Same Sex Marriage Thread-Part 2 - Page 16 - 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 08-16-2012, 09:39 PM   #226
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 04:50 AM
did you even read that article?

because i did. and i don't think it says what you think it says.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-16-2012, 09:40 PM   #227
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: 01:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
but there is also a movement on the Left to remove the distinctions between female and male. Case in point, the recent edition of the New York Times magazine.
You will believe anything. Can you think of a group of people who love old-fashioned man/woman fornication MORE than the Left?


 
With the exception of right-wing Christian ministers, of course.
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
Old 08-16-2012, 09:52 PM   #228
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Anytime.


My town has a balanced budget, keeps its parks tidy, fills its potholes, has a police force that doesn't shoot unarmed citizens, and respects the citizens who are still learning English, thanks for asking.
Pardon me for noticing that your state is broke and towns are beginning to declare bankruptcy.
Quote:
But I would absolutely NOT support any city official who tried to stop a business from opening in my city simply because he didn't like the business's political views.
Then you should have been at Chick-fil-a, the mayors' statements were the catylyst for the outpouring of support.

Quote:
Expressing a view, and acting on that view, are two different things. A business owner can have all the Biblical views he wants. Hell, he can even believe in the Biblical edict that the rape victim must marry the rapist. Acting on those beliefs, trying to legislate the lives of strangers based on those beliefs is a whole different story. So, no, my state is not a theocracy; there is no basis for legislating based on Biblical principles.

Personally, I feel that same way. An individual can believe whatever Biblical principals he wants, and I can choose not to be friends with a person who thinks that his Bible trumps my Constitution.
Your constitution does not prohibit the worship of religion, it prohibits the "free exercise" of religion. An important distinction. It means one can indeed "act on those beliefs" as you say.

Quote:
A personal question for you, INDY; your aside about the solvency of my town, along with other little remarks you've made, and the manner in which they were made, males me wonder. Do you affect this nastiness as an internet persona, or are you that nasty in person as well? And please don't blame the liberals for this. We have nothing to do with your word choice or sentence structure.
I've never questioned the motives of anyone on this forum posting on this subject. But here's what I get in return:

Quote:
"You're really just taking the piss, aren't you?"

"Hiding your bigoted beliefs behind frivolous reasons doesn't make you any less of a bigot."

"(Indy) Do you believe homosexuals to be human beings?"

"we can't feel like we're better than other people anymore if gay marriage becomes legal!"

"forces who seek my total social destruction?"
I'm a big boy, I can take it but your outrage at "word choice" seems a bit selective.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 08-16-2012, 10:15 PM   #229
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: 01:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Acting on those beliefs, trying to legislate the lives of strangers based on those beliefs is a whole different story. So, no, my state is not a theocracy; there is no basis for legislating based on Biblical principles.


Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

Your constitution does not prohibit the worship of religion, it prohibits the "free exercise" of religion. An important distinction. It means one can indeed "act on those beliefs" as you say.
Good gravy INDY, why do I even bother.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 08-16-2012, 10:16 PM   #230
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: 19,271
Local Time: 03:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Many proponents of same-sex marriage are sincere in their desire to marry or, if not gay, sincere in their desire for equality. I acknowledge this, but there is also a movement on the Left to remove the distinctions between female and male. Case in point, the recent edition of the New York Times magazine.




Unfortunately, most same-sex advocates have bought in to this nonsense just as they've bought into the notion that defending tradition marriage = hate.
A guy wearing a dress automatically equates to destroying the differences between men and women?

That's funny, 'cause my dad dressed up in a cheerleader outfit for some radio thing once and yet despite that, last I checked, he still embodied all the "typical" male characteristics.

And nobody has said that defending traditional marriage is equal to hate. I support marriage between men and women, too. All for it. Would like to get married someday myself, should the right guy come along.

No, it's the whole denying that civil right to same sex couples and suggesting their marriages aren't on equal footing and that considering them to be just as traditional as straight marriages is suddenly akin to some horrific definition change ('cause we straight people OWN the word "marriage", damnit!) that causes people to make such an equation.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 08-16-2012, 11:03 PM   #231
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,886
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
1) I was trying to see if we could agree on the premise that limitations on marriage have always existed and arose for reasons other than "hate" or some phobia.

2) I was attempting to illustrate that if, on aggregate, the marriage of a man and a woman can provide an asset to children that a marriage between two members of the same sex cannot provide, there is a compelling reason for society (and thus the government in a republic) to hold up that union as the ideal.

Many proponents of same-sex marriage are sincere in their desire to marry or, if not gay, sincere in their desire for equality. I acknowledge this, but there is also a movement on the Left to remove the distinctions between female and male. Case in point, the recent edition of the New York Times magazine.


Unfortunately, most same-sex advocates have bought in to this nonsense just as they've bought into the notion that defending tradition marriage = hate.
Can we discuss this issue without bringing up this "movement"? Because I honestly do not care about that movement at all, and plenty of others don't care either. That movement is beside the point. It entering in the discussion, to me, feels like a crutch, some background noise to distract from the heart of the issue.

Also, of course there are limitations. Of course they exist for reasons beyond hate. But, again, I don't think many of the other "limitations" that are brought up in this debate are comparable to the issue of same-sex marriage. Again, it feels like a distraction, like something to keep you from discussing the heart of what we are talking about.

The bottom line here I think falls in this statement, and basically sums up what I've been trying to glean from your posts for a while:

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
if, on aggregate, the marriage of a man and a woman can provide an asset to children that a marriage between two members of the same sex cannot provide, there is a compelling reason for society (and thus the government in a republic) to hold up that union as the ideal.
I want to respond to this because it is directly related to the issue, unlike all of that other stuff. My two responses are a statement I hope that you will heed, and a question:

1. As it's been said many times, people are not required to have children to marry, so this line of logic is already treading on very thin ice.

2. Can you describe what exactly this "asset" is? I really hope this isn't some intangible, or some generality or vague statement about "gender roles."
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 08-16-2012, 11:04 PM   #232
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 04:50 AM
what is this movement? i'm totally confused. not bi-curious even, just confused. homosexuality and gender identity are very different things.

all i can do is post this:

The Magnetic Fields - Andrew in Drag - YouTube
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-16-2012, 11:18 PM   #233
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
what is this movement? i'm totally confused. not bi-curious even, just confused.
I'll ask you, not to get sidetracked from the main topic as I've made my only point, but why the T in LGBT? What do "transgenders" have to do with gay rights?

Is preventing a man from getting fired for wearing a dress to work really on the same level as marriage equality for the LGBT community? All I can assume is that you must believe that gender doesn't matter.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 08-16-2012, 11:30 PM   #234
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,886
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I'll ask you, not to get sidetracked from the main topic as I've made my only point, but why the T in LGBT? What do "transgenders" have to do with gay rights?

Is preventing a man from getting fired for wearing a dress to work really on the same level as marriage equality for the LGBT community? All I can assume is that you must believe that gender doesn't matter.
I imagine the response to this is that many don't understand the difference between gender and sex.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 08-16-2012, 11:45 PM   #235
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
I want to respond to this because it is directly related to the issue, unlike all of that other stuff. My two responses are a statement I hope that you will heed, and a question:

1. As it's been said many times, people are not required to have children to marry, so this line of logic is already treading on very thin ice.
Not relevant to any point I've made. We're talking about "apart from the naughty bits."
Quote:
2. Can you describe what exactly this "asset" is? I really hope this isn't some intangible, or some generality or vague statement about "gender roles."
It's simple. Do you believe that a mother has something unique to give to a child that no father can give, and vice versa, that a father brings unique contributions that no mother can?

Again, you can agree with that premise but judge equality and fairness a greater consideration and thus support same-sex marriage. And I would understand that. What I have a hard time respecting are those that can't or won't admit what most of us instinctively understand to be true.

Unfortunately, if one admits that men and women are not interchangeable they must also admit a reason (other than fear or hate of homosexuals) exists for defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

And some people don't want to admit that.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 08-16-2012, 11:46 PM   #236
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I'll ask you, not to get sidetracked from the main topic as I've made my only point, but why the T in LGBT? What do "transgenders" have to do with gay rights?

lots of people --- including myself -- are a bit uncomfortable with the LGBT grouping. i have much more in common with straight men (because we're men) and straight women (because we like men) than i do with even Lesbians and the Transgendered. i love and support the TG community, but their struggle is quite different from mine.

however.

what we do share is a common enemy: homophobia, which is more accurately understood as misogyny.

the people who bash and murder TG folks -- and, believe me, it can be a *very* dangerous world for TG folk -- are motivated by the same forces who would bash and murder me.

would you allow, say, a post-op TS female (her penis has been reconstructed into a vagina) to marry a biological male? it's all penises and vaginas. it's opposite marriage. is that ok?





Quote:
Is preventing a man from getting fired for wearing a dress to work really on the same level as marriage equality for the LGBT community? All I can assume is that you must believe that gender doesn't matter.

well, you know what happens when you assume, right?

it's not that gender doesn't matter, it's that gender shouldn't be used as a tool for discrimination or limitation. you know, like Susan B. Anthony or Sally Ride taught us.

do you think you should be able to fire someone if they were once the opposite gender from what they are now?

again, did you read the article? or are you just assuming that some hippie NYT readers are buying their boys dresses and proclaiming that it's all the same?

because if you read the article you'd find out a lot more.

Raising My Rainbow | Adventures in raising a fabulously gender creative son.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-16-2012, 11:48 PM   #237
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,886
Local Time: 04:50 AM
There's nothing wrong with admitting that there are general trends of what makes someone male and what makes someone female. There is something wrong with pidgeon-holing the two and trying to legislate based off of that type of narrow minded stereotyping. What you are proposing is, essentially, a statement to gay men that they are strange and not the ideal for children if they do not fill the stereotypical father role for a family, and the same for lesbian women who do not fill the stereotypical mother role for a family. I'm not even sure what you are trying to define those two roles as, but you're creating an awfully narrow minded precedent for establishing a family, and what's worse, you're justifying laws based upon that precedent.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 08-16-2012, 11:51 PM   #238
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
It's simple. Do you believe that a mother has something unique to give to a child that no father can give, and vice versa, that a father brings unique contributions that no mother can?

are people required to procreate in Indiana in order to get married?

but setting that aside ... i would argue that gender is no more important than any other myriad qualities a parent might have. sure, gender is a large part of who we are as people, but is it all we are? furthermore, is the lack of one gender actually harmful for a child? the evidence suggests that the children of lesbians do best, and perhaps we could also make an argument (thinking about Qantas) that maybe it's best to keep children away from men, including their fathers, since men are much, much more likely to sexually abuse their children.

because gender matters.

or does that strike you as not quite right?







Quote:
Unfortunately, if one admits that men and women are not interchangeable they must also admit a reason (other than fear or hate of homosexuals) exists for defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

And some people don't want to admit that.


could you name for me 10 qualities a father has that no mother will ever have, and 10 qualities a mother will have that no father will ever have.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-16-2012, 11:57 PM   #239
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: 19,271
Local Time: 03:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Unfortunately, if one admits that men and women are not interchangeable they must also admit a reason (other than fear or hate of homosexuals) exists for defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

And some people don't want to admit that.
Maybe my reading comprehension skills are failing me tonight or something, but...huh???? I'm failing to see what you're saying here.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 08-17-2012, 12:10 AM   #240
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Memphis is very nurturing. and i'm practically a breast.

but i'll never be a mother. like this woman.





or this one.




a child needs that.

in conclusion, i support opposite marriage.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 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 04:50 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