New Jersey embraces civil rights for all couples - 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 10-26-2006, 06:38 PM   #46
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 07:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
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.
Polygamy and incest, in terms of immediate family members, is banned across the board in American society. Neither heterosexual, nor homosexual people are permitted to enter such arrangements. As such, as a matter of equity, there's nothing bad about it.

Quote:
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?
Your definition is a little short sighted. I mean, in the Roman Catholic Church, "marriage" is defined as a sacrament between a Catholic man and woman. As such, according to the Catholic Church, all non-Catholic "married couples" are merely living in sin, and, technically, engaging in mass fornication.

What we have a problem with here is that if we start defining legal institutions based on subjective religious practices, where do we stop? Why don't we legalize polygamy, since Islam permits it? After all, what makes Christian religious practices "better" than Muslim religious practices in a country that practices "freedom of religion"?

Secular humanism, which is what our country was really founded on (where do you think "freedom of religion" comes from? The Bible? Hah!), has determined the justification of gay marriage. It's between consenting adults. It doesn't hurt anyone. And there's no rational reason to impose gender roles as a reason to discriminate. If it can be accepted that marriages can occur without children, which many heterosexual couples choose to do, then it cannot logically be determined that marriage is about having children and families.

In the end, I believe in the right of the Roman Catholic Church, for instance, to marry who they want, and, likewise, declare who is not married in their eyes. And, likewise, I believe it is the right for people to live how they want, no matter how much it pisses off the Catholic Church or Evangelical Christians or Ayatollah Khameini.

Whether or not two men or two women get married is absolutely none of your business, just as it is none of my business regarding everyone else's marriages. If that means that a brother and sister want to get married, why should I care? I don't. I'll find it as gross as any other heterosexual union. Polygamy is a whole other can of worms, mainly because such arrangements are never equal and often abusive. We're past the days when women were merely property to be acquired, which is why those arrangements are unacceptable in the Western world.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 06:39 PM   #47
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 01:39 AM
martha, knock it off. Seeing someone else's viewpoint as morally wrong or logically flawed doesn't give you license to make personal attacks in here.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 06:59 PM   #48
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,691
Local Time: 06:39 PM
AEON, why does it bother you if two women get married?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 10-26-2006, 07:02 PM   #49
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: 04:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
martha, knock it off. Seeing someone else's viewpoint as morally wrong or logically flawed doesn't give you license to make personal attacks in here.
I know. I knew I was asking for trouble. I'm not going to apologize, because I really would say the same thing to his face, only with a much more irritated look on my face.

I personally see his viewpoints as incredibly personal attacks on people who post here. His insistence on continually and repeatedly linking homosexuality and incest is nothing short of a personal attack on Irvine and melon. I do believe he's doing it on purpose, and clearly knows the link is offensive. He'll gladly hide behind what he considers "religion" to make his point. I'd be just as intolerant of such a viewpoint if he were continually and repeatedly linking biracial marriage to incest.

And I think he'd be called on it more if he did.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 07:02 PM   #50
The Fly
 
DILETTANTE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 160
Local Time: 07:39 PM
This is overly simplistic, but I think that in some European countries, heterosexual couples often have two "marriages" -- a civil marriage and a religious one. It's up to each religious denomination to decide what criteria are needed for a religious marriage. Maybe maintaining that distinction in the US would be a good way to resolve at least some of the concerns. Heterosexual and homosexual couples would have the option of civil marriages. And couples who wanted religious marriages as well would have to abide by the rules of their religious denominations.
__________________
DILETTANTE is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 07:04 PM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 06:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


You bring this horseshit up every time and it has NOTHING to do with gay marriage. No matter how hard you and your bigoted pals try to align the two.

I'm sick of your shit on this. Really sick of it.
Translation;
Your insolence will not be tolerated.

Aeon, as this thread illustrates, there are some here you can enjoyably debate and converse with, and some it's best to avoid. So insecurely held are their beliefs, so shallow their autonomy, their doctrine so fleeting; that challenges or scrutiny can only be met with, at best avoidance, but more often than not hostility and defamation of character. As you've no doubt discovered.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 07:06 PM   #52
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,691
Local Time: 06:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


I personally see his viewpoints as incredibly personal attacks on people who post here. His insistence on continually and repeatedly linking homosexuality and incest is nothing short of a personal attack on Irvine and melon.
I completely agree.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 10-26-2006, 07:07 PM   #53
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 07:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
Aeon, as this thread illustrates, there are some here you can enjoyably debate and converse with, and some it's best to avoid. So insecurely held are their beliefs, so shallow their autonomy, their doctrine so fleeting; that challenges or scrutiny can only be met with, at best avoidance, but more often than not hostility and defamation of character. As you've no doubt discovered.
You don't need to follow it up with condescending arrogance.

The problem is that liberal/conservative debates are often fought on completely different standards. Liberals are expected to cite large bodies of scientific literature, etc., whereas conservatives merely have to say that their religious beliefs compel them to be a raving bigot. "How dare you say bad things about my God-granted bigotry!"

I can certainly see why it drives many liberals to maddening frustration, particularly when these same arguments continue to appear, no matter how many times we argue to the contrary.

But I've been doing it for six years here now. I'm quite prepared for the assault.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 07:12 PM   #54
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 07:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


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.


first, i want you to know that it actually is very big of me to continually politely ignore your equivocation between homosexuals and the illegal activities of polygamy and incest. and you've yet to answer the direct question of whether or not you think that heterosexual relationships by definition are superior to homosexual relationships.

anyway, polygamists and incest participants DO have access to marriage. so long as they are heterosexual, they can choose to marry one person of the opposite gender. they might PREFER to marry many partners, or their daughters, but the fact remains that marriage is a viable option. also, polygamy and incest are expressions of choice within the framework of heterosexuality; nothing is being denied to them on the basis of their immutable sexual orientation, whereas something is being denied to me on the basis of my own immutable sexual orientation. laws governing heterosexual relationships do not allow heterosexuals to marry anyone, but they do allow them to marry SOMEONE. homosexuals simply want the same thing, which would be to marry another homosexual.






[q]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?[/q]

no it cannot. go back to the above paragraph. i am having rights denied to me because i cannot marry SOMEONE else. you and i can deny the rights of polygamous or incestuous couples on the basis of things that have nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with the nature of the relationships themselves, which could probably be boiled down to the lack of meaningful consent in these relationships.

married or not, it is illegal to have sex with your daughter. it is NOT illegal for two men or two women to have sex with one another. there is nothing illegal about a homosexual relationship because it is EXACTLY the same as a heterosexual relationship, only with the same gender. incestuous homosexual relationships would be just as illegal as heterosexual incest relationships.




[q]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?[/q]

this misses the point. again, a heterosexual polygamist CAN GET MARRIED TO ANOTHER HETEROSEXUAL. he might choose to be married to many heterosexuals, but that is most assuredly a "lifestyle choice" or perhaps "cultural practice," but he has not been barred from any rights in the way that i have been barred from any rights.

if polygamists want the same protection as couples, that's fine. they're welcome to fight for them. but that fight is about the recognition of a cultural practice, it is NOT about rights denied to them.

i don't think you can meaningfully equate the practice of polygamy or the act of incest to the identity of being homosexual.

this is what you don't seem to get. homosexuality is not a practice. it is not an activity. it is not a sexual position. it is not a fetish. it is not a defect. it is a sexual orientation.

think about the way you feel about your wife in particular, and then women in general. that's how i feel about my boyfriend, and men in general.




[q]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?[/q]

i am saying that a heterosexual polygamist can marry ONE other heterosexual. he has that option. a homosexual, by contrast, cannot marry ONE other homosexual.



[q]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.[/q]

can you become homosexual?

you see, AEON, all your arguments rest upon your misunderstanding of what homosexuality is. it is not a cultural practice or lifestyle choice like polygamy or incest. both of these are clearly choices. sure, one could say that they "prefer" to have 4 wives or they "prefer" to be with their sister, but the fact remains that they have access to the rights and privileges of marrige by virtue of their heterosexuality. they have other options. i don't simply "prefer" men to women because i don't have any meaningful romantic attraction to women at all in the same way that you the proud heterosexual don't have any meaningful romantic attraction to men.

i don't have any options available to me, and you're denying them to me on the basis of an immutable, harmless, socially recognized orientation.




Quote:
Do they? In what state?
go back and read. someone in an incestuous relationship might not be able to marry his daughter, but he CAN marry another heterosexual woman. a polygamist cannot marry all of his wives, but he CAN marry one of them.

i cannot marry ANY homosexual.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 07:18 PM   #55
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: 04:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500


Translation;
Your insolence will not be tolerated.

Aeon, as this thread illustrates, there are some here you can enjoyably debate and converse with, and some it's best to avoid. So insecurely held are their beliefs, so shallow their autonomy, their doctrine so fleeting; that challenges or scrutiny can only be met with, at best avoidance, but more often than not hostility and defamation of character. As you've no doubt discovered.


You are completely right! I do hope you put me on your ignore list so you can avoid me when I challenge bigotry done in the name of Jesus. My doctrine of equality is indeed fleeting without Biblical sanction for discrimination, ain't it.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 07:20 PM   #56
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 05:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Polygamy and incest, in terms of immediate family members, is banned across the board in American society. Neither heterosexual, nor homosexual people are permitted to enter such arrangements. As such, as a matter of equity, there's nothing bad about it.



Your definition is a little short sighted. I mean, in the Roman Catholic Church, "marriage" is defined as a sacrament between a Catholic man and woman. As such, according to the Catholic Church, all non-Catholic "married couples" are merely living in sin, and, technically, engaging in mass fornication.

What we have a problem with here is that if we start defining legal institutions based on subjective religious practices, where do we stop? Why don't we legalize polygamy, since Islam permits it? After all, what makes Christian religious practices "better" than Muslim religious practices in a country that practices "freedom of religion"?

Secular humanism, which is what our country was really founded on (where do you think "freedom of religion" comes from? The Bible? Hah!), has determined the justification of gay marriage. It's between consenting adults. It doesn't hurt anyone. And there's no rational reason to impose gender roles as a reason to discriminate. If it can be accepted that marriages can occur without children, which many heterosexual couples choose to do, then it cannot logically be determined that marriage is about having children and families.

In the end, I believe in the right of the Roman Catholic Church, for instance, to marry who they want, and, likewise, declare who is not married in their eyes. And, likewise, I believe it is the right for people to live how they want, no matter how much it pisses off the Catholic Church or Evangelical Christians or Ayatollah Khameini.

Whether or not two men or two women get married is absolutely none of your business, just as it is none of my business regarding everyone else's marriages. If that means that a brother and sister want to get married, why should I care? I don't. I'll find it as gross as any other heterosexual union. Polygamy is a whole other can of worms, mainly because such arrangements are never equal and often abusive. We're past the days when women were merely property to be acquired, which is why those arrangements are unacceptable in the Western world.

Melon
Again, it all boils down to which Book of Rules we all want to play by. You are pushing Secular Humanism, I push a Christian view, other push a "Do What's Best For Yourself" view.

I know which view I think works best, and that's how I vote. If I lose, I lose. Within my world view - "marriage" is still the spiritual union of a man and a woman, regardless of what the American legal system says.

The great thing is, you also have the right to vote according to your rule book.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 07:26 PM   #57
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 07:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Again, it all boils down to which Book of Rules we all want to play by. You are pushing Secular Humanism, I push a Christian view, other push a "Do What's Best For Yourself" view.

I know which view I think works best, and that's how I vote. If I lose, I lose. Within my world view - "marriage" is still the spiritual union of a man and a woman, regardless of what the American legal system says.

The great thing is, you also have the right to vote according to your rule book.
Well, and that's ultimately why you come up with these arguments constantly. You have your Biblical justification for thinking that homosexuals are nothing but degenerate sinners who deserve nothing but death. So why not just come out and say it next time, instead of coming up with a hapless argument about polygamy and incest? Sounds to me like you're looking for justification after the fact, rather than a foundation for your beliefs.

But here's the thing: your viewpoint is exclusionary, whereas mine is inclusionary. Gay marriage, no matter what you say, will never affect you in the slightest, just as your decision to get married or divorced or remain single means absolutely nothing to me. I don't know why you care...aside from feeling a Biblical compulsion to force non-believers to live according to your beliefs and your lifestyle choices. Talk about "doing what's best for yourself."

In the end, I will always fight against those who wish to institute Taliban-style myopia in American society. And I certainly make sure to vote in every election without fail.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 07:29 PM   #58
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: 04:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON


Again, it all boils down to which Book of Rules we all want to play by. You are pushing Secular Humanism, I push a Christian view, other push a "Do What's Best For Yourself" view.

I know which view I think works best, and that's how I vote. If I lose, I lose. Within my world view - "marriage" is still the spiritual union of a man and a woman, regardless of what the American legal system says.

The great thing is, you also have the right to vote according to your rule book.
Translation: Jesus says it's ok to discriminate!
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 07:33 PM   #59
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 05:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


You bring this horseshit up every time and it has NOTHING to do with gay marriage. No matter how hard you and your bigoted pals try to align the two.

I'm sick of your shit on this. Really sick of it.
I dont care if they marry but I am sick of this shit that some elses opinion is invalid and they are blasted for there opinion. You expect them Just Like YOU. He may not agree with GAY MARRIAGE BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN HE HATES THEM. SO DONT AUTOMATICALLY LABEL A PERSON A BIGOT, BECAUSE YOUR THE ONE BIGGOTING RIGHT NOW ON YOUR DISGUST AND HATRED TOWARDS A FELLOW HUMAN BEING!!!


HYPOCRITE. ITS AMAZING YOU PEOPLE ARE CALLED SHEEPLE YET YOUR ASKING OTHERS TO FOLLOW YOUR WAY.

LIke I said I dont give a Flying Fuck if they Marry just shut up and let a person have there own belifes.
__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 07:37 PM   #60
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: 04:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin24


I dont care if they marry but I am sick of this shit that some elses opinion is invalid and they are blasted for there opinion. You expect them Just Like YOU. He may not agree with GAY MARRIAGE BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN HE HATES THEM. SO DONT AUTOMATICALLY LABEL A PERSON A BIGOT, BECAUSE YOUR THE ONE BIGGOTING RIGHT NOW ON YOUR DISGUST AND HATRED TOWARDS A FELLOW HUMAN BEING!!!
Justin, where did I say I hate him? I was telling him I was sick of his comparisons between homosexuality and incest. And yes, I am disgusted with his viewpoints.
__________________

__________________
martha 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 07:39 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