SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage - Page 15 - 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 10-07-2008, 10:32 AM   #211
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 12:19 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...


what is sexist is ascribing social roles to people on the basis of their sperm or eggs and not on the basis of their interests and ability.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 10:36 AM   #212
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 12:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
"Credible studies" What the hell was I thinking just relying on the obvious and common sense? Moms and dads are different, contrasting yet complementary, where do I come up with this stuff?


actually, if you really want to look at studies, they're starting to suggest that, in some areas, children do best with two moms.

that and they're far, far less likely to be sexually abused in female/female households because the #1 abusers of children are straight men. fathers, uncles, etc.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 10:36 AM   #213
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 05:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
what is sexist is ascribing social roles to people on the basis of their sperm or eggs and not on the basis of their interests and ability.
I've pointed out repeatedly that biology, chemistry, and sociology have maybe more than a little to do with gender. You're the one who seems to be arguing in the face of reality.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 10:37 AM   #214
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Agreed. We all have the right to life, liberty, and property. Whether marriage comes under those rights, and how it does, is certainly up for debate. Shouldn't the debate about how marriage is to be defined, particularly since we all seem to agree that it is one of the bedrocks of society, be up for discussion amongst the members of that society?
When the discourse of the "debate" involves shrill stereotypes that are indefensible rationally and appeals to fabricated fantasies of tradition (i.e., 1950s TV shows), it's not hard to see why the discourse has devolved as it has.

Quote:
As Hernandez v. Lopez rightly pointed out, the implications of Loving should not be misapplied: "There is no question that the Court viewed this antimiscegenation statute as an affront to the very purpose for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment—to combat invidious racial discrimination. In its brief due process analysis, the Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a right "fundamental to our very existence and survival" (id., citing Skinner, 316 US at 541)—a clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation."

Hernandez v. Lopez also pointed out:

"Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude."

Indeed...
Thankfully, this is a U.S. Appeals Court ruling and not a Supreme Court ruling. I have made it quite clear that I disagree with the entire substance of this ruling, and the reasoning is on par with Plessy v. Ferguson, frankly. That is, "we all have rights," except for "those people," because it "has always been that way." Essentially, I think they tailored their argument like many lower court rulings do: they do a complete end around the substance of law and court precedent to avoid being the party responsible for changing the status quo.

Let no one think otherwise that the march for equality is anything less than two steps forward and one step back.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 10:38 AM   #215
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
that and they're far, far likely to be sexually abused in female/female households because the #1 abusers of children are straight men. fathers, uncles, etc.
I presume you meant less likely, according to your line of reasoning.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 10:39 AM   #216
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 11:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Agreed. We all have the right to life, liberty, and property. Whether marriage comes under those rights, and how it does, is certainly up for debate. Shouldn't the debate about how marriage is to be defined, particularly since we all seem to agree that it is one of the bedrocks of society, be up for discussion amongst the members of that society?
But here's what I don't get. How does a change in defintion change your marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Hernandez v. Lopez also pointed out:

"Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude."

Indeed...
So now we're back to the weak-ass argument of 'status-quo'?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 10:41 AM   #217
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 05:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
When the discourse of the "debate" involves shrill stereotypes that are indefensible rationally and appeals to fabricated fantasies of tradition (i.e., 1950s TV shows), it's not hard to see why the discourse has devolved as it has.
Who exactly on this board has appealed to Ozzie and Harriet except for maycocksean? I think we've enjoyed a remarkably civilized discussion on these matters, citing legal precedent etc.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 10:41 AM   #218
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 12:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
I've pointed out repeatedly that biology, chemistry, and sociology have maybe more than a little to do with gender. You're the one who seems to be arguing in the face of reality.


of course they have something to do with gender, but the point is flying by you, nathan -- people should not be limited to what they can and cannot do, nor told explicitly what they can and should do, on the basis of their gender.

this is really basic stuff.

and you've yet to point out what it is that *only* a (straight) father can do and that only a (straight) mother can do and then the different aspects of this magical alchemy that confers unto children a good and happy life.

it's absurd on it's face. families come in all shapes and sizes. horrible families have two straight parents who love one another. wonderful families could be a mother and a grandmother raising their kids.

what's wrong is for you to take your model and assume that one size fits all, and not just that, assume that there is only acceptable size ever, and that all else should be kicked out of the human family.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 10:42 AM   #219
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 05:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
So now we're back to the weak-ass argument of 'status-quo'?
By "status quo", do you mean such apparently-trivial matters as historical precedent and human development?
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 10:42 AM   #220
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 12:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
I presume you meant less likely, according to your line of reasoning.


edited. thanks.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 10:43 AM   #221
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 12:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
If by "status quo" you mean such apparently-trivial matters as historical precedent and human development, sure.


precedent, maybe, human development? what does that even mean?

precedent also gave us slavery, polygamy, the statutory rape of children by older men, etc.

is history really to be our guide here? we're not still burning witches, are we?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 10:46 AM   #222
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 05:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
of course they have something to do with gender, but the point is flying by you, nathan -- people should not be limited to what they can and cannot do, nor told explicitly what they can and should do, on the basis of their gender.

this is really basic stuff.
Fine. Then I'd like to have babies.

I'm being facetious, but at some point, we all have to do deal with the biological difference and distinctions that make us who and what we are.

Quote:
what's wrong is for you to take your model and assume that one size fits all
You mean the model of a father and mother who love each other and their children, which has emerged over thousands of years as the best environment for family?
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 10:48 AM   #223
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 05:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
precedent also gave us slavery, polygamy, the statutory rape of children by older men, etc.
Do you really mean to equate a man and a woman who love one another and their children with slavery and statutory rape?
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 10:54 AM   #224
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
You mean the model of a father and mother who love each other and their children, which has emerged over thousands of years as the best environment for family?
"Love" didn't enter the equation until the 19th century. Forced or arranged marriages were the norm.

With high mortality rates, either for the father who'd have died in the incessant wars or diseases of the past or the mother who'd have died in childbirth, being brought up either by a single parent, an extended family, or by the church was not uncommon--not to mention that illegitimate children weren't uncommon either. Ask my great-grandmother, who was sent to America, because her mother believed that she would never have been accepted in her home and shunned in Europe.

Yup...."good old days," indeed.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 11:03 AM   #225
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: 09:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
By "status quo", do you mean such apparently-trivial matters as historical precedent and human development?
Did any of you ever answer the question about how the Netherlands was doing several years after legalizing same-sex marriage?

How is their society functioning? Has it fallen apart yet?
__________________

__________________
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 12:19 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