SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage - Page 12 - 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 10-01-2008, 12:47 PM   #166
Refugee
 
Moser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: K-Mart Lingerie Section
Posts: 1,794
Local Time: 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
The short- and long-term affects of redefining the value of gender in society as well as the constitution of family are all in play here. Not to mention the methods by which this issue has been pushed, which directly undermines the very values of democracy and self-governance in the first place.
How? I'm not gonna read this board so can I get a quick summary of how gay marriage is going to redefine the value of gender?

Because I don't see how. How is it gonna change marriage for heterosexual couples?
__________________

__________________
Moser is offline  
Old 10-01-2008, 01:22 PM   #167
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moser View Post
How? I'm not gonna read this board so can I get a quick summary of how gay marriage is going to redefine the value of gender?

Because I don't see how. How is it gonna change marriage for heterosexual couples?


not that this was addressed to me, but i think it's safe to say that *nothing* is going to change much for heterosexuals. i think that, maybe, heterosexual couples will do less assuming about who does what or what one's "role" is in the marriage, but if you want a traditional marriage with traditional gender roles -- one that you think has existed for thousands of years -- then go ahead and go for it. no one will stop you. not at all.

but to presume that you speak for "society" when what happens in a liberal democracy is the preservation of the rights and liberties of the individual, to discriminate against people on something as involuntary and unchosen as sexual orientation is no different than discriminating on the basis of race and gender.

if i get married tomorrow, nathan's marriage isn't going to change. the only broader social changes we might see is that people might feel a little bit more free to define their own roles in society and in marriage as they themselves feel fit.

i call this progress. some might not.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-01-2008, 04:55 PM   #168
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 09:35 AM
YouTube - Love Poem
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-01-2008, 05:06 PM   #169
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 08:35 AM
Wow. That's a brilliant ad.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 10-01-2008, 11:11 PM   #170
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: 06:35 AM
That made me get all misty and choky.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-05-2008, 02:59 AM   #171
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 02:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
all the time i thought you were unconsciously homophobic. really, you're unconsciously sexist.
Recognizing differences between genders, and valuing them, and saying that these differences -- however they might manifest themselves -- might be important for society, is sexist? Since when did promoting diversity become discriminatory?

Quote:
and, ultimately, homophobia is sexism in disguise. that's why straight men have such issues with it.
Only straight men are homophobic?

Quote:
treasuring and loving and cherishing your wife and all her wifely attributes sounds to me like she's less a person and more a role player in an idealistic construct that doesn't bear much reality to anyone's lived-in experience.
Said...a man.

Quote:
it's not that gender doesn't *matter* and that we're all androgynous
Though what you're advocating is a complete removal of the recognition of gender as having any worth both for families and, by extension, society. Hence the "Party A" and "Party B" designations going into effect in CA which are replacing "bride" and "groom" as the wedding participants on wedding forms.

Quote:
the notion that mother is soft and father is hard, that mother is emotional and father is practical, that mother dotes and father disciplines ... all this is subverted by gay marriage and gay adoption.
Hardly. What's being subverted is much more significant than that, Irvine -- it's that mother and father aren't necessary at all. And that is what is so upsetting to so many.

Wish I was able to be here more often.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 10-05-2008, 04:57 AM   #172
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:35 AM
But it comes back down the issue of what role the state has in mandating social attitudes, maintaining discrimination in the law, even as a reflection of popular attitudes, is a form of social control. It is the state making a value judgement about non-harmful behaviour and using that to justify discrimination against citizens.

You can't really stop gay parents from being around their children, or kids being raised in same-sex households, the "radical redefinition" of family will go on, the question is whether those citizens enjoy the same state recognition as their heterosexual equivalents.

You dress your posts up in language like diversity and gender respect while adhering to a framework that appeals to tradition to minimise civil liberties. What is wrong with gay relationships? How do these make marriage wrong? Is this argument unique to gays, as opposed to childless couples.

The recognition of gender, as a means of state discrimination, should be completely removed. The declaration of party on the state registration form shouldn't have any bearing on a couple. It doesn't nullify a husband and wife, merely ensures that other couples can be registered without extra printing costs.

Diversity should mean that people of different genders should be allowed to pursue consensual relationships without fear of state persecution. Respecting gender doesn't start and finish with the question do your bits dangle? Gay marriage doesn't subvert families it creates them, and isn't allowing family units to prosper about as far as the state should go. In the scheme of things two working taxpaying gays who have and raise children are doing the same thing as the equivalent straight couple, on the balance sheet it comes out the same.

I don't need the government to assert the gender dynamics within my relationships, I can do that perfectly well myself when playing off other people, as can most human beings. Even if the government attempted to intervene in private relationships it is impractical and oversteps the role of the state. I don't see why it is alright for the government to use soft discrimination on issues of marriage, benefits and inheritance to influence society.

Having the government recognise equal rights for gay couples doesn't impact straight relationships very much. It won't stop women doing more housework than men or men being the chief breadwinners in most households. Children with gay parents are no more likely to turn out gay than other kids, as if it is the states role to deem that being gay is a negative outcome.

Gay marriage won't stop boys playing with toy trucks and girls playing with dolls, state policy won't impact biology or the social conditioning of most people. There is a very stable stump of heterosexuals in society that keeps the population dynamic, hell if reproductive technologies are extended to the gays they could be generating the taxpayers of the future while we speak.

The evidence doesn't show that homosexuality is harmful, the argument that it is against nature is undercut by the evidence of gay animals and the fallacious irrelevance of nature to the question of liberties.

The catastrophism towards gay marriage being legalised, claims that it will have irrevocable impacts on society (which are invariably bad) just get annoying. Countries where it is legal have not fallen apart, children raised in gay households are no more damaged than the rest

Incidentally the arguments that gay parents harm children do sometimes come back to how those kids are treated by those around them, which isn't as much an indictment of gay couples as it is the social attitudes perpetuated by their opponents.

The principle of equal treatment under the law is a cornerstone of an enlightened society. Gay marriage is also an issue of individual liberties, which are often threatened by democratic tyranny. The guaranteed protections on liberty which preserve unpopular speech, freedom of belief and freedom from government persecution must be applied equally, that includes equal state recognition of relationships (or the abolishment of such recognition altogether).
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-05-2008, 11:27 AM   #173
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: 06:35 AM
Eagerly awaiting the quote by quote refutation of the above.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-05-2008, 11:28 AM   #174
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: 06:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Hardly. What's being subverted is much more significant than that, Irvine -- it's that mother and father aren't necessary at all. And that is what is so upsetting to so many.

So all those families headed by single women?
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-05-2008, 11:30 AM   #175
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: 06:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post

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?
None of the "pro-marriage" folks have really answered this question yet at all.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-05-2008, 11:41 AM   #176
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
But it comes back down the issue of what role the state has in mandating social attitudes, maintaining discrimination in the law, even as a reflection of popular attitudes, is a form of social control. It is the state making a value judgement about non-harmful behaviour and using that to justify discrimination against citizens.

You can't really stop gay parents from being around their children, or kids being raised in same-sex households, the "radical redefinition" of family will go on, the question is whether those citizens enjoy the same state recognition as their heterosexual equivalents.

You dress your posts up in language like diversity and gender respect while adhering to a framework that appeals to tradition to minimise civil liberties. What is wrong with gay relationships? How do these make marriage wrong? Is this argument unique to gays, as opposed to childless couples.

The recognition of gender, as a means of state discrimination, should be completely removed. The declaration of party on the state registration form shouldn't have any bearing on a couple. It doesn't nullify a husband and wife, merely ensures that other couples can be registered without extra printing costs.

Diversity should mean that people of different genders should be allowed to pursue consensual relationships without fear of state persecution. Respecting gender doesn't start and finish with the question do your bits dangle? Gay marriage doesn't subvert families it creates them, and isn't allowing family units to prosper about as far as the state should go. In the scheme of things two working taxpaying gays who have and raise children are doing the same thing as the equivalent straight couple, on the balance sheet it comes out the same.

I don't need the government to assert the gender dynamics within my relationships, I can do that perfectly well myself when playing off other people, as can most human beings. Even if the government attempted to intervene in private relationships it is impractical and oversteps the role of the state. I don't see why it is alright for the government to use soft discrimination on issues of marriage, benefits and inheritance to influence society.

Having the government recognise equal rights for gay couples doesn't impact straight relationships very much. It won't stop women doing more housework than men or men being the chief breadwinners in most households. Children with gay parents are no more likely to turn out gay than other kids, as if it is the states role to deem that being gay is a negative outcome.

Gay marriage won't stop boys playing with toy trucks and girls playing with dolls, state policy won't impact biology or the social conditioning of most people. There is a very stable stump of heterosexuals in society that keeps the population dynamic, hell if reproductive technologies are extended to the gays they could be generating the taxpayers of the future while we speak.

The evidence doesn't show that homosexuality is harmful, the argument that it is against nature is undercut by the evidence of gay animals and the fallacious irrelevance of nature to the question of liberties.

The catastrophism towards gay marriage being legalised, claims that it will have irrevocable impacts on society (which are invariably bad) just get annoying. Countries where it is legal have not fallen apart, children raised in gay households are no more damaged than the rest

Incidentally the arguments that gay parents harm children do sometimes come back to how those kids are treated by those around them, which isn't as much an indictment of gay couples as it is the social attitudes perpetuated by their opponents.

The principle of equal treatment under the law is a cornerstone of an enlightened society. Gay marriage is also an issue of individual liberties, which are often threatened by democratic tyranny. The guaranteed protections on liberty which preserve unpopular speech, freedom of belief and freedom from government persecution must be applied equally, that includes equal state recognition of relationships (or the abolishment of such recognition altogether).
Ultimately, no matter how reasoned this argument is, don't you realize that no matter of reason or logic matters to the traditionalist? The underlying assumption to all of their arguments are...

Homosexuality is wrong.

...and everything else supposedly "reasoned" that they say in support of that statement is nothing but window dressing to make it appear that they're not really hateful bigots whose mind will never be swayed by any amount of hard facts. As such, it is irrelevant if their "arguments" are flimsy and easily deconstructed by even elementary logic and observation. That's because their prejudices aren't based on those arguments, and it is really nothing more than justification after the fact.

If there is an objective definition of bigotry and not some relativistic nonsense where bigotry is only self-assigned (which, frankly, it never is; I'm sure that even KKK members would never self-identify as "bigots," even if they clearly are), then this is what you're dealing with here. By all means, we need to keep on making the facts abundantly clear and be vocal. But we must not entertain such folly as to think that we can rationalize with everyone. At some point, we have to call a spade a spade and realize that some people in this world and here prefer to wallow in their own comfortable prejudices masquerading as "faith" or whatnot.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 10-05-2008, 11:45 AM   #177
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
So all those families headed by single women?
Like I implied with my previous post to A_Wanderer, you will never receive a logically sufficient answer to this question or similar, because we're dealing with individuals with irrationally-based prejudices. The answer to this question is irrelevant, because they live on the presumption that "homosexuality is wrong," and no amount of "reasoning" is relevant to why they feel this way.

Frankly, I'm tired of all of us dancing around this sheer fact. There are bigots in this world, and there are logically going to be bigots in this forum too. If someone made similarly illogical statements about Jews or blacks, we would not hesitate to call a spade a spade. So why our hesitance to do the same when it comes to anti-gay prejudice?
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 10-05-2008, 11:52 AM   #178
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Hardly. What's being subverted is much more significant than that, Irvine -- it's that mother and father aren't necessary at all. And that is what is so upsetting to so many.
That is a total bastardization of the viewpoints of those that are for gay marriage.

The point is that what's important is a parent. A loving, caring parent. What's wrong with it being a male and a female, two males, two females, one male, one female? One transsexual? As long as they provide for their children, all is well.

Frankly, melon is pretty much dead on.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 10-05-2008, 12:01 PM   #179
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
Like I implied with my previous post to A_Wanderer, you will never receive a logically sufficient answer to this question or similar, because we're dealing with individuals with irrationally-based prejudices. The answer to this question is irrelevant, because they live on the presumption that "homosexuality is wrong," and no amount of "reasoning" is relevant to why they feel this way.

Frankly, I'm tired of all of us dancing around this sheer fact. There are bigots in this world, and there are logically going to be bigots in this forum too. If someone made similarly illogical statements about Jews or blacks, we would not hesitate to call a spade a spade. So why our hesitance to do the same when it comes to anti-gay prejudice?
Because you can pick racism out of a line up it's not alright, but with the gays it's alright because their preference is so obviously wrong, it's common sense to tell them as much.

The benefit of arguing with bigots is that their responses discredit them to the middle. It doesn't matter that practically all arguments against homosexuality are impractically authoritarian, it only matter of getting them to drop the mask. Of course when they become demagogic it can backfire, and they will rail against things such as court decisions and social change and garner some degree of sympathy, but I don't think passive disengagement is a better option.

I agree that most the posters who have argued against gay marriage are bigots, they aren't arguing the point out of a deep conviction for federalism but from socially conservative attitudes. I also have a sneaking suspicion that there is also a correlation with a style of religiousity.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-05-2008, 12:24 PM   #180
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: 06:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
The point is that what's important is a parent. A loving, caring parent. What's wrong with it being a male and a female, two males, two females, one male, one female? One transsexual?

Or, from 40 years ago, one black, one white.

Or, from 100 years ago, one white, one Asian.
__________________

__________________
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 09:35 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