SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage - Page 7 - 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 09-29-2008, 07:24 PM   #91
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Please explain how I fit into your paradigm. I married my husband fully intending to never have children. I made sure that would never happen six weeks after my marriage.
What paradigm? The quote -- as I've pointed out repeatedly -- says "Marriage is primarily a license to have children." Not exclusively, not solely. There are of course exceptions to the rule, but again, laws and principles apply to the rule, not the exception.

Most married people will at some point have children.
__________________

__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 09-29-2008, 07:34 PM   #92
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
What paradigm? The quote -- as I've pointed out repeatedly -- says "Marriage is primarily a license to have children." Not exclusively, not solely. There are of course exceptions to the rule, but again, laws and principles apply to the rule, not the exception.

Most married people will at some point have children.


for someone who's greatly concerned about religious freedom, you don't seem too concerned about individual freedoms.

most married people marry not to have children, but to express their romantic love and choice of a partner. romantic love and personal choice are topics that are new to marriage. you know, despite thousands of years of the tough taskmasters of biology and stuff.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 09-29-2008, 07:37 PM   #93
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Can you justify why evolution says gay marriage is wrong?
It's not a question of morality. It's a question of reproduction and propogation of the species.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 09-29-2008, 07:40 PM   #94
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
for someone who's greatly concerned about religious freedom, you don't seem too concerned about individual freedoms.
Democracy has equal restraints on all, doesn't it? Individual freedoms collide with social ones all the time, from limits on religious speech to the abundance of pornography. It's a tough old world.

Quote:
most married people marry not to have children, but to express their romantic love and choice of a partner. romantic love and personal choice are topics that are new to marriage. you know, despite thousands of years of the tough taskmasters of biology and stuff.
Actually, an awful lot of people get married to settle down and raise a family, and that instinct's been around a whole lot longer than romantic love and personal choice. The rise in cohabitation rates amongst Americans in their 20s, and the later marriage age for both women and men, bear this out, at least in part. People don't get married to have sex, or to show who they're with. Generally speaking, these days more than ever, people get married when they start talking about kids.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 09-29-2008, 07:42 PM   #95
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:34 AM
Yes, but that doesn't account for the biological basis of homosexual behaviour, there are other gay animals out there as well as plenty which don't pass on their genes directly. The reality of homosexuality undercuts that line of thinking.

And just to remove ourselves from that what of IVF lesbians? They are able to reproduce and propagate the species (ignore adoption because those situations aren't real parenting).
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-29-2008, 07:47 PM   #96
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Of course not. Read what I quoted again: "Marriage...is primarily a license to have children". It does not say "Marriage is ONLY a license to have children." If you want to disagree, that's fine, but you're going to have to show how it isn't so.

that's what i've been doing this entire thread. marriage is not primarily anything other than a contract entered into by two parties who have agreed to it's terms and conditions. often children are a part of that, sometimes they aren't, and *how* a couple has children isn't terribly important, is it? or are you going to inadvertently crap on adopted kids like the LA Times article does?

what continues to be lost is the fact that if you are going to allow people like martha to get married, people who are in their 60s and 70s who remarry, people who even want to adopt, then you cannot ban gay people from that institution without coming out and saying, yes, in all circumstances, straight relationships are by definition, always and in all ways, better than gay ones.

so just come out and say it.

Quote:
As far as valuing a loving father and mother who love each other and their children, I'm only going based on precedent set by millennia of biological, chemical and social human development. Again, is there another precedent to go on?

since i have to go cook spaghetti and meatballs for my partner as we pantomime what a real relationship must be like and imagine just how much better the spaghetti would taste if it were informed by the irreducible and eternal mysterious and joyful differences between a penis and vagina -- the poor kids who ever have us as dads, the hours they'll spend sitting in the windowseat watching the rain and pining for mommy -- i'm just going to post an old quote of Yolland's that always springs to mind whenever the millennia argument is trotted out to, as ever, justify simple prejudice:


Quote:
Romantic love, mutual personal fulfillment, and certainly any idea of who the prospective bride or groom would rather be intimate with were quite beside the question. This is not to say that something in some ways resembling our notion of romantic love did not exist; pretty clearly, it did (e.g. lucky Jacob and Rebekah, though who knows whether she also "loved" him after that one brief encounter)--but, as a hoped-for "bonus" that might develop with time and shared hardship, not as anyone's right to expect, let alone demand, of their parents as a precondition for marriage. Such a demand, as well as any other demand whose fulfillment might thwart the goals of marriage as conventionally understood (be fruitful and faithful, in the spirit of submission to the will of your parents and the greater good of Israel and its laws), would have been seen as at best laughably audacious, and at worst dangerously impious (how dare you put what pleases your own desires before your obligations to our customs?).

Happily for heterosexuals though, we've managed the trick of grafting a wholly foreign set of sensibilities about love, personal fulfillment, and individual autonomy onto this matrix which was never intended to accomodate it. And...3000 years and thousands of miles away from all that grim nose-to-grindstone stuff...doesn't it just feel oh, so right?



Quote:
That's not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is whether people have the right to vote on such matters as part of a free democracy. Your inability to see how redefining marriage at the core level affects the values society places on gender and how society defines family aside, there are those who would like to vote on these matters and honor the time-tested principles of democracy upon which the country was founded. Is that a problem?

the problem is that it is perverse to vote on civil rights. certainly, it's a tactic, and Prop 8 will likely be defeated, and the largest state in the country and the 8th largest economy in the world will treat gay people like people. but the point remains -- the schools had to be desegregated by "activist" judges. so, it seems, does marriage.

but if you want to continue to argue that boys will be boys, and girls like pink dresses, go right ahead. most of us left that behind in the 1970s.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 09-29-2008, 07:49 PM   #97
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Democracy has equal restraints on all, doesn't it? Individual freedoms collide with social ones all the time, from limits on religious speech to the abundance of pornography. It's a tough old world.

and perhaps one day, you'll feel what it's like to be told that you, nathan, are a second class citizen and that you are, by definition, inferior to others.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 09-29-2008, 08:02 PM   #98
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 03:34 PM
Nathan, why do you keep pointing out an op-ed as your source as if it's the end-all-be-all?

And in what way does allowing homosexuals to marry harm the "reproduction and propogation (sic) of the species?"
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 09-29-2008, 08:12 PM   #99
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: 12:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Most married people will at some point have children.
Not me.

So, where do I fit in? You didn't answer my question.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 09-29-2008, 08:13 PM   #100
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: 12:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Generally speaking, these days more than ever, people get married when they start talking about kids.

Or after they've discovered that she's pregnant.

What about the families headed by single parents? Are the "real" families, since they only have a parent of a single gender?
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 09-29-2008, 08:27 PM   #101
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Not me.

So, where do I fit in? You didn't answer my question.


this is, in just one way, why i'm glad we all had brunch.

we all known each other. i fail to see how the structure of my relationship is any different than martha's. we're four very different people. i'm sure that our relationships function differently. i'm sure we'd have vastly differing parenting styles (maybe). but how are we actually *different* -- and, thusly, said difference is enough to justify discrimination -- other than the genitalia thing. and other than the fact that she's married, and i can't be.

except maybe, just maybe, i want kids and martha doesn't.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 09-30-2008, 09:21 AM   #102
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: 12:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post

except maybe, just maybe, i want kids and martha doesn't.
That, and you're taller than me.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 09:22 AM   #103
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:34 PM


I have to ask this one question.

Define "all."

Could one be in favor of same-sex marriage but maybe still wonder what kind of Pandora's box "all" opens up?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 09:25 AM   #104
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: 12:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I have to ask this one question.

Define "all."
Define "answer the question."
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 09:33 AM   #105
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:34 PM
DODGE

Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): dodged ; dodg·ing
transitive senses
1 : to evade (as a duty) usually indirectly or by trickery <dodged the draft by leaving the country> <dodged questions>
2 a : to evade by a sudden or repeated shift of position b : to avoid an encounter with
intransitive senses
1 a : to make a sudden movement in a new direction (as to evade a blow) <dodged behind the door> b : to move to and fro or from place to place usually in an irregular course <dodged through the crowd>
2 : to evade a responsibility or duty especially by trickery or deceit
__________________

__________________
INDY500 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 03:34 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