MERGED (yet again): All Gay Marriage Discussion Here Please - Page 17 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-18-2004, 07:28 AM   #241
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 12:29 PM
BLS-

What kind of scientific "evidence" are you talking about? Most scientific evidence up to now has indicated that homosexuality has always existed, not only among humans, but other higher primates as well (if I am not mistaken). About the only evidence that might make me rethink my case is if gay parents were proven to be categorically harmful to children, which I sincerely doubt would happen, as (although these studies are few) studies up until now find no significant differences between children rasied by gay couples and children raised by straight ones.

Your argument is valid, yes, in terms of denying same-sex unions in your particular religious context. If you and your church feel they are inappropriate, your church cannot be compelled to perform such unions or recognize them. The Catholic Church has been selectively performing and recognizing some marriages and not others for a long time; it's perfectly legal. But the government offers equal protection under the law to all persons--a phrase which, incidentally, IS in the Constitution. There has not yet been a compelling LEGAL argument against allowing homosexuals to marry.

Which means, at least for me, that you are free to disapprove of such unions and choose a church that also disapproves of them. But our government is not free to pick and choose in a similar way. Discrimination on the basis of arbitrary distinctions (skin color, gender) has been struck down in the past and will, I hope, be struck down again. Any legal argument offered against same-sex marriage is strikingly similar to old arguments against "miscegenation" (which is certainly still a frowned-upon practice in some places, but it is not *illegal*).

No one believes you don't have the right to believe what you believe, BLS. But I, and I suspect others, believe that you do not have the right to compel your government to enshrine your belief in law when it is inherently discriminatory against other persons. As the old saw goes, "Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins."
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 07:33 AM   #242
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,763
Local Time: 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonosloveslave
Hmm, guess I should start a thread about the whole seperation of church and state thing, as those five words together are not in the Constitution...
The First Amendment, as interpreted by Thomas Jefferson. You should support it; it was interpreted that way after a specific Christian denomination was trying to dominate the political arena, and another Christian denomination (Baptists, before they became all fundamentalist) wrote a letter to Jefferson in protest. That was his response.

But, I guess, people don't think it is necessary as long as THEIR religious beliefs are legislated. But wait until public schools start praying the "Hail Mary" aloud and pray the Rosary. That's when evangelicals and fundamentalists will wake up to the wisdom of the separation of church and state.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 07:50 AM   #243
Blue Crack Addict
 
meegannie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 15,798
Local Time: 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora
Britney and her fellow Jason were married in accordance with the law of the state of Nevada (the only state, need I remind you, which requires no waiting period for marriage licenses)
Half of the states require no waiting period for a marriage license. http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Marriage.htm
__________________
meegannie is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 08:02 AM   #244
Blue Crack Addict
 
meegannie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 15,798
Local Time: 04:29 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.
That makes no sense whatsoever. An organism may be 'unfit' (thought I think that word has some very questionable connotations) from a scientific standpoint if it is incapable of passing on its genes and always has been, but to claim that celebate people or homosexuals are unhealthy because they aren't passing on their genes is ridiculous because those people are still biologically capable of doing so.
__________________
meegannie is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 08:15 AM   #245
Blue Crack Addict
 
meegannie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 15,798
Local Time: 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora
BLS-

What kind of scientific "evidence" are you talking about? Most scientific evidence up to now has indicated that homosexuality has always existed, not only among humans, but other higher primates as well (if I am not mistaken).
Not just primates:

http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentw...-06-10/591.asp

__________________
meegannie is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 08:22 AM   #246
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,880
Local Time: 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem

I personally suspect that while some of it is based on homophobia, in actuality a lot of could be more based on a personal view that it is wrong, yet that is then taken to mean it is a belief which the holder shares for ALL.
Nice kid gloves Angela

I think the statement you are referring to is one god awful blanket statement to make about the topic. In my opinion, it borders on a personal attack on people who are opposed to "gay" marriage.

Then we come back and find people asking why is nobody presenting an argument for the other side. And personally, I think with glee at the fact that there have been no responses.

The argument that people are "homophobes" if they do not support gay marriage holds about as much water as people who made the argument that those opposed to the war were suppoters of Saddam Hussein. The two positions DO NOT make the second part true.

So while people are sitting here, saying, why is no one responding, maybe think about how they were treated in this thread because they had a different opinion, or even based on their religious beliefs. I have some excellent religiously based articles that present two sides to this topic. I have not posted them because supposedly it is an invalid argument. That is a crock. I found an article that demonstrated how George Washington dealt with two men who had sex in the continental army, to present the case that this is not what the founding fathers envisioned for America.

Now maybe you would have found them to be weak arguments. I would have presented them because I enjoy taking both sides but a voice inside me said not to. I personally could give two shites about someone on an internet board labeling me a homophobe in a blanket statement here. I am secure about who and what I am.

BLS.....your article was excellent. I appreicate your attempt to continue the debate in a civil manner. I thought your article had some interesting points. I may not have agreed with them, but I am impressed that you continued to make your arguments. I am dismayed at the fact that there are people asking for the other side to respond, and when you do, you get slapped around by a group. Keep the faith.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 09:00 AM   #247
Offishul Kitteh Doctor
Forum Moderator
 
bonosloveslave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Taking care of kitties
Posts: 9,653
Local Time: 12:29 PM
Thanks Dread
__________________
bonosloveslave [at] interference.com
bonosloveslave is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 09:08 AM   #248
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 03:29 AM
Dreadsox, after the first line, was the rest at me? Because if it is, you have sorely misinterpreted my reply.
__________________
<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 02-18-2004, 09:09 AM   #249
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,880
Local Time: 11:29 AM
No....twas not....that is why I reffered back to the statement you quoted.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 09:20 AM   #250
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 03:29 AM
I feel my alarming level of anger ebbing away...
ahh.
this is more peaceful.


Good. I am glad, also glad I didn't jump the gun there and attack you.... Cos I would have you know...

But anyway...

I am now reading properly what you wrote and it is a good point. One I was trying to grasp in my own head after reading a few reponses, that a personal belief does not always need to be a belief a person holds for all. I think Pax also hinted at this kind of thing indicating in the last that there is a link between one person's own views mirroring an altogether unfair one held by a government as being somehow condoning, or a reason to therefore assume that the individual who holds a similar view is therefore fully supportive of the government's stance. Has anyone asked, in this case BLS if she supports the government's control over gay marriages? We shouldn't need to. She is as was said already entitled to her views, but that aside, it is being assumed she is supportive of that - and therefore agrees and is homophobic? No one actually used the term and I suspect this debate might get a bit nasty now as we argue back and forth over semantics, but if we really believe in the right to hold our beliefs, we really must adhere to that. And not leap to conclusions or convenient assumptions.

I apologise for this being extremely convoluted. I cannot function this late at night.
__________________
<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 02-18-2004, 09:33 AM   #251
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,880
Local Time: 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
I feel my alarming level of anger ebbing away...
ahh.
this is more peaceful.

If you want to fight...we can...hehe
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 09:39 AM   #252
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 41,824
Local Time: 08:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem

I really dont think anyone in here feels they have such a handle on what is right for all that they believe it should be the norm for all.
The problem is that some people, here or not, try to codify into law what they feel is "the norm" for all.
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 02-18-2004, 09:44 AM   #253
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 41,824
Local Time: 08:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


BLS.....your article was excellent. I appreicate your attempt to continue the debate in a civil manner. I thought your article had some interesting points. I may not have agreed with them, but I am impressed that you continued to make your arguments. I am dismayed at the fact that there are people asking for the other side to respond, and when you do, you get slapped around by a group. Keep the faith.
I was doing some slapping because people are using that "excellent" article and its reasoning to file lawsuits to impress their bigoted views on me and my fellow Americans, who are protected under the Constitution. I asked for a response based on LAW, not some wishful thinking about some "good old days" of paternal responsibility which has never exsisted to the extent hoped for in that article. As long as these people keep trying to discriminate based on what they wish were true, I will continue to call them on it.
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 02-18-2004, 09:46 AM   #254
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,880
Local Time: 11:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


The problem is that some people, here or not, try to codify into law what they feel is "the norm" for all.
There are MANY laws that do this. That does not make the laws bad.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 09:46 AM   #255
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 41,824
Local Time: 08:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora


No one believes you don't have the right to believe what you believe, BLS. But I, and I suspect others, believe that you do not have the right to compel your government to enshrine your belief in law when it is inherently discriminatory against other persons. As the old saw goes, "Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins."
As usual, nicely summarized.
__________________

__________________
martha is online now  
 

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 11:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com