Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III - Page 54 - 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 01-13-2014, 12:56 AM   #796
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,472
Local Time: 06:36 PM
Does it not make complete and total sense that same-sex parents who adopt are likely to be as good if not better parents than your average hetero parents? That a couple who really, really want a child and have the time, energy, money, and intense desire necessary to be not just a successful SS couple but an adoptive SS couple are going to have in spades the qualities necessary for great parenting? And that nearly all of the qualities we associate with great parents aren't gender-specific? That every child in a same-sex household was carefully planned for?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-13-2014, 04:42 AM   #797
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 12:36 AM
No man, obviously not as if God had wanted them to be good parents, he'd have given them a way to become parents the natural way. Like all the amazing straight parents! They are all amazing parents, every single one of them! Cause God wants them to be parents.
__________________

__________________
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 01-13-2014, 05:41 AM   #798
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 12:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
1. Divorce rates skyrocket because why should a marriage based only in love be restricted by the time limit of "til' death do us part" when love may not last that long?
2. The idea that the nuclear family, single parents, cohabiting couples and now same-sex couples are just different arrangements of equal value in the new norm of "household and family diversity" has had consequences already.
Am I to conclude that since straight couples have done such an abominable job in maintaining the sanctimony of marriage, we should not let same sex couples have a go at it too?

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
3. By what argument can marriage based on love and companionship be limited to two people? That has future consequences.
I don't think same sex marriages will lead to you being allowed to be married to both your neighbors, a parakeet and a lamppost at the same time. People who do have such fears probably don't allow sanity to dictate any argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
4. The idea that gender is superficial and subjective will have consequences.
5. The idea that limiting marriage to a man and a woman being akin to Jim Crow laws has consequences as opposition to SSM - by word or action - will be dealt with by lawsuits, intimidation and 1st Amendment restrictions.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 01-13-2014, 09:54 AM   #799
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,661
Local Time: 07:36 PM
Allow me to just say that, whatever you feel about his position (and I think it's morally wrong), I think it's refreshing and a very good thing that Iron Horse appears to be engaging in debate, rather than the one-and-done posts he did for so long.
__________________

BoMac is offline  
Old 01-13-2014, 07:09 PM   #800
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,862
Local Time: 06:36 PM
"The future has consequences" is the most GOP thing possible.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 01-14-2014, 09:01 AM   #801
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 12:36 AM
Sigh, my country sends the prime minister, minister of sport and both our king and queen to the olympic games. Way to send a sign guys...
__________________
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 01-14-2014, 04:52 PM   #802
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,472
Local Time: 06:36 PM
helpful point-counterpoint:

Quote:
Utah, in Opposing Gay Marriage, Finds Three Arguments Are Better Than One
JAN. 13, 2014

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s order last week halting same-sex marriages in Utah was two sentences long. It was provisional and cryptic, and it added nothing to the available information on where the Supreme Court stands on the momentous question of whether there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Utah’s briefs were another matter. They were expansive, and they set out the current arguments for denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry.

In the trial court, the state had argued that restricting marriage to a man and a woman would make heterosexual couples act more responsibly when they had sex. In the Supreme Court, the state threw that “responsible procreation” argument overboard in favor of one focused on “optimal parenting.” By the time it filed its final brief on Jan. 6, the state had introduced a fresh argument, drawn from the Supreme Court’s decisions on affirmative action.

The state’s first argument, made before Judge Robert J. Shelby of the Federal District Court in Salt Lake City, was that “the traditional definition of marriage reinforces responsible procreation.” The government benefits that come with marriage, the state said, encourage opposite-sex couples to form stable families “in which their planned, and especially unplanned, biological children may be raised.”

Judge Shelby agreed, saying the argument was true as far as it went. Encouraging marriage would make it more likely that the children of heterosexual couples would have parents who were married.

But there was no reason, the judge went on, to think that allowing same-sex couples to marry would change that. To the contrary. By forbidding gay and lesbian couples to marry, he wrote, “the state reinforces a norm that sexual activity may take place outside of marriage.”

In the Supreme Court, state officials changed tack and pressed a different argument, one built on a contested premise.

“A substantial body of social science research confirms,” the brief said, “that children generally fare best when reared by their two biological parents in a loving, low-conflict marriage.”

Lawyers for the couples challenging Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage responded that the assertion “is not true.” For evidence, they cited “the scientific consensus of every national health care organization charged with the welfare of children and adolescents,” and listed nine such groups. The view of the groups, the challengers said, “based on a significant and well-respected body of current research, is that children and adolescents raised by same-sex parents, with all things being equal, are as well-adjusted as children raised by opposite-sex couples.”

Utah responded that it would not be swayed by “politically correct trade associations,” referring to, among others, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association. “We are not ruled by experts,” the state’s brief said.

As with the argument about responsible procreation, it is possible to accept the state’s position that it is best for children to be raised by their biological parents and yet wonder how that would be more likely to happen by denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry. Utah argued that the two things are linked.

“By holding up and encouraging man-woman unions as the ‘preferred’ arrangement in which to raise children,” the state said, “the state can increase the likelihood that any given child will in fact be raised in such an arrangement.”

Judge Shelby had rejected the argument as illogical and counterproductive. Utah’s ban, he wrote, “does not make it any more likely that children will be raised by opposite-sex couples.” But it certainly demeans and humiliates the thousands of children being raised by same-sex couples in the state, he said.


In the Supreme Court, Utah refined its argument.

“The state does not contend that the individual parents in same-sex couples are somehow ‘inferior’ as parents to the individual parents who are involved in married, mother-father parenting,” the state said.

But, drawing on Supreme Court decisions endorsing the value of diversity in deciding who may attend public universities, the state now said it was pursuing “gender diversity” in marriages. “Society has long recognized that diversity in education brings a host of benefits to students,” the brief said. “If that is true in education, why not in parenting?” The Supreme Court did not take a position on Utah’s several shifting arguments, saying only that it would stay Judge Shelby’s decision while an appeals court considers the case. That will happen over the next couple of months, and the state’s position may evolve further.

Or perhaps it will return to the candor of Stanford E. Purser, a lawyer with the state attorney general’s office. Judge Shelby asked him on Dec. 4 whether letting same-sex couples marry was of “any relevance at all” to the state’s interests in encouraging opposite-sex couples to marry.

“It may end up that there is no difference,” Mr. Purser said. “It may end up that there is. We just simply don’t know.”
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-14-2014, 07:50 PM   #803
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
trojanchick99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Los Feliz, CA (between Hollywood and Downtown LA)
Posts: 8,088
Local Time: 03:36 PM
I think that they are insinuating that if a gay man cannot marry his male partner, that he will instead marry a woman which is ridiculous. Um, it's not the 1950s anymore.

I seriously cannot wrap my head around the argument that if gays and lesbians can marry who they want, then all of a sudden heteros will stop getting married. Does. not. compute.
__________________
trojanchick99 is offline  
Old 01-14-2014, 10:58 PM   #804
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,472
Local Time: 06:36 PM
Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III

O! K! L! A! H! O! M! A!

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justic...-gay-marriage/

More like Oklahomo.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-14-2014, 11:33 PM   #805
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 03:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post

More like Oklahomo.

__________________
martha is offline  
Old 01-15-2014, 02:43 AM   #806
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:36 PM
judicial activists can go to hell
I refuse to make them a red velvet wedding cake
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 01-15-2014, 09:01 AM   #807
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,773
Local Time: 12:36 AM
Quote:
But there was no reason, the judge went on, to think that allowing same-sex couples to marry would change that. To the contrary. By forbidding gay and lesbian couples to marry, he wrote, “the state reinforces a norm that sexual activity may take place outside of marriage.”

Yeah because nobody, gay or straight, has sex outside of marriage these days...
__________________
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 01-15-2014, 09:05 AM   #808
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,472
Local Time: 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galeongirl View Post
Yeah because nobody, gay or straight, has sex outside of marriage these days...


What people do to realize is that it isn't "gay activists" or the "media academia urban Left" that has brought us to this moment where legal equality for gay couples is a near reality.

It's women. And how women have asserted their social, political, sexual, and personal humanity over the past 50 years.

The enemy is misogyny.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-15-2014, 11:10 PM   #809
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,345
Local Time: 06:36 PM
Damn women. Especially the lesbian ones. Ruining moral America for the rest of us.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 01-16-2014, 09:13 AM   #810
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Pearl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,653
Local Time: 07:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
What people do to realize is that it isn't "gay activists" or the "media academia urban Left" that has brought us to this moment where legal equality for gay couples is a near reality.

It's women. And how women have asserted their social, political, sexual, and personal humanity over the past 50 years.

The enemy is misogyny.
Yep. Women and the LGBT community know what it is like to have a large portion of the population narrowly defining you and confining you to a box that, until recently, was hard to get out of.
__________________

__________________
Pearl 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 06:36 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