-11-2004, 12:53 PM   #189
Offishul Kitteh Doctor
Forum Moderator
 
bonosloveslave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Taking care of kitties
Posts: 9,655
Local Time: 09:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
Still no answers from the other side. Maybe they've given up on this thread. Maybe they have no clear legal, non-theological base for wanting homosexual marriage to be illegal.

I was looking forward to their answers. I wanted to understand their position.
I'll just post the link - I don't know that anyone will actually read it, but at least it doesn't mention God, if that encourages anyone. It articulates very well where I am coming from, leaving out the religious aspect of it:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...2/939pxiqa.asp
__________________
bonosloveslave [at] interference.com
bonosloveslave is offline  
Old 02-11-2004, 01:05 PM   #190
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 09:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
Still no answers from the other side. Maybe they've given up on this thread. Maybe they have no clear legal, non-theological base for wanting homosexual marriage to be illegal.

I was looking forward to their answers. I wanted to understand their position.
B/c there isn't one. My answers are entirely based on theology and religion, and if that's something you're not interested in hearing, then I can't help. Everything I believe in is based on my religion, that's part of what religion is. If you can't or aren't willing to consider the religious perspective, then you won't find the answer you're looking for and you won't be able to understand that side of the arguement.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-11-2004, 01:26 PM   #191
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 03:02 AM

I read the article BLS posted but I read it quickly so y'all correct me if I'm wrong in my assumptions. The entire article seems to revolve around the notion that marriage is solely for making babies and for providing a stable home for the kids. The author seems to have the opinion that by allowing unisex marriages, this somehow damages this notion because gay people obviously can't have kids (actually they can but that's besides the point for now). Apparently she thinks that this damage to marriage as an institution (by her definition) will somehow result in the birth of more children out of wedlock and more kids growing up with only one parent.

I will read the article again when I have some more time, but I don't think all of this will provide for a legal base to outlaw same-sex marriages seeing how it is full of subjective definitions and assumptions.

Edited to post one of the most remarkable passages in this article:
Quote:
THE PROBLEM with endorsing gay marriage is not that it would allow a handful of people to choose alternative family forms, but that it would require society at large to gut marriage of its central presumptions about family in order to accommodate a few adults' desires.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 02-11-2004, 02:05 PM   #192
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,692
Local Time: 08:02 PM
Yeah I read the article and basically it says if you aren't going to procreate you're f##king up the sanctity of marriage. So all you older people who remarry after you lose your spouse, all of you who can't have children or choose not to you're screwing up our country and just please leave our marriage alone and leave it to us breeders.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-11-2004, 02:23 PM   #193
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 07:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by thrillme
Well I had a biology book that said an organism is only fit if it passes on its genes, a monogamous homosexual couple, (without modern medical procedures) won't do so. Homosexuality is unfit as a biological process, because it doesn't pass on genes.
Guess what? Your biology book is wrong. Throw it away and stop repeating its nonsense.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 02-11-2004, 02:24 PM   #194
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 10:02 PM
Quote:
Many of the things men and women have to do to sustain their own marriages, and a culture of marriage, are hard. Few people will do them consistently if the larger culture does not affirm the critical importance of marriage as a social institution. Why stick out a frustrating relationship, turn down a tempting new love, abstain from sex outside marriage, or even take pains not to conceive children out of wedlock if family structure does not matter? If marriage is not a shared norm, and if successful marriage is not socially valued, do not expect it to survive as the generally accepted context for raising children. If marriage is just a way of publicly celebrating private love, then there is no need to encourage couples to stick it out for the sake of the children. If family structure does not matter, why have marriage laws at all? Do adults, or do they not, have a basic obligation to control their desires so that children can have mothers and fathers?
This, as I see it, doesn't have much to do with gay marriage. Gay couples could adopt children or have children by artificial means--which many infertile straight couples already do--and face the same struggles as straight couples. Of course it's important for married couples to work through their hard times and not just divorce at the drop of a hat, particularly if they have children. But straight people don't have special powers in that arena.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 02-11-2004, 03:20 PM   #195
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 06:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic


Everything I believe in is based on my religion, that's part of what religion is. If you can't or aren't willing to consider the religious perspective, then you won't find the answer you're looking for and you won't be able to understand that side of the arguement.
You are welcome to your religious beliefs. Stop intentionally getting mixed up. The problem here in the States is that people are using their religious beliefs to make laws that discriminate against groups of people.
__________________

__________________
martha 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 09:02 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