SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage - Page 18 - 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 10-08-2008, 04:47 PM   #256
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Talk about living in the past...
It's more recent than anti-miscegenation laws.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-08-2008, 05:26 PM   #257
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 08:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
No, no it really isn't. It's nothing but a defense of traditional marriage, fidelity and the nuclear family as the single most enduring institution for stabilizing society, raising children, providing continuity between the generations and for passing on social and moral virtues. Not the only type or model, but again, just the most reliable.

how are two women who live in massachusetts who are married and raising 2 kids anything but what you've described above. they are stable, they love and know how to raise their children, they can provide all that you've stated above. how are they any different than a man and a woman in massachusetts doing the same thing?


Quote:
And it's the same strong argument and the exact same postulation that has been made against free-love or commune living, radical feminism and their hostility to patriarchy, open marriages, no-fault divorce, Murphy Brown and single-parent families or just plain apathy. As in Europe, where marriage is increasingly seen as irrelevant.
how does gay people wanting to commit their lives to one another do anything other than affirm many traditional values.

and, erm, did you really mean to say that about patriarchy?




Quote:
But this diversity of families and your "credible studies" don't exist in a vacuum. They exist surrounded and supported by the traditional family. When it becomes not the ideal, but just one option, well, we'll see. But my "credible studies" show children raised in traditional families to be much less prone to substance abuse, have a lower incidence of out-of-wedlock births, less behavioral problems, have higher grades, be less likely to drop out of school and be less likely to divorce after they marry.

you realize, INDY, that those studies compare two parent households to one parent households. they do NOT compare same sex to opposite sex households. studies that DO compare same to opposite sexed households show that kids do just as fine by the standards you've set out. in fact, kids with lesbian parents tend to be more empathetic and more likely to be kind to their peers.


Quote:
So chalk up opposition to same-sex marriage solely to bigotry or homophobia if you need to. But my argument is a consistent one and one that will be made again when the next challenge to the traditional family comes along. Be it polygamy, Brave New World utopianism or whatever.
you haven't show at all, and neither has nathan, how opposition to same sex marriage is anything other than homophobia.

we've all made the point that marriage isn't necessarily about children. martha is very happily married. and very happily without children. what on earth makes it so that she can get married, but melon and i can't marry our respective partners?

and gay families exist -- why shouldn't they get the same conservative, traditional tools of familial stabilization that straight people get?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-08-2008, 05:41 PM   #258
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 08:22 AM
lest we get complacent ...

Quote:
A TV ad showing San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom saying California is going to have same-sex marriage "whether you like it or not" is being credited with flipping poll numbers to favor the Nov. 4 ballot proposition to amend the state constitution to undo the state Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage.

"This door's wide open now. It's gonna happen. Whether you like it or not!" Newsom says in a clip included in the ad paid for by forces supporting passage of Proposition 8.

The ad continues: "Four judges ignored 4 million voters and imposed same-sex marriage on California. It's no longer about tolerance. Acceptance of gay marriage is now mandatory.

"That changes a lot of things: People sued over personal beliefs. Churches could lose their tax exemption. Gay marriage taught in public schools.

"We don't have to accept this. ('Whether you like it or not!') Yes on 8."

Gay activists admit the ad is good, even though it contains "lies." But equally important, they say, the pro-8 side has raised nearly $10 million more than the anti-8 side, allowing the forces that want to re-ban same-sex marriage greater access to the television airwaves.

The gay side's current ad shows the parents of a lesbian pleading with voters not to "eliminate" marriage for anyone.

"Our worst nightmares are coming true," Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors said in an urgent fundraising appeal Oct. 7. "Today we learned of the massive $25.4 million our opponents have raised so far. They are using this war chest to broadcast lies: 24/7 and up and down the state of California. And the polls show the lies are working. We need your donation now."

Although other recent polls have shown opposition to Prop 8 (which means one supports same-sex marriage) running as high as 55 percent, and support for Prop 8 (which means one opposes same-sex marriage) running as low as 38 percent, two polls released Oct. 6 and 7 show voters now have flipped.

Equality California said its internal polling shows 47 percent of likely California voters want to re-ban same-sex marriage and 43 percent want to keep it legal. Likewise, a CBS 5/SurveyUSA poll found 47 percent support for a ban and 42 percent opposition to it.

"People change their minds about Proposition 8 when they hear the lie that churches will lose their tax-free status if they won't marry same-sex couples," said Kors. "Even though this is not true.

"So this is crunch time. With less than a month before the election, we must get on the air now to answer these lies and swing votes back to our side. And the only way to do that is to raise more money. The generous $15.8 million that our supporters have given isn't enough."

The new EQCA polling, a compilation of the group's daily tracking polls, was conducted by Lake Research Partners. It questioned 1,051 randomly dialed likely voters between Sept. 29 and Oct. 2 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percent.


and, yes, it's a very effective ad. very effective ad

and nearly the entire anti-marriage movement is being funded by the very deep pockets of the Mormon church.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-08-2008, 05:51 PM   #259
Blue Crack Addict
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Little hand says it's time to rock and roll.
Posts: 15,147
Local Time: 09:22 AM
You know what's nice about deep pockets? They allow you to play with your balls. I'm not sure how that special underwear feels against the skin though.
__________________
Dalton is offline  
Old 10-08-2008, 05:54 PM   #260
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 08:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
You know what's nice about deep pockets? They allow you to play with your balls.


Smart, smart, smart, smart, smart.


Quote:
I'm not sure how that special underwear feels against the skin though.


Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb



__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-08-2008, 05:58 PM   #261
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: 08:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
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.

I was just referencing the photo that Irvine, I think it was, posted. . .Was that uncivilized?
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-08-2008, 10:09 PM   #262
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
how are two women who live in massachusetts who are married and raising 2 kids anything but what you've described above. they are stable, they love and know how to raise their children, they can provide all that you've stated above. how are they any different than a man and a woman in massachusetts doing the same thing?
Again, I'm sure you can find examples of any family arrangement that works for somebody. And there's no guarantee that a child raised in a traditional nuclear family in a quiet suburb won't grow up to become a serial killer, terrorist or wife-beater. But if you need an analogy try this. Lots of temperaments or breeds of dogs can be used to pull a sled but a lead dog is required to keep them all on the same trail and at the same task.
Quote:
how does gay people wanting to commit their lives to one another do anything other than affirm many traditional values.
No one is stopping you from living in a committed, long-term relationship and enjoying the benefits of doing so.
Quote:
and, erm, did you really mean to say that about patriarchy?
Absolutely, radical feminists would abolish marriage... men... and razors.

Quote:
in fact, kids with lesbian parents tend to be more empathetic and more likely to be kind to their peers.
Thank you Irvine for proving my earlier point. That men and women are different.

Yolland wanted examples of what men and women bring to a marriage. Well, among other things, women bring a nurturing instinct, empathy and a deeper desire for stability. Which is why we would expect lesbian couples to be more desiring of children than gay men and for their relationships to be as lasting as opposite-sex relationships. But they're still a fatherless household. And what do fathers bring? One need only look to communities where fathers are all but nonexistent to see what's missing. An authority figure, an example for boys, some chivalry towards women and a family protector.

Everyone here knows women are better equipped than men to do some jobs in society and men others. So why the uproar that fathers and mothers are different and not interchangeable? Women are better listeners and better able to read emotions than men. Which is why they are slowly taking over my field, medicine. And I say great. Not that we men aren't good, but women are just plain better caregivers.

That's what "conservative" feminism is all about by the way. Women embracing their nature, characteristics and innate gifts and taking them out of the home and into the workforce for the betterment of society. Radical feminism, on the other hand, is about denying the feminine nature and the inherent differences between the sexes.

Quote:
you haven't show at all, and neither has nathan, how opposition to same sex marriage is anything other than homophobia.
I think your mind is already made up at this point. But I do appreciate your reading my posts, taking the time respond with valid questions and counterpoints and for remaining civil.
Quote:
we've all made the point that marriage isn't necessarily about children. martha is very happily married. and very happily without children. what on earth makes it so that she can get married, but melon and i can't marry our respective partners?
Not germane. Should a married couple divorce should their children be tragically killed or after they leave the house to pursue their own lives?
Quote:
and gay families exist -- why shouldn't they get the same conservative, traditional tools of familial stabilization that straight people get?
I'd allow you everyone of them except a marriage certificate. Why not that? Ask Joe Biden or Barack Obama.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-08-2008, 10:45 PM   #263
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 08:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
It's also not what I said.

I never said same-sex couples couldn't provide for, raise or love their children just as well as a heterosexuals. Or for that matter that there aren't fabulous single parent families out there. Or couples that may never marry. Or grandparents raising children. Or that traditional families are always perfect.
No, what I said was -- only marriage between a man and a women naturally results in children and is ideal for their upbringing.
That's hateful? That's controversial?

Please don't put words into my mouth or juxtapose your misconstrued idea of what supporters of tradition marriage argue.
By that logic, irresponsible heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to be married because they aren't ideal for children. If marriage should only be allowed for the ideal, then they're all out. Only responsible heterosexuals.

I honestly didn't think you would make it simply about being limited to the ideals, hence my response to your post.

Either way, I still don't say an ounce of logic involved.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 10-08-2008, 10:46 PM   #264
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 07:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
No one is stopping you from living in a committed, long-term relationship and enjoying the benefits of doing so.
Sure about that?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-08-2008, 11:17 PM   #265
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 05:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I'd allow you everyone of them except a marriage certificate.
How generous of you. Would you have "allowed" them to even have a legal relationship 50 years ago, when it was still illegal to be gay, or would you have come up with some antiquated ideals about the strong man and the soft woman?


Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Why not that?
We keep asking you, but all you've got is some idea about protecting me from the big nasty gay men trying to usurp whatever role you think I should have in my marriage. When that doesn't work, you think of the children, and when that doesn't work, you dodge the question.

None of it addresses the issue of codifying discrimination, of applying separate but equal to Irvine.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-08-2008, 11:29 PM   #266
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
How generous of you. Would you have "allowed" them to even have a legal relationship 50 years ago, when it was still illegal to be gay, or would you have come up with some antiquated ideals about the strong man and the soft woman?
Don't know, wasn't around 50 years ago
Quote:
We keep asking you, but all you've got is some idea about protecting me from the big nasty gay men trying to usurp whatever role you think I should have in my marriage. When that doesn't work, you think of the children, and when that doesn't work, you dodge the question.
Or maybe you just don't like my answers.
Quote:
None of it addresses the issue of codifying discrimination, of applying separate but equal to Irvine.
Then you come up with a definition of marriage that doesn't include some while excluding others.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-08-2008, 11:31 PM   #267
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Sure about that?
Fair point. Make that I wouldn't.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-08-2008, 11:37 PM   #268
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 05:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Don't know, wasn't around 50 years ago
You're always unwilling to face up to the fact that people used your same arguments in the past to pass laws that you claim you wouldn't have agreed with, but you never seem to want to understand that those people used the same arguments you're using and that's why you really don't have a leg to stand on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Or maybe you just don't like my answers.
You keep repeating them, hoping they'll be true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Then you come up with a definition of marriage that doesn't include some while excluding others.
We have, numerous times. And why all of a sudden do you give a shit about excluding people? It's all you've been advocating here. You're more than willing to exclude.


Oh wait! You're going to pull the children and dogs argument, next, aren't you?
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-08-2008, 11:39 PM   #269
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 05:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Fair point. Make that I wouldn't.
I doubt it. I'm sure if you'd been around when others were attempting to have these rights, you would have wanted to maintain the status quo. Every time I ask you about it you dodge that question.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-08-2008, 11:53 PM   #270
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 07:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Fair point. Make that I wouldn't.
Well then if you wouldn't. What's the point?

If you wouldn't stop two men or two women from having all the same benefits and raise children then why all the back and forth? What has this been about? Is it just over the word?
__________________

__________________
BVS 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 08:22 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