Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III - Page 38 - 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 10-05-2013, 10:26 AM   #556
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 10:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
no it isn't.
Whether you think they are genuine or not is another discussion, but they routinely say something along these lines:

1) gay marriage undermines the society by destroying the traditional family structure, a structure God designed. (Society)

2) homosexual activity damages a person physically, emotionally, and spiritually - as it is being willfully disobedient to God (Individual)

Again, you can disagree with these statement, I'm not going to defend them. But these are the basic arguments that the conservative Christians and Jews use to oppose gay marriage.
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 10-05-2013, 12:12 PM   #557
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 11:47 PM
I think the difference is that those opposing incest and polygamy have actual facts to back up their assertions that it damages the person and society.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 10-05-2013, 12:40 PM   #558
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 06:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Whether you think they are genuine or not is another discussion, but they routinely say something along these lines:

1) gay marriage undermines the society by destroying the traditional family structure, a structure God designed. (Society)

2) homosexual activity damages a person physically, emotionally, and spiritually - as it is being willfully disobedient to God (Individual)

Again, you can disagree with these statement, I'm not going to defend them. But these are the basic arguments that the conservative Christians and Jews use to oppose gay marriage.

Yet I see opinions here, not facts. As Diemen says, on incest or paedophilia or polygamy or bestiality there are facts proving that it is harmful to the individuals on society. Based on genetics and psychology.

As far as I'm aware, we shouldn't let people's opinions weigh heavier than facts on this matter. More and more people are becoming atheistic or nontheistic these days, agnostic even. Religion is losing power. Why should we give the power to their opinions when the majority of people isn't behind that anymore?
__________________
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 10-05-2013, 12:54 PM   #559
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 10:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
I think the difference is that those opposing incest and polygamy have actual facts to back up their assertions that it damages the person and society.
I am certainly not going to defend incest or polygamy, but is there really valid scientific research to support that these activities damage a person and society (the assumption here is that it is all consensual)? I understand the genetic component of incest - but what if they don't intend to have children?

Again - I'm not defending these activities, but it seems like there is an appeal to scientific "facts" and I would like to see those.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 10-05-2013, 03:07 PM   #560
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post

Again - I'm not defending
I may get this wrong, I don't spend much time in here (anymore) reading everything in here.

But, when I read these types of things thrown into the argument, discussion it just makes the one doing it appear like they are bias against gay people.

The purpose to muddy up the discussion to defend bias towards gays.

That's the take away.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-05-2013, 03:35 PM   #561
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 10:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
I may get this wrong, I don't spend much time in here (anymore) reading everything in here.

But, when I read these types of things thrown into the argument, discussion it just makes the one doing it appear like they are bias against gay people.

The purpose to muddy up the discussion to defend bias towards gays.

That's the take away.
Understood. The reason I'm going down this path is in reference to Caleb's response to Pearl's appeal to "common sense" - Caleb was arguing that this is a variable that changes with cultures. A quick review of history would tend to support Caleb here.

Pearl then seemed to be saying that certain activities harm society and the individual - and I responded that conservative Christians and Jews use the same argument to oppose gay marriage. In response to that, others claimed that these are mere opinions and do not support the "facts". Which is a fair. So I simply requested these facts.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 10-05-2013, 03:36 PM   #562
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 12:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Again - I'm not defending these activities, but it seems like there is an appeal to scientific "facts" and I would like to see those.
Aside from complicated consent issues, the first factual one I think of is social assistance. Because the state doens't recognize polygamous marriage, the first wife is a spouse and all subsequent wives are single women and single mothers. And typically single mothers of a herd of children. Who then become a burden on the state by collecting social assistance of varying sorts.

If we're going to talk about welfare Queens in Harlem...
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 10-05-2013, 03:38 PM   #563
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 10:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Because the state doens't recognize polygamous marriage, the first wife is a spouse and all subsequent wives are single women and single mothers.
In theory, this law could be changed so that the "single" mothers are no longer single, but in a state-recognized marriage.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 10-05-2013, 04:11 PM   #564
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 12:47 AM
Well, that presupposes that there are no issues with consent in these marriages, which is often not the case.

But ok, let's assume you're dealing with consenting adults, not sure you've thought it through. So now you have one husband and 6 wives. How do you file joint taxes? Does he get to enjoy tax breaks by filing 6 times? Does he split his income 6 ways and files once with each wife, thereby reducing his overall income and making all 6 families eligible for federal and state aid? What about health insurance? Does he have 6 policies or are they added as dependents? Typically, you add a spouse to your own insurance at a discount, so what happens here? What about divorce? When wife #4 divorces him, how do you calculate net family property? When she sues him for spousal support and child support, does that come out of the pockets of wives 1-3, 5 & 6 and if so, why should they be held financially responsible?

I think this is a huge potential financial burden on the state. To say nothing of any social issues.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 10-05-2013, 04:17 PM   #565
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 10:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post

I think this is a huge potential financial burden on the state.
I agree - because of the extra systems, business rules, paperwork necessary to legally support this, it certainly is practical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
To say nothing of any social issues.
This may be more difficult to prove (assuming consensus).
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 10-05-2013, 05:44 PM   #566
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 10:47 PM
I meant "impractical" ^
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 10-05-2013, 08:58 PM   #567
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: 09:47 PM
Oh man. The polygamy thing again.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-06-2013, 12:38 AM   #568
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 10:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Oh man. The polygamy thing again.
We haven't covered gay polygamy - where do you stand on that?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 10-06-2013, 06:08 AM   #569
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 06:47 AM
I'm.. not sure how that would even work out. especially with all females. Since they tend to be more jealous by nature, putting a bunch of them together is sure as heck not gonna work out.

To be honest, if people want to have more wives or husbands or whatever, live together with more than 2 people, they should do whatever the hell they want. But it's simply not doable for a working financial and legal system to acknowledge more than 1 spouse. So no, I would not see multiple marriages working out. That doesn't mean I say they cannot be together though, if it's consent of course.

Yeah, I see your parallels with gay marriage there. But I disagree that it's the same. Because a gay marriage is no trouble at all, financially and legally it's not different from a straight wedding here. You still have two humans getting married, just regardless of gender. Polygamy involves more than two humans, thus it is vastly different.
__________________
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 10-06-2013, 07:25 AM   #570
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 55,041
Local Time: 04:47 PM
On polygamy, I really couldn't give a fuck if people engage in it. There are several cultures where it's accepted.

But using it as a crutch for opposing same sex marriage is pathetic.

For me it all comes back to - who is affected when two gay people get married? No one but those two. Any assertions to the contrary are ridiculous.
__________________

__________________
cobl04 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 12:47 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