MERGED (yet again): All Gay Marriage Discussion Here Please - Page 2 - 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 11-20-2003, 04:19 AM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
ILuvLarryMullen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: in the sunshine
Posts: 6,904
Local Time: 05:36 AM
Quote:
Elizabeth Birch, director of the gay rights organization Human Rights Campaign, said that the courts are not obliged to support a majority of the people.

"If not for courts, African-Americans would not have had the right to vote, women would not have the right to vote," she said. "The purpose of a constitution is to protect a minority group from the wrath of the majority."
I particularly liked this part of the article. While some may not think the comparisons are valid, it's important to remember that the court shouldn't rule on something just cause the majority feels that way.
__________________

__________________
ILuvLarryMullen is offline  
Old 11-20-2003, 01:31 PM   #17
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: 19,266
Local Time: 07:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bunbury
An adult should be able to marry any other adult regardless of sex.
Geez, I love my country but sometimes I feel I live in such a backward place Stuff like this that pisses me off, no sense of rationality.
Join the club.

I also agree with ILuvLarryMullen.

To be honest...I really don't think God has a problem with homosexuals being together to begin with. I mean, if religious people keep telling me that God loves everyone, well, doesn't that extend to homosexuals, too?

Angela
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 11-23-2003, 02:09 PM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:36 AM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...arriage_poll_2

Polls Finds Mass. Gay Marriage Ruling OK
1 hour, 44 minutes ago

BOSTON - Two new polls released Sunday show Massachusetts lawmakers could be bucking public opinion if they try to thwart the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling last week that found the state's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional.

Fifty percent of Massachusetts residents surveyed for a Boston Globe/WBZ-TV poll said they agreed with the ruling, while 38 percent opposed it. A separate Boston Sunday Herald poll found 49 percent said they support legalizing gay marriage, while 38 percent oppose it.

Both polls, conducted after Tuesday's ruling, had margins of sampling error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

"If people want to be together, who cares? Let them," said Bill Luff, 32, a nightclub owner in Worcester.

In its ruling, Massachusetts' highest court gave the Legislature 180 days to change the state's marriage laws for the benefit of gay couples. Some state lawmakers are now pushing for a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage and effectively skirt the ruling. Others, including Gov. Mit Romney, suggest passing a law giving same-sex couples something short of marriage, similar to Vermont's civil unions.

Both polls released Sunday found opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment 53 percent opposed and 36 percent in favor in the Globe/WBZ poll of 400 Massachusetts resident, and 54 percent opposed and 36 percent in favor in the Herald poll of 405 residents.

Another poll, by Merrimack College, found that 75 percent of Massachusetts adults support either allowing gay marriage or civil unions. That poll of 491 adults was conducted in the days before and after the decision, but the numbers didn't shift after the ruling. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 5 percentage points.

The polls appear to show more support for gay couples in Massachusetts than the nation as a whole. A recent national poll by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press found Americans oppose legalizing gay marriage, 59 percent to 32 percent. That survey, of 1,515 adults, was conducted Oct. 15-19 and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 11-23-2003, 02:22 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 01:36 PM
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 11-23-2003, 03:07 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:36 AM
The Puritains must be rolling in their graves....LOL

On a side note...Fizz...We have a room to rent in our house if you wish to be a part time Nanny!!!!! We want one night out a week.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-24-2003, 12:00 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 09:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ILuvLarryMullen
but just cause you find something offensive doesn't mean it should be against the law. I find Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire offensive. Do I think it should be illegal? No
exactly.

this is great


On the otherhand I read an article in this weekend's Providence Journal about a group called "Courage" anyone hear of them? The groups are Roman-Catholics who are homosexuals but deny themselves a phsyical relationship b/c they feel God doesn't approve. that makes me sad for them.
__________________
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 11-24-2003, 01:48 PM   #22
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: 19,266
Local Time: 07:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm
On the otherhand I read an article in this weekend's Providence Journal about a group called "Courage" anyone hear of them? The groups are Roman-Catholics who are homosexuals but deny themselves a phsyical relationship b/c they feel God doesn't approve. that makes me sad for them.
Aw... .

That's really sad.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 11-29-2003, 03:35 PM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 01:36 PM
Just thought this might be an interesting addition to this thread. It's based on policies that were announced in the the Queen's speech earlier this week.

Gay couples to get joint rights

Gay couples will be able to sign a document with witnesses
Same-sex partners will get similar legal rights to married couples under plans for so-called 'gay marriages'.
The Civil Partnership Bill will give legal recognition to gay couples for the first time.

The plans, announced in the Queen's Speech, come after a long campaign for equality for same sex partners.

But they have already faced criticism for failing to offer similar rights to unmarried heterosexual couples.

Inheritance questions

The plans to give gay and lesbian couples in the UK the same legal rights as married ones were outlined earlier this year.

The new rights will include pension and property entitlements if couples register their commitment in a civil ceremony.

But some campaigners are concerned there has been no pledge on offering the same exemptions to inheritance tax enjoyed by married couples.

Terry Sanderson, from the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association, said: "The government is just hoping that the gay community will not notice it is being short-changed on probably the most important issue of all."

A Department of Trade and Industry spokeswoman told BBC News Online it had already announced in its consultation paper it wanted to "look at" the inheritance issue.

"It is being addressed as part of the Budget process," she said, signalling that the chancellor could announce more details next year.

No full ceremony

Schemes which recognise committed homosexual relationships have already been set up in nine EU countries.

And in June, Canada's largest province Ontario ruled that gay and lesbian couples have the right to marry there.


Under the plans, gay couples will not be entitled to a "marriage" ceremony, but will be able to sign an official document at a register office in front of the registrar and two witnesses.

The proposals went out for consultation earlier this year.

The consultation paper did not use the term "gay marriage", but the Civil Partnership Registration Scheme seemed to have been designed to be as close to a marriage contract as possible.

Gay couples would not have to live together for a certain length of time to be eligible for the rights, and if the partnership breaks up, there would be a "formal, court-based process" for dissolving it.

New rights

Under the plans set out in the consultation paper, gay couples in the UK will have:

Visiting rights in hospitals
An ability to gain parental responsibility for each other's children
Recognition for immigration purposes
Joint state pension benefits
Obligation to support each other financially
Ability to claim compensation for fatal accidents or criminal injuries
Recognition under inheritance and intestacy rules
The right to register their partner's death and continue tenancy of a property
Exemption from inheritance tax on a partner's home
Exemption from testifying against each other in court
A spokesman for the Department of Trade and Industry said: "Same-sex couples face many problems in their day-to-day lives because there is no legal recognition of their relationship...

"In many areas each partner in the couple is treated as a separate individual; they are denied rights and responsibilities that could help them to organise their lives together."
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 11-29-2003, 06:02 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,286
Local Time: 08:36 AM
Quote:
President Bush waded into the debate with a statement criticizing the ruling.

"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," he said. "Today's decision ... violates this important principle. I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
Ahem...

http://www.google.com

"neil bush" + prostitutes + thailand + divorce

As somebody I know said, this decision violates the sacred institution between a man and a woman, "or in Neil's case, a man and a woman and another woman and several Asian women whose time was paid for by his business contacts."

There are bigger fish to fry here than a couple of guys falling in love, but of course, YMMV.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 11-29-2003, 06:14 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:36 AM
Yep the President has a Brother that has not been behaving. That means what? The president should not have said what he said? I fail to understand the connection? Are you saying the President is a hypocrite because of the actions of someone else?

I have siblings and I certainly would not want to be held accountable for the things they have done. Their actions certainly should not invalidate anything that I have said or believe. Or am I missing the point.

Keep in mind I am in favor of the courts ruling but I am supportive of the President's rights to express his opinions.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-29-2003, 06:23 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,286
Local Time: 08:36 AM
My point is with this 'sacred institution' thing he keeps talking about as if marriage between a man and a woman is a holy thing, whereas marriage between gay men and women is somehow wrong and appalling. Well, the truth of the matter is that for many people, marriage is no longer sacred today, and GWB knows this just like we all know it. So why keep putting heterosexual marriage on some sort of pedestal and degrading homosexual marriage when we know it's BS.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 11-29-2003, 06:34 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
My point is with this 'sacred institution' thing he keeps talking about as if marriage between a man and a woman is a holy thing, whereas marriage between gay men and women is somehow wrong and appalling. Well, the truth of the matter is that for many people, marriage is no longer sacred today, and GWB knows this just like we all know it. So why keep putting heterosexual marriage on some sort of pedestal and degrading homosexual marriage when we know it's BS.
You and I may agree to it. the most stable relationship influence in my entire life is my Aunt's relationship. 25 years of nothing but love. My parents on the other hand have given me 10 marriages and one adoption. You do not have to do much to make your sanctity of marriage argument to convince me. My wife and I have outlasted all but two of theirs.

That said I fail to see the relationship beteween the Neil Bush problem and the President's remarks. They are two separate things. The actions of someone's siblings do not invalidate the others beliefs nor his arguments.

Just my 2cents.

Peace

Fernando
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-30-2003, 11:17 AM   #28
Acrobat
 
Blacksword's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 389
Local Time: 01:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm
On the otherhand I read an article in this weekend's Providence Journal about a group called "Courage" anyone hear of them? The groups are Roman-Catholics who are homosexuals but deny themselves a phsyical relationship b/c they feel God doesn't approve. that makes me sad for them.
Why? They are living what they believe, it's not been forced on them. If they are satisfied with that who are you to feel sad for them? Sorry but I find this view of yours rather hypocritical.

Anyhow I personally applaud this decision. I'm happy for the decision here in Ontario. The notion that this will harm the sanctity of marriage is one of the most spectacular pieces of dimwittery I know of. The 50% divorce rate, spousal abuse, and the high rate of infidelity has sullied marriage. That was the point behind the criticism of Bush's brother. Bush is talking about sullying marraige when his brother has gone and done it in flagrant style. It's a valid criticism. Homosexuality has been the single issue which almost all amoral criticisms have been laid. Condemning gays to hell is a lot easier than dealing with the serious problems in families in North America. Seriously homosexuals make up about 5% of the total population.... real big threat there, especially considering how large numbers of homosexuals keep quite tightly to their own communities. The "Homosexual Menace" thing is just a smoke screen for hardliners to look righteous and ignore all the problems they don't want to deal with like poverty, broken marriages, child abuse and all the other things that don't happen among "good Christians". I'm a conservative myself, but the notion that gays will bring down the wrath of God on Western society is just silly. The blood debt we owe to the developing world, the millions of urban poor, and the upper and middle classes who sit back and don't care while the world goes up in flames will do that. The conservative Christians need to stop dodging the bullet and putting up scapegoats and get back in touch with reality.

One capital moron http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/11/27/alliance031127
__________________
Blacksword is offline  
Old 11-30-2003, 11:35 AM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Blacksword
That was the point behind the criticism of Bush's brother. Bush is talking about sullying marraige when his brother has gone and done it in flagrant style. It's a valid criticism.
Again...I fail to see how the actions of a BROTHER is the responsibility of the PRESIDENT.

Niel Bush is not standing in front of the country proclaiming to be a conservative Christian. Niel Bush is not talking about scullying marriage.

If the President were the one talking one way and acting another, I would agree with you. But he is not the one behaving like a hypocrite.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-30-2003, 12:20 PM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 01:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Blacksword


Why? They are living what they believe, it's not been forced on them. If they are satisfied with that who are you to feel sad for them? Sorry but I find this view of yours rather hypocritical.
I know the question wasn't addressed to me, but I'll give my take anyway. I think that being able to be in a relationship with someone you love is a huge part of anyone's life. I can't imagine living my life knowing that I would never be able to have someone to love, who would hopefully love me in return and who I could just be happy and proud to be with. To me that's one of the most important things in any person's life.

So, I find it sad that people voluntarily deny themselves that. I don't think it's wrong, I don't look down on them for it and if that's the way they choose to live their life then I have no right to disagree. But I still think it's sad that anyone would deny themselves the chance to fall in love. I think it's sad that society or religion or any other factor can make a person believe that they can never fall in love because there's something wrong with that love.

It's their choice, I don't look down on them for it, I don't feel pity for them, I just think it's sad that people deny themselves something which is so fundamental to so many people's lives.

Now you should all feel free to flame me.
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees 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 08:36 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