SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage - Page 10 - 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 09-30-2008, 07:39 PM   #136
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 06:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
When did you vote for no fault divorce?
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 07:40 PM   #137
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:59 AM
Quote:
They also protect against the tyranny of the minority as well. So the knife cuts both ways.
Only one of the options maximises liberty, I fail to see the tyranny of equal rights.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 09:54 PM   #138
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
So you think denying Irvine and Memphis the same legal rights as a couple that you and I have access to results in a fair society?!
Besides the fact that you're taking my words out of context, I sure think that the ability to vote on a radical definition of a core social institution is one of the best ways to affirm a fair society.

And since the question was raised, the rights of women to own property, regardless of marital status, is implicit in the Constitution. Neither does the right to property fundamentally alter the definition of marriage as one man/one woman, since it's clear -- at least as far back as Old Testament times -- that women held such rights regardless of marital status.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 09:58 PM   #139
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Only one of the options maximises liberty, I fail to see the tyranny of equal rights.
Is a democratic government fundamentally one that is "of the people, by the people, and for the people," or is it rule by an isolated few who decide for all?
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 09:58 PM   #140
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 09:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
And since the question was raised, the rights of women to own property, regardless of marital status, is implicit in the Constitution. Neither does the right to property fundamentally alter the definition of marriage as one man/one woman, since it's clear -- at least as far back as Old Testament times -- that women held such rights regardless of marital status.
She wasn't talking about women owning property.

She was talking about women being chattels.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 10:27 PM   #141
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 01:59 AM
When it comes down to it, after all the fighting and beating round the bush of the issue, the reason why they don't want it to happen is because its WRONG. How dare mom and pop go to their precious daughter's wedding to chip and the next wedding after them is two MEN with a whole bunch of fruity people and lesbians all being HAPPY over some disgusting and WRONG thing. How can they turn the happiest day of my life, seeing Judy marry Chip and then to KNOW what is happening afterwards. Where is the decency in the world? Where this type of PERVERSION is allowed to happen...blah blah blah.

People who are against same sex marriage just don't want the gays to be happy. They should be feeling ashamed and suicidal and going to the jesus classes to make em straight cause they're just choosing to be like that and its wrong, and they've got a mental condition called the devil in there and need it fixed. They don't want to see them dressed up, celebrating their love publicly and being so gawd damn happy about it.

I just love that they think, well if a man and a man get married then what defines marriage anymore, may as well let a man marry a pig or a woman marry 10 men since its all gone to shit now with the perversion.

Hmmmm.....
bigotry
affairs
mistresses
swingers parties
wife swapping
Britney Spears

oh the straight marriage is so pure and lovely. Why change it??









__________________
dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 11:49 PM   #142
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 06:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
And since the question was raised, the rights of women to own property, regardless of marital status, is implicit in the Constitution. Neither does the right to property fundamentally alter the definition of marriage as one man/one woman, since it's clear -- at least as far back as Old Testament times -- that women held such rights regardless of marital status.
One, it isn't implicit anywhere. When California wrote its Constitution in 1849, it was one of the first states to grant married women the right to own property after marriage. It wasn't happening in the rest of the States. Married women's property automatically reverted to her husband upon marriage. Look it up. Or do you remember voting to "allow" me to hold property in my own name after I married.


Two, I was indeed referring to women as property. When did you vote against that? Or did you.



Those of you who keep trotting out the "traditional marriage" BS really don't know much about the history of the institution you're trying to "defend."
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 11:50 PM   #143
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 06:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Is a democratic government fundamentally one that is "of the people, by the people, and for the people," or is it rule by an isolated few who decide for all?
Maybe the all who decide for the few is more to your liking?
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 11:55 PM   #144
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Maybe the all who decide for the few is more to your liking?
What else would you suggest in a system of representative government?
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 11:58 PM   #145
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Those of you who keep trotting out the "traditional marriage" BS really don't know much about the history of the institution you're trying to "defend."
According to whom? Camille Paglia?
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 10-01-2008, 12:01 AM   #146
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 06:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
What else would you suggest in a system of representative government?

Fairness and equality before the law. Same-sex marriage affects you in no way, so it's a fair deal.


But, since you're all about the "fairness" piece, and the "rights" of the majority before the rights of the minority, I'll ask you. (I asked your buddy INDY, but he's very very good at unanswered questions.)

Since elected officials followed the will of the majority when they did it, that means you're ok with early California legislators legally preventing the Chinese from getting married, right. I mean, it WAS the will of thje majority, and the majority's sensibilities must be protected and defended, right?
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-01-2008, 12:03 AM   #147
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 06:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
According to whom?
Historians.

You should try reading some someday.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-01-2008, 12:07 AM   #148
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Fairness and equality before the law. Same-sex marriage affects you in no way, so it's a fair deal.
Just because you don't agree with my points about family as the basis for social order, don't make it so. Are you really so afraid of democracy? Because deciding that democratic principles should be ignored smacks of the kind of tyranny you're ranting against, doesn't it?

Quote:
Since elected officials followed the will of the majority when they did it, that means you're ok with early California legislators legally preventing the Chinese from getting married, right. I mean, it WAS the will of thje majority, and the majority's sensibilities must be protected and defended, right?
I can disagree with whatever conclusions I like, then as now. If Prop 8 collapses because people vote against it, I'll disagree with the ruling, but I'll accept the will of the people. Are you saying it should be a different way?
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 10-01-2008, 12:08 AM   #149
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
You should try reading some someday.
You should try thinking someday. See? We can both do it. But this isn't terribly constructive, is it?

Hasta manana...
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 10-01-2008, 12:09 AM   #150
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 06:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
You should try thinking someday. See? We can both do it. But this isn't terribly constructive, is it?
Not with you it isn't.

If you really think that just feminists write the history of marriage, then you really need to get out more.
__________________

__________________
martha 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 09:59 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