Same Sex Marriage Thread-Part 2 - Page 32 - 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 09-17-2012, 10:27 PM   #466
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: 19,270
Local Time: 10:49 PM
In short, what JT said.

Like I said, ultimately I think you have a valid stance here on that issue. Again, if a relationship is clearly unhealthy and poses a problem, people should step in and do what they can to deal with it and/or stop it. But that's an issue that can apply to many kinds of relationships, no one type of relationship has a monopoly on being unhealthy and full of problems.
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 09-17-2012, 10:27 PM   #467
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 12:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
Then we would also have to legislate against shy people, shut ins, and hermits. Not a very strong argument


Restricting them from the relationship would not alleviate any social disorders.
OK maybe not. But incest should remain a taboo, and not be seen as another form of healthy love.


Quote:
I'm not disagreeing with your general sentiment, I just think these arguments are weak
I admit that I'm only being a lay psychologist here, but I am just deeply bothered by the mere notion that incest can be OK.
__________________

__________________
Pearl is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 10:29 PM   #468
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: 19,270
Local Time: 10:49 PM
Never said it was. Just noting that you can't stop consenting adults from doing what they want. That's all. That's the big thing for me.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 09-17-2012, 10:32 PM   #469
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 11:49 PM
i think the discussion these past few posts have demonstrated that incest has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 10:34 PM   #470
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 12:49 AM
Sorry about that, Irvine. I just read some of the posts that seem to support incest and maybe I misinterpreted them, but I got so bothered that I had to post quickly.

I know, not a good excuse, but that is why I did it.
__________________
Pearl is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 10:35 PM   #471
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 11:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post
I admit that I'm only being a lay psychologist here, but I am just deeply bothered by the mere notion that incest can be OK.
I'm with you there
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 10:36 PM   #472
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 11:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i think the discussion these past few posts have demonstrated that incest has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality.
^ And that
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 10:40 PM   #473
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 11:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
This then begs the (huge, glaring) question: how is society better off by denying homosexuals access to marriage? Or to put it another way, how would society be worse off by allowing it? Some sort of specifics would seem to be called for here.
I'm guessing he's embarrassed to reply with "fire and brimstone". Ironic that some good ol' fashion incest is what 'historically' follows. Maybe that's why he can't seem to uncouple the two?
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 10:43 PM   #474
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
iron yuppie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,441
Local Time: 10:49 PM
How would people feel about this, even if it has next to no possibility of ever happening: civil unions that carry all of the current legal and financial benefits of marriage are available to any two consenting adults. "Marriage" becomes a strictly religious institution that carries no legal force or benefits whatsoever - that is, the state only recognizes civil unions. This way, legal union equality is achieved, and the religious folks get to keep whatever traditional definition of marriage they feel so strongly about preserving.
__________________
iron yuppie is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 10:48 PM   #475
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 11:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iron yuppie View Post
How would people feel about this, even if it has next to no possibility of ever happening: civil unions that carry all of the current legal and financial benefits of marriage are available to any two consenting adults. "Marriage" becomes a strictly religious institution that carries no legal force or benefits whatsoever - that is, the state only recognizes civil unions. This way, legal union equality is achieved, and the religious folks get to keep whatever traditional definition of marriage they feel so strongly about preserving.


sounds like the UK.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 10:49 PM   #476
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 55,039
Local Time: 03:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iron yuppie
How would people feel about this, even if it has next to no possibility of ever happening: civil unions that carry all of the current legal and financial benefits of marriage are available to any two consenting adults. "Marriage" becomes a strictly religious institution that carries no legal force or benefits whatsoever - that is, the state only recognizes civil unions. This way, legal union equality is achieved, and the religious folks get to keep whatever traditional definition of marriage they feel so strongly about preserving.
"Will you civil union me?" doesn't really carry the same weight...
__________________
cobl04 is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 10:55 PM   #477
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 11:49 PM
I've often thought about that and it's not a bad idea. Of course, it gives the religious folks the undeserved dibs on a word and concept they didn't invent (though they seem to think otherwise), but whatever
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 10:59 PM   #478
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: 19,270
Local Time: 10:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iron yuppie View Post
How would people feel about this, even if it has next to no possibility of ever happening: civil unions that carry all of the current legal and financial benefits of marriage are available to any two consenting adults. "Marriage" becomes a strictly religious institution that carries no legal force or benefits whatsoever - that is, the state only recognizes civil unions. This way, legal union equality is achieved, and the religious folks get to keep whatever traditional definition of marriage they feel so strongly about preserving.
This is what I've been stating for quite some time. If one side gets to call a relationship something, so does the other. It's just plain stupid and immature to expect gay couples to call their relationships something totally different from straight people's when they're going through the exact same things straight couples go through. This idea that we "own" a word and can't stand the thought of another couple using that same word because they're not straight is so ridiculous and childish.

Though I agree with cobl, the proposal would sound very awkward all of a sudden.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 09-17-2012, 11:07 PM   #479
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 11:49 PM
we could just call it marriage, like we always have, and let churches play the "no fags allowed" game if they so wish, because there's no law against being assholes no matter how you try to wrap it up in the ecstasy of sanctimony.

seems easier to me.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-17-2012, 11:07 PM   #480
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
iron yuppie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,441
Local Time: 10:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
Of course, it gives the religious folks the undeserved dibs on a word and concept they didn't invent (though they seem to think otherwise), but whatever
I suppose that is an important question in some regards - that is, whether non-religious people really care what the union is called. I can only speak for myself, but if I were to get "married," frankly I would not give a damn what it was called. If semantics can placate the religious right in exchange for real legal strides for gay people, I would call it a victory.
__________________

__________________
iron yuppie 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 11:49 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