Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III - Page 43 - 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 12-18-2013, 06:39 PM   #631
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 09:50 AM
Thanks Obama!
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
Old 12-20-2013, 08:48 AM   #632
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:50 PM
it's now legal in New Mexico. that's state #17.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/20/us...iage.html?_r=0
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-20-2013, 09:20 AM   #633
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 06:50 PM
Great news.
__________________
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 12-20-2013, 05:23 PM   #634
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:50 PM
So, people on the interwebs are saying it's now legal in Utah? For real?

Poor Arizona. Surrounded by gay marriage and Mexico.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-20-2013, 06:03 PM   #635
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:50 PM
Well.

Quote:
SALT LAKE CITY — A federal judge on Friday struck down Utah’s same-sex marriage ban, saying it was unconstitutional.

The judge, Robert J. Shelby of Federal District Court for the District of Utah, issued a 53-page ruling that said Utah’s law, which was passed by voters in 2004, violated the rights of gay and lesbian couples to due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

Judge Shelby said the state had failed to show that allowing same-sex marriages would affect opposite-sex marriages in any way, and that the state’s unsupported fears and speculations were not sufficient to justify barring same-sex marriages.

Lawyers for the state had argued that Utah’s law promoted the state’s interest in “responsible procreation” and the “optimal mode of child-rearing.” The lawsuit was brought by three gay and lesbian couples in Utah.

Many similar court challenges are pending in other states, but Utah’s has been closely watched because of the state’s history of staunch opposition to same-sex marriage as the home of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The ruling followed a court decision on Thursday in New Mexico, where the State Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the right of same-sex partners to marry, saying that the “protections and responsibilities that result from the marital relationship shall apply equally” to them and to opposite-sex couples.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-20-2013, 06:23 PM   #636
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:50 AM
It looks like The Court is tired of Utah telling people who they can love and live with.

Utah court ruling eases fear among polygamists - CBS News
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 12-20-2013, 06:39 PM   #637
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 09:50 AM
"responsible procreation"??
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 12-20-2013, 07:32 PM   #638
Refugee
 
PennyLanePHINS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 1,062
Local Time: 12:50 PM
Hmm so maybe Utah gets added to the 2014 possibility list with Oregon, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, PA.
__________________
PennyLanePHINS is offline  
Old 12-20-2013, 08:08 PM   #639
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PennyLanePHINS View Post
Hmm so maybe Utah gets added to the 2014 possibility list with Oregon, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, PA.


Supposedly the unelected, appointed AG is going to appeal the decision in the whole "will of the people" spirit.

Irony abounds.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-21-2013, 08:34 AM   #640
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 06:50 PM
Quote:
Judge Shelby said the state had failed to show that allowing same-sex marriages would affect opposite-sex marriages in any way, and that the state’s unsupported fears and speculations were not sufficient to justify barring same-sex marriages.
Cause there is nothing to show!

I wonder how the lovely Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints people will respond. I'm sure it'll be lovely as usual.
__________________
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 12-21-2013, 09:29 AM   #641
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 12:50 PM
It will be interesting. The Mormons are quite different from a Baptist like the DD guy, or even your typical Peotestant evangelical. They could surprise us. Most Mormons seem to be lovely people.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-21-2013, 02:11 PM   #642
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,892
Local Time: 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PennyLanePHINS View Post
Hmm so maybe Utah gets added to the 2014 possibility list with Oregon, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, PA.
PA? Ha. The GOP owns this state government. I'd be stunned.
__________________
PhilsFan is online now  
Old 12-21-2013, 06:56 PM   #643
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 01:50 PM
^Yeah, I would be too. Not in 2014. Unless maybe the Marcellus shale people want it.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 12-22-2013, 12:44 PM   #644
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,892
Local Time: 12:50 PM
They're still scrambling to figure out what to do now that everyone hates Corbett. I doubt they have time for any social issues.
__________________
PhilsFan is online now  
Old 01-04-2014, 01:03 PM   #645
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,252
Local Time: 12:50 PM
Same sex marriage is a bad thing. It is going to have very negative impacts on
on society. I don't care if homosexuals do civil contracts, but redefining the
definition of marriage is wrong.

Dennis Prager has written much on his opposition.


This is a Dennis Prager column from a 2004 article found at Townhall.com:

“Of all the arguments against same-sex marriage, the most immediately compelling is that it is hurts children. If children have a right to anything, it is to begin life with a mother and father.

Death, divorce, abandonment, a single parent’s mistakes — any one of these deprives children of a mother or father. But only same-sex marriage would legally ensure that children are deprived from birth of either a mother or a father.

Why, then, doesn’t a child’s right to begin life with a mother and father have any impact on the millions of people who either advocate same-sex marriage or can’t make up their minds on the issue?

Among gay activists the reason is narcissism. Though gays already have the right to raise children without an opposite-sex parent and the right to adopt children, gay activists want society to enshrine one-sex parenting with its highest seal of approval — marriage. For gay activists, the fact that a child does best with a good mother and good father is of no significance (or worse, denied). All that matters is what is good for gays.

And what about the heterosexuals who support same-sex marriage? They ignore the issue of its effects on children because they either do not want to confront the issue or because they are so intimidated by the liberation trinity — “equality,” “rights” and “tolerance” — that even children’s welfare becomes a non-issue.

Advocates of same-sex marriage have, therefore, many good reasons not to talk about issue of children. Even the most passionate advocate does not argue that it is better for a child to have two mothers and no father or two mothers and no father.

But, the same-sex marriage advocates will respond, while children may not be better off, they will be just as well off, with two fathers and no mother or two mothers and no father.

This claim, however, is dishonest. So dishonest that it leads to a certain cognitive dissonance among many of those who make it. On the one hand, they don’t really believe that mothers (or fathers) are useless, and they do not wish to lie. On the other hand, they know that they have to say that a mother and father are no better for children than two same-sex parents or they will lose the public’s support for same-sex marriage. Were they to admit the obvious truth — that same-sex marriage means that society will legally and deliberately deprive increasing numbers of children of either a mother or a father — few Americans would support the legal redefinition of marriage and family.

So, same-sex marriage advocates now argue that children do not do better with a mother and a father.

To buttress this absurdity, they repeatedly ask, “Where are the studies” that prove that children do better with a father and a mother? Not only are there no such studies, they claim, but in fact, “studies show” that that children raised with parents of the same sex do just as well as children raised by a father and a mother.

But this claim, too, is dishonest.

As Professor Don Browning of the University of Chicago recently wrote in The New York Times, “We know next to nothing” about the effects of same-sex parenting on children.

“The body of sociological knowledge about same-sex parenting,” he and his co-author wrote, “is scant at best. … There are no rigorous, large-scale studies on the effect of same-sex marriage on the couples’ children.

“Steven Nock, a leading scholar of marriage at the University of Virginia, wrote in March 2001 after a thorough review that every study on this question ‘contained at least one fatal flaw’ and ‘not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research.’”

So the statement that “studies show” that children don’t do better with a mother and father is as factually mendacious as it is morally repugnant. Why then are so many fooled by it? Because “studies show” has become the refuge of those who do not wish to think. I hear this lack of thought regularly from college educated callers to my radio show who refuse to think an issue through, or to make a moral judgment, without first having seen what “studies show.”

But does anyone who thinks, rather than awaits “studies” to affirm their biases, really believe that a mother is useless if a child has two fathers, or that a father is unnecessary if a child has two mothers? The idea that men and women do not have entirely distinctive contributions to make to the rearing of a child is so absurd that it is frightening that many well educated — and only the well educated — believe it.

There are many powerful arguments against same-sex marriage, and in subsequent columns I will offer them. But if you have to offer only one, know that those who push for same-sex marriage base their case on something factually indefensible — that children do not benefit from having a father and a mother; and on something morally indefensible — ignoring what is best for children.”
__________________

__________________
the iron horse 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 12:50 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