New Jersey embraces civil rights for all couples - Page 13 - 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 10-27-2006, 01:51 PM   #181
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Set aside same-sex marriage for a moment. Conservatives made the same argument in the early 90's during the Dan Quayle/Murphy Brown episode. While recognizing all adults rights to autonomy and the individual pursuit of happiness, it was becoming obvious that divorce and out-of-wedlock births were transforming the lives of American children and thus society. And for daring to suggest that "evidence tells us that not all family structures produce equal outcomes for children," conservatives were said to be attacking single moms and called "mean" for suggesting that the best way to avoid poverty was to graduate, marry and then have children. In that order.

It's not about denying rights to anyone but the recognizing, favoring and promoting of an ideal. Yes, single moms can raise wonderful children, yes a gay couple can raise wonderful children, yes some couples never have children and yes, a hetro couple can provide a terrible home. But on the whole, aren't children better off in a stable environment with a mother and a father?
Which makes the reason of Sullivan-like arguments for same-sex marriage much more persuasive than the cacophony of "bigot" and "hater" that seems to be the best some here can muster up.

Just for fun, who can tell me who said this?
Excellent thread, Professor.

The following is an excerpy from a Mormon online newsletter, the Merdian. No, I am not a Mormon, but yes, I agree with what the author says.

How Marriage Is Hurt

So, exactly how does legalizing same-sex marriage hurt our marriages, our children and our society?

Once we abandon marriage to the whims and desires of adults seeking validation of their sexual lifestyles, we denigrate children and their needs – legally validating relationships that would deliberately leave them motherless or fatherless. And that hurts society. We have plenty of data to show what happens to children when they grow up without a father or a mother. Prisons are filled with adults who were fatherless as children. The financial burden of welfare and prison programs on society as a result of children growing up without their mother or their father is horrific. And that is not even taking into consideration the immense personal suffering that inevitably is too often hidden behind these statistics.

During the House debate Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) hit the nail on the head when he explained that legalizing same-sex marriage does not just expand marriage, it undermines it. It alters it to the very core and “totally severs it from its whole purpose, and that is the relationship between a man, a woman, and a child.”

There is no such thing as same-sex marriage. It does not exist. It is an oxymoron because marriage is a relationship between a man and woman. We can make a law saying that oranges are apples and decree that all recipes including apples must now use oranges interchangeably, but I guarantee that the results will not be the same. You can mandate that those that grow apples must now use the techniques for growing oranges but you can’t expect the same kind of fruit to grow.

If you change the definition of marriage you sever it from its very purpose for existing -- you sever reproduction from parenthood and that is a radical experiment. If you say gender doesn’t matter to marriage, then you are also saying that gender doesn’t matter to parenthood.

Marriage is not just about love and the legitimate or selfish needs and wants of adults. Marriage is about securing a father and a mother to their offspring. Congressman J.D Hayworth (R-AZ) took the floor and said, “Marriage is not about excluding a group of people. Marriage is about what is best for our children and our society.”

Marriage, in and of itself, discriminates and rightly so. Marriage discriminates against polygamists, pedophiles, those who wish to enter into legally sanctioned incestuous relationships, group marriage, and of course, marriage discriminates against same-sex couples who want to marry. The institution of marriage discriminates to make sure that those who marry have the potential to create children in order to perpetuate the human race; and that the union will provide children with what they need most -- a mother and a father legally bound together in a family relationship. Marriage confers benefits to potential parents as they create and rear children. The government does not care whom you love. The government has no interest in sanctioning love, friendship, or personal associations. It has a vital interest in encouraging what is best for society.

During the debate, several Democrats argued that children living with gay couples need the same protections as those living with heterosexual couples. I say to them, “Where are the missing mothers or fathers of their children?” They certainly had one of each. What scientific experiment or financial/legal arrangements were entered into to sever that relationship? Are children now to be considered as commodities that can be bought or sold at the whim of adults to interchangeable parents regardless of biology? What about the rights of the child?
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 01:52 PM   #182
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Set aside same-sex marriage for a moment. Conservatives made the same argument in the early 90's during the Dan Quayle/Murphy Brown episode. While recognizing all adults rights to autonomy and the individual pursuit of happiness, it was becoming obvious that divorce and out-of-wedlock births were transforming the lives of American children and thus society. And for daring to suggest that "evidence tells us that not all family structures produce equal outcomes for children," conservatives were said to be attacking single moms and called "mean" for suggesting that the best way to avoid poverty was to graduate, marry and then have children. In that order.


we're not passing laws preventing women from having babies out of wedlock or forcing them to have abortions if they do get pregnant out of wedlock. there's a big difference between promoting an ideal and denying the rights of others. i don't see how denying homosexuals from access to the benefits of marrige helps to promote heterosexual marriage. i really don't.

also, all the research shows that children of gay parents do every bit as well as children of straight parents. there are people who say that, "the reserach shows that children do better with a mother and a father." but that avoids the gay question, since that statement is derived not from comparing heterosex copules to samesex couples, but from comparing single parents to couples.

it's not the presence of opposite gendered parents that has been demonstrated to be in the best interests of the child, but it is the presence of 2 committed, loving parents that has been demonstrated to be in the best interests of a child.


[q]It's not about denying rights to anyone but the recognizing, favoring and promoting of an ideal. Yes, single moms can raise wonderful children, yes a gay couple can raise wonderful children, yes some couples never have children and yes, a hetro couple can provide a terrible home. But on the whole, aren't children better off in a stable environment with a mother and a father?[/q]

so are we back to "marriage is only about children"? it seems to me as if we're moving into gay adoption conversations, which is distinct from marriage equality. anyway, to answer your question, i think children are best in a stable environment with two committed parents. i don't see the opposite gender pairing as producing something unique and irreplacable and so critical to a child's development that we should enact discriminatory laws to protect and preserve that union. there is NO research to support that.



[q]Which makes the reason of Sullivan-like arguments for same-sex marriage much more persuasive than the cacophony of "bigot" and "hater" that seems to be the best some here can muster up. [/q]

while i have my isssues with Sully (though just LOVE how he's turned so rabidly anti-Bush these days), his marriage arguments are nearly flawless, and balanced by nuance and subtlety. and i've told him so, drunkenly, in a very popular bar here in DC.

and there were Interferencers who witnessed the event.

Quote:
Just for fun, who can tell me who said this?
i assume Sully, but i have no idea, though it sounds like Bennett.

Sully also took a pounding (pun intended) for his somewhat shrill condemnation of Clinton's sex life when Sully has more than a few sexual skeletons in his own closet ... but that's irrelevant to this discussion.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 01:59 PM   #183
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 02:20 PM
Can anyone on the other side use a logical reason?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 02:00 PM   #184
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


Excellent thread, Professor.

The following is an excerpy from a Mormon online newsletter, the Merdian. No, I am not a Mormon, but yes, I agree with what the author says.

How Marriage Is Hurt

So, exactly how does legalizing same-sex marriage hurt our marriages, our children and our society?

Once we abandon marriage to the whims and desires of adults seeking validation of their sexual lifestyles, we denigrate children and their needs – legally validating relationships that would deliberately leave them motherless or fatherless. And that hurts society. We have plenty of data to show what happens to children when they grow up without a father or a mother. Prisons are filled with adults who were fatherless as children. The financial burden of welfare and prison programs on society as a result of children growing up without their mother or their father is horrific. And that is not even taking into consideration the immense personal suffering that inevitably is too often hidden behind these statistics.

During the House debate Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) hit the nail on the head when he explained that legalizing same-sex marriage does not just expand marriage, it undermines it. It alters it to the very core and “totally severs it from its whole purpose, and that is the relationship between a man, a woman, and a child.”

There is no such thing as same-sex marriage. It does not exist. It is an oxymoron because marriage is a relationship between a man and woman. We can make a law saying that oranges are apples and decree that all recipes including apples must now use oranges interchangeably, but I guarantee that the results will not be the same. You can mandate that those that grow apples must now use the techniques for growing oranges but you can’t expect the same kind of fruit to grow.

If you change the definition of marriage you sever it from its very purpose for existing -- you sever reproduction from parenthood and that is a radical experiment. If you say gender doesn’t matter to marriage, then you are also saying that gender doesn’t matter to parenthood.

Marriage is not just about love and the legitimate or selfish needs and wants of adults. Marriage is about securing a father and a mother to their offspring. Congressman J.D Hayworth (R-AZ) took the floor and said, “Marriage is not about excluding a group of people. Marriage is about what is best for our children and our society.”

Marriage, in and of itself, discriminates and rightly so. Marriage discriminates against polygamists, pedophiles, those who wish to enter into legally sanctioned incestuous relationships, group marriage, and of course, marriage discriminates against same-sex couples who want to marry. The institution of marriage discriminates to make sure that those who marry have the potential to create children in order to perpetuate the human race; and that the union will provide children with what they need most -- a mother and a father legally bound together in a family relationship. Marriage confers benefits to potential parents as they create and rear children. The government does not care whom you love. The government has no interest in sanctioning love, friendship, or personal associations. It has a vital interest in encouraging what is best for society.

During the debate, several Democrats argued that children living with gay couples need the same protections as those living with heterosexual couples. I say to them, “Where are the missing mothers or fathers of their children?” They certainly had one of each. What scientific experiment or financial/legal arrangements were entered into to sever that relationship? Are children now to be considered as commodities that can be bought or sold at the whim of adults to interchangeable parents regardless of biology? What about the rights of the child?


but ALL of these concerns have already been addressed.

would you annul Martha's marriage because she does not have a child?

would you prevent a widowed 65 year old woman from re-marrying late in life?

marriage is not JUST about children. and as for the last paragraphy, it was irresponsible HETEROSEXUALITY that brought that child into the arms of a same-sex couple, and until every last orphan in America and across the world is adopted, there will ALWAYS be more needy children than there are good parents. why, on earth, would you deny a child the rights to two good parents who are desperate to love him or her simply because they happen to be gay? you'd rather the child be in foster care than in a loving home with same-sexed parents?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 02:00 PM   #185
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
What's your point INDY? You don't think I know the story?
Again with the

"resolved to divorce her quietly." While the circumstances surrounding the relationship between Mary and Joseph are scant at best, why do you say Mary was unwed when she gave birth to Jesus?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 02:02 PM   #186
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 02:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Again with the

"resolved to divorce her quietly." While the circumstances surrounding the relationship between Mary and Joseph are scant at best, why do you say Mary was unwed when she gave birth to Jesus?
Read my post again, that's not what I said.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 02:11 PM   #187
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:20 PM
Quote:
it's not the presence of opposite gendered parents that has been demonstrated to be in the best interests of the child, but it is the presence of 2 committed, loving parents that has been demonstrated to be in the best interests of a child.
I have to disagree here. While 2 loving parents of the same sex may be preferable to one parent and certainly preferable to say foster-care. Men and women are different and they each bring, individually, their own unique contributions to child rearing. It would be disingenuous to say otherwise.

And the quote was from a very wise Democratic senator, Patrick Moynihan.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 02:16 PM   #188
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Read my post again, that's not what I said.
Quote:
INDY don't forget Jesus was conceived by an unwed mother...
You are right, my apologies. But still not relevant.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 02:19 PM   #189
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 02:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500




You are right, my apologies. But still not relevant.
Yes it is, because you would have condemned her too based on your status quo, ideal family schtick...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 02:35 PM   #190
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:20 PM
Quote:
while i have my isssues with Sully (though just LOVE how he's turned so rabidly anti-Bush these days), his marriage arguments are nearly flawless, and balanced by nuance and subtlety. and i've told him so, drunkenly, in a very popular bar here in DC.
Wow, I'm very jealous. Why I don't pretend to agree with Andrew on even a majority of his views, I imagine him to be quite the engaging conversationalist. Especially after a few beers.
But I bet you have lot's of such stories. So, ever "knocked back a few" with Tony Blankley, Bill Kristol or Ralph Reed?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 02:43 PM   #191
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


I have to disagree here. While 2 loving parents of the same sex may be preferable to one parent and certainly preferable to say foster-care. Men and women are different and they each bring, individually, their own unique contributions to child rearing. It would be disingenuous to say otherwise.


but that is your personal conviction, that has not been demonstrated and documented by studies.

and, again, what does that have to do with marriage, or at least the legal benefits thereof?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 02:47 PM   #192
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Wow, I'm very jealous. Why I don't pretend to agree with Andrew on even a majority of his views, I imagine him to be quite the engaging conversationalist. Especially after a few beers.
But I bet you have lot's of such stories. So, ever "knocked back a few" with Tony Blankley, Bill Kristol or Ralph Reed?


i may or may not have had a date with a former Republican congressional candidate from Mississippi who had a big picture of Regan up in his apartment.



i insisted he make it face the wall.

my first boyfriend may or may not have had a past relationship with a certain very powerful senator's press secretary.

actually, Andrew was a little taken aback, i don't think he's used to people saying nice things to him in gay bars because he's so often the target of invective by the gay community (sometimes well deserved, sometimes not so). and our conversation was brief, but i know people who know him (and have partied with him) and he's really quite brilliant, and British, and like most highly successful people a little crazy.

and i've heard all sorts of other rumors that really aren't fit for a public message board ... and about all sorts of politicos, not just the punditry.

i have seen a few people, but i haven't really engaged others (Kristol, Brooks, et al) in conversation.

though my first job here was working for a 2-time Pulitzer winning author.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 02:54 PM   #193
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Yes it is, because you would have condemned her too based on your status quo, ideal family schtick...
In Israel at that time, the law was not kind to adulterers and fornicators, and it was commonly accepted that they were to be shunned. So be careful in your accusations aginst INDY, because as an Israelite at that time, you probably would have condemned her also, as would I have, as would most Israelites, unless you were one of the few who studied and understand the prophecies that Christ was to be born of a virgin. And not too many of the common folk had frequent access to study the scriptures on their own.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 03:18 PM   #194
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


Riveting thread, everyone.

Aeon, you walked right into this one and I'm amazed no ones called you on it yet.

At one time (specificially Biblical times) both were considered legal and apparently tolerated by God Himself.

Polgyamy: Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon--four that come to mind right off hand.

Incest: Isaac, Jacob (again), and, one would presume, the first generation of Adam's chidlren.
These are all great examples of the negative consequences of such actions and consequences of the Fall. I encourage you to re-read them. These are certainly not endorsements.
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean

I think the burden is on the Biblical believer, not the secular humanist to "defend" these practices, particular as they relate to taking a stand against gay marriage. Based on a strictly "Biblical" standard, these two things--polygamy and incest--SHOULD by legal if gay marriage is not.
Because your original premise is false, this conclusion is automatically false.
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


Clearly, if we outlaw these things today (and I think we should, particularly as they relate to minors), then the argument must be based on something more than "the Bible tells me so."

(And I'm a big believer in the Bible)
Maycocksean, in reference to Christians living by “the Bible tells me so” – as a Christian, certainly you understand the importance of your statement. Since you claim to be a big believer in the Bible, you certainly won’t mind if I throw a few passages your way. I refer you to Matthew 4: 4 – “4Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." Obviously, your Lord and Savior thinks it is quite important to do things precisely because the Bible tell you so. Why? Perhaps because of this:

John 1

The Word Became Flesh


“ 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.

10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " 16From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.”
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 10-27-2006, 03:19 PM   #195
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 03:20 PM
Why aren't we criminalizing divorce then, in the name of the children?

Divorce rates (from heterosexual couples) are approaching 60%. Is this not the bigger threat to marriage than women having children out of wedlock and two men wanting equal rights under the law? Why aren't legislators doing something about it?
__________________

__________________
anitram 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 03:20 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