SPLIT--> Judicial Review & Gay Marriage - Page 14 - 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 10-15-2007, 06:03 PM   #196
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 06:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
so, like, will these Civil Unions have all the rights of a Marriage?

and, if so, what's the hang-up over hte word?
Nope, unless it was changed thru legislation legally, which one would ask the question-what's the difference?

A civil union would afford 2 human beings the right to co habitate legally, enjoy heatlh insurance, right of survivorship, alimony bennies if disolving the union etc-things like that.

dbs
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 10-15-2007, 06:05 PM   #197
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


Nope, unless it was changed thru legislation legally, which one would ask the question-what's the difference?

A civil union would afford 2 human beings the right to co habitate legally, enjoy heatlh insurance, right of survivorship, alimony bennies if disolving the union etc-things like that.

dbs
So what rights would the "civil union" people not have?

Besides going to heaven when they die?
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-15-2007, 06:07 PM   #198
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 07:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


So what rights would the "civil union" people not have?

Besides going to heaven when they die?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 10-15-2007, 06:11 PM   #199
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


as long as the other partner is seen as an equal
with the same rights, and abilities

a case can be made for allowing a "union".
People don't have the same abilities, relationships are very rarely equal, but under law the involved parties should have equal rights.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-15-2007, 06:14 PM   #200
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:56 PM
I am 'somewhat' serious here.


I think it is a losing battle to approach this argument by trying to change people's religious beliefs.


It is not possible to legislate what Church's preach.

So again, I say let's not fight over the word "marriage".


Anyone that goes to a "Government Agency" should be offered a "Civil Union".


It might be a good start.

It seems like many "Marriages" end up not being very civil, these days.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-15-2007, 06:18 PM   #201
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
People don't have the same abilities, relationships are very rarely equal, but under law the involved parties should have equal rights.

I guess I included "abilities" because a marriage, now, is more than a union between one man and one woman.

Each party must have mental "capacity".
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-15-2007, 06:18 PM   #202
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 07:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
I am 'somewhat' serious here.


I think it is a losing battle to approach this argument by trying to change people's religious beliefs.


It is not possible to legislate what Church's preach.

So again, I say let's not fight over the word "marriage".


Anyone that goes to a "Government Agency" should be offered a "Civil Union".


It might be a good start.

It seems like many "Marriages" end up not being very civil, these days.
I agree, as long as legally they carry the same exact weight.

(But many don't want this)

If the church wants to extend marriages to homosexuals, then they can...

Until it's equal it's bigotry...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 10-15-2007, 06:23 PM   #203
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
A civil union would afford 2 human beings the right to co habitate legally, enjoy heatlh insurance, right of survivorship, alimony bennies if disolving the union etc-things like that.
But why should the prospect of legalized gay marriage in particular necessitate this change? Civil marriages (for heterosexuals) have been around since the 19th century--obviously they don't entail any pledge that the spouses will abide by some denomination or another's understanding of how marriage should proceed and what its purpose is, and I've never heard a peep from people who oppose legalized gay marriage over that. Why was that loosening of religious institutions' prerogative to define 'marriage' acceptable, whereas this is not?
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 10-15-2007, 06:27 PM   #204
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


I agree, as long as legally they carry the same exact weight.

(But many don't want this)

If the church wants to extend marriages to homosexuals, then they can...

Until it's equal it's bigotry...
So let's change the conversation.

I think this can split off quite a few "decent" religious people.

Those that are anti- Civil and full rights for all will have to out themselves.


It is perfectly legal for good religious people to say "Jews and gays will burn in hell."

But will they argue to put them in the ovens?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-15-2007, 07:04 PM   #205
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


because it's legal?

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 10-15-2007, 07:26 PM   #206
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 08:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep

It is perfectly legal for good religious people to say "Jews and gays will burn in hell."


ah, but it can be argued that both Jews and gays can be perfected -- thus, if we would just work on that, then all that God wants for us (heterosexual marriage, Christ in our mouths, and thusly heaven) is achievable.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-15-2007, 07:33 PM   #207
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:56 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
One or two word dismissals and personal attacks are the type of intellectual debate that is supposed to change your opponents (of which there are more of than proponents) deeply held beliefs about redefining marriage?

There are a couple of exceptions and you can read down the posts and identify them pretty quickly. To the rest I'll just say... you're not helping.
This was more or less my earlier point about dialogue being necessary given the realities of the context, whether any of us like it or not.

However Irvine had a valid point in his response to your last post today, i.e. that he (for example) has offered numerous thoughtful reflections at length on the implications about gay people's integrity and capacity for love and nurturance in opposing their right to marry, as well as the extreme shakiness of Kurtz's use of statistics to argue against gay marriage as destroyer of straight families' welfare (which I addressed at the time nathan posted it--no one responded to me), none of which you've acknowledged. Not confronting those questions head-on is the debate-forum equivalent of refusing to look someone in the eye and settling for quoting the rulebook to them while ignoring their pleas and objections. If thinking all this controversy will just go away if we keep on harshly ridiculing gay marriage opponents is sticking our heads in the sand, then so is thinking we can afford to just tread water by not acknowledging the direct and highly personal pain this issue causes gay people.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 10-15-2007, 07:45 PM   #208
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
If we all worked towards "Civil Unions".

There is a much better chance of getting rights, benefits and protections for all Americans.
So, basically, as long as there's a separate water fountain for the "colored folk," then all is well?

Civil unions are not the same as marriage, and that's by design. Who is going to stand proud and say that they got "civil unioned"? Boy...that reads great on a "civil union invitation."

And let's not forget here that, for all this talk about "religious significance," that there are plenty of religions out there that are more than happy to grant marriages to gay people. No, as usual, the purpose of setting aside a theoretically "separate but equal" classification is to have a display of "moral superiority." By going so far as to throw a "civil" in that title, they've made damn sure to say, implicitly, that their "marriages" are superior to those icky gays and their kooky "man-made arrangements."

That is, after all, what this is all about: maintaining superiority. The justification for these "civil unions" are no different than the justifications for racial segregation. And the overt and irrational hatred for homosexuals, blaming them for every possible global ill imaginable, is based on the same kind of irrational arguments that I'd expect to see in the anti-Semitic text, "The Protocols of Zion."

So, like before, since we're past the old days of proper decorum and protocol here, let's cut the crap. "Civil unions" will never--and were never intended to--be equal to "marriage."
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 10-15-2007, 07:49 PM   #209
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:56 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
One or two word dismissals and personal attacks are the type of intellectual debate that is supposed to change your opponents (of which there are more of than proponents) deeply held beliefs about redefining marriage?
If that's sincerely all you read from everything I wrote in this thread, then I seriously question if you're illiterate.

More likely, it's just a chronic case of "willful blindness."
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 10-15-2007, 07:57 PM   #210
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 02:56 AM
I think it's not unreasonable to ask the question of the gay posters on here if they in fact intend getting married, and to elucidate how precisely the lack of availability of gay marriage is oppressing them.

'Cos you know, if people are seriously arguing that the lack of legal availability of gay marriage is morally equivalent to the oppression of African slaves, or the oppression of Jews in Europe in the 1930's, I'd have to say that's a grotesque and laughable exaggeration.

I know a gay poster on another forum who is dead set against the idea of gay marriage. He actually says that not having any social pressure whatsoever to get married is one of the great, empowering things about being gay. He views legalised gay marriage as a kind of sell out - once the gay community can get married, they become 'just like the straight mainstream', as it were. It's a legitimate point of view within the gay community, even if it may not be in agreement with the posters on here. To some extent, I can sympathise with that as personally I have no real intention of getting married.

But yeah, I guess it's easier to just issue blanket dismissals of anyone who has any reservations whatsoever about gay marriage as equivalent to propagandists for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
__________________

__________________
financeguy 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 08:56 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