MERGED (yet again): All Gay Marriage Discussion Here Please - Page 4 - 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 02-04-2004, 03:51 PM   #46
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 04:46 AM
I like what Coretta Scott King said in comparing the gay rights movement to that of the black civil rights movement:

I say “common struggle” because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination.

My husband, Martin Luther King Jr., once said, “We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny…an inescapable network of mutuality.… I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be.” Therefore, I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.
__________________

__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 05:03 PM   #47
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: 05:46 AM
Coretta's speech. Very nicely said.

And yay to Massachusetts! .

Angela
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 05:47 PM   #48
Offishul Kitteh Doctor
Forum Moderator
 
bonosloveslave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Taking care of kitties
Posts: 9,655
Local Time: 06:46 AM
This ruling concerns me because I think it opening a door for polygamy, polyamory(group marriage) etc - oh wait, why are those wrong again? It's just people loving each other that want to be together and recognized...

C'mon, we haven't had a really good flame yet
__________________
bonosloveslave [at] interference.com
bonosloveslave is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 06:12 PM   #49
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonosloveslave
This ruling concerns me because I think it opening a door for polygamy, polyamory(group marriage) etc - oh wait, why are those wrong again? It's just people loving each other that want to be together and recognized...

C'mon, we haven't had a really good flame yet
Why would you want to start a flame war? I like that we've all been pretty civil to one another in this thread so far.

Anyway. Allowing gay people to marry doesn't set a precedent that would allow polygamy. Recognising gay marriage is recognising a marriage between two people who are not married to anyone else. How does that set a precedent for someone to argue they ought to be able to marry as many people as they wish? It's rather like the ridiculous arguments that gay marriage will lead to people wanting to marry their pets!

And yes, gay marriage is largely about people who love each other wanting to be able to have that recognised. However, it's about several other things also. For instance, in many countries and states, a gay person's partner has no "next of kin" status -- if their partner was admitted to hospital they would have no right to make decisions about medical care on their behalf and if their partner's family wanted to refuse to allow them to see their partner, they wouldn't be able to do anything about it. No matter how long they have been in a relationship, no matter if they live together, no matter what, they still have no legal rights in this situation. Does that sound fair? And that's just one example, there are many more.

Refusing to allow gay people to marry is saying that they're inferior to straight people. It's saying that there is something about their relationship which is not worthy of being defined as marriage. And in my opinion, if you're going to deny people those rights then you need a far stronger reason than the vague idea that someone might one day claim that polygamy ought to be legalised.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 06:17 PM   #50
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 04:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonosloveslave
This ruling concerns me because I think it opening a door for polygamy, polyamory(group marriage) etc - oh wait, why are those wrong again? It's just people loving each other that want to be together and recognized...
Yeah, why is that wrong again? Something like 80% of the world's cultures find polygamy acceptable. But I am guessing this is not the real reason you are concerned with this ruling.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 06:20 PM   #51
Offishul Kitteh Doctor
Forum Moderator
 
bonosloveslave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Taking care of kitties
Posts: 9,655
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


Why would you want to start a flame war? I like that we've all been pretty civil to one another in this thread so far.
Everyone has agreed up to this point. Well, I guess except Dread. But he didn't really commit either...
__________________
bonosloveslave [at] interference.com
bonosloveslave is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 06:24 PM   #52
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
Recognising gay marriage is recognising a marriage between two people who are not married to anyone else.
To BLS's point, it appears you are willing to place arbitrary limitations on marriage. Why some limitations and not other? I'd be interested in the principles, not one-off arguments.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 06:26 PM   #53
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonosloveslave


Everyone has agreed up to this point. Well, I guess except Dread. But he didn't really commit either...
Well, last time I checked we could disagree without it degenerating into a flame war. At least I hope we can. So feel free to jump in and have a flame-free discussion.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 06:35 PM   #54
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
To BLS's point, it appears you are willing to place arbitrary limitations on marriage. Why some limitations and not other? I'd be interested in the principles, not one-off arguments.
I don't think to define marriage as between two human beings is any more arbitrary than defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Placing an age limit on when people may be married is an arbitrary limitation, would you argue against that? In some cultures and at certain times in history, there has been an arbitrary limitation that marriage must be between an woman and a man who have never married before. In other societies, it must be a man and woman who have never married or who have been married by their husband or wife has died. Aren't all of those arbitrary limitations on marriage?

So the "principles" would be, I believe marriage to be between two individuals, regardless of gender or sexuality, who are in love and want to make a committment to spend the rest of their lives together.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 06:55 PM   #55
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:46 AM
You gave me your beliefs, not principles. I guess the question becomes: "What is marriage?" and "What are the principles behind any limitation or qualification we place on marriage?"



If there are no principles, only beliefs, the question then becomes "What is the source of your beliefs?"
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 07:11 PM   #56
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 11:46 AM
I explained that I believe the "principles" of marriage to be two people who are in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together making a committment to each other. That committment would of course have different meanings to different people, just as marriage between heterosexual couples does.

I don't think that is any more arbitrary than other limitations which have been placed on marriage, for instance age restrictions, requiring that both of the people to be married are of the same religion, requiring that neither of them have married before, etc.

It seems that some people who are opposed to gay marriage wish to portray marriage as having been exactly the same, never having different restrictions or limitations on it, ever since marriage was first conceived of. They then make the argument that "well, marriage can't be between people of the same gender because it's always been between a man and woman." However, that argument fails to recognise that there have always been requirements or restrictions which go beyond the idea of marriage being merely any man and any woman.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 08:59 PM   #57
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Like someone said, though one's religious beliefs may incline them to see homosexual marriage as wrong, religion has no place in politics. Whether I like it or not, homosexual CIVIL marriage should be legal everywhere. A religious union is a different story...
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 10:51 PM   #58
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonosloveslave
This ruling concerns me because I think it opening a door for polygamy, polyamory(group marriage) etc - oh wait, why are those wrong again? It's just people loving each other that want to be together and recognized...
You sit there on your pulpit, while being married to someone I presume you love. After all, I'm guessing you didn't get married to be a living baby machine, like some people argue that marriage is. So I'm giving you a challenge: tell me this with a straight face, after imagining what your life would be like if you were not allowed to marry the person you're married to now.

If it so concerns you, pass a constitutional amendment banning polygamy, polyamory, bestiality, pedophilia, and inanimate objects. In other words, define marriage between two adults, regardless of gender, and I'm sure, barring Christian fundamentalists who'd have a hissy fit over someone beating them at their own game, most people would go for it. No, what this absolutely irrational concern obscures is a deep-seated hatred for homosexuals on the basis of perceived Biblical precepts.

But Christianity refuses to tell the truth about that on the public surface, because the fact of the matter is that we have freedom of religion in this nation. It's too bad, though, that religions lie through their teeth constantly, thinking that the end justify the means.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 10:54 PM   #59
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
If there are no principles, only beliefs, the question then becomes "What is the source of your beliefs?"
Love one another.

In other words, if you don't want a gay marriage, then don't have one. For those who want to have them, leave them alone. After all, gay people don't protest in front of Christian churches every time someone gets married. Gay people don't picket Christian funerals. Gay people don't propose constitutional amendments that would discriminate against Christians.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-04-2004, 10:58 PM   #60
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 06:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
To BLS's point, it appears you are willing to place arbitrary limitations on marriage. Why some limitations and not other? I'd be interested in the principles, not one-off arguments.
Why are your beliefs more important than anyone else's? Because your group screams the loudest? There are many Christian and non-Christian religions that would marry same-sex couples in an instant.

In regards to polygamy, as long as it is uniformily banned between people of all sexualities, then so be it. Let it be banned. As it stands, though, the only way I'll accept a ban on gay marriage is if there is a ban on heterosexual marriage. Let's have some uniformity in a supposedly secular and pluralistic nation.

Or is the United States like Iran--a wannabe theocracy that hides under the veil of democracy? Because, last I heard, Iran isn't exactly a happy nation.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon 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 06:46 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