Same-Sex Marriage General Discussion Thread - Page 17 - 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 02-08-2012, 04:01 PM   #241
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 07:03 AM
__________________

__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 04:04 PM   #242
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 06:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
When a court finds "Obamacare" unconstitutional it's justice, when one finds a ban against two women marrying, it's activist.
But would you be saying the same thing if it were the other way around?

And regarding the Ellen DeGeneres story, there's this.

__________________

__________________
2861U2 is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 04:24 PM   #243
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: 19,272
Local Time: 05:03 AM
'Kay, I have to applaud Bill for that one. Way to come to her defense .

I like that church sign, too.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 04:44 PM   #244
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 05:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2

But would you be saying the same thing if it were the other way around?
No, I don't think you'll find me bitching about activist judges all that much. Do they exist on both sides? Sure, but the system usually prevails at the end.

Hypocrisy over activist judges seems to be a requirement for the far these days. And this is just another wonderful example.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-08-2012, 05:17 PM   #245
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:03 PM
Quote:
"What is the difference between McCarthy era communist blacklist in the 50s and the Million Moms saying, ‘Hey, JC Penney and all you other stores, don’t you hire any gay people, don’t you dare.’ What is the difference?"
-- Bill O’Reilly
Actually, there kinda is one...Senator McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee at least showed their faces and looked their targets in the eye. "One Million Moms" is an astroturf front for the American Family Association.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 05:29 PM   #246
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:03 AM
Well, at least proponents of "traditional marriage" and "government of the people, by the people and for the people" can take comfort that the radical 9th Circuit is the most overturned Circuit in the country.

wwbt1tsidcgp?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 05:34 PM   #247
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 05:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500
Well, at least proponents of "traditional marriage" and "government of the people, by the people and for the people" can take comfort that the radical 9th Circuit is the most overturned Circuit in the country.

wwbt1tsidcgp?
So radical = activist, right?

Little slow but you didn't disappoint.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-08-2012, 05:40 PM   #248
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:03 PM
dcgp...?
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 08:05 PM   #249
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Well, at least proponents of "traditional marriage" and "government of the people, by the people and for the people" can take comfort that the radical 9th Circuit is the most overturned Circuit in the country.

who voted on your marriage?

meanwhile ...

Washington state lawmakers pass gay marriage bill – USATODAY.com

Gay marriage bill introduced in Illinois House - chicagotribune.com
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 10:13 PM   #250
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:03 AM
what horrible asshole would do such a thing? this is why this matters:

Quote:
State of Iowa Erases Mother from Stillborn Baby’s Death Certificate: Lambda Legal Files Suit

“To white out a mother’s name from her stillborn baby’s death certificate is cruel to a family that is already devastated.”
Date:
02/08/2012

(Des Moines, IA, February 8, 2012) — Today Lambda Legal filed suit against the Iowa Department of Public Health (IDPH) on behalf of Jenny and Jessica Buntemeyer, a married Iowa couple seeking an accurate death certificate for their stillborn baby, Brayden. After the loss of their son, Jenny and Jessica filled out the spaces on the death certificate form for both parents, and indicated that they were married. IDPH sent the couple a death certificate with Jenny’s name erased.

“This is an egregious display of insensitivity and disregard for Iowa law, which states that the spousal presumption of parentage applies to children born to same-sex spouses in the same manner it applies to children of different-sex spouses,” said Camilla Taylor, National Marriage Project Director for Lambda Legal. “A different-sex married couple grieving a similar loss would receive a two-parent death certificate with no questions asked. Death certificates and other vital records like birth certificates document legal parentage, and not biology. To white out a mother’s name from her stillborn baby’s death certificate is cruel to a family that is already devastated.”

Jenny Buntemeyer and Jessica Aiken of Davenport met in 2008 and fell in love while serving in Iraq. They married in Iowa on October 8, 2010, and remain in the Army Reserves. After planning a family together, Jessica became pregnant via in vitro fertilization and an anonymous donor. On October 21, 2011, Jessica gave birth in Iowa to Brayden Bruce Buntemeyer, at 30 weeks’ gestation. He died in utero prior to labor after his umbilical cord became wound around his neck. On the fetal death certificate form, Jessica filled out the boxes for “mother” and Jenny filled out the boxes marked “father,” the only option on the form for a second parent. On January 12, 2012, IDPH issued them a death certificate on which someone had erased Jenny’s name and identifying information.

State of Iowa Erases Mother from Stillborn Baby’s Death Certificate: Lambda Legal Files Suit | Lambda Legal
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 10:33 PM   #251
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,594
Local Time: 11:03 AM
God damn it Iowa!!!

I just wish one opponent of same sex marriage could answer how allowing two people of the same sex to get married affects their current marriage, or future marriage?

I can still marry a woman just the same way as in the past (and I did get married once).

I would like to hear real arguments. Not moron accusations that next we'll marry animals (they can't consent), or that we'll have multiple wives/husbands again (two consenting adults, not ten). Or that children will be hurt through this when studies show children actually have the same, if not better up bringing with same sex couples.

Just want some proof that this act will ruin society as we know it
__________________
BEAL is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 10:52 PM   #252
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,609
Local Time: 05:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEAL View Post
Just want some proof that this act will ruin society as we know it
especially when some of the most vocal opponents are the ones carrying on multiple affairs. that does a lot more to damage a family and mess up a kid's understanding of how relationships work than a kid having two mommies or two daddies.

one of the best ways we (as parents) can do for our kids to ensure they turn out well and are able to hold down jobs, be in healthy relationships, etc. is to lead by example. this isn't some 1950s schtick; a single mother can turn out a bright, wonderful child just as easily as two men can. yes we can be perfect model citizens and our kids can still mess up or something, but it lowers the odds.
__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 11:07 PM   #253
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 06:03 AM
i found this a fascinating article on Maggie Gallagher, the #1 opponent of SSM in the United States. it probably is a good counterpoint to my general contention, and the contention within the Prop 8 ruling, that opposition to SSM is motivated by animus and bigotry (hard or soft).

i don't think that more than a percent or two of Maggie's donors share her highly intellectual, detached opposition to SSM, as detached from reality it might be. reading comments on the NOM website, or reading any evangelical website reveals intense bigotry. but this article that tries to figure out what Maggie ticks is worth a read if you have more than a passing interesting in this subject ... in a nutshell, Gallagher got knocked up her senior year at Yale and the baby-daddy abandoned her and her child. thus, in a bit of psychoanalysis, she has arrived at the believe that the only proper place for sex is within marriage, and the only proper marriage is one that is defined by procreative sexuality. as written:

Quote:
The great trauma of Gallagher’s youth, her unplanned pregnancy and subsequent alienation from the father of her child, was rooted in failing to understand that sex and procreation are connected. It is understandable that, having grasped the truth, she is intent on emphasizing its importance. So it follows that gay marriage and, above all, gay parenthood, more than gay people themselves, presents a real challenge to her belief system. Same-sex marriage advocates offend her hard-won wisdom in two ways. First, they imply that sex and love can in fact be separate from procreation, and no less valid for it. Second, and perhaps more troubling for Gallagher, the increasingly visible column of attentive, loving gay parents — gay male parents in particular — mocks her own romantic choices. It mocks her own son’s good-for-nothing father. There must be something wrong with these gay dads, something contrary to the natural order, such that even when they appear to be splendid dads themselves, their agenda is the cause of poor parenting in others.

[...]

For Gallagher, the principal problem with gay couples is not the act of sodomy: It’s that they cannot be a mother and a father. Gallagher believes that what is best for any child is to be raised by its natural mother and father — what happens when Marriage succeeds — and any law that honors an alternative arrangement is thus harmful. Adoptive parents may succeed in raising a child well, single parents may succeed, but they are both inferior to biological mother and father, the paradigm that Marriage has always supported, throughout history. In a way, Gallagher is making a more sophisticated, slightly updated version of the argument of “Enemies of Eros”: there she argued that the sex act must go with a family, and now she is arguing that the family must go with the (heterosexual, monogamous) sex act.

In a passage from her forthcoming book, Gallagher connects the poignant regret of “Enemies of Eros” with the political agenda of her work today: “Since I was a girl, in the middle of a sexual revolution, I was repeatedly taught that we had separated sex from reproduction … Under the influence of this teaching, whole generations of formerly young women of my age grew up shocked, shocked to discover they are pregnant, and the men who impregnate them feel minimal responsibility. They had consented to sex, not to babies, and what did sex have to do with babies? … Same-sex marriage is the end point, the ultimate institutionalization of this view of sex, gender and marriage, and it is false. Sex between men and women is freighted with the reality that this is the act that creates new human life, even if in any particular instance, new life never takes place … That ‘sexual union of male and female’ points to a real union of the flesh in the child, is the reality we are suppressing, the only perspective from which it makes sense to regard a union of two men as anything like the unions that reaches across the challenging gender divide in the service of new life.”

Gallagher is aware of the growing literature arguing that children raised by gay or lesbian couples turn out fine, although she believes it is inconclusive. She also surely knows that the children of gay and lesbian couples have not been wrenched away from happy hetero homes — either they are the natural children of one parent in the couple; or they are the products of sperm donation or surrogacy; or they are adoptees, given up by mothers who could not raise them; or they have been abandoned or taken away from abusive or neglectful homes. So Gallagher is not claiming that same-sex-couples are preventing proper heterosexual rearing for any actual, existing children. Rather, she is asserting what to her is a timeless social fact: that institutions and norms are delicate, and that if you mess with them — say, by expanding the definition of marriage — bad things are likely to happen.

There is an obvious problem with this sort of argumentation: it is not really susceptible to evidence. Gallagher is unwilling to make any predictions of what doom will befall families after the legalization of same-sex marriage. She just has faith that marriage, the central institution of good child-rearing, will be weakened if same-sex couples are allowed its prestige and protections. When I ask her if any kind of evidence could change her mind, she says that in theory such evidence could exist, but it would be awfully hard to come by: “Yes, you could produce the evidence that children are just as well off in same-sex couples, and that the change isn’t bad for the institution of marriage as a whole. It would take a long time to get that kind of evidence, and it’s not going to come from Massachusetts here, Iowa there.”

Gallagher points out, correctly, that everything has multiple causes, and so if gay marriage were allowed in all 50 states tomorrow, and 20 years from now divorce rates were much higher — or much lower — we would not really be able to say what caused what. So she believes that, given how difficult it will be to get good social-science data on what same-sex marriage means for children, it’s best just to assume that it’s bad for them. In her forthcoming book, she writes that “including same-sex unions in the legal category of ‘marriage’ will necessarily change the public meaning of marriage for the entire society in ways that must make it harder for marriage to perform its core civil functions over time.” How do we know? We just do.

And even if somehow the evidence showed, conclusively, that same-sex marriage were good for children? Gallagher would still be dissatisfied: “Nothing could make me call a same-sex couple a marriage, because that’s not what I believe a marriage is.”

The making of gay marriage’s top foe - Salon.com

so it's not that Gallagher is a bigot, it's that her beliefs hatched from trauma are substitutes for actual knowledge.

this part was also fascinating:

Quote:
That phrase “pure thought” reminded me of the most disconcerting moment in my interview with Gallagher. At one point, breaking from my script of questions, I interrupted her to ask if, despite all of her fears about same-sex marriage, she didn’t find it heartwarming to see those pictures of joyous gay couples in Massachusetts or Iowa or California, crying and hugging as they celebrated their marriages. Before answering, she takes a long pause, the only long pause of our conversation. “Am I happy for them?” she finally says. “That’s a tough question. I like to see people happy. It’s better than seeing people sad. So yes, I am happy for them. But I am sad. But I am not sad because they are happy.”

She sounded so Jesuitical, so overly reasoned. I was just asking if she was happy to see people so happy. I was asking about her emotions. Her reply was, to use Weaver’s words, pure thought.

Self-styled intellectuals take a certain pride in our aspirations to pure thought, in the hope that we can segregate our emotions from our work, that in our public roles we can make arguments uninflected by personal chauvinisms or bigotries, arguments that will appeal to anyone who coolly appraises the evidence and uses basic powers of deduction. Still, it is especially odd to approach family law and family structure with such a cool disinterestedness. Gallagher seems emotionally indifferent to one of the grand ways that same-sex marriage promotes happiness and welfare — of gay parents, and by extension, one imagines, of their children. It is far easier for me to understand evangelical Christians who oppose same-sex marriage because they are worried about America sinking further into a toxic pit of sin. Unlike Gallagher, they at least are profoundly moved, in their own way, by the plight of gay- and lesbian-led families. They are not cool about it.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 11:19 PM   #254
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,894
Local Time: 06:03 AM
Stupidity is more offensive than bigotry.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 02-09-2012, 12:04 AM   #255
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: 19,272
Local Time: 05:03 AM
I'll give Maggie credit, at least her opposition's a novel one for a change. But it's still the weirdest reason possible to be against gay marriage. In short, her life isn't happy, so she doesn't want others' lives to be happy. Misery loves company, and all that.

Quote:
Gallagher believes that what is best for any child is to be raised by its natural mother and father
She should go to a regular everyday school sometime. See how well many kids in heterosexual households are faring.

Quote:
Adoptive parents may succeed in raising a child well, single parents may succeed, but they are both inferior to biological mother and father
This is what drives me bonkers, this "inferior" BS. Anyone who's willing to take care of a child should be praised. I hear all the bitching from people out there about how kids need better role models, how parents fail all the time. But if someone who does step up to help these kids doesn't fit some horribly outdated (and it was outdated even in the idolized "good ol' days" of the '50s, and even before then) checklist of who should be in a family, they're suddenly inferior. If these people think they're so much better than adoptive/single/gay parents, why don't THEY take care of the kids that are struggling and need homes?

Quote:
In a passage from her forthcoming book, Gallagher connects the poignant regret of “Enemies of Eros” with the political agenda of her work today: “Since I was a girl, in the middle of a sexual revolution, I was repeatedly taught that we had separated sex from reproduction … Under the influence of this teaching, whole generations of formerly young women of my age grew up shocked, shocked to discover they are pregnant, and the men who impregnate them feel minimal responsibility.
I think it's annoying as hell that men often tend to get off scot-free in these matters and don't take responsiblity, either, but I'm still absolutely failing to see how this is gay people's fault, or why it means gay people must be punished. The "connection" is lost on me.

The scariest part is that even if she's confronted with evidence contrary to her opinions, she doesn't seem interested in budging. It'd be one thing for someone who was completely sheltered from gay people throughout their lives and knew of them only what the prejudiced around them told them to have a hard time letting go of their pre-conceived ideas about gay people upon meeting them. Years of indoctrination and ignorance won't be fixed overnight.

But she doesn't seem to have had that life. She's familiar with all the evidence, has seen the people happy, all that stuff. And yet like the article says, she still doesn't care. That is mind-boggling. And infuriating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Well, at least proponents of "traditional marriage" and "government of the people, by the people and for the people" can take comfort that the radical 9th Circuit is the most overturned Circuit in the country.

wwbt1tsidcgp?
Quite frankly, at this point, I really don't care about whether or not proponents of "traditional marriage" are feeling "comfortable". I think they need to get over themselves, and should have done so a long time ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BEAL View Post
God damn it Iowa!!!

I just wish one opponent of same sex marriage could answer how allowing two people of the same sex to get married affects their current marriage, or future marriage?

I can still marry a woman just the same way as in the past (and I did get married once).

I would like to hear real arguments. Not moron accusations that next we'll marry animals (they can't consent), or that we'll have multiple wives/husbands again (two consenting adults, not ten). Or that children will be hurt through this when studies show children actually have the same, if not better up bringing with same sex couples.

Just want some proof that this act will ruin society as we know it
Yeah. I'd really like to hear this, too. Since it's become legal here in my state, I can safely say that nothing seems to have changed in any drastic, horrible way for our residents. I haven't heard any stories of people marrying animals (...SHUT UP, people who want to make farmer jokes ), and we're not turning into a polygamous state, and the kids I've encountered seem about as adorable/bratty as any other time before it was legal for homosexuals to marry here. Most Iowan residents seem pretty okay with it being legal (there were numerous letters to the editors of papers expressing their disapproval at the removal of the three judges that voted for same-sex marriage). That story about removing the mother's name in Des Moines is beyond cold, and I hope they win their lawsuit (the article says they fought in Iraq, too. Yeah. Real horrible people, these women, fighting for freedom and such).

So I'll just sit and wait for those "reasonable" arguments to come.

*Watches tumbleweed roll by*
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel 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 06:03 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