MERGED (yet again): All Gay Marriage Discussion Here Please - Page 3 - 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 11-30-2003, 12:24 PM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


Now you should all feel free to flame me.
I just want to know why you never responded to my offer of a room in Massachusetts....
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-30-2003, 03:30 PM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox



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.

Do you believe Al Gore should have been held accountable for Bill Clinton's philandering behavior?
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 11-30-2003, 05:09 PM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 04:44 PM
Deep, have I somehow lead you to believe that I am inconsistent?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-01-2003, 02:40 PM   #34
Refugee
 
agentmissa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Where ever the music takes me.
Posts: 1,797
Local Time: 02:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ILuvLarryMullen



Most people who are opposed to gay marriage are opposed to it for some type of religious reason most of the time I think. While it is their right to feel this way, you can't legislate based on a religious belief. Allowing them to marry isn't hurting anyone, yes it may offend some, 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. You shouldn't try to legislate morality.
For clarity's sake, gay marriage doesn't offend me and I don't have any religious belief against it.
I completely agree!
__________________
agentmissa is offline  
Old 12-01-2003, 03:12 PM   #35
War Child
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 613
Local Time: 09:44 PM

I don't think GWB should be held accountable for his brother's actions BUT GWB's opinion on Gay Marriage has much more power than anyone else's opinion on the matter. His opposition to it based on Religion is not fair to the country and the constitution. That's a clear violation on seperation of Church and State. And as a whole I feel that GWB is trying to implement Christian views into the country's policies which is hypocritical to his comments and speeches on how America is so free, freedom this, freedom that on religion. Specifically, his comment on how the war against Terrorism is a "religious crusade" That's ridiculous! Let's not turn this into a friggin Middle Ages Holy War. I feel that is not the direction this country should be going in. It's back peddling when it should be turning the wheels towards a much more "equal" future.
__________________
tackleberry is offline  
Old 12-01-2003, 03:28 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
oliveu2cm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Live from Boston
Posts: 8,334
Local Time: 05:44 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.
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


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.

Sorry I haven't checked this thread since I posted. I agree with Fizzing's response. It makes me sad that someone denies themself an intimate and personal relationship, which I know what joy it can bring.

This, which Fizzing said, especially 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.

yup.



Dreadsox, btw, nice posts.
__________________
oliveu2cm is offline  
Old 12-01-2003, 03:38 PM   #37
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Deep, have I somehow lead you to believe that I am inconsistent?
no more than any of the rest of us.


i am the one admits i have bias'

i believe we all do.



Back to my question.


The Bush team campaigned on "guilt by association” against Gore in 2000.


I do not believe W should be smeared about Neil's whoring around.


The bigger issue in that story is ‘influence buying' by the Chinese into the Bush Admin.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 12-01-2003, 03:50 PM   #38
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 04:44 PM

Does every thread here have to turn into some sort of "argument" about GWB?

I didn't know he was a member of the MA SJC
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 12-01-2003, 04:26 PM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 09:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
Does every thread here have to turn into some sort of "argument" about GWB?

I didn't know he was a member of the MA SJC
IMO we spend far too much time in FYM going through the same arguments again and again and again about Bush. It'd be nice if we spent some more time talking about other countries politics, or even US politics other than whether Bush is good or bad.

And also...
Dread, sorry for not replying. I'm replying now though. See?

And...
Welcome to agentmissa and tackleberry, who I haven't seen post here much before. It's always nice to see new faces in FYM. Hope you'll have fun posting here.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 12-01-2003, 10:00 PM   #40
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: 19,270
Local Time: 03:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by oliveu2cm
Sorry I haven't checked this thread since I posted. I agree with Fizzing's response. It makes me sad that someone denies themself an intimate and personal relationship, which I know what joy it can bring.

This, which Fizzing said, especially 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.
Agree wholeheartedly. People deserve to be happy.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 12-02-2003, 10:18 PM   #41
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:44 PM
\
Quote:
Student Is Punished for Saying 'Gay,' ACLU Says
From Times Wire Reports

December 2, 2003

A 7-year-old boy was scolded and forced to write "I will never use the word 'gay' in school again" after he told a classmate about his lesbian mother, the American Civil Liberties Union said. Second-grader Marcus McLaurin was waiting for recess Nov. 11 at Ernest Gaullet Elementary School in Lafayette when a classmate asked about Marcus' mother and father, the ACLU said in a complaint.

Marcus responded he had two mothers because his mother was gay. A teacher told Marcus "gay" was a "bad word" and sent him to the principal's office. The ACLU is demanding that the school apologize to the boy and his mother, Sharon Huff.

Does anybody believe we don't need laws respecting people for who they are?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 12-03-2003, 01:06 PM   #42
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:44 PM
here is a simple solution



Quote:
COMMENTARY





To Fix Gay Dilemma, Government Should Quit the Marriage Business

By Alan M. Dershowitz
Alan M. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard University.

December 3, 2003

The decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declaring that gays have a constitutional right to marry could become a powerful wedge issue in American politics. There is, however, a way to avoid that.

Those who oppose gay marriage believe deeply that marriage is sacreda divine, a blessed sacrament between man and woman as ordained in the Bible. If they are right, then the entire concept of marriage has no place in our civil society, which recognizes the separation between the sacred and the secular, between church and state.

The state is, of course, concerned with the secular rights and responsibilities that are currently associated with the sacrament of marriage: the financial consequences of divorce, the custody of children, Social Security and hospital benefits, etc.

The solution is to unlink the religious institution of marriage — as distinguished from the secular institution of civil union — from the state. Under this proposal, any couple could register for civil union, recognized by the state, with all its rights and responsibilities.

Religious couples could then go to the church, synagogue, mosque or other sacred institution of their choice in order to be married. These religious institutions would have total decision-making authority over which marriages to recognize. Catholic churches would not recognize gay marriages. Orthodox Jewish synagogues would not recognize a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew who did not wish to convert to Judaism. And those religious institutions that chose to recognize gay marriages could do so. It would be entirely a religious decision beyond the scope of the state.

Under this new arrangement, marriage would remain a sacrament, as ordained by the Bible and as interpreted by each individual church. No secular consequences would flow from marriage, only from civil union.

In this way, gay couples would win exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples in relationship to the state. They would still have to persuade individual churches of their point of view, but that is not the concern of the secular state.

Not only would this solution be good for gays and for those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, it would also strengthen the wall of separation between church and state by placing a sacred institution entirely in the hands of the church while placing a secular institution under state control.

Although this proposal may sound radical, it does not differ fundamentally — except for labels — from the situation that exists in many states today. Throughout the United States, couples have the option of being married civilly by going to town halls or to a justice of the peace and simply signing a marriage certificate. They also have the option of going to a church, synagogue or mosque and being married in a religious ceremony. So most Americans already have the choice between a sacrament and a secular agreement ratified by the state.

All that would be different would be the name we give the secular agreement. The word "marriage" would be reserved for those who chose the religious sacrament.

Though some traditionalists would be certain to balk at an explicit division between marriage and civil union, a majority of Americans already agree that gay couples should be allowed to join in secular unions with the rights and responsibilities that generally accompany marriage.

So let each couple decide whether they want to receive the sacrament of marriage or the secular status of civil union. And let the state get out of the business of determining who should receive holy sacraments.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 12-03-2003, 02:26 PM   #43
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 02:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
Does anybody believe we don't need laws respecting people for who they are?
Exactly. And the article you quoted is a perfect example of why we need these laws. It's about that child's right to receive social security benefits if one of his mothers dies, for example. It's about a gay partner being allowed at the bedside of his dying partner of 20 years (or even 20 days) in the event that the family is homophobic and does not honor the relationship. It is about BASIC CIVIL RIGHTS, not about religion, not about God.

Gays are not going back into the closet, this issue is going to keep progressing forward, and anyone who thinks it is immoral will be the ones that have to change their minds and get with the program or just live with their own uncomfortability with it. Gays are powerful today and there is no turning back, imo.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 03:19 PM   #44
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 04:44 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/ga...age/index.html
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 03:36 PM   #45
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 05:44 PM


But I really did like that Dershowitz article that deep posted a while back.
__________________

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


Join Amnesty.
pax 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 04:44 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