SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage - Page 19 - 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 10-09-2008, 01:59 AM   #271
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: 09:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
No one's actually brought up Christianity thus far in this thread, maycocksean. And I didn't realize that one man/one woman was a strictly Christian construction. Or, for that matter, a 1960s one.
Does that mean I can't bring it up? I think you're detecting some kind of anti-Christian agenda on my part that isn't there. It wouldn't make much sense since I am a committed Christian from a pretty conservative denomination (I actually do believe the Bible is the Word of God and so on).

I'm not arguing that the one man/one woman idea is strictly Christian and certainly there are a few people who oppose gay marriage for non-religious reasons. What I was trying to get at is what may be one of the underlying reasons for the strong opposition many such as yourself have to gay marriage. I think you and I would both agree that the Judeo/Christian cultural assumptions have been the "default" setting for the past millenium or more, right? And I think we'd both agree that those cultural assumptions are beginning to lose ground to a more secular worldview. Whatever world view holds the power, gets to set the "norms" and this is most apparent in what the government sets it's symbolic seal of approval on. In essence it's the same concept behind "America is a Christian nation." You can worship whatever you want or not at all--we respect people's freedom of worship enshrined in the Constitution, BUT in school we'll pray to the Christian God, and we'll have His name on our money and in the pledge, and His laws will be on the walls of our courthouses--because that's the "default" setting, the norm for our culture. I see a similarity in the type of thinking that says "let gays have all the benefits of marriage. Let them even call it a 'marriage' if they like. But we won't put the government's seal of approval on it because the 'default' setting is one man/one woman. If the government apporoves gay marriage then it's just one more aspect of the old cultural assumptions, the old norms falling by the way side.

All I was saying is that, at least for Christians (which if memory serves me, you are, and thus I was appealing to that), we don't need to be in the business of preserving our cultural hegemony. Cultural hegemony has nothing to do with Jesus, at least from what I understand of Scripture. I know this argument doesn't speak to everyone. I wouldn't use it to address say financeguy (and I'm sure A_Wanderer finds it maddening that it would even be considered a usefuld defense of same-sex marriage).
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-09-2008, 09:15 AM   #272
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 09:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
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.
this is totally confusing to me. why don't the children of lesbians deserve the same protection as the children of heterosex parents? why is their family unit less-than the other. why won't you help some people by giving them the tools to construct the strongest possible relationships. won't everyone benefit? isn't this good for everyone? especially the children?

Quote:
No one is stopping you from living in a committed, long-term relationship and enjoying the benefits of doing so.
the state of Virginia certainly is. and if you go back and take a look at Sullivan's very personal essay, when you do finally call it marriage, you give straights and gays something very important in common, something that, when you really look at it, is the only actual difference between them.


Quote:
Absolutely, radical feminists would abolish marriage... men... and razors.
what does your odd definition of "radical feminism" have to do with same sex marriage?

Quote:
Thank you Irvine for proving my earlier point. That men and women are different.
yes, i've always agreed that they are different. one only has to see the differences between gay men and lesbians to see just how different. but this doesn't change the fact that it is illegal to use gender as a form of discrimination, and it's discriminatory to view gender as some sort of determinate that decides what you must do in life. all little girls must grow up to be mommies? all little boys must grow up and be firemen? come on, we were past this stuff when i was in first grade. your gender does not determine your role in society. you, the individual, determines your role in society.

which leads us to this paragraph:

Quote:
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.
this is rooted in nostalgia, not fact. nurturing instinct? empathy? all these things can and are shared by some men, and some men have this in greater droves than many women. yes, on the whole, more lesbian couples want children more than gay male couples, but many gay male couples want children (and, as should be repeated, gay couples with kids *really* wanted those kids, they are loved and cherished and not looked upon as burdens like in some straight relationships.

tell me, INDY, where are the studies that show that the children of two lesbians suffer from the same social maladies that fatherless african-american youth in the inner cities suffer from. those kids in northampton, MA are every bit as fatherless as those kids in SE Washington DC, and so they're all suffering, right? they'd have the same tendencies towards whatever anti-social behavior.

that and the lack of chivalry where they'd actually let a woman enter a room without standing up. it's terrible, i tell you, kids of lesbians are just suffering so.



Quote:
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.
this is broadly, generally true, but let me tell you, i was a better preschool teacher than my sister ever would be. and i would happily hire some lesbians to build my back porch. and because society doesn't ascribe roles on the basis of gender, it is up to the individual to determine what it is that he or she is going to do with their life.

you have noticed, INDY, that some girls like to play in the dirt and that some boys like to play piano? that some girls are impatient and distracted and some boys are quiet and listen carefully and choose their words even more carefully? that your gender doesn't mean that you should only want to be a mommy, and that your gender doesn't mean that you want to go out an shoot a moose from an airplane.

and, gosh, if we're going to go this way, maybe all kids need a gay man instead of a mother and a father. we're all smart and neat and we dress well, and we make good bank, but we're emotional and we love old musicals so the child will certainly be exposed to music at a young age. and since we're so emotional, they'll get this motherly nurturing not from a mother but from a father. wow! what an amazing thing to offer a child. a man who isn't wrapped up in machismo and worried that he's going to sissify the boy if he doesn't throw the football in the backyard with him.



Quote:
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.
not sure what this has to do with same sex marriage. and i know quite a few people who'd disagree with your assessment.


Quote:
Not germane. Should a married couple divorce should their children be tragically killed or after they leave the house to pursue their own lives?
this seems to be what your advocating. and what nathan is advocating. that the only purpose of being a man and the only purpose of being a woman is to marry and procreate and create their magical alchemy in the production of children. we don't allow any deviations from this, right, because that's the ideal. and we don't want to encourage anything but the ideal, so whether through choice or circumstance, we must not allow anyone to marry -- "since it is primarily an institution for raising children" -- who will not be having children. we should consider divorcing them if they cannot procreate, but maybe if they'll adopt it might be okay. but if they don't want children, they have no business being married.

this is what you folks are telling us when you make marriage contingent upon children, and you're doing so not because you've actually thought this out but because it's the only thing you can think of to justify discrimination.


Quote:
I'd allow you everyone of them except a marriage certificate. Why not that? Ask Joe Biden or Barack Obama.
why the resistance to the word?

as for Barry and Joe -- despite the fact that SNL perfectly got to the heart of their cowardice -- they're trying to win INDYana. so they're playing the game.

but it's okay. i'm used to being political fodder.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-09-2008, 10:30 AM   #273
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 09:54 PM
You Californians are gonna let this go down the tubes if you don't pull it together soon.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 10-09-2008, 11:13 AM   #274
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,331
Local Time: 06:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
You Californians are gonna let this go down the tubes if you don't pull it together soon.

I know. It's amazing how fear and lies can win over a voting population.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-09-2008, 11:54 AM   #275
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 09:54 PM
the state of california forcibly eradicating hundreds of thousands of marriages would be the equivalent of Bull Connor turning the fire hoses and dogs on civil rights activists.

then i think the gays should vote on whether or not they should continue to pay taxes and go to jury duty.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-09-2008, 01:34 PM   #276
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Petaluma, CA
Posts: 359
Local Time: 03:54 AM
Just to drop in on this thread. I heard Armistead Maupin on the radio yesterday and he was emphatic about the need for us heterosexuals who believe in gay marriage to go out and vote against this proposition in November. I'm going to donate to the campaign this afternoon. I was telling some customers last night that rejecting this initiative would be one of the few things that could make me feel better about our country.
__________________
MissMoo is offline  
Old 10-10-2008, 12:33 PM   #277
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 09:54 PM
Quote:
The Connecticut Supreme Court today ruled that denying marriage rights to same-sex couples is unconstitutional.

...

"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," the ruling says.

...

"The guarantee of equal protection under the law, and our obligation to uphold that command, forbids us from doing so. In accordance with these state constitutional requirements, same sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry."

Eight same-sex couples sued, claiming their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process were violated when they were denied marriage licenses.
47 states to go.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 10-10-2008, 01:36 PM   #278
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,331
Local Time: 06:54 PM
Stupid activist constitutions.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-10-2008, 03:15 PM   #279
War Child
 
TheEdge U2JT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: In a house filled with boys, guitars, pets and a lot of love!
Posts: 947
Local Time: 06:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
I know. It's amazing how fear and lies can win over a voting population.
Why is it always fear and lies? Or your a bigot? Or you're homophobic? Why cant you accept that many feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman. You guys always have to make it out to be a spiteful stance. Maybe is just anger manifesting itself because you are not getting what you want.

It was the same thing in the 1990's with the vote to eliminate affirmative action in California. If you were for it, you were labeled a racist. However, it passed by a HUGE margin. Its the reason why we have these propositions. The people of the state get to decide.

Apparently, a person is not entitled to have an opinion and express it unless it agrees with the liberal side of things.
__________________
TheEdge U2JT is offline  
Old 10-10-2008, 03:24 PM   #280
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 08:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEdge U2JT View Post
Why is it always fear and lies? Or your a bigot? Or you're homophobic? Why cant you accept that many feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman. You guys always have to make it out to be a spiteful stance. Maybe is just anger manifesting itself because you are not getting what you want.

It was the same thing in the 1990's with the vote to eliminate affirmative action in California. If you were for it, you were labeled a racist. However, it passed by a HUGE margin. Its the reason why we have these propositions. The people of the state get to decide.

Apparently, a person is not entitled to have an opinion and express it unless it agrees with the liberal side of things.
That's not it at all. It's the fact that "many feel that marriage should be between a man and woman" is not a reason. You can FEEL that way all you want, but why should your feelings get in the way of equality? What logical or legal reason do you have? None. I've never seen one secular answer, in fact I haven't seen any strong religious answers either but that's another thread.

Hey guess what, I feel tribute bands should be banned. Many agree with me, should we make it law?

Why would anyone want to ban tribute bands? Let me see, maybe they have a prejudice against them...

If you can't give me a logical reason for something then I'm lead to believe you don't want to provide equality for personal selfish reasons... therefore bigotry.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 10-10-2008, 03:28 PM   #281
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 09:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Hey guess what, I feel tribute bands should be banned. Many agree with me, should we make it law?
This is, quite possibly, the most awesome example you've ever posted.
__________________
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 10-10-2008, 03:28 PM   #282
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,331
Local Time: 06:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEdge U2JT View Post
Why is it always fear and lies?
Once again, you've completely over-reacted. That commercial against Prop 8 really was full of lies. Which creates fear. Nothing in that commercial was true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEdge U2JT View Post
Why cant you accept that many feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Why can't you accept that blacks and white shouldn't be allowed to be enrolled in the same schools?


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEdge U2JT View Post
Apparently, a person is not entitled to have an opinion and express it unless it agrees with the liberal side of things.
You can have all the opinions you want. So far, you still have a right to express them. As do I.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 10-10-2008, 03:42 PM   #283
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 08:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VintagePunk View Post
This is, quite possibly, the most awesome example you've ever posted.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 10-10-2008, 03:50 PM   #284
War Child
 
TheEdge U2JT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: In a house filled with boys, guitars, pets and a lot of love!
Posts: 947
Local Time: 06:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
That's not it at all. It's the fact that "many feel that marriage should be between a man and woman" is not a reason. You can FEEL that way all you want, but why should your feelings get in the way of equality? What logical or legal reason do you have? None. I've never seen one secular answer, in fact I haven't seen any strong religious answers either but that's another thread.

Hey guess what, I feel tribute bands should be banned. Many agree with me, should we make it law?

Why would anyone want to ban tribute bands? Let me see, maybe they have a prejudice against them...

If you can't give me a logical reason for something then I'm lead to believe you don't want to provide equality for personal selfish reasons... therefore bigotry.
I think it is a pretty poor example, but nice effort. Go ahead and get a majority to vote to band tribute bands. Go for it.

By the responses, it seems it's assumed (i figured it would happen, that why I did not say anything about my position) that I am for this Prop. Fact is I cannot decide. There is a side of me that feel that marriage should be defined as 1 man and 1 woman. I have many reason why I think that it is a legit belief. There is the other side that feel like we should let people who are homosexual marry whomever they love. They should be able to share their lives with that person in the same way as my wife and I. What really is the difference between two gay people who are living together and sharing their lives as if married and actually being married? When it comes down to it, it's just a piece of paper and some rights like joint property ownership, etc. Passing this prop is not going to stop homosexuality or people who are gay from falling in love and wanting to spend their life with their partner. From that standpoint, what the difference, vote it down and let them be happy together.

I'm still sorting through what I will do but come Nov 4th I will vote my conscience.

My point was ripping people for wanting to vote yes is stupid. This vote is about giving rights and respect to same-sex couples. I think its fair to respect the people who don't agree. You dont have to like their choice, as they dont yours, but both side can be a bit more respectful.
__________________
TheEdge U2JT is offline  
Old 10-10-2008, 03:55 PM   #285
ONE
love, blood, life
 
namkcuR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 10,286
Local Time: 09:54 PM
You know what, I don't even agree with the whole concept of doing this state by state. Something like this has significant effect on how we are seen, as a people, by the world at large. We as a country should either have the integrity and fortitude to allow equal opportunity for all, including gay marriage, or not have it. When you allow this state to have it this way and that state to have it that way, it creates a schizophrenic identity for the country, because this part of it allows equal rights and that part doesn't. I've never understood the devotion many have to 'state's rights'. Something is either bad enough to be illegal or it isn't. Saying something is illegal in states A, B, C, D, and E, but legal in states F, G, H, I, and J only makes one question why it is illegal in the first group of states if it truly isn't bad enough to be illegal in every state. We all know that when politicians say, 'I'll leave that up to the states to decide', it really means, 'I don't have the balls to take a position on this issue one way or the other because I'd piss too many people off either way'. If we're going to let the people's will be heard, at least we should do it nationally. Then if the electorate did the right thing and voted to allow gay marriage, we could be seen by the world as a nation that allows equality for all.

And as far as affirmative action is concerned, I don't particularly support it, but I think it might have have been rejected for the wrong reasons - i.e. people not liking the idea of more African-American people being accepted at better schools and being given higher professional positions. The right reason to reject affirmative action is because it is reverse discrimination. Forcing someone to put more African-Americans in their school or business does not make racism go away. We should be working to get RID of peoples' prejudices altogether, not forcing them to accept African-Americans in their schools or businesses DESPITE their racial prejudices. It is akin to treating a symptom rather than a cause.
__________________

__________________
namkcuR 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 09:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com