Same-Sex Marriage General Discussion Thread - Page 57 - 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 07-21-2012, 10:14 AM   #841
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
I don't think you actually believe in "defending traditional marriage."

Because you know that phrase is a crock of shit and little more than saying "state's rights" when the subject is segregation.
That's simply not true.

Dan Qualye (as a famous example) and conservatives were, and still are, just as vocal in supporting marriage when the subject is divorce or single mothers. GWB and conservatives fought to get the marriage penalty removed from the federal tax code. And we'll be there as polygamy tries to get its nose under the tent too.
They're different arguments but the commitment is no less.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-21-2012, 10:23 AM   #842
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 03:45 PM
But you and I both know that discriminating against gay people doesn't defend anyone's marriage. All "defending traditional marriage" means in a political context is "keep fags out."

That simply is true.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-21-2012, 10:27 AM   #843
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 55,030
Local Time: 07:45 AM
Irvine I met a gay couple with kids the other day. And I was so sad - their lives are already ruined. They will never make a contribution to society. Won't you think of the children?!
__________________
cobl04 is online now  
Old 07-21-2012, 11:59 AM   #844
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 03:45 PM
And to think, they brought a child into the web of sin, perversion, and war against nature. Children are not pets. When will they learn?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-21-2012, 12:05 PM   #845
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,276
Local Time: 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
But you and I both know that discriminating against gay people doesn't defend anyone's marriage.
That is exactly it.

INDY, what does the legalization of gay marriage have to do with defending traditional marriage? Is there a limited number of marriage licenses so that every time a gay couple gets married, a straight couple is left out in the dust? Every time a gay couple gets married, a straight couple has to get divorced to offset it?

I mean, in all seriousness, how does it affect you, as a married man, at all that two guys or two gals get hitched in your town or your county or your state or your country?
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 07-21-2012, 02:28 PM   #846
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 03:45 PM
My sense is that INDY's opposition is more of a cultural position/alignment, similar to most GOP politicians. And this is FYM, and he's outnumbered, so I can understand makin an argument in order to make an argument. That's why we're all here.

I find it hard to believe that someone who believes so sincerely in the rights of the individual and worries about how much taxes reduce our "freedom" would fail to see how a religious conviction is justification for discrimination.

This really is one of the simplest issues out there. The contortions people will go to to either hide their own homophobia or to locate themselves along a cultural fault line (single mothers! Black poverty! Murphy Brown!) is becoming comical.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-21-2012, 02:31 PM   #847
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,664
Local Time: 04:45 PM
I don't understand the phrase "traditional marriage". What is that exactly? is this the same traditional marriage that has evolved over time? Is this the same traditional marriage for which marrying for love is a relatively recent development?
__________________

BoMac is offline  
Old 07-21-2012, 03:24 PM   #848
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,661
Local Time: 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511
My sense is that INDY's opposition is more of a cultural position/alignment, similar to most GOP politicians. And this is FYM, and he's outnumbered, so I can understand makin an argument in order to make an argument. That's why we're all here.

I find it hard to believe that someone who believes so sincerely in the rights of the individual and worries about how much taxes reduce our "freedom" would fail to see how a religious conviction is justification for discrimination.

This really is one of the simplest issues out there. The contortions people will go to to either hide their own homophobia or to locate themselves along a cultural fault line (single mothers! Black poverty! Murphy Brown!) is becoming comical.
Excellent
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-21-2012, 03:27 PM   #849
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,661
Local Time: 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500

That's simply not true.

Dan Qualye (as a famous example) and conservatives were, and still are, just as vocal in supporting marriage when the subject is divorce or single mothers.
Conservatives are vocal about divorce? Now I know you aren't serious.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 07-21-2012, 04:11 PM   #850
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Dallas and around the Texas Triangle
Posts: 13,962
Local Time: 02:45 PM
Why isn't there a campaign to ban second marriages? Or marriages where the husband and wife don't intend to have kids?
__________________
digitize is offline  
Old 07-21-2012, 04:19 PM   #851
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
Why isn't there a campaign to ban second marriages? Or marriages where the husband and wife don't intend to have kids?

i'm going to argue the other side, as an exercise.

answer: while divorce is always sad, a second marriage at least shows a willingness to give it another try and hopefully with better results. even if a husband and wife don't intend to have kids, at least it is the correct "form" of a marriage. it is important to maintain this model so that our children't don't become confused and the definition of marriage isn't diluted.

also, we could ask NOM themselves, they have a "marriage talking points" on their webpage:

Quote:
9. What about older or infertile couples? If they marry why not same-sex couples?

A: “Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this. It’s apples and oranges.”

Marriage Talking Points - National Organization for Marriage
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-21-2012, 04:59 PM   #852
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: 19,258
Local Time: 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
That's simply not true.

Dan Qualye (as a famous example) and conservatives were, and still are, just as vocal in supporting marriage when the subject is divorce or single mothers. GWB and conservatives fought to get the marriage penalty removed from the federal tax code. And we'll be there as polygamy tries to get its nose under the tent too.
They're different arguments but the commitment is no less.
Here's a novel suggestion: How about Dan Quayle and conservatives in general keep their noses out of other people's love lives. What makes you guys think you have the right to dictate what constitutes "traditional marriage"?

As has been pointed out many, many, many, many, MANY times, traditional marriage at one time would've meant I would've been some man's property instead of anything resembling a wife. So I hope conservatives are prepared to go back to that definition if they're truly hellbent on making sure we all fit into "traditional marriages", 'cause the current definition isn't the original one.

You're not protecting anyone from anything. It's a form of discrimination and you know it. In the areas where same-sex marriage has been legalized society has been going on about as good or bad as it has before (come to my state, I can prove that to you). So what you're worried about with it being legal, I really, truly do not know.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 07-21-2012, 07:33 PM   #853
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

Here's a novel suggestion: How about Dan Quayle and conservatives in general keep their noses out of other people's love lives. What makes you guys think you have the right to dictate what constitutes "traditional marriage"?

But when women have children without being married to their fathers, the mothers are much more likely o fall into poverty and to seek out state assistance for food and medical needs. I shouldn't have to pay for that. It comes out of my tax dollars, and I shouldn't have to pay for unaffordable children because their mother couldn't wait until that man properly married her. It's everyone's business where, when, and how people have sex because children can result and those children get paid for by my tax dollars.

And that's why gay people shouldn't try to change the traditional definition of marriage.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-21-2012, 07:54 PM   #854
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I mean, in all seriousness, how does it affect you, as a married man, at all that two guys or two gals get hitched in your town or your county or your state or your country?
That is no argument. How does it affect you personally if marriage remains between a man and a woman? Most likely it wouldn't but you're thinking big picture, well so am I.

So, I'll give you a big picture answer.

1) If same-sex marriage becomes law it matters how. If it become law in Indiana or Alabama by Supreme Court decision it will divide the country the same abortion does and that divide will outlive all of us regardless of how the demographics might favor same-sex marriage in the future.

2) Marriage is not only defined by law but by religion, literature, art, music, education and societal traditions. If same-sex marriage is a civil right then the same pressures will be applied to these cultural supports to "modernize" as well.

Here is one example from Canada where you claim all is peachy with same-sex marriage.

Canadian Crackdown - Michael Coren - National Review Online
Quote:
(excerpts)
Same-sex marriage became law in Canada in the summer of 2005, making the country the fourth nation to pass such legislation, and the first in the English-speaking world. In the few debates leading up to the decision, it became almost impossible to argue in defense of marriage as a child-centered institution, in defense of the procreative norm of marriage, in defense of the superiority of two-gender parenthood, without being thrown into the waste bin as a hater. What we’ve also discovered in Canada is that it can get even worse than mere abuse, and that once gay marriage becomes law, critics are often silenced by the force of the law.

Although precise figures about gay marriages in Canada are elusive, there are thought to be fewer than 30,000, after an initial surge of around 10,000 as soon as the law was passed. But if large numbers of gay people failed to take advantage of the law, the law certainly took advantage of its critics. Again, definitive figures are almost impossible to state, but it’s estimated that, in less than five years, there have been between 200 and 300 proceedings — in courts, human-rights commissions, and employment boards — against critics and opponents of same-sex marriage. And this estimate doesn’t take into account the casual dismissals that surely have occurred.

The Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta, Fred Henry, was threatened with litigation and charged with a human-rights violation after he wrote a letter to local churches outlining standard Catholic teaching on marriage.

So far, churches have been allowed to refuse to consecrate same-sex marriages, but a campaign has begun to remove tax-free status from religious institutions that make this choice.

As I write, two Canadian provinces are considering legislation that would likely prevent educators even in private denominational schools from teaching that they disapprove of same-sex marriage, and a senior government minister in Ontario recently announced that if the Roman Catholic Church did not approve of homosexuality or gay marriage, it “would have to change its teaching.”

What has become painfully evident is that many of those who brought same-sex marriage to Canada have no respect for freedom of conscience and no intention of tolerating contrary opinion, whether that opinion is shaped by religious or by secular belief.
Now this isn't Canada but ask Catholics if our president respects their freedom of conscience and ask Chick-fil-a or Carrie Prejean if their contrary opinion is respected.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-21-2012, 07:58 PM   #855
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 03:45 PM
In a nutshell, we must prevent SSM because if SSM is legal than it will make life marginally more uncomfortable for those who believe SSM should be illegal.

This is a good reason.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 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 03:45 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