SPLIT--> Judicial Review & Gay Marriage - Page 16 - 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, 11:39 PM   #226
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 05:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
Do you agree with deep that no union--straight or gay--should be legally recognized as 'marriage' by the government? If yes, then by what logic would you deny the label 'marriage' to the 'civil union' of a straight couple, since obviously that's 'man + woman' which you just said should be the essence of the definition? If you don't agree with him, then what is the problem with continuing to allow religious institutions to define 'marriage' as they see fit (e.g., only offering church ceremonies to straight couples) while meanwhile the government expands the already-existing, already non-religious category 'civil marriage' to include gay people?

there's no way around this without coming out and simply saying that gay relationships are by definition inferior to straight ones.

that no matter what Britney does, it's always going to be better than what two lesbians with MSWs who live in Northampton are going to do.

but notice no one will actually come out and say this, at least not in here.

i'm also so burnt out on this. i have no idea why this is even such a contentious issue, honestly. it baffles me.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-16-2007, 12:10 AM   #227
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



there's no way around this without coming out and simply saying that gay relationships are by definition inferior to straight ones.

and mixed race marriages are deemed inferior
by many religious people

and mixed religion marriages are not performed by many Religious groups/ denominations

there was no government integration of church run schools

there was integration of public/government run schools

to mandate that "marriage" should include same sex couples

would be like saying churches have to bus parishioners to archive non discrimination


The Negro Baseball League was not called the National Baseball League.


But it served its purpose, it proved that Negroes were capable of playing baseball as well or better than anyone else.

And that Negroes should be treated that same as all baseball players.

It was never the Negroes problem.
They never deserved to be treated differently.

This may not be the best analogy.

But, I don't expect religious people to be tolerant.
__________________

__________________
deep is online now  
Old 10-16-2007, 12:15 AM   #228
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
i have no idea why this is even such a contentious issue, honestly. it baffles me.
I am sorry that Americans are not are fair minded and tolerant as many citizens in European countries.

I agree that it is ridiculous that this is so contentious

and I have a good idea why-

bigotry supported by religious beliefs
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 10-16-2007, 12:18 AM   #229
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: 02:18 PM
And, no real answers to either yolland or Irvine.



Again.
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 10-16-2007, 12:31 AM   #230
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 06:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
But why now? Why was the choice of either civil marriage (legal status attained through civil ceremony) or religious marriage (legal status attained through church ceremony) perfectly OK so long as it was only heterosexuals asking for either, but now that gay people are asking for civil marriage, all of a sudden it's No, no, we can't call them the same thing--let's abolish civil marriage and replace it with civil 'unions' and make 'marriage' solely a church thing? If it was so obvious that the terminologies should've been different all along, why are we only hearing about it now?
I've played with the idea of legal civil unions for everyone, not because the idea of gay marriage is so abhorrent to me that I'd just as soon abolish the concept of marriage entirely--I'm perfectly happy with the idea of gay marriage and consider it equal, but that the whole debate has opened up an awareness on the risks any single person experiences on who will make their choices for them if need be, who will benefit, the access given. Now I assume that a lot of this can be resolved with a durable power of attorney and other legal remedies. But it should be a simple matter that anyone should choose who will be recognized as having the dominant relationship with them--even if they are not married, even if they are not romantically or sexually involved.

For example, I love my family. I trust them to do what THEY think is in my best interest. I also know that would likely differ from what I would consider is in my best interest. There are people I would trust to look after my interests in the way I would--none of whom legally have that ability to do so at this point.

None of this in any way diminishes the very specific hurdles gays have had to jump. This is in full recognition of the unique discrimination gays have been subjected to.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 10-16-2007, 12:45 AM   #231
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
Do you agree with deep that no union--straight or gay--should be legally recognized as 'marriage' by the government? If yes, then by what logic would you deny the label 'marriage' to the 'civil union' of a straight couple, since obviously that's 'man + woman' which you just said should be the essence of the definition? If you don't agree with him, then what is the problem with continuing to allow religious institutions to define 'marriage' as they see fit (e.g., only offering church ceremonies to straight couples) while meanwhile the government expands the already-existing, already non-religious category 'civil marriage' to include gay people?
No- i dont agree w mr deep.

Because when you use the word marriage it means man and woman.

Religious institutions can invent or create a new ceremony (some already have from what many have posted here have claimed)celebrating the union of 2 same sex ppl if they like, although the word marriage is defined already.

Seems like some are trying to force a new meaning on the word marriage.

dbs
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 10-16-2007, 01:14 AM   #232
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 11:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
to mandate that "marriage" should include same sex couples

would be like saying churches have to bus parishioners to archive non discrimination
No, it wouldn't. Our government already extends the status "married" to nonreligious straight couples through civil ceremonies that religious institutions have no say in whatsoever, and it's this (civil) status that those who support gay marriage seek to expand. It isn't unprecedented or revolutionary to say that churches shouldn't have veto power over who the government can and can't recognize as marrried--they already lost that power back when civil marriage ceremonies were created.
Quote:
there was no government integration of church run schools

there was integration of public/government run schools
In the Deep South, on the one hand, many of the all-white private schools ('segregation academies') which sprang up after public school desegregation billed themselves as 'Christian schools.' On the other hand, in *most* areas of the Deep South, the Catholic schools--and there were hardly any non-Catholic religious schools in the region before desegregation--actually desegregated well before the public schools. It depends on which denomination you're talking about.
Quote:
But, I don't expect religious people to be tolerant.
Tolerant of what? Are you suggesting that you see abolishing the legal category 'marriage' altogether as a necessary concession to religious people categorically--that only they should be allowed to define it? Again, how do you reconcile that with the fact that civil marriages for heterosexuals have been around since the 19th century?

In my synagogue we have the opposite problem. So far this year we've had two weddings of gay couples and two of straight couples. In the eyes of our synagogue membership, all those relationships are of equal status. In the eyes of our state, they are not, because the last two aren't legally marriages at all.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 10-16-2007, 03:02 AM   #233
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 11:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonosSaint
...the whole debate has opened up an awareness on the risks any single person experiences on who will make their choices for them if need be, who will benefit, the access given. Now I assume that a lot of this can be resolved with a durable power of attorney and other legal remedies. But it should be a simple matter that anyone should choose who will be recognized as having the dominant relationship with them--even if they are not married, even if they are not romantically or sexually involved.

For example, I love my family. I trust them to do what THEY think is in my best interest. I also know that would likely differ from what I would consider is in my best interest. There are people I would trust to look after my interests in the way I would--none of whom legally have that ability to do so at this point.
I'm all for re-examining the current array of legal remedies available for the kinds of problems you're describing, as well as e.g. problems of caretakers who aren't married or related to the person they take care of. I'm not sure it washes to analogize that to, say, Irvine's situation though, because in that case the concerns actually arise from the romantic relationship and its potential legal status(es)--it's not like he got into the relationship to escape similar concerns with his own parents; on the contrary, it's his boyfriend's parents he's worried about.

I understand the logic behind arguing that there should be one uniform legal category for all such relationships (as for example MadelynIris argued in a thread awhile back). What I question is why that's suddenly become an issue now, and (so far as I can tell) only in response to the fact that gay couples are seeking inclusion in the already-existing civil category 'marriage.' I've certainly heard of complaints from people in situations like yours (or, again, e.g. caretakers) before, to the effect that existing laws and benefits don't adequately address their particular needs. I don't, though, recall ever hearing of such parties specifically complaining that the state doesn't put them in the same semantic category as married people, nor would I expect that, since those involved don't see the relationships in question as being based on romantic love.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 10-16-2007, 06:20 AM   #234
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 05:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
Seems like some are trying to force a new meaning on the word marriage.
But haven't we really been mistaken all along?
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 10-16-2007, 06:21 AM   #235
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,662
Local Time: 04:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond



Because when you use the word marriage it means man and woman.

Do you realize how you sound? The picture of the dog chasing it's tail describes you to a T... The flaws in this "logic" have all been pointed out to you, why don't you try addressing those before repeating yourself again and again again...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 10-16-2007, 06:44 AM   #236
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,236
Local Time: 04:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
Seems like some are trying to force a new meaning on the word marriage.

dbs
Yeah, whatever happened to the good old days when only a man and a woman of the same race were supposed to get married?
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 10-16-2007, 07:39 AM   #237
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,277
Local Time: 05:18 PM
What I like about Canada is that we had civil unions (on a provincial basis) that essentially accorded gay couples all the same rights. I went to a talk held by one of the lawyers who was heavily involved in litigating these matters for 2 decades. She said very early on, they realized that they couldn't get "gay marriage" to be acceptable so they decided to chip away at the legislation bit by bit. So we got to the late 90s and thanks to a lot of persistence and good work and amenable courts, gay couples essentially had all the rights under the law, including property division, common law marriage, pension benefits and so on. And at that point, "gay marriage" became a symbolic fight, but nonetheless an important one. All of our federal and provincial laws have been amended to include gay couples in the definition of spouse, and nobody is having hissy fits over it anymore. The federal conservatives have said that this matter is closed. Nothing has changed in our society because the infamous Adam and Steve down the street are now married. It hasn't degraded heterosexual marriage, it hasn't ruined our families, God didn't smite us...

Sometimes I wonder what sort of idea the American right has about the rest of the Western world which is almost uniformly more tolerant on this issue. They must think we're hell on earth or something (nevermind our marijuana laws!).
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 10-16-2007, 08:03 AM   #238
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 06:18 PM
Universal civil union laws isn't a new idea for me even if the term might be. Having had no intent to marry, that made sense to me from my twenties on. I'm not surprised that the idea comes up now. I think when you begin to question the sacred cow of man-woman marriages, you open up the possibility that people may bring up the sacred cow of marriage itself. But this is an inappropriate thread to bring this up and I should not have done so. Suffice it to say, I'm not lobbying for the abolition of marriage or anything.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 10-16-2007, 09:42 AM   #239
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
CTU2fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,366
Local Time: 06:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
i have no idea why this is even such a contentious issue, honestly. it baffles me.
That's kind of always been my thought on it. Giving a gay couple the same rights as a straight couple doesn't hurt anyone, at all. We've had 9,826 threads on it and I haven't read a decent argument against yet. We either get a bunch of points based on religion (irrelevant) or a pseudo-intellectual attempt at a non-religious argument based on "the definition of marriage" - because of course words and their meanings never change. We could get into a whole discussion of words and their former use vs. their use today in everyday speech, but it doesn't have a damn thing to do with you forcing your idea of marriage down everybody else's throats.

It's a shame that we need to cater to these people, in order to work toward change...my first inclination is to call them the close-minded bigoted idiots that they are and just be on my way. Easy for me, I married a woman...but then I remember that these same bigots probably had dads that would have prevented me from marrying my wife.

So I ask, point blank, those who would deny the rights of marriage to a gay couple...who do you think you are, exactly, to tell somebody else who they can or can't marry? I mean, the audacity...to think that you are somehow more moral than the rest of us? Or that your church's beliefs are so divinely correct that you can tell the rest of the country what's right & wrong? I mean, honestly, who do you people think you are? Because it doesn't affect you. Does it help you sleep better at night, knowing a woman has to die alone, without her partner by her side (remember that story? we had a topic)? Because otherwise I just don't see the point.

So somebody, please, make an argument if you can. A real one, not based on some dusty book or on the perils of the evolution of language. Or have the guts to be honest & admit that "you just don't like those people".

Or how about this, if you guys are so secure in your religious convictions, so positive that your view of morality is the correct one...can't you just be satisfied that all the gay folks and race-mixers are going to hell, and leave them well enough alone on Earth? Isn't hell enough?
__________________
CTU2fan is offline  
Old 10-16-2007, 09:52 AM   #240
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 05:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by CTU2fan

Because it doesn't affect you. Does it help you sleep better at night, knowing a woman has to die alone, without her partner by her side (remember that story? we had a topic)? Because otherwise I just don't see the point.


and you know, this is never addressed by the anti-marriage equality folks. they always talk about some nonsense about "the children" (which is impossibly false, since the childless the infertile and the post-menopausal are allowed to get married) and "the family" (as if gay people don't already have families, or that a gay person is definitionally incapable of either being in a family or starting a family, something they should talk to Mary Cheney about) or "traditional marriage" (which is really nothing more than a 'because i said so' line of thought). they refuse to talk about the lives that are directly impacted by the denial of marriage equality, and instead focus on making people who's lives will never be remotely affected by marriage equality feel slightly more comfortable with a world that is very much changing.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

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 05:18 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