New Jersey embraces civil rights for all couples - 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 10-26-2006, 04:57 PM   #31
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Like I asked before, if we oveturned the laws against incest - then you would think it's fine for them to marry? Is this correct? And I imagine that you would use the same reasoning in support of polygamy. Correct?


we overturned laws allowing adults to marry children (think Jerry Lee Lewis or Loretta Lynn), so now adults can no longer marry children.

laws change.

AEON, since your'e so into this, could you please offer me, first, a justification for the legality of incest.

then, i want to hear a reason to make homosexual relationships illegal.

you're going to need to do both to advance your argument much farther.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 05:00 PM   #32
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. Why do homosexual couples want to marry?


because we love each other and want to create a solid, stable union that will allow us to protect each other and our children should we choose to have them and we'd like the same validation and worth conferred unto heterosexual couples.

from a more philosophical standpoint, having marriage as a goal for homosexuals would give structure, meaning, and purpose to homosexual dating and relationships. i don't think heterosexuals are quite aware of how much the "marriage goal" shapes and structures their dating habits, from when they are teenagers all through their lives. homosexuals have no such structure.

in fact, marriage seems to me to be the conservative option. as a Christian, i'm sure you object to premarital sex because of the consequences of unregulated sexuality that occurs outside the boundaries of marrige. why not give the same thing to those promiscuous homosexuals?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 05:04 PM   #33
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 10:46 AM
You're using logic and compassion, Irvine. These things won't work with this guy. You've tried it before, and yet he still brings the same thing up.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 05:24 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen


I would assume for the same reasons that heterosexual couples want to marry.
If a brother and sister wanted to marry for these same reasons - why would you want to deny that to them? Or why would you stop four or five women who really wanted to marry one guy? Or vice versa?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 05:30 PM   #35
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 10:46 AM
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 05:31 PM   #36
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


If a brother and sister wanted to marry for these same reasons - why would you want to deny that to them? Or why would you stop four or five women who really wanted to marry one guy? Or vice versa?


why are you assuming that there's a comparison to be made between gay people and polygamists and incest participants?

why should you get to marry the woman of your choosing? why do you get that right, but you'd deny it to others?

you're avoiding the question. you're going to need to start making some distinctions instead of giving us hypotheticals and "what if ..." scenarios. the slippery slope is only so slippery, and it slides in both ways.

so, let's nail down our distinctions and determine why some relationships are worthy of social recognition and some are not, and why some sexual activites are legal and why others aren't.

i really want to work through this. i'm trying to engage with you.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 05:34 PM   #37
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 10:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


If a brother and sister wanted to marry for these same reasons - why would you want to deny that to them? Or why would you stop four or five women who really wanted to marry one guy? Or vice versa?
Yes. Of course. Let brothers and sisters marry. Let that lucky bastard marry those five babes.

Hell, marriage for everyone but straight Christians. They need to be kept under control because every time they marry, they threaten my incestous, lesbian relationship with my 11-year old niece.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 05:35 PM   #38
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 10:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
i really want to work through this. i'm trying to engage with you.


Then I'll stop being a smart-ass and let you try to pry some real answers out of this guy.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 05:35 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




we overturned laws allowing adults to marry children (think Jerry Lee Lewis or Loretta Lynn), so now adults can no longer marry children.

laws change.

AEON, since your'e so into this, could you please offer me, first, a justification for the legality of incest.

then, i want to hear a reason to make homosexual relationships illegal.

you're going to need to do both to advance your argument much farther.
Well, I wouldn’t exactly say I am “into” this, but I will admit I am curious why so many people feel that homosexual marriage is considered a basic human right on one hand, but in the other hand want to deny this right to incestuous couples and polygamists.
I think what we have here is a problem with the definition of marriage. If it is not simply the spiritual union between a man and a woman, then what does marriage mean to you? Is it simply two people who love each other? Then why not three? Four? Why only two? And if you do concede that it should only be two, then which two people? Any two? Boy, girl, man, woman, brother, sister – as long as it is two?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 05:47 PM   #40
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
[B]

Well, I wouldn’t exactly say I am “into” this, but I will admit I am curious why so many people feel that homosexual marriage is considered a basic human right on one hand, but in the other hand want to deny this right to incestuous couples and polygamists.

what the NJ court has said is not that there is a basic human right to marriage but there is a basic right as citizens of NJ to equal protection under the law.

do you think that heterosexual marriage is a basic human right or is it simply in the state's interest to recognize and protect stable adult relationships that will benefit both adult partners as well as their children?

i think looking at it as a "right" misses the point -- it's not a "right" to get married, it's the right to have access to the institution of marriage. no one is saying that churches must marry gay people; they are saying that there is no equal protection when a group of people are unable to have access to an institution due to immutable personal characteristics which are not illegal nor harmful in any way to society.





[q]I think what we have here is a problem with the definition of marriage. If it is not simply the spiritual union between a man and a woman, then what does marriage mean to you?[/q]

in the eyes of the state, marriage has nothing to do with spirituality. it has everything to do with tax breaks, inheritance rights, and power of attorney. it would allow me to pull the plug on my partner, and it would allow me to inherit from my partner should he die and prevent what might be vengeful parents from coming in and taking everything that we've worked for together. in the eyes of the state, spirituality has nothing to do with it. atheist heterosexuals get married all the time, and i don't see you stopping them, and i'm pretty sure they don't give a damn about their spirits.


[q]Is it simply two people who love each other? Then why not three? Four? Why only two? And if you do concede that it should only be two, then which two people? Any two? Boy, girl, man, woman, brother, sister – as long as it is two?[/q]

the polygamy argument has been made illegal due to historical reasons -- it generally involved one man and many underaged girls. within a polygamous relationship lies the inherent potential for exploitation.

if you could, say, present me three heterosexual adults all in their 40s who wanted a polygamous relationship, i would probably shrug and say that i didn't really care what they did. but what's important to note is that they have the option to marry one other person, as a homosexual, i do not have the option to marry anyone.

they have this access that i spoke of earlier. they can get married, under the terms of the state, if they wish. i CANNOT do that. i CANNOT become heterosexual. i CANNOT marry a woman in good faith (isn't there something about misrepresentation in marrige certificates, and that's why Rene Zelwegger divorced that cowboy guy?).

polygamists and incest participants, so long as they are heterosexual, have nothing denied to them. they can marry, perhaps they'd rather marry under different terms and circmstance, but they have the opportunity to participate in a state-recognized adult relationship.

i do not have that option.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 05:48 PM   #41
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 06:46 PM
Gays aren't committing incest. They don't seek to do anything like that. Incest is inappropriate behavior in my book. Homosexuality is simply a sexual orientation. It's not the same thing.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 05:51 PM   #42
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 10:46 AM


Eagerly awaiting answers.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 06:16 PM   #43
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Now - if only we can get polygamy and incestual marriage legalized - then nobody who wants to marry will be denied.
Incestuous marriage, which I certainly think that marriages between first through third cousins are, is already allowed in many states, not to mention that such marriages are recognized as valid marriages even in states where they are not allowed to be performed themselves.

If you have your panties in a bunch about polygamy and incest, then, by all means, pass a constitutional amendment banning marriages based on polygamy, incest, and bestiality. You'll get that amendment passed handily.

Unless you believe in the pre-19th century notion of marriage being about nothing but childbearing, domination over women, and property alliances, there's no logical reason to ban gay marriage.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 06:18 PM   #44
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Lila64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: ♥Set List Lane♥
Posts: 52,710
Local Time: 11:46 AM
I admire your patience Irvine. Really, I do.
__________________
Lila64 is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 06:31 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



what the NJ court has said is not that there is a basic human right to marriage but there is a basic right as citizens of NJ to equal protection under the law.

do you think that heterosexual marriage is a basic human right or is it simply in the state's interest to recognize and protect stable adult relationships that will benefit both adult partners as well as their children?
i think looking at it as a "right" misses the point -- it's not a "right" to get married, it's the right to have access to the institution of marriage. no one is saying that churches must marry gay people; they are saying that there is no equal protection when a group of people are unable to have access to an institution due to immutable personal characteristics which are not illegal nor harmful in any way to society.
.
If we are simply talking about equal access to the “benefits” of marriage, then I don’t understand why you would argue that homosexuals deserve special access while polygamists and incestuous partners do not get access.





Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


in the eyes of the state, marriage has nothing to do with spirituality. it has everything to do with tax breaks, inheritance rights, and power of attorney. it would allow me to pull the plug on my partner, and it would allow me to inherit from my partner should he die and prevent what might be vengeful parents from coming in and taking everything that we've worked for together. in the eyes of the state, spirituality has nothing to do with it. atheist heterosexuals get married all the time, and i don't see you stopping them, and i'm pretty sure they don't give a damn about their spirits.
Of course, the spiritual union is the only one in which I truly understand. That makes perfect sense to me. On the other hand, since you are speaking from a pure legal perspective – then the same argument that you are making for homosexual marriage can be made for ANY consenting adult relationship. Who are you and I to deny these benefits? And what is your decision based on? Personal taste? Public opinion? Op eds?

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


the polygamy argument has been made illegal due to historical reasons -- it generally involved one man and many underaged girls. within a polygamous relationship lies the inherent potential for exploitation.
Well, let’s just assume for arguments sake that everyone is of the “age of consent.” Would you still want to limit their access to marriage benefits?
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

if you could, say, present me three heterosexual adults all in their 40s who wanted a polygamous relationship, i would probably shrug and say that i didn't really care what they did. but what's important to note is that they have the option to marry one other person, as a homosexual, i do not have the option to marry anyone.
I don’t understand your point here. Are you saying that if they DID want to marry, then they should only be able to choose ONE, and only one? If so, why?
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

they have this access that i spoke of earlier. they can get married, under the terms of the state, if they wish. i CANNOT do that. i CANNOT become heterosexual. i CANNOT marry a woman in good faith (isn't there something about misrepresentation in marrige certificates, and that's why Rene Zelwegger divorced that cowboy guy?).
I don’t know about the cowboy guy. Maybe you can’t become heterosexual, and maybe a polygamist can’t become a monogamist. I still don’t see your reasons for allowing one group special legal status and not another.


Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


polygamists and incest participants, so long as they are heterosexual, have nothing denied to them. they can marry, perhaps they'd rather marry under different terms and circmstance, but they have the opportunity to participate in a state-recognized adult relationship.

i do not have that option.
Do they? In what state?
__________________

__________________
AEON 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 01:46 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