Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III - Page 19 - 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 06-28-2013, 08:45 AM   #271
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 02:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
All the previous redefinitions were fine with INDY and the other conservative christians, but THIS is where they draw the line.
Just like previous generations drew their lines elsewhere, like that slavery was very much okay, women should be kept stupid and children should be working... you'd almost think that they just refuse to look ahead and rather live in the past...
__________________

__________________
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 06-28-2013, 09:08 AM   #272
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 08:14 PM
Hannah Arendt wrote this in 1959, in the midst of the civil rights movement:

Quote:
"The right to marry whoever one wishes is an elementary human right compared to which ‘the right to attend an integrated school, the right to sit where one pleases on a bus, the right to go into any hotel or recreation area or place of amusement, regardless of one’s skin or color or race’ are minor indeed. Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs."

So, yeah, it actually is right there in the Constitution, it's just taking some longer than others to view gay people as actual people rather than a sex act (like, say, buttsex obsessed Scalia).

More to come.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-28-2013, 09:21 AM   #273
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 08:14 PM
When the SCOTUS decisions came out, Michele Bachmann, thinking she was still relevant, released this statement:

Quote:

Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted.

For thousands of years of recorded human history, no society has defended the legal standard of marriage as anything other than between man and woman. Only since 2000 have we seen a redefinition of this foundational unit of society in various nations.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to join the trend, despite the clear will of the people’s representatives through DOMA.

What the Court has done will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States.
When asked to comment on the statement, Nancy Pelosi said:

"Who cares?"

And to be honest, when I read INDY's posts on this, that's pretty much the response I have.

Who cares?

This will remain an issue for fewer and fewer people who are inflexible and stuck in their ways and for the rest of us, life goes on just like it did before. I'm getting married in 7 weeks and I'm glad that the "new" definition of marriage is extended to all of our gay friends who will be celebrating with us, including one American couple who moved to Canada precisely because so many people in their country were hung up on dictionaries 8 years ago.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 06-28-2013, 09:37 AM   #274
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 09:14 PM
If Nancy Pelosi really did say, "who cares?" that's the quote of the year.

I heard there's a Kansas Republican Congressman who wants to have the constitution amended to ban gay marriage. He said something like how the Supreme Court isn't Congress, they're not voted by the people,

Reality can suck, my friends.
__________________
Pearl is offline  
Old 06-28-2013, 09:42 AM   #275
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 08:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post
If Nancy Pelosi really did say, "who cares?" that's the quote of the year.
It's on video:

http://jezebel.com/nancy-pelosis-res...best-588304840
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 06-28-2013, 09:57 AM   #276
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,665
Local Time: 09:14 PM
LOVED this:

Cover Story: Bert and Ernie Celebrate Gay Marriage : The New Yorker
__________________

BoMac is offline  
Old 06-28-2013, 10:15 AM   #277
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 06:14 PM
As I'm reading through the responses to INDY I'm reminded on why I rarely come in here anymore. There really is very little tolerance for opposing opinions. And, instead of challenging the opinion of the person - many just attack the person. There really is no room for civil discourse here on "hot" issues.

If your intention is to create a forum where only "liberal" voices can post and congratulate each other on liberal victories in the world, you are succeeding. But it would probably be easier if all of you became Facebook friends and just collect "likes."

Anyway, I'm sure you don't care if AEON comes around that often. I admire that INDY remains here and continues to take a beating, but this place has too much bullying, hatred, and negative energy for me.

I will probably continue to poke my head in here from to time and test the waters, I enjoy learning and sharing. But until the environment becomes more tolerant - there are usually better ways to spend my time.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 06-28-2013, 10:20 AM   #278
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 08:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
As I'm reading through the responses to INDY I'm reminded on why I rarely come in here anymore. There really is very little tolerance for opposing opinions.
Because not all opinions require tolerance.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 06-28-2013, 10:22 AM   #279
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,665
Local Time: 09:14 PM
Speaking for myself: I value listening to a diversity of voices on most topics. It makes for a more robust debate and, while a consensus is sometimes never reached, allow us to understand each other better.

But that's when it comes to hot-button political issues. On civil rights issues like the same-sex marriage debate, I simply do not tolerate intolerance toward other human beings.

I do hope you stay, AEON.
__________________

BoMac is offline  
Old 06-28-2013, 10:25 AM   #280
Blue Crack Addict
 
Vlad n U 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 28,013
Local Time: 11:44 AM
It's not 'fully' liberal, I'm here sometimes after all.
__________________
Vlad n U 2 is online now  
Old 06-28-2013, 10:33 AM   #281
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 06:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Because not all opinions require tolerance.

I am sorry you feel like this. Of course, with a viewpoint like this, you can see why it is not exactly fun to disagree with you in a forum.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 06-28-2013, 10:48 AM   #282
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 08:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
I am sorry you feel like this. Of course, with a viewpoint like this, you can see why it is not exactly fun to disagree with you in a forum.
That's fine.

If you think that all opinions demand tolerance, then I assume you also tolerate the opinions of racists, anti-semites, Islamic jihadists and so on. I don't.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 06-28-2013, 10:55 AM   #283
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 08:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
As I'm reading through the responses to INDY I'm reminded on why I rarely come in here anymore. There really is very little tolerance for opposing opinions. And, instead of challenging the opinion of the person - many just attack the person. There really is no room for civil discourse here on "hot" issues.

If your intention is to create a forum where only "liberal" voices can post and congratulate each other on liberal victories in the world, you are succeeding. But it would probably be easier if all of you became Facebook friends and just collect "likes."

Anyway, I'm sure you don't care if AEON comes around that often. I admire that INDY remains here and continues to take a beating, but this place has too much bullying, hatred, and negative energy for me.

I will probably continue to poke my head in here from to time and test the waters, I enjoy learning and sharing. But until the environment becomes more tolerant - there are usually better ways to spend my time.



because gay people are the real bullies?

no one would be tolerant of blatant racism, misogyny, anti-semitism, etc. opposition to SSM isn't something principled, beyond vague religious objections or incredibly tortured logic.

you have every right to hold and opinion and to speak out and defend that opinion, but that doesn't mean that such an opinion is entitled to respect if it is poorly reasoned or based in fear and loathing.

INDY has been engaged many, many times on this issue, it's been extremely well fought out in here going back years, particularly between Melon, Nathan, and myself. i hardly think FYM suffers from lack of real debate on this issue.

the problem is that the anti-SSM folks have lost -- in court, in the legislatures, in public opinion, with the young, and on the merits of the argument itself. it becomes a very hard position to defend (witnessing the contortions of logic in the National Review is painful, i'd rather a "God's Will" argument because at least it's more honest), and it seems odd that conservatives want a cookie and a pat on the head simply for holding an opinion.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-28-2013, 11:00 AM   #284
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 09:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Anyway, I'm sure you don't care if AEON comes around that often. I admire that INDY remains here and continues to take a beating, but this place has too much bullying, hatred, and negative energy for me.

I will probably continue to poke my head in here from to time and test the waters, I enjoy learning and sharing. But until the environment becomes more tolerant - there are usually better ways to spend my time.
Just so you know, the anti-gay sentiment that's been expressed here falls under the bullying, hatred and negative energy category.

Also, I can't help but notice that by using your username in the third person, you trying to play the victim card.
__________________
Pearl is offline  
Old 06-28-2013, 11:14 AM   #285
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 08:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post

Who cares?


i had planned to write a long rebuttal of INDY's post and especially Scalia's tantrum, but perhaps because it's friday of a long week and it's hot and humid here in DC, i think that this is the best response to the nonsense we're getting from non-religious arguments against SSM.

i can perhaps see a small amount of merit in NBC's objection to how the opinion was actually arrived at, and the future of ballot initiatives in states, but that seems like incredibly small potatoes compared to the victory that was won.

DOMA was absolutely conceived in animus. "defending" marriage from whom? it is in the text of the 1996 law:

Quote:
When Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan read aloud from the 1996 Report to Congress that accompanied the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act, there were audible gasps of shock in the courtroom, according to several people who attended oral arguments Wednesday.

"I'm going to quote from the House Report here," Kagan had said "... 'Congress decided to reflect and honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.' Is that what happened in 1996?"

The Jaw-Dropping Reason Congress Drafted DOMA: 'Moral Disapproval of Homosexuality' - Garance Franke-Ruta - The Atlantic
it's nakedly about animus. there's no disputing this. while we can argue that individuals who are opposed to SSM don't oppose out of animus, DOMA absolutely is about animus.

as for Prop 8, i point people back to the Prop 8 transcripts from the trial that aptly demonstrated that, yes, Prop 8 was conceived in animus, and the Prop 8 team was unable to provide a single witness -- a single witness -- who could demonstrate any conceivable harm that SSM would do to any sentient being in California.

there is no correlation between expressing moral disapproval of SSM and moral disapproval of murder, as Scalia has said. there is harm with murder. there is harm with stealing. there is harm with man on dog relationships.

the only harm with homosexuality is that which is done to gay people themselves by a society that expresses moral disapproval and then codifies that prejudice into law. and there is clear harm done, as Kennedy eloquently stated:

Quote:
“DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others… The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”
and that's really all there is to it. within 5 years we'll have SSM in at least a majority of states.

goodbye to all that.

you can disapprove of me all you like, but you can't use the law to force me into second class citizenship any longer.
__________________

__________________
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 08:14 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