SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage - Page 13 - 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 10-05-2008, 12:46 PM   #181
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 09:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
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?


this is not what you're promoting. you're promoting gender-role essentialism, which is absolutely sexism.


Quote:
Said...a man.

exactly. this is precisely my point.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-05-2008, 12:48 PM   #182
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 09:00 AM
Quote:
Gay marriage doesn't subvert families it creates them,


perfectly formulated, and i'm at a loss as to why some families are better than others.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-05-2008, 02:48 PM   #183
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 09:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
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.
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?
Thank you for cutting through the BS and getting to the crux of the issue.
__________________
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 10-06-2008, 09:29 PM   #184
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 02:00 PM
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.
So you're saying that self-governed people have no right to live according to a particular set of values that they see fit? One would say that this is exactly what -- among other reasons -- governments exist for: to protect a particular way of life.

Quote:
You dress your posts up in language like diversity and gender respect while adhering to a framework that appeals to tradition...
And sociology, biology, human development, etc...

Quote:
The recognition of gender, as a means of state discrimination, should be completely removed.
Recognizing gender now counts as discrimination? Interesting, given that the protected status currently granted at many state and all Federal levels to gender, sexual orientation, race etc doesn't mandate that we eliminate such factors, just that they can't be deciding factors for why someone can't be hired.

Quote:
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.
So you're willing to agree that this is a far cry from saying that same-sex marriage won't affect heteros, then?

Quote:
Diversity should mean that people of different genders should be allowed to pursue consensual relationships without fear of state persecution.
You mean "diversity should mean that people of the same genders should be allowed to pursue consensual relationships," right? (Which actually kind of is the definition of monotony, isn't it?) Regardless, people do indeed have that right. The government isn't allowed to bang down your door and prosecute you based on who you're sleeping with, and when the government has done so, those individual rights have been affirmed. But to take it to the next level, and argue that the Government must then affirm such relationships, is an entirely different matter altogether.

Gross reductionism of gender roles by those who don't even recognize gender importance aside, to say that the government should not recognize the value of gender within families -- against the will of the people -- is problematic at the democratic level, as I've repeatedly pointed out.

Quote:
Gay marriage is also an issue of individual liberties, which are often threatened by democratic tyranny.
The tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of the minority are constantly at odds, aren't they? This is why in a democratic system we put such matters to a vote. (And, incidentally, why we have both a popular system and an Electoral College.) To passionately advocate a particular position or worldview is a Constitutionally-protected right (as is the right to call me a bigot). To decry my ability to vote with my conscience is quite another, and to attempt to subvert that right flies against the very principles of democracy that we (say we) hold dear is troubling in the extreme.

Quote:
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).
When I can have my apparently-Constitutionally-protected right to marry more than one wife, I'll agree with you.

ETA:
Quote:
quoting Martha: Eagerly awaiting the quote by quote refutation of the above.
Can I have my cookie now, Martha?
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 10-06-2008, 09:35 PM   #185
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 02:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
this is not what you're promoting. you're promoting gender-role essentialism, which is absolutely sexism.
Biology is sexist? Geez, Irvine, even at the most fundamental level you need sperm and an egg -- "male and female." So you've got bigger fish to fry...
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 10-06-2008, 11:01 PM   #186
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
So you're saying that self-governed people have no right to live according to a particular set of values that they see fit? One would say that this is exactly what -- among other reasons -- governments exist for: to protect a particular way of life.
No, the government is there to guarantee things like property rights and public safety, not to tell people how they should be living their lives or which value system they should adhere to.



Quote:
And sociology, biology, human development, etc...
No those angles don't bolster your argument, homosexuality occurs in other cultures, it occurs in other species and it is perfectly natural. But from my point of view it is irrelevant if homosexuality is a matter of choice or hard wired, it has no bearings on peoples right to do it or the equal recognition of those relationships under the law.



Quote:
Recognizing gender now counts as discrimination? Interesting, given that the protected status currently granted at many state and all Federal levels to gender, sexual orientation, race etc doesn't mandate that we eliminate such factors, just that they can't be deciding factors for why someone can't be hired.
I disagree with those interventions into private businesses, I disagree with state discrimination because everybody deserves equal treatment from the government that they support with their taxes.



Quote:
So you're willing to agree that this is a far cry from saying that same-sex marriage won't affect heteros, then?
It doesn't impact straight couples, it doesn't change their relationships or the legal recognition of their relationships because the terminology on the marriage contract is synonymous.



Quote:
You mean "diversity should mean that people of the same genders should be allowed to pursue consensual relationships," right? (Which actually kind of is the definition of monotony, isn't it?) Regardless, people do indeed have that right. The government isn't allowed to bang down your door and prosecute you based on who you're sleeping with, and when the government has done so, those individual rights have been affirmed. But to take it to the next level, and argue that the Government must then affirm such relationships, is an entirely different matter altogether.
The existence of sodomy laws for such a long period demonstrates that this was not always the case. People were denied their sexual liberties. But now that those laws have been repealed (against the will of the majority and those who are still vocal today) and homosexuality has the same prohibitions as heterosexual sex the next stage is to bring the legal framework of marriage onto equal footing.
Quote:
Gross reductionism of gender roles by those who don't even recognize gender importance aside, to say that the government should not recognize the value of gender within families -- against the will of the people -- is problematic at the democratic level, as I've repeatedly pointed out.
Those who don't even recognise gender importance? As in they don't grope the opposite gender?

Quote:
The tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of the minority are constantly at odds, aren't they? This is why in a democratic system we put such matters to a vote. (And, incidentally, why we have both a popular system and an Electoral College.) To passionately advocate a particular position or worldview is a Constitutionally-protected right (as is the right to call me a bigot). To decry my ability to vote with my conscience is quite another, and to attempt to subvert that right flies against the very principles of democracy that we (say we) hold dear is troubling in the extreme.
You keep producing this tyranny of the minority argument out and it benumbs me how this is meant to be effective. Protecting rights and liberties is not tyranny, the freedom to get married is not tyranny. This victimhood mentality whereby the bigots act oppressed whenever their suppression is pushed back is just tawdry.

The tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority are prevented by having a rigorous separation of the powers and a framework of protected rights which are applied equally.

Gay marriage is no more of a special right than straight marriage.
Quote:
When I can have my apparently-Constitutionally-protected right to marry more than one wife, I'll agree with you.
A separate issue, if people were rallying for gay polygamy then it would be an issue, but their not so utterly irrelevant.

I agree that the state attack on polygamy is stepping on the religious freedom of the fundamentalist mormons and I think that polygamy should have a legal framework, but it is an entirely separate issue. You only confuse the two to obfuscate the lack of arguments for keeping gay marriage banned.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-06-2008, 11:05 PM   #187
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Biology is sexist? Geez, Irvine, even at the most fundamental level you need sperm and an egg -- "male and female." So you've got bigger fish to fry...
Gender-role is not the same as the biological reality of sex. Your arguing a POV which really seems to be a married male father and female mother who input different elements into the family unit, therefore gay marriage is lesser because they lack the input of one or another of the genders.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 12:44 AM   #188
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Gender-role is not the same as the biological reality of sex. Your arguing a POV which really seems to be a married male father and female mother who input different elements into the family unit, therefore gay marriage is lesser because they lack the input of one or another of the genders.
I would argue just that.

That of course men and women are inherently different and therefore not interchangeable.
That, of course a child benefits from being raised by both a father and a mother.
And that, while this ideal may not always occur because of divorce, death, abandonment et cetera, that only same-sex marriage ensures that it doesn't.

Not bigotry, just the truth.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 12:54 AM   #189
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I would argue just that.

That of course men and women are inherently different and therefore not interchangeable.
That, of course a child benefits from being raised by both a father and a mother.
And that, while this ideal may not always occur because of divorce, death, abandonment et cetera, that only same-sex marriage ensures that it doesn't.

Not bigotry, just the truth.
Frankly, who are you and why does your opinion deserve greater weight than that of the scientific and academic community?

Credible studies have repeatedly shown that same-sex families and parenting are statistically no different than that of opposite-sex families and parenting.

The fact that you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge this fact and stubbornly insist that your opinion is still absolute truth is what makes you a textbook-defined bigot--presuming, again, that there's an objective definition of bigotry and not a relativistic, self-assigned label.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 12:58 AM   #190
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 08:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
That of course men and women are inherently different and therefore not interchangeable.
That, of course a child benefits from being raised by both a father and a mother.
And that, while this ideal may not always occur because of divorce, death, abandonment et cetera, that only same-sex marriage ensures that it doesn't.

Not bigotry, just the truth.
So we're back to marriage = baby making?

"Of course a child benefits from being raised by both a father and a mother."

Really? Of course? This is a given?

You state that same sex marriage ensures that it doesn't. NOTHING IS ENSURE BY PARENTHOOD. You don't know if a Grandfather, Aunt, Cousin, etc plays a big part... You can't ensure anything!!!

In fact you can't ensure these certain qualities that "of course" benefits a child occur in a heterosexual still married family. What if the mother doesn't have those "feminine" qualities that "of course" will enrich the child's life? What if the man has those qualities?

The only "of course" that I know is that love benefits a child.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 10-07-2008, 01:05 AM   #191
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Really? Of course? This is a given?
Come on. We all know that all heterosexual families are like this:



...and all of "the gays" are like this:



Won't somebody please think of the children?
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 01:16 AM   #192
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 06:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post

Can I have my cookie now, Martha?
No. Boys who lord their majority status over other boys don't get cookies.
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 10-07-2008, 01:20 AM   #193
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 06:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post


Hugh Beaumont is hot.

Seriously.
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 10-07-2008, 01:27 AM   #194
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 09:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I would argue just that.

That of course men and women are inherently different and therefore not interchangeable.
That, of course a child benefits from being raised by both a father and a mother.
And that, while this ideal may not always occur because of divorce, death, abandonment et cetera, that only same-sex marriage ensures that it doesn't.

Not bigotry, just the truth.
But in many cases same-sex marriage might ensure that some children who might otherwise have neither mother or father do have parents. And it would seem parents of one gender is better than no parents at all.

To me this debate is really about control of society's norms. For the past thousand plus years or so Christians have had control of Western culture's norms. . .and now that grip seems to be slipping. Many Christians seem to think that this is a disaster. I don't. When I read the gospels, I don't get the sense that Jesus commissioned us to take over society or demand that the wider culture run according to our principles. While one might argue the benefits of the Christianization of Western culture, I'd suggest that Christians being the ones who decide what flies and what doesn't in society has sometimes harmed the society and has definitely damaged the church. This apart from whether or not opposition to gay marriage is the "proper Christian stance" (as I know there are Christians who are not opposed to gay marriage). Just saying that some of the opposition I'm reading in this thread might be the frustration of those who see their ability to decide what's normal and acceptable slipping away.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 01:28 AM   #195
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Hugh Beaumont is hot.

Seriously.
No, Hugh Beaumont is not hot. He's a dad. And, as we know, every red-blooded 100% heterosexual father has been perfect. Just. Like. Him.

Not bigotry, just the truth!
__________________

__________________
melon 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 09:00 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