New Jersey embraces civil rights for all couples - Page 25 - 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 10-30-2006, 09:30 PM   #361
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
Homosexuals have not been deprived of same right to marry as any other citizen -- only of the right to redefine marriage to fit their preferences.

Same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue.


no. you are dead wrong here, and the NJSC ruling profoundly disagrees with this.

yes, a homosexual can marry a heterosexual, but in most cases, this constitutes what might be known as "fraud" -- or whatever reason Rene Zelwegger gave when she divorced Kenny Chesney.

if the point of marriage is love, stability, and to create an area for adult sexuality, then allowing hetero to marry homo accomplishes none of this. a marriage cannot be "authentic" unless both participants are of the same gender.

if you want to *really* redefine marriage, let's encourage all those David Guests out there to marry his own Liza Minelli

ETA: it occured to me when i was just taking out my contacts that this is precisely the same argument against interracial marriage. after all, white people could marry other white people, why did they have to marry a black person?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-30-2006, 09:45 PM   #362
Refugee
 
AussieU2fanman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,638
Local Time: 08:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by CTU2fan
Coming in late on this thread, but believe it or not I did read the whole thing...



Of course it is...the government is unilaterally denying a segment of the population (homosexuals) the right to marry. The whole point of the "legal definition" votes is to pull a legal end-around on this. If states can legally define marriage as a union between a man & woman then, hey, no infringement on civil rights right.

I guess what I'd like to ask those who oppose gay marriage is "why?" Because I don't honestly see how 2 men or 2 women marrying has an effect on anyone else. Basically I'd like to see an argument against it made without using God/Christianity/Scripture, and without resorting to "slippery slope" arguments.
I'm a secular humanist and have no affiliation with any organised religion and hence scripture anymore. And I still find gay marriage wrong. But I do accept homosexuality as a fact of life and accept they should be allowed to live and practice it together.
Yes I define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and yes it is a discriminatory one which I fully accept. Just like a man can not marry a dog he really truely loves and a brother can not marry his sister that he really truely loves. It does segregate various groups for the right of marriage. By all means I believe homosexuals can be together, but they do not have the right of marriage in my eyes. I simply don't see marriage as a right for every human being because that means anyone can marry whoever they want which is ridiculous. I am traditional in my definition of marriage despite being devoid of any religious advocation. It is by no means a homosexuals fault that he/she is gay, but because he is born (or learned?) with this anomaly in his/her sexual preference it retracts the sacred right of marriage. Gay marriage is just like a man being born without legs demanding the right to run in the 10,000m marathon.

And I truely believe society will never ever fully accept homosexual marriage, as so many people are threatened by changing x thousand years of tradtion and values.

And no homosexual marriage 'does not affect me,' just like many
other things don't, this does not vindicate the 'rightness' of it.
__________________

__________________
AussieU2fanman is offline  
Old 10-30-2006, 09:51 PM   #363
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AussieU2fanman

Yes I define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and yes it is a discriminatory one which I fully accept. Just like a man can not marry a dog he really truely loves and a brother can not marry his sister that he really truely loves. It does segregate various groups for the right of marriage. By all means I believe homosexuals can be together, but they do not have the right of marriage in my eyes. I simply don't see marriage as a right for every human being because that means anyone can marry whoever they want which is ridiculous. I am traditional in my definition of marriage despite being devoid of any religious advocation. It is by no means a homosexuals fault that he/she is gay, but because he is born (or learned?) with this anomaly in his/her sexual preference it retracts the sacred right of marriage. Gay marriage is just like a man being born without legs demanding the right to run in the 10,000m marathon.

what do you think marriage is for?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-30-2006, 09:53 PM   #364
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Once again you'll get the

They haven't been deprived the right to marry?
I've been waiting for that 'don't drop the soap" smilie.

Irvine has no less rights to marriage than you or I, he just doesn't exercise them. That may sound flippant but it's true. However, equal protection under our constitution demands some type of arrangements be worked out regarding benefits and other economic and social issues as they pertain to domestic partners or civil unions. Irvine posts with great conviction, but not enough to convince me to leave my lofty position in 'the mob" or refute the "status quo."
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-30-2006, 09:54 PM   #365
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AussieU2fanman


Gay marriage is just like a man being born without legs demanding the right to run in the 10,000m marathon.
This has to be the worst analogy I've ever seen. A man with no legs can't physically run a marathon, so it's not an option of rights.

For one who attacks others and tries to sell themself as an intellectual, this post is probably one of the poorest pieces of logic I've seen in here in a long time.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-30-2006, 10:00 PM   #366
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


I've been waiting for that 'don't drop the soap" smilie.

Irvine has no less rights to marriage than you or I, he just doesn't exercise them. That may sound flippant but it's true. However, equal protection under our constitution demands some type of arrangements be worked out regarding benefits and other economic and social issues as they pertain to domestic partners or civil unions.
So seperate but equal, but not even really equal... That's pretty much what you're saying.
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Irvine posts with great conviction, but not enough to convince me to leave my lofty position in 'the mob" or refute the "status quo."
Well there are still those that believe and want segregation, they can't exactly let go, you can just join them as one of the left behind in a few decades...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-30-2006, 10:03 PM   #367
Refugee
 
AussieU2fanman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,638
Local Time: 08:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


This has to be the worst analogy I've ever seen. A man with no legs can't physically run a marathon, so it's not an option of rights.

For one who attacks others and tries to sell themself as an intellectual, this post is probably one of the poorest pieces of logic I've seen in here in a long time.
In the sense in which I defined marriage, YES it is the right analogy. He cannot run the marathon because he doesn't have legs, and the gay person cannot marry because they are not meeting the criteria unto which I defined the tradional/conservative approach to marriage. They were both born that way, no one is at fault, and yet it is an unfortunate loss of rights.
__________________
AussieU2fanman is offline  
Old 10-30-2006, 10:05 PM   #368
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AussieU2fanman
I believe homosexuals can be together, but they do not have the right of marriage in my eyes.
But are you aware of the fact that homosexuals may have Constitutional rights to marry? And in that case, not to be flippant, but what difference does it make what rights they have in your eyes?
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 10-30-2006, 10:08 PM   #369
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
Irvine has no less rights to marriage than you or I, he just doesn't exercise them. That may sound flippant but it's true. However, equal protection under our constitution demands some type of arrangements be worked out regarding benefits and other economic and social issues as they pertain to domestic partners or civil unions. Irvine posts with great conviction, but not enough to convince me to leave my lofty position in 'the mob" or refute the "status quo."


why are you so scared of my getting married? what's so precious to you about the word that two men kissing threatens to destroy it for you?

no, i do not have access to the institution of marriage, inasmuch as a black person in love with a white person had access to the institution of marriage back in the era of anti-miscegenation laws.

it's a thoroughly meaningless to say that i am not exercising my marriage rights when i have been forbidden the authentic exercise of those rights by the state.

and doesn't this all come off as just a bit mean-spirited?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-30-2006, 10:09 PM   #370
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AussieU2fanman


In the sense in which I defined marriage, YES it is the right analogy. He cannot run the marathon because he doesn't have legs, and the gay person cannot marry because they are not meeting the criteria unto which I defined the tradional/conservative approach to marriage. They were both born that way, no one is at fault, and yet it is an unfortunate loss of rights.
But with this extremely faulty logic you can define voters as white male. So everything will held to whim of those that define it, at this point is PURE bigotry, nothing else.

At least some people think they have a god telling them it's wrong, you have nothing but preference.

That is an anti-intellelectual form of legislation...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-30-2006, 10:11 PM   #371
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AussieU2fanman


In the sense in which I defined marriage, YES it is the right analogy. He cannot run the marathon because he doesn't have legs, and the gay person cannot marry because they are not meeting the criteria unto which I defined the tradional/conservative approach to marriage. They were both born that way, no one is at fault, and yet it is an unfortunate loss of rights.


erm, but you can very easily give those rights to people who want and need them.

if you could give a brand new pair of legs so that someone could run a marathon, wouldn't it be rather cruel to deny it to them?

(not that i necessarily want to further this analogy)
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-30-2006, 10:16 PM   #372
Refugee
 
AussieU2fanman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 1,638
Local Time: 08:02 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


But with this extremely faulty logic you can define voters as white male. So everything will held to whim of those that define it, at this point is PURE bigotry, nothing else.

At least some people think they have a god telling them it's wrong, you have nothing but preference.

That is an anti-intellelectual form of legislation...
Adhering to traditional values is seen as bigotry in your eyes? The sacred right of marriage has stayed essentially the same throughout the course of history, I simply don't like the idea of it being embellished by various groups demanding entry into a club which they don't meet the criteria for which has been laid out over thousands of years. Is that really bigotry?
__________________
AussieU2fanman is offline  
Old 10-30-2006, 10:17 PM   #373
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AussieU2fanman
The sacred right of marriage has stayed essentially the same throughout the course of history,
Sacred right? To be bought and sold like property?? No thanks; this woman does NOT want to go back to the traditional way of marriage.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-30-2006, 10:18 PM   #374
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AussieU2fanman
Adhering to traditional values is seen as bigotry in your eyes?
What about the traditional value of slavery? That went on for hundreds of years, and was finally abolished.

Damn liberals.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-30-2006, 10:22 PM   #375
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AussieU2fanman


In the sense in which I defined marriage, YES it is the right analogy. He cannot run the marathon because he doesn't have legs, and the gay person cannot marry because they are not meeting the criteria unto which I defined the tradional/conservative approach to marriage. They were both born that way, no one is at fault, and yet it is an unfortunate loss of rights.
Actually most road races also have wheelchair divisions so the person born with no legs can indeed participate. So that comparison doesn't work either (not that it ever did).
__________________

__________________
indra 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 04:32 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