Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III - Page 27 - 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 06-30-2013, 12:04 AM   #391
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 05:57 AM
I find it strangely backwards that it is often Christians who throw down the whole "polygamy" argument when really if any one should be marshalling a possible defense of polygamous marriages, it would have to be Christians since it's all over the Bible and it is considered acceptable through much of Scripture.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-30-2013, 12:06 AM   #392
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 05:57 AM
I find it amazing that this is even much of a discussion anymore.

With the under 40s, it is settled.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-30-2013, 12:11 AM   #393
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
The law/ government is not telling people what they can or can not think or even say. And religions can still discriminate and say gays and jews go straight to hell, or no gays or jews allowed.


This person chose to own a business in the State of Washington.

This is the law in WA State.




RCW 49.60.030: Freedom from discrimination — Declaration of civil rights.
I see, thanks for clarifying. It makes sense to me.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-30-2013, 12:15 AM   #394
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:57 AM
and yes that first article link I posted was terrible (and funny),
I skimmed about six and then just grabbed one, I should have chose better.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-30-2013, 12:18 AM   #395
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
So here's the thing.

I think now is exactly the wrong time to decide that with the tides moving inexorably towards full equality there is no longer any need to try to change the minds of SOME opponents of gay marriage. It's exactly at this moment that people who are willing to try to understand the opponents of gay marriage and get them to change their minds can really make a big difference.
I don't see how this relates to the particular discussion here.

I agree with you that there are people who are undecided, or who just don't think about this issue very much because it's not personal to them, or whose religious beliefs run contrary to SSM but they maybe know gay people and feel differently and therefore their position is muddled, etc.

INDY is not these people. I think that it is a pointless exercise to try to change his mind. And frankly the remnants of this "debate" right now are being carried out with people precisely like INDY. The rest of us have moved on and don't see this as an issue. People like my parents, who are religious, are not vocal supporters of SSM like I am, but they have accepted it as the law of the land, they have invited my gay friends into their home and welcomed them and they just don't really see SSM as something that is worth "debating" or fighting over. For them, the debate is over. INDY is not those people.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 06-30-2013, 12:31 AM   #396
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 05:57 AM
FWIW, I think INDY is just playing a role on here an mimicing the various anti-SSM articles out out by colonists who themselves aren't actually anti-gay but, like most US Senators, know they have a knuckle-dragging audience to play to. No one who writes a column for NRO isn't an urban elitist, no matter what they say in their columns. rush Limbaugh paid $1m for Elton John to play at his 4th (5th?) wedding. Likewise, every senator in the Senate has gay staff. It's impossible not to in DC. They know gay people. But they also know who their constituents are.

This is the trick the conservative media-entertainment complex has played on the gullible.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-30-2013, 12:34 AM   #397
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post

INDY is not these people. I think that it is a pointless exercise to try to change his mind. And frankly the remnants of this "debate" right now are being carried out with people precisely like INDY. The rest of us have moved on and don't see this as an issue. People like my parents, who are religious, are not vocal supporters of SSM like I am, but they have accepted it as the law of the land, they have invited my gay friends into their home and welcomed them and they just don't really see SSM as something that is worth "debating" or fighting over. For them, the debate is over. INDY is not those people.
Oh, I agree about INDY. I sense his main pleasure is tweaking the liberals in here rather than actually changing anyone's mind.

But is it true for AEON and nbc (both of whom have suddenly returned after long absences? Might there be others, maybe lurkers. . .I don't know)? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But at the very least their tone is different.

I do think what I'm saying is germane to the discussion because the consensus of the majority here seems to be that the time for trying to change hearts and minds has past--and the implication doesn't seem to be limited to FYM but to society in general. That all the reasonable people have already been won over, and the rest are beyond saving. I just feel that is a little premature.

To decide that there's no point in trying to change a person's mind is actually a kind of disrespect. Sometimes that disrespect is earned--if a person demonstrates repeatedly that they are absolutely closed well then fair enough, and yes, I agree that there are some people-as has been mentioned--that fall into that category. But sometimes that disrespect is unearned. I guess I'm lucky I was looking for tickets to a Tokyo U2 show in 2006 because if I'd arrived here today would there be any one left who would have bothered to take the time to help turn around my thinking? (Granted, my thinking might have changed any way, but my point is that it was people in this forum who happened to play a large role).
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-30-2013, 12:37 AM   #398
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
And frankly the remnants of this "debate" right now are being carried out with people precisely like INDY.
My mom, for example, who I've been discussing this issue with for awhile is anti-SSM and trust me she is nothing like our friend from Indiana.

I believe she could be won over.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-30-2013, 12:40 AM   #399
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
colonists
For a minute there I was trying to figure out your sophisticated use of the word colonists here. "In what sense does he mean colonist? Is it some sort of reference to a colonial worldview? Some sort of urbane euphemism that I just don't get?"

And then I realize you meant columnists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
This is the trick the conservative media-entertainment complex has played on the gullible.
Truth.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-30-2013, 12:43 AM   #400
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post

For a minute there I was trying to figure out your sophisticated use of the word colonists here. "In what sense does he mean colonist? Is it some sort of reference to a colonial worldview? Some sort of urbane euphemism that I just don't get?"

And then I realize you meant columnists.

Sorry. Damn you autocorrect.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-30-2013, 12:44 AM   #401
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
My mom, for example, who I've been discussing this issue with for awhile is anti-SSM and trust me she is nothing like our friend from Indiana.

I believe she could be won over.
Right, but your Mom is probably not engaging in a public debate or writing angry letters to the newspaper or sending money to the Family Research Council, etc. Her private discussions with you are likely the same I had with my parents some years ago.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 06-30-2013, 12:47 AM   #402
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
FWIW, I think INDY is just playing a role on here an mimicing the various anti-SSM articles out out by colonists who themselves aren't actually anti-gay but, like most US Senators, know they have a knuckle-dragging audience to play to.
I don't really think so. I actually think that INDY was able to engage on non-SSM topics quite reasonably until the Obama era and then totally lost the plot out of an irrational hatred of the man. His SSM posts have also gotten far more charged since, but I think that's not playing a role, it's more just a side effect of the overall animus that he seems to feel towards the government of the day. What I mean is that if the same events were playing out in the courts and in different state legislatures as they are now but there was a Republican president, INDY would still be against SSM but his tone and messaging would be much like it was 6 years ago (i.e. less adamant).

Just a guess.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 06-30-2013, 07:58 AM   #403
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 11:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pearl View Post
The fact that there are many Americans who don't support SSM, despite that it will be increasingly legal in the future, is still an issue here - especially with business owners. There have already been cases where people who have beachfront property, own party halls and even wedding cake businesses, have refused same-sex couples who wanted to use their business for their weddings. This is leading, and will continue to lead to lawsuits. Obviously if you don't support SSM, well, don't have one. But if you run a wedding-oriented business, that's where the problems arise.

I'm curious as to what legally can be done about this issue. Also, can FYMers in other countries - Canada, the Netherlands, etc. - tell how this problem is resolved in their countries?
Actually, I'm not really sure what to tell you. I don't think I've heard of cases of that problem arising here. Sure, there's churches where they don't want to marry SS couples, but the couple goes to another church and that's that.

For companies who cater weddings, or locations to refuse same sex couples? Don't think I've heard of that. Maybe it's not all in the news here, but then again, we're somewhat tolerant folk who don't really mind what reason people have to party, as long as they pay the bill.

I think we're also a different kind of people concerning lawsuits and everything. It seems in America it's much more common if something doesn't go your way to sue, while for us it's a rare thing to do. For me personally, if I'd be refused by a caterer that doesn't want to cater my marriage, I'd tell him to go fuck himself and get a different caterer. Don't see the point in suing and forcing the guy to cater me, I don't even want an asshat like that to be in charge of my food.
__________________
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 06-30-2013, 09:56 AM   #404
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
So here's the thing.

I think now is exactly the wrong time to decide that with the tides moving inexorably towards full equality there is no longer any need to try to change the minds of SOME opponents of gay marriage. It's exactly at this moment that people who are willing to try to understand the opponents of gay marriage and get them to change their minds can really make a big difference.

It's important to understand that not all anti-SSM folks are the same (just as not all racists are the same). The reasons, motivations, and most importantly attitudes of such people do actually vary, and I've always felt it's short-sighted to paint them all with the same "hate-filled homophobe" brush. I say this because I was one of those people when I first joined this forum a mere seven years ago, and it was partly because of people on this forum (special mention to Melon, who probably deserves lifetime credit as one of the most influential people in my life for helping me formulate this change in my understanding, and of course the ever faithful Irvine) that I came to a complete 180 on my views on homosexuality and SSM. Many of you were there to see it happen and could probably go back in the archives and find the conversations where the turnaround happened.

Further I would counter the JiveTurkey conventional wisdom that says the religious people are the most hopeless in terms of convincing them of the error of their ways. I would argue that a religious person in the proper frame of mind is a better bet to convince than a non-religious one. After all, if the only "reasons" to oppose gay marriage are religious than any one who still is against it without a religious reason is truly beyond reasoning as they have no reason to argue with. You will find many religious people, I promise you, that are finding that the traditional take on homosexuality from scripture is dissonant with the spirit of their faith which calls for love and acceptance. And for many of these people, a brusque command to junk their silly superstitions is not going to cut it. Indeed, there are many gay people who don't care to give up their religious faith thank you very much but based on what they hear from the JT's and INDY's of the world (strange bedfellows, indeed) feel that they are forced to choose between their identity as a gay person and their belief in God.

Look, I get that it feels good to sneer at the other side for their idiocy. I get the argument that some "arguments" deserve mockery and scorn. And if your only goal is to enjoy the good feeling of being right, then fine. But if you want to change some one's mind--and I for one thing, think that's kind of important--mockery, scorn, dismissal is not the way to go about it.
Just wanted to say that's one of the absolute best posts I've ever read on here. Quoted for truth.

Quote:
I would argue that a religious person in the proper frame of mind is a better bet to convince than a non-religious one.
Of course that goes against so many stereotypes that you encounter here, sometimes on a daily basis if you're around here long enough and here every day. But in my personal life I have found it to be true. I was just having a discussion about the ruling with my mother, and for me it all comes down to the fact that you cannot have selective equality in this world or in this country. That runs counter to every single thing that this country allegedly stands for. As women she and I both want equality, and I said that for me it's all really as simple as that. No need to complicate it. I consider her to be a very religious person, and she agrees with me. She fits no stereotypes, in spite of her age and the times she grew up in. There are plenty of people like that, of all ages and backgrounds.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 06-30-2013, 10:22 AM   #405
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 03:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
I have no opinion on the subject.

I really don't. Why would I?
That's fair. I really don't have a developed opinion on the matter yet either (as far as the government's role in such an arrangement).

I was only curious to see the limits of your definition of marriage, and where you derived those limits (tradition, common sense, science...etc).

My definition (or the one that I accept) comes from my interpretation of the New Testament, tradition, and perhaps some social evolution factors (good for the tribe sort of thing) - not from the government. It's pretty straight forward - and perhaps this is a cop out, because until recently most people did not even have to worry about this, it just was.

So - that is what I would like to understand: what is your definition of marriage, what are the limits of that definition, and where do you derive that definition?

If you don't care to answer, I understand. Perhaps someone else can chime in.

Thanks.
__________________

__________________
AEON 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 05:57 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