MERGED (yet again): All Gay Marriage Discussion Here Please - Page 19 - 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 02-18-2004, 12:40 PM   #271
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 08:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Well, now we are looking at regulating the lifetime of a marriage. I bet there are instances during the course of any marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, life mate relationship where things are not 100% consentual according to your example.
Yes compromise will always happen.

But the difference between a marriage of two individuals and polygamy is that the basic structure of polygamy doesn't allow for 100% consent.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 01:09 PM   #272
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Yes compromise will always happen.

But the difference between a marriage of two individuals and polygamy is that the basic structure of polygamy doesn't allow for 100% consent.
It is inheritable inequitable; however, to me, it is not a matter of consent.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 01:16 PM   #273
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 10:10 AM
We have a recent polygamy thread; call it up if you want to talk about it.

This thread is about the gay marriage debate.

Don't MAKE me do another split.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 01:29 PM   #274
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 06:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
But the women consent to that form of relationship.
Those who are children of 16 cannot legally consent, and they are almost always forced, even in our country.


Now, back to the subject.

Are we linking polygamy and homosexual marriage again?
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 01:41 PM   #275
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 02:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
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.
For anyone who missed it, Dread's talking about my comment:

Quote:
I suspect that many of those who oppose gay marriage do so out of nothing more than homophobia.
Why do I say this? Because frankly most of the arguments against gay marriage are based on the logic that it's wrong to be gay therefore it's wrong for gay people to marry. That is homophobia. Homophobia is believing that it's wrong to be gay, it's believing that there is something wrong with a person because of their sexuality, it's believing that it is acceptable to discriminate against a person because of who they fall in love with.

Some people have said that they disagree with gay marriage because their religion leads them to believe that it's wrong to be gay. Do I disagree with them? Of course. Do I respect their right to believe that? Yes I do. I do not, however, respect their right to make their RELIGIOUS opinion into law.

What other arguments are there for forbidding gay marriage? The argument that two women or two men can't have a child together? I don't consider that a valid argument. For it to be valid the people making it would also have to oppose the marriage of any two people unable to have children together. They'd have to oppose the marriage of anyone who is unable to have children due to infertility, they'd have to oppose the marriage of anyone who made the decision that they do not wish to have children, they'd have to oppose the marriage of anyone who is too old to have children. The argument reduces marriage to nothing more than a means to produce and raise children and I'm sure everyone here has the sense to realise that a marriage based solely on that principle would be a miserable excuse for a marriage.

What are the other arguments? That gay marriage is harmful to society? How exactly? Produce your evidence, produce your statistics, produce some form of logical coherent argument, please. And since nobody has so far, forgive me for thinking the argument baseless and irrelevant.

Dread, it makes me laugh to see you call my comment a personal attack. A personal attack on who? Any sentence beginning with "I suspect" and referring not to all but many people is a pretty feeble personal attack if it even counts as such. You know what the real personal attacks in this argument are? The numerous occassions I've been called a "f**king dyke" or "dirty lesbian" because I dared to argue that people should not be discriminated against on the basis of who they fall in love with. The friend of mine who was punched in the face because she dared to stand up in a meeting and ask the people there why they believed she shouldn't be allowed to marry her girlfriend. Another friend who was attacked both verbally and physically as he was putting up posters advertising a lecture on the subject. Those are the personal attacks, not someone suggesting that homophobia is a motivation for some of those who oppose gay marriage.

I'd go as far as suggesting that it's actually a fact that some people who oppose gay marriage do so because of their homophobia. There are many people who argue that gay marriage is wrong because it is intrinsically wrong to be gay. Their argument is homophobic. And that's all I was suggesting, that some people oppose gay marriage because they're homophobic. How that is a blanket statement, let alone a personal attack is beyond me.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 01:45 PM   #276
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by paxetaurora
We have a recent polygamy thread; call it up if you want to talk about it.

This thread is about the gay marriage debate.

Don't MAKE me do another split.
Does that mean I cannot use the 1879 ruling against Polygamy to counter someone elses argument that this is about the Separation of Church and State?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 02:00 PM   #277
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:10 AM
Fizz,

I disagree....But hey, that is your choice. Laugh at me all you want. You make a statment, a broad one about people being homophobic if they are not for gay marriage. then we can poke fun at people for not responding.

Your statement was in the midst of a discussion on a message board. Exactly what is anyone opposed to your point of view supposed to think? Are they suddenly supposed to assume you are referring to the awful experiences you listed above? or maybe it is being directed at them.

If I as a thinking person am for gay marriage, would it surprise you to know that I believe it may be possible to support it on religious grounds? If I do support it on religious grounds and try to make it a law isn't that me imposing my "religious beliefs" on society.

My point, this IS NOT imposing religious beliefs. There may be religious people supporting it. There may be others NOT supporting it. It does not make them homophobes or whatever label you want to throw at them.

There are many labels that I would throw at people who actesd the way you have witnessed. The people I know opposed to Gay marriage do not act this way. It saddens me that this apparently is your perception of people who are opposed to it.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 02:08 PM   #278
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 02:10 PM
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. Which is not always the case. Someone can very well make their own opinion why they feel it is wrong, and it doesn't extend to greater society.
I agree to some extent. If an individual person believes for whatever reason it is wrong to be gay, that's their business. While I disagree with them and if they raised the subject, would probably try to explain why I believe they're wrong, I don't have the right to say they can't hold that opinion. If that individual also believes it's wrong for gay people to marry, again it's their personal opinion and nobody has the right to tell them they can't believe that.

If they held that *personal* opinion that would be one thing. However I think it's different when a person translates an personal opinion into something which ought to be applicable for everyone in society and so should be enshrined in law. The government can't decide to discriminate against a group of people based on nothing more than the subjective opinion of some people.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 02:20 PM   #279
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 02:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
If I as a thinking person am for gay marriage, would it surprise you to know that I believe it may be possible to support it on religious grounds? If I do support it on religious grounds and try to make it a law isn't that me imposing my "religious beliefs" on society.
If your *only* argument in favour of gay marriage was a religious argument then yes I would say it is imposing religious beliefs on others. However I think there are many arguments not based in religion for why gay marriage should be permitted, and very few not based in religion for why it ought to be banned.

I believe gay marriage ought to be allowed because to forbid gay people to marry while allowing straight people to marry is discriminating against gay people. I believe there is no valid reason for this: a person's sexuality is not a reason for them to be discriminated against anymore than a person's gender or skin colour is.

When people argue that gay marriage should not be allowed because their religion opposes it, they are using their religious beliefs to argue for discriminating against people because of their sexuality. While I respect people's right to hold their individual religious opinions, I do not believe that you can justify making a law which applies to everyone in society on the basis of the religious beliefs of certain members of that society.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 02:24 PM   #280
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


I agree to some extent. If an individual person believes for whatever reason it is wrong to be gay, that's their business. While I disagree with them and if they raised the subject, would probably try to explain why I believe they're wrong, I don't have the right to say they can't hold that opinion. If that individual also believes it's wrong for gay people to marry, again it's their personal opinion and nobody has the right to tell them they can't believe that.

If they held that *personal* opinion that would be one thing. However I think it's different when a person translates an personal opinion into something which ought to be applicable for everyone in society and so should be enshrined in law. The government can't decide to discriminate against a group of people based on nothing more than the subjective opinion of some people.

It now sounds like a battle between your personal beliefs and another's personal beliefs.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 02:31 PM   #281
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 08:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader



It now sounds like a battle between your personal beliefs and another's personal beliefs.
Her opinion does not deny rights to any individual where those that oppose, do. If you are going to deny an individual any right it should have a logical and legal reason. Don't you think?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 02:35 PM   #282
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 08:10 AM
Ditto everything FizzingWhizzbees has been saying (sorry to hear that about your friends, by the way. . I have some friends who've been through similar things, so I can relate to this).

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 06:12 PM   #283
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 09:10 AM
OK since polygamy is being discussed here, and homosexuality discussed in the polygamy thread, I guess this goes here?... I'm still confused about this:

Quote:
There's no way it could be consenting 100% of the time. Most polygamy marriages is one man and many wives. The wives usually have their own bedrooms and he sleeps with one wife at a time. Let's say three of his wives wanted him on the same night, two of them are going to have to be denied. In that case it's always the man's choice and there is no true consent.
How exactly does this make polygamy non-consensual? I read the other posts but maybe I'm having a stupid day or I'm blind or something. I don't see how having more than one wife to choose from has anything to do with consent, as long as the wife chosen on a particular night consents and as long as all of the wives have consented to that form of relationship.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-18-2004, 06:26 PM   #284
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 01:10 AM
lol LivLuv, I think all polygamy is meant to go in there now, but we always sidetrack. I wanted to say something about polygamy not actually being supported by the church of LDS to Dread, but it belongs in the other one too.
__________________
<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, 06:29 PM   #285
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 09:10 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
lol LivLuv, I think all polygamy is meant to go in there now, but we always sidetrack. I wanted to say something about polygamy not actually being supported by the church of LDS to Dread, but it belongs in the other one too.
Yeah, I typed a reply here and then thought it was a bad idea, so I opened a new window with the right thread, but the last page of posts was on homosexuality
__________________

__________________
Liesje 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 09:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com