State of the Union - Page 4 - 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 01-22-2004, 12:33 AM   #46
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 63
Local Time: 09:14 PM
...

Bush must uphold the sanctity of marriage, for the future of America. We can't allow those people to practice immoral acts and think that the State is going to turn around and view it as being healthy and a legal marriage. As Americans, we have every right to choose who in society will not be granted the benefit of marriage. Marriage is a union where a child can be created and raised with parents of both gender. Those other people are unable to have children naturally, and they resort to such medical procedures that would overcome this shortfall or they adopt to acquire children, but they cannot change that nature does not want them to have children.

Just because two people are in love is not a good enough reason for marriage. I love my car, I love my dog, but the State won't allow me to marry them. I love my parents, but the State won't allow me to marry them. If we start allowing those people to get married, we would be opening up a huge can of worms. Bush knows that older people will be voting in large numbers, he also knows that the majority of older people don't want those people to get married.
__________________

__________________
U2LipstickBoy is offline  
Old 01-22-2004, 02:30 AM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
ILuvLarryMullen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: in the sunshine
Posts: 6,904
Local Time: 01:14 PM




what about infertile straight couples, or one's that simply don't want children, are their marriages somehow less valid?








what two consenting adults want to do is no one's business. You can't legislate morality. homosexuality isn't going to go away because you don't like it and won't allow then to marry.



these are the same kind of arguments that people used to use for not allowing people of different races to marry
__________________

__________________
ILuvLarryMullen is offline  
Old 01-22-2004, 03:39 AM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
theSoulfulMofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,490
Local Time: 02:14 PM
my impression about last year's State of the Union (2003) was that Bush's case for Iraq war bordered on propaganda... but that's just IMPO...
__________________
theSoulfulMofo is offline  
Old 01-22-2004, 06:55 AM   #49
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 08:14 AM
I have never once, even in FYM seen even a legitimate counter argument, let alone one valid reason, why men and women shouldn't be able to marry each other. No one has ever offered such a response. I believe it is of course because there isn't one, however some people try to give some half arsed bullshit story as to why. No offence to you as a person U2LipstickBoy but you and Bush are 2 examples. You can spout all the meaningless empty statements you like such as "Bush must uphold the sanctity of marriage, for the future of America." but what does that even mean? "As Americans, we have every right to choose who in society will not be granted the benefit of marriage." What right? You are just an American. Not American as in a grand and great title which gives unbelievable credibility. You are just a man in the grand scheme of things. A mere man. You and those who think like you, are not so grand and morally right to be believing you actually have a say in what is to be for other mere men (or women as the case may be). You base this solely on opinion. You are surely intelligent enough to realise what this leads to. Yes U2LipstickBoy, an impasse. For there are those who have views opposite to this which are men have every right to marry another man. There are so many holes in this logic I can't even be bothered continuing.

"Just because two people are in love is not a good enough reason for marriage" This applies to more than the homosexual contingent, so I hope your belief extends to hot blooded white middle class males such as yourself. And every other 'group' which makes up society as a whole. But I stand by my belief that no such valid reason for the continued ban on homosexual marriage exists, so I wont bother going on.

I sincerely hope the Republican party find a better representative than Bush.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 01-22-2004, 07:15 AM   #50
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:14 PM
Re: ...

Quote:
Originally posted by U2LipstickBoy
Bush must uphold the sanctity of marriage, for the future of America. We can't allow those people to practice immoral acts and think that the State is going to turn around and view it as being healthy and a legal marriage. As Americans, we have every right to choose who in society will not be granted the benefit of marriage. Marriage is a union where a child can be created and raised with parents of both gender. Those other people are unable to have children naturally, and they resort to such medical procedures that would overcome this shortfall or they adopt to acquire children, but they cannot change that nature does not want them to have children.

Just because two people are in love is not a good enough reason for marriage. I love my car, I love my dog, but the State won't allow me to marry them. I love my parents, but the State won't allow me to marry them. If we start allowing those people to get married, we would be opening up a huge can of worms. Bush knows that older people will be voting in large numbers, he also knows that the majority of older people don't want those people to get married.
You know what, if you want to fuck your car and your dog, go right ahead. Just be careful with the lipstick, boy...err...troll.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-22-2004, 07:35 AM   #51
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 08:14 AM
Before this becomes 'gay bashing' lets keep in mind how our words will affect others. U2LipstickBoy, everyone is entitled to their opinion on here, but you must be aware of how offensive some things will be to others. The whole argument of likening alternatives such as animals and inanimate objects is highly offensive to members of the gay community. It is up to you to keep it civil and rational.
Likewise melon, your anger is appreciated but the tone is no more than stooping. This person isn't a troll.

I'd say we're all intelligent enough to debate this without resorting to all this.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 01-22-2004, 10:32 AM   #52
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 09:14 PM
I respect the sanctity of marriage, but in the context of my Catholicism. In the Catholic Church, marriage is a sacrament. I am also a United States citizen. I think gay couples should be able to make a deal with the state in a court of law. Someone's religion is a private matter and is *not* connected to the state. It shouldn't be. The last thing we need is politicians dictating morality. I'm sorry, I think there's something inconsistent with that.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 01-22-2004, 10:36 AM   #53
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,256
Local Time: 03:14 PM
Re: ...

Quote:
Originally posted by U2LipstickBoy
Bush must uphold the sanctity of marriage, for the future of America.
First off, that's not an area Bush needs to concern himself with. He's got many more things to worry about, things that will actually affect this country as a whole.

Second, before you go talking about the sanctity of marriage being "destroyed" with homosexuals being allowed to marry, you might want to look at the many heterosexual marriages that have fallen apart in recent years, along with the fact that reality shows pretty much ruin the sanctity there as well, and those have all been heterosexual unions.

From the homosexuals I know, more of them are able to stay together longer than a lot of heterosexuals I know right now, so that tells me that homosexuals seem to be mature and smart enough to uphold the sanctity of a marriage just fine (and yes, some heterosexuals have been able to do the same).

Quote:
Originally posted by U2LipstickBoy
We can't allow those people to practice immoral acts and think that the State is going to turn around and view it as being healthy and a legal marriage. As Americans, we have every right to choose who in society will not be granted the benefit of marriage.
First off, how do we decide what is "immoral"? What exactly is so "immoral" about two men or two women marrying each other and living happily ever after?

And I would sincerely hope that our country allows homosexual marriage to be legal all over sometime in the near future. Again I say, denying two people the right to legally marry because you personally have issues with the fact that it's two men marrying or two women marrying instead of a man and a woman marrying...that just seems awfully cruel to me. You'll refuse to let them be happy together because you personally have issues with their type of love...that just does not make sense to me.

Second, it's none of your business who marries in this country. You don't know these people, you're not going to be affected by their marriage in any way, shape, or form, so why do you care? It should never be up to the society as a whole who should and shouldn't be allowed to marry, especially considering how many people in this country have a hard time keeping a relationship together nowadays-yeah, I'm gonna trust a bunch of people who have been divorced x amount of times to decide who I should and shouldn't marry. Right.

Quote:
Originally posted by U2LipstickBoy
Marriage is a union where a child can be created and raised with parents of both gender. Those other people are unable to have children naturally, and they resort to such medical procedures that would overcome this shortfall or they adopt to acquire children, but they cannot change that nature does not want them to have children.
Maybe homosexuality is nature's way of trying to keep the population under control. We already have enough people in this world, if a few couples here and there do not have any children, it will not be a huge deal.

Besides, no, they can't have children the natural way, but they could, you know, adopt. There's millions of orphans in this country-heck, in this world-who desperately need homes, and a lot of these homosexuals would be more than willing to take them in and care for them and adopt them as their children.

But no, we can't have that either, because the kids will turn out messed up or something. To that, I say, "Baloney".

A family is made up of people who love each other and will take care of each other. It doesn't matter what the makeup of the family is, if there's love, that's all that matters. That's all that should be important.

Besides, as ILuvLarryMullen pointed out, what about the heterosexual couples who are unable to have kids for some reason or other. Are their marriages not valid, then? I know a lot of heterosexual kids who have no intention of ever having children. When they marry, will that make their marriages invalid? I mean, let's be consistent here.

Quote:
Originally posted by U2LipstickBoy
Just because two people are in love is not a good enough reason for marriage. I love my car, I love my dog, but the State won't allow me to marry them. I love my parents, but the State won't allow me to marry them.
Bad analogy, simply because your car or dog cannot consent to the marriage. They have no say in the matter. And your parents aren't allowed to marry you because incest is frowned upon in this country (even though it is in the Bible, which is very interesting-but people never really seem to comment on that...).

Quote:
Originally posted by U2LipstickBoy
If we start allowing those people to get married, we would be opening up a huge can of worms.
No, we don't. Look at the areas in the world where homosexual marriage is legal. Have you heard anything about those places falling apart at the seams? I haven't. I mean, there may be some problems in those areas, but they've got nothing to do with the fact that homosexuals are allowed to legally marry.

Quote:
Originally posted by U2LipstickBoy
Bush knows that older people will be voting in large numbers, he also knows that the majority of older people don't want those people to get married.
What Bush also needs to realize, though, is that some people in this country are in favor of homosexuals marrying. But he's not even considering their views on the matter. And if he wants to be re-elected, he's also got to learn that times are changing.

Besides, just because the majority says something's wrong doesn't automatically mean that it is.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 01-22-2004, 11:24 AM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:14 PM
indra,

"Wow! Imagine that! Saddam Hussein's incredible invisible, undetectable weapons of mass destruction programs still cranking out.... Uh, just what was it they were cranking out anyway?"

While inspectors have yet to find actual WMD weapons, they have found Weapons of Mass Destruction programs which are in total violation of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement.

Thousands of Kurds, Iranians and other Iraqi's have been murdered by WMD. Saddam has used WMD more times than any country in history.

Saddam never accounted for 10,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of Mustard Gas, and 20,000 Bio/Chem capable artillery shells that UN inspectors said he had back in 1998.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-22-2004, 12:24 PM   #55
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,649
Local Time: 03:14 PM
The Sanctity of Marriage?

I was going to make this a separate thread but decided I'll just put it in here since this is where it started.

The sanctity of marriage. What is it? How can anyone pass legislature in order to hold it up? Do we even have any sanctity left?

We've given many examples of how heterosexuals have already thrown out the sanctity of marriage. But what about the courts they too have made a mockery of marriage. I know people who were married only two years the wife was the one who had the infedelities and she gets rewarded 50% of all future earnings of this persons profits he recieves of everything business venture he's done up to the date of the divorce which can be millions. Even those ventures he did before their marriage. What about religions? I've dated girls in the past who were of the same Christian beliefs yet I could have never married them unless I converted to their denomination, and one who I could have converted and married but my family would not have been invited because they were not of the same religion. How is it Bush believes he's going to protect the sancitity of marriage just by leaving certain people out? If someone can give me a legitimate answer as to how banning homosexual marriage is protecting the sanctity of this institution I would greatly appreciate it? No one person has ever given me any reason, so I can't think of any reason other than the ultra right wing's homophobia.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-22-2004, 01:02 PM   #56
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 02:14 PM
Re: The Sanctity of Marriage?

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
No one person has ever given me any reason, so I can't think of any reason other than the ultra right wing's homophobia.
That's it. And they will lose this battle in time. Gays are powerful in this country and becoming more so everyday, and the homophobes will just have to get over it.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 01-22-2004, 01:39 PM   #57
BAW
The Flower
 
BAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The OC....!!!!
Posts: 11,094
Local Time: 01:14 PM
Re: The Sanctity of Marriage?

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

The sanctity of marriage. What is it? How can anyone pass legislature in order to hold it up? Do we even have any sanctity left?

My thoughts exactly.


How can you protect something that doesn't exist?

What is sacred about marrying somone in Vegas and ending it 56 hours later? What is sacred about marrying somone on TV because you think he's rich?

There is nothing left to uphold.

And like several others have said, I've yet to hear a legitimate reason as to just how homosexual marriage is any kind of threat to heterosexual marriage.
__________________
BAW is offline  
Old 01-22-2004, 01:41 PM   #58
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:14 PM
I have a question (perhaps a stupid one) about Heterosexual marriage and Gay Marriage. There are I believe restrictions on heterosexual marriage such as: marrying family members or 1st cousins(maybe second cousins as well). This is done because of the potential consequences to childern born between family members and also other social concerns along that line.

Some who oppose Gay marriage have used these restrictions to suggest that Gay marriage would be the start of a loosening of restrictions already in place on heterosexual marriage.

Would Gay marriage follow the same rules/restrictions as heterosexual marriage even though there is no possibility of having biological offspring?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 01-22-2004, 01:59 PM   #59
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,649
Local Time: 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
I have a question (perhaps a stupid one) about Heterosexual marriage and Gay Marriage. There are I believe restrictions on heterosexual marriage such as: marrying family members or 1st cousins(maybe second cousins as well). This is done because of the potential consequences to childern born between family members and also other social concerns along that line.

Some who oppose Gay marriage have used these restrictions to suggest that Gay marriage would be the start of a loosening of restrictions already in place on heterosexual marriage.

Would Gay marriage follow the same rules/restrictions as heterosexual marriage even though there is no possibility of having biological offspring?
Interesting question.

Actually there are studies which say now that the potential for birth defects is false, but I digress.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-22-2004, 02:21 PM   #60
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 09:14 PM
Re: ...

Quote:
Originally posted by U2LipstickBoy
Bush must uphold the sanctity of marriage, for the future of America. We can't allow those people to practice immoral acts and think that the State is going to turn around and view it as being healthy and a legal marriage.
What's immoral about it? What's immoral about two people falling in love? What's immoral about them wanting to spend the rest of their lives together? You imply that gay relationships can't be "healthy" - can you explain why you hold this opinion? If you're going to go around declaring people's relationships immoral then I would hope at least you have a sound basis for this accusation.

Quote:
Marriage is a union where a child can be created and raised with parents of both gender.
So are marriages where the parents are either unable to have children or decide not to have children also immoral? Are they not really marriages because marriage is "a union where a child can be created"?

Quote:
Just because two people are in love is not a good enough reason for marriage. I love my car, I love my dog, but the State won't allow me to marry them. I love my parents, but the State won't allow me to marry them. If we start allowing those people to get married, we would be opening up a huge can of worms.
Two people. That means your comparison with cars and dogs is invalid as neither are human. And frankly, if you love your parents in the same way that you love someone you'd want to marry then...well, that's not an issue we need to get into here. (NB: that's a joke, not intended as an insult.)

There are countries where gay people are allowed to marry, and exactly what impact has that had on heterosexual marriages in those countries? That's right: none. Heterosexual marriage isn't valued any less, people haven't started campaigning for the right to marry their garden gnomes, society hasn't completely broken down. What makes you think it would be any different if gay marriage was permitted in America?
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees 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 04:14 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