Same Sex Marriage Thread-Part 2 - Page 46 - 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 10-13-2012, 11:30 PM   #676
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
I can't stand misplaced patriotism, but I'm proud to live in a country dominated by modern, educated decisions
From the Toronto School Board web page as well as the walls of all Toronto schools.

Stickers/Posters



The two daddies and a mom stick figure is interesting but SSM marriage would never open the door for polygamy would it?



"Masculine and feminine are labels not definitions." Same-sex marriage is definitely not part of a broader attack on gender specificity and you'd be crazy to think so. Which is why:



There's no reason boys can't wear dresses and if you're a "modern, educated" parent... nothing to see here.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-13-2012, 11:41 PM   #677
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: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Now, your top quote is from back a page but it points out an inconsistency that many posters have here. Those that so proudly claim to see shades of gray and nuance in all things are 100% black & white on the issue of SSM. They see no complexity in this issue despite holding a view that is contrary to the teachings of ALL major religions as well as the laws, customs and traditions of the past 100 generations.
Except that we have noted there are shades of gray on this issue. There are people who are against same sex marriage because they're against marriage altogether. And there are gay people who are opposed to it for their own reasons. And there are people who are personally opposed to it but don't think it's the government's place to regulate such things (you know, small government interference, and all that sort of thing).

But those people aren't out in full force actively trying to stop gay people from getting married, at least, not to my knowledge. You can believe whatever you want about this issue, but there is a vast difference between personally having issue with such things for your own variety of reasons and actively trying to deny people the right to get married because your religion says it's wrong or because it's what "customs" and "tradition" states. You're going to need to come up with something stronger than that, and the anti-gay marriage side has yet to do such a thing. Every argument they come up with has been easily debunked-look back through this thread and previous same-sex marriage threads and you'll see how filmsy at best the arguments are.

It always winds up coming back to, "Well, my religion says it's wrong", and to that I say, "So what?" Pro or anti-gay, I honestly couldn't care less what hundreds of years worth of generations, or any religion, or whatever, have to say on this topic. Those people's time periods were different and they didn't have the knowledge about the issue then that we do now, and we don't base our laws on any one religion. All I know is that two men or two women are in love (and fully consenting, legal age, yada yada yada, 'cause apparently this needs to be clarified...). As a result, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to be open to the same rights and privileges I would get to enjoy with a man. I don't see why this is something that I need to be bothered by, or try and stop. I don't see why some religious people, who talk all the time about the sanctity of marriage and how valuable it is to our society, and how it's important to "love thy neighbor", would be against this. They want to be married. They are fighting hard to be able to be part of an institution that is supposedly so sacred and valuable and meaningful. Why do you think you need to stop them from being part of that?

This is something I have asked a zillion times in this thread, and what I, above anything else I've asked, want an answer to: Why do you and others who think along the same lines as you on this issue think it's your place, your right, to tell others what to do with their love lives, to decide who can and can't get married?

And besides that, discriminating against people is a wee bit different on the black and white/gray scale than the "criticism of this country is tied to indoctrination/anti-Americanism" situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Actually what I said is that one that is indoctrinated would only respond emotionally with anger and smears, which we saw, but that an educated person might offer a retort, which Kieran McConville and Galeongirl provided. I wish more people would give us a "glowing post" about their country now and then actually, nationalism is not a bad thing.
When the country, or individuals in said country, does something that is worth praising, trust me, we'll praise away. Again, we go with what the thread relates to. This one is likely to invite criticism of our country (Australians are doing the same with their nation over this issue, after all, in this thread).

And I wouldn't say people who react with anger and smears are indoctrinated. I would say they're reacting that way because many people would feel it's rather offensive for someone to presume they are "indoctrinated" simply because they may not agree on an issue, or are critical about something. They could perhaps word their disagreement better, but when they feel insulted, rational responses don't always come about right away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
That's a good point.
A moment of agreement .
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 10-13-2012, 11:47 PM   #678
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: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
The two daddies and a mom stick figure is interesting but SSM marriage would never open the door for polygamy would it?
Has yet to take hold here in my state, so...nope.

Meanwhile, Utah hasn't legalized gay marriage, and hey, look at all the polygamists living there! And then there was that big polygamist compound in Texas that got busted a few years ago, and that state hasn't legalized gay marriage, either. Hm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
"Masculine and feminine are labels not definitions." Same-sex marriage is definitely not part of a broader attack on gender specificity and you'd be crazy to think so.
Yes. You would be crazy to think such a thing. So stop reaching.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
There's no reason boys can't wear dresses and if you're a "modern, educated" parent... nothing to see here.
Given that there's been plenty of guys who have done such a thing and yet somehow have turned out all right, no, there isn't anything unusual to see here.
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 10-14-2012, 12:12 AM   #679
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
It really is like you're proud of your ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
You're what's wrong with America, but you're too ignorant and arrogant to realize it
Have I ever personally attacked either of you? Please ignore me if you can't be passionate and civil at the same time.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-14-2012, 04:42 AM   #680
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 08:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
From the Toronto School Board web page as well as the walls of all Toronto schools.

The two daddies and a mom stick figure is interesting but SSM marriage would never open the door for polygamy would it?
I'll go ahead and assume you saw the posters and read nothing else whatsoever about it, or else you wouldn't be posting it.

Quote:
"Masculine and feminine are labels not definitions." Same-sex marriage is definitely not part of a broader attack on gender specificity and you'd be crazy to think so.
I've met some pretty masculine women and some pretty feminine men. What's your point? Those with dicks are masculine and those with vaginas are feminine?

Quote:



There's no reason boys can't wear dresses and if you're a "modern, educated" parent... nothing to see here.

oooooh, I see. Your point is that we should try and nib it in the bud before it becomes a problem! Honestly man, what are you trying to get across? Because it would really seem that you have a problem with children either knowing about homosexuality or knowing from an early age that they might be homosexual themselves. I hope I'm wrong, but that post, more than any other of yours, really seems to point toward a distaste of the idea that people might be gay before.. I dont know.. the age of majority or some other arbitrary age
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 10-14-2012, 04:43 AM   #681
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 08:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Have I ever personally attacked either of you? Please ignore me if you can't be passionate and civil at the same time.
actually, no. I'm erasing what I first wrote and saying: Indy, I'm sure if we met in real life I'd think you're a fine person. Shit on here gets blown up more than it should. I honestly mean that
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 10-14-2012, 07:38 AM   #682
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 02:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
There's no reason boys can't wear dresses and if you're a "modern, educated" parent... nothing to see here.
Didn't expect to ever say this, but for the first time we agree on something here.

Gender stereotypes are exactly that. Stereotypes.

As a kid, I preferred to play with action figures and lego rather than dolls and make up. Man. I must be some butch lesbian then!


Oh wait. No actually, I turned out quite straight and fine with that. Shocking, eh? Why not let kids be kids? Find their own path?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraceRyan View Post
And if U2 EVER did Hawkmoon live....and the version from the Lovetown Tour, my uterus would leave my body and fling itself at Bono - for realz.
Don't worry baby, it's gonna be all right. Uncertainty can be a guiding light...
Galeongirl is offline  
Old 10-14-2012, 07:45 AM   #683
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,279
Local Time: 08:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey
actually, no. I'm erasing what I first wrote and saying: Indy, I'm sure if we met in real life I'd think you're a fine person. Shit on here gets blown up more than it should. I honestly mean that
I would agree.

INDY, I actually do feel that you have been personal but in the vein of JT's post I generally separate delivery and staunchness here from real life people.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 10-14-2012, 08:57 AM   #684
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 11:52 AM
Ok, wanna talk nationalism? Let's talk nationalism. Let's boogie. The secret ballot (aka the Australian ballot) and compulsory voting. The US should adopt the latter. Clean out the stables. I rest my case.
__________________
Kieran McConville is online now  
Old 10-14-2012, 09:42 AM   #685
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,279
Local Time: 08:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

Actually I've been very consistent as you now can see.
I am not sure how you saying that you are "torn" one time demonstrates that you have been as strong of a supporter of legislated gay marriage as you have been a supporter of anti-SSM marriage. I respect that you recognize the difference in the process but even in that post I sensed that you still had issues with the outcome.

Quote:


Which, however one feels about SSM, should be considered truly dangerous to a free society, especially when "bigotry" or "hate speech" is in the eye (or ear) of the offended. A point that sadly alludes some of you.
There are lots of issues to take with that article. It is very clearly written by somebody who has read a lot about our legal system but isn't actually familiar with how it operates or the context.

We should begin by recognizing that Canada is not the best country to compare the US to with respect to free speech because our constitutional documents do not place the emphasis on the same things and your free speech clause reads differently than our section on freedom of expression under the Charter.

Now for the boring law lesson. Section 15 of the Charter states that every individual is equal under the law and has the right to equal protection under, and equal benefit of, the law. It also enumerates grounds for discrimination, which include: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. These grounds are an example, and you have section 15 protection so long as you can demonstrate that you have been discriminated against on an analogous ground. Back in the mid-90s, our Supreme Court found that sexual orientation was implicitly read into section 15 and thus, is an analogous ground. From that point on, legalization of SSM was the obvious conclusion. All these articles that you post suggest that suddenly there is a rash of cases being brought before the federal and provincial human rights tribunals (which you should be aware of are not courts and therefore have very limited powers, particularly when it comes to enforcement - constitutional litigation, that is to say Charter litigation is extremely expensive and therefore it is almost never undertaken except in some landmark case where you have big firms willing to go pro bono). Well the reason that these cases are popping up isn't that there is a concerted effort to stifle free speech, it's because sexual orientation was not considered a discriminatory ground until the mid-90s! It sure sounds insane, but there are still states in the US where you're free to fire somebody for being gay. In Canada, equal protection under the law extends to every aspect of the law. The reason you have more complaints to the tribunals is because discrimination which was previously legal (if immoral, IMO) is now no longer legal. The percentage of cases argued on freedom of expression grounds before the tribunals is TINY. Most of these cases encompass things like landlord/tenant issues, workplace harassment and other workplace issues like constructive dismissal, educational/bullying issues in schools, sexual harassment.

It is by no means that our tribunals sit and exist for the purpose of curtailing free speech. The fact that you can find articles that point to some seemingly harsh findings (without context and without the benefit of reading the judgment) doesn't tell us anything other than some journalist took the time to find them. If you gave any one of us a day to comb through US judicial or quasi-judicial findings, do you think that we wouldn't be able to find absurd, out-of-context quotes or seemingly absurd findings to prove that the US is anti-free speech or is anti-women or is anti-vegetarians? Legal judgments are just like statistics - you can always find ones to support any position. That does not mean that the spirit of the law is interpreted thusly in the nation on the whole.

But perhaps the most operative section of our Charter is section 1, which actually permits the government to curtail the rights of individuals which are set out in the Charter. In short, it allows the government to, in very limited circumstances curtail your freedom of speech. The test is very onerous and very steep, and without going into the many prongs of it and turning this into a first year constitutional law exam, essentially the onus is on the government to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the curtailment of your rights is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. There are may requirements, but basically for your freedom of speech to be restricted, there must be a pressing and substantial objective and the means must be proportional: they must be rationally connected to the objective, the impairment of rights must be minimal and there must be proportionality between the infringement and the objective. If this test is met, then you may not have absolute freedom of speech like you do in the US. I really should emphasize that it is only in extreme circumstances that such tests are actually met.

So you can take the position that we have less freedom of speech in Canada and are thus less free. I think when this position is taken it is usually taken by uninformed people who don't really understand the context and can't be bothered to find out. But again, our countries are not a good comparison for freedom of speech cases because we prioritize different things in different ways. A mere look at your "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" as contrasted with our analogous language of "peace, order and good government" should be a relatively simplistic, yet useful tool in informing the difference.

Do I prefer the Canadian model? Yes, because as somebody who has lived (as a practicing lawyer) and worked in both countries, I prefer the flexibility of one over the rigid constitutional analysis of the other which treats the founding fathers as if they had the foresight of God and penned a document that was equally as relevant in 50, 200, or 650 years. But that is simply my own preference. The difference between you, INDY, and most people outside of the US is that we are able to recognize that our countries have some very good aspects and some things that need to be improved, but we don't need to go screaming from the rooftops that we are humanity's last great hope (to be honest, the only way I can react to such a statement is with laughter).
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 10-14-2012, 07:58 PM   #686
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,874
Local Time: 08:52 PM
There are very few political issues that are right-and-wrong. Two, by my count: same-sex marriage and capital punishment. Everything else is shades of gray.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 10-16-2012, 07:18 PM   #687
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
oooooh, I see. Your point is that we should try and nib it in the bud before it becomes a problem! Honestly man, what are you trying to get across? Because it would really seem that you have a problem with children either knowing about homosexuality or knowing from an early age that they might be homosexual themselves.
Are you implying that gay men typically wear girl's clothes as boys? Seems sorta like stereotyping. No, I don't mind "tom girls" or boys that don't care for girls, it's the move towards gender-neutral child-rearing I think is crap. It will cause just as much harm, ill-prepare children for the real world, as the self-esteem movement has. IMO
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-16-2012, 07:21 PM   #688
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I am not sure how you saying that you are "torn" one time demonstrates that you have been as strong of a supporter of legislated gay marriage as you have been a supporter of anti-SSM marriage. I respect that you recognize the difference in the process but even in that post I sensed that you still had issues with the outcome.



There are lots of issues to take with that article. It is very clearly written by somebody who has read a lot about our legal system but isn't actually familiar with how it operates or the context.

We should begin by recognizing that Canada is not the best country to compare the US to with respect to free speech because our constitutional documents do not place the emphasis on the same things and your free speech clause reads differently than our section on freedom of expression under the Charter.

Now for the boring law lesson. Section 15 of the Charter states that every individual is equal under the law and has the right to equal protection under, and equal benefit of, the law. It also enumerates grounds for discrimination, which include: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. These grounds are an example, and you have section 15 protection so long as you can demonstrate that you have been discriminated against on an analogous ground. Back in the mid-90s, our Supreme Court found that sexual orientation was implicitly read into section 15 and thus, is an analogous ground. From that point on, legalization of SSM was the obvious conclusion. All these articles that you post suggest that suddenly there is a rash of cases being brought before the federal and provincial human rights tribunals (which you should be aware of are not courts and therefore have very limited powers, particularly when it comes to enforcement - constitutional litigation, that is to say Charter litigation is extremely expensive and therefore it is almost never undertaken except in some landmark case where you have big firms willing to go pro bono). Well the reason that these cases are popping up isn't that there is a concerted effort to stifle free speech, it's because sexual orientation was not considered a discriminatory ground until the mid-90s! It sure sounds insane, but there are still states in the US where you're free to fire somebody for being gay. In Canada, equal protection under the law extends to every aspect of the law. The reason you have more complaints to the tribunals is because discrimination which was previously legal (if immoral, IMO) is now no longer legal. The percentage of cases argued on freedom of expression grounds before the tribunals is TINY. Most of these cases encompass things like landlord/tenant issues, workplace harassment and other workplace issues like constructive dismissal, educational/bullying issues in schools, sexual harassment.

It is by no means that our tribunals sit and exist for the purpose of curtailing free speech. The fact that you can find articles that point to some seemingly harsh findings (without context and without the benefit of reading the judgment) doesn't tell us anything other than some journalist took the time to find them. If you gave any one of us a day to comb through US judicial or quasi-judicial findings, do you think that we wouldn't be able to find absurd, out-of-context quotes or seemingly absurd findings to prove that the US is anti-free speech or is anti-women or is anti-vegetarians? Legal judgments are just like statistics - you can always find ones to support any position. That does not mean that the spirit of the law is interpreted thusly in the nation on the whole.

But perhaps the most operative section of our Charter is section 1, which actually permits the government to curtail the rights of individuals which are set out in the Charter. In short, it allows the government to, in very limited circumstances curtail your freedom of speech. The test is very onerous and very steep, and without going into the many prongs of it and turning this into a first year constitutional law exam, essentially the onus is on the government to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the curtailment of your rights is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. There are may requirements, but basically for your freedom of speech to be restricted, there must be a pressing and substantial objective and the means must be proportional: they must be rationally connected to the objective, the impairment of rights must be minimal and there must be proportionality between the infringement and the objective. If this test is met, then you may not have absolute freedom of speech like you do in the US. I really should emphasize that it is only in extreme circumstances that such tests are actually met.

So you can take the position that we have less freedom of speech in Canada and are thus less free. I think when this position is taken it is usually taken by uninformed people who don't really understand the context and can't be bothered to find out. But again, our countries are not a good comparison for freedom of speech cases because we prioritize different things in different ways. A mere look at your "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" as contrasted with our analogous language of "peace, order and good government" should be a relatively simplistic, yet useful tool in informing the difference.

Do I prefer the Canadian model? Yes, because as somebody who has lived (as a practicing lawyer) and worked in both countries, I prefer the flexibility of one over the rigid constitutional analysis of the other which treats the founding fathers as if they had the foresight of God and penned a document that was equally as relevant in 50, 200, or 650 years. But that is simply my own preference. The difference between you, INDY, and most people outside of the US is that we are able to recognize that our countries have some very good aspects and some things that need to be improved, but we don't need to go screaming from the rooftops that we are humanity's last great hope (to be honest, the only way I can react to such a statement is with laughter).
Thanks for your answer, if its ok I'll paste your answer in a new thread dealing with freedom of speech which I'll start after the election. I think the subject is not only interesting but of great importance.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-16-2012, 07:34 PM   #689
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 08:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Are you implying that gay men typically wear girl's clothes as boys? Seems sorta like stereotyping. No, I don't mind "tom girls" or boys that don't care for girls, it's the move towards gender-neutral child-rearing I think is crap. It will cause just as much harm, ill-prepare children for the real world, as the self-esteem movement has. IMO
Not all, but I'm sure some might That poster just seems to be saying "if a boy wants to wear a wig for fun, it's not a big deal". I think you're just taking it the wrong way. We probably have similar thoughts on 'gender neutral' child rearing. Nothing wrong with painting a boy's room blue and a girl's pink. But if the boy decides at some point that he wants to play with My Little Pony, I don't think that's a problem either. I've said in other threads that gender roles aren't always bad, but you have to let people stray from them if they choose
__________________
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 10-16-2012, 07:39 PM   #690
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
This is something I have asked a zillion times in this thread, and what I, above anything else I've asked, want an answer to: Why do you and others who think along the same lines as you on this issue think it's your place, your right, to tell others what to do with their love lives, to decide who can and can't get married?
As I've pointed out, all societies have and do define, limit and "decide who can and can't get married" based on numerous criteria. You seem to have a more libertarian (and consistent in my opinion) view of marriage but unless you're an anarchist you would discriminate against someone's "love" as well.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 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 08:52 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