The people's voice on gay marriage - 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 10-05-2005, 01:59 PM   #46
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 01:11 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The people's voice on gay marriage

Quote:
Originally posted by melon
Psst...Baptists are Protestants too.
Melon
They can be...but they are not one in the same.
__________________

__________________
MaxFisher is offline  
Old 10-05-2005, 02:02 PM   #47
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 09:11 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The people's voice on gay marriage

Quote:
Originally posted by MaxFisher


They can be...but they are not one in the same.
Well, no, the terms aren't equivalent, but Baptists are, in fact, a Protestant sect.

The term "Protestant" covers any Christian sect that is not Roman Catholic or Orthodox (Greek, Russian, etc.)
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 10-05-2005, 02:04 PM   #48
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:11 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The people's voice on gay marriage

Quote:
Originally posted by MaxFisher
They can be...but they are not one in the same.
Well, I don't need to know or care. It doesn't affect me!

I doubt that conservatives are all that nuanced when it comes to homosexuals. They're all godless perverts looking to corrupt children.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 10-05-2005, 02:09 PM   #49
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 08:11 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The people's voice on gay marriage

Quote:
Originally posted by melon

I doubt that conservatives are all that nuanced when it comes to homosexuals.


i think this is the heart of the issue.

this is why it is important for people to be out -- so that, one day, no one can say, "i've never met a gay person."

my new sort-of boyfriend went to a big BGLT conference in Denver last weekend, about equality in the workplace. one of the speakers was Tammy Baldwin, and she had this to say: "If you want to live in the kind of world where you can put a picture of your partner on your desk, then put a picture of your partner on your desk, and you will live in that kind of world."
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-05-2005, 02:09 PM   #50
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 09:11 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant

Quote:
Commonly considered one of the three major branches of Christianity (along with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy), the term "Protestant" represents a diverse range of theological and social perspectives, churches and related organizations.


I feel smrt now.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 10-05-2005, 02:14 PM   #51
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:11 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The people's voice on gay marriage

Quote:
Originally posted by melon
I doubt that conservatives are all that nuanced when it comes to homosexuals. They're all godless perverts looking to corrupt children.

Melon
I guess we are validating the use of sweeping stereotypes....
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-05-2005, 02:20 PM   #52
Acrobat
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: texas.
Posts: 459
Local Time: 01:11 AM
Melon: "conservatives are all that nuanced when it comes to homosexuals. They're all godless perverts looking to corrupt children."


...Please refrain from saying stupid idiodic things like that. It's offensive.
__________________
edgeboy is offline  
Old 10-05-2005, 02:20 PM   #53
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 08:11 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The people's voice on gay marriage

Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I guess we are validating the use of sweeping stereotypes....


well, the House of Representatives in Texas felt free to use sweeping generalizations and paranoid stereotypes when they tried to make it illegal for gay people to adopt foster children.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-05-2005, 02:21 PM   #54
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 01:11 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The people's voice on gay marriage

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
what is your personal opinion on marriage equality? and please explain why you believe whatever it is that you do.

i am curious.

I think if the govt recognizes homosexual marriage, then eventually it must recognize all marriages, no matter what they are. Yes, I understand that gay marriage activists would accuse me of using a slippery slope argument. However, taken to it's logical conclusion, the argument that people who love eachother should be allowed to marry must therefore not exclude any type of marriage.

Activists will counter and stipulate "two consenting adults". But isn't that putting a limit on what love can be or look like?
Shouldn't all types of love be included? Who's to say that a young boy/girl can't marry and an adult man/woman? Who's to say that a man/woman can't have multiple husbands/wives? Who's to say that a marriage of incest isn't something to be celebrated?
__________________
MaxFisher is offline  
Old 10-05-2005, 02:26 PM   #55
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 08:11 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The people's voice on gay marriage

Quote:
Originally posted by MaxFisher



I think if the govt recognizes homosexual marriage, then eventually it must recognize all marriages, no matter what they are. Yes, I understand that gay marriage activists would accuse me of using a slippery slope argument. However, taken to it's logical conclusion, the argument that people who love eachother should be allowed to marry must therefore not exclude any type of marriage.

Activists will counter and stipulate "two consenting adults". But isn't that putting a limit on what love can be or look like?
Shouldn't all types of love be included? Who's to say that a young boy/girl can't marry and an adult man/woman? Who's to say that a man/woman can't have multiple husbands/wives? Who's to say that a marriage of incest isn't a something to be celebrated?


food for thought: a heterosexual person has the option of marrying any other heterosexual person; a gay person, can only authentically marry -- ahem, Liza Minelli and David Guest -- another gay person. though a straight person might say they are in love with their daughter, their cousin, or all three sisters, even if they are not allowed to marry said individuals their civil rights are not being violated because they still have the option of marrying someone under the law.

as it stands right now, a gay person does not have the option to *authentically* marry anyone.

thus, saying that incest, polygamy, or underaged marriage (which was very legal not so long ago ... think Jerry Lee Lewis or Loretta Lynn) aren't necessarily going to suddenly be made legal because gay marriage becomes legal. expanding it to encompass homosexuals -- who have no other option -- does not then mean that all options are open.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-05-2005, 02:32 PM   #56
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 09:11 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The people's voice on gay marriage

Quote:
Originally posted by MaxFisher


Activists will counter and stipulate "two consenting adults". But isn't that putting a limit on what love can be or look like?
Shouldn't all types of love be included? Who's to say that a young boy/girl can't marry and an adult man/woman? Who's to say that a man/woman can't have multiple husbands/wives? Who's to say that a marriage of incest isn't something to be celebrated?
--Marriage between children and adults is already legal with the permission of the minor child's legal guardian. The age at which a minor is legal to marry with the guardian's permission varies by state; I believe it's anywhere between 12 and 17 depending on where one lives.

--Marriage between children younger than such an age and an adult would constitute statutory rape for one thing, and, if done without the parent/guardian's permission, would constitute kidnapping and/or transport of a minor for illegal purposes.

--Certain types of incestuous marriages are already permitted on a state-by-state basis and are permitted in many countries around the world. I think there are at least a few states in which first cousins can be married. Incestuous marriages of close relatives are prohibited because of devastating birth defects that affect the children of close relatives (e.g. siblings).

--The problem with polygamy is that virtually all polygamist traditions in the Western world follow a pattern of one man with many wives. It's a bad setup because it allows one man to profit, if you will, from the labor and production (literally and figuratively) of many women. Also, allowing several people to benefit from the rights and responsibilities that really should be the province of one spouse defeats the purpose of legally recognizing a union. Remember Terri Schiavo? What if she had three husbands, all with different opinions about her end-of-life care? One of the legal purposes of marriage is to allow for *one* individual to be designated with certain rights and responsibilities towards another.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 10-05-2005, 02:44 PM   #57
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 01:11 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by edgeboy
Melon: "conservatives are all that nuanced when it comes to homosexuals. They're all godless perverts looking to corrupt children."


...Please refrain from saying stupid idiodic things like that. It's offensive.
edgeboy - please refrain from calling people's comments stupid or idiotic.

melon - how about showing a more nuanced understanding of conservatism, for instance recognising that not every conservative in the world believes gay people are godless perverts.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 10-05-2005, 02:49 PM   #58
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 01:11 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The people's voice on gay marriage

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




food for thought: a heterosexual person has the option of marrying any other heterosexual person; a gay person, can only authentically marry -- ahem, Liza Minelli and David Guest -- another gay person. though a straight person might say they are in love with their daughter, their cousin, or all three sisters, even if they are not allowed to marry said individuals their civil rights are not being violated because they still have the option of marrying someone under the law.

as it stands right now, a gay person does not have the option to *authentically* marry anyone.

thus, saying that incest, polygamy, or underaged marriage (which was very legal not so long ago ... think Jerry Lee Lewis or Loretta Lynn) aren't necessarily going to suddenly be made legal because gay marriage becomes legal. expanding it to encompass homosexuals -- who have no other option -- does not then mean that all options are open.
Intersting points, Irvine. Definetly food for thought. I'll be mulling it over. Seriously.

It may take a while though...Us christian cunsirtive folk aint so smart as yous smarty pants libruls.

__________________
MaxFisher is offline  
Old 10-05-2005, 02:59 PM   #59
War Child
 
shrmn8rpoptart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Seward, NE
Posts: 516
Local Time: 07:11 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: The people's voice on gay marriage

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Let's not forget that before women voted and before blacks voted, the "people" were overwhelmingly against that as well. Did that make it right? So a change in people's perception is the only way to make it right for you? Must be easy when they are on your side right now...
the thing of it is...gays and supporters of gay marraige can vote. no one is denying them suffrage.

the argument you make sounds nice, but you're discussing two different things. in the case of blacks and women, they were not even given the ability to vote one way or the other. they were completely prevented from giving any truly meaningful input aside from trying to sway voters using their freedoms of speech, assembly, and petition (if those were actually enforced).

however, as gays and their supporters ARE afforded the right to vote, along with the freedoms of speech, assembly, and petition.

so, please, let's not make anymore false comparisons.

and finally, i find it slightly ironic that the comparison is being made between gay marraige and women/minority suffrage, and your solution to the problem is simply to discount the votes of those you don't agree with.

it seems that in most human interaction, we cannot assert our own rights without at the same time denying the rights of others. maybe that's the way it's meant to be. maybe all human life is just an intricate system of compromises. and if it is, we should start owning up to it instead of complaining about it.
__________________
shrmn8rpoptart is offline  
Old 10-05-2005, 03:01 PM   #60
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 06:11 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The people's voice on gay marriage

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




food for thought: a heterosexual person has the option of marrying any other heterosexual person; a gay person, can only authentically marry -- ahem, Liza Minelli and David Guest -- another gay person. though a straight person might say they are in love with their daughter, their cousin, or all three sisters, even if they are not allowed to marry said individuals their civil rights are not being violated because they still have the option of marrying someone under the law.

as it stands right now, a gay person does not have the option to *authentically* marry anyone.
Additionally, heteros can marry any member of the opposite sex for absolutely any reason. I can marry a 90 year old millionnaire hoping he'll die soon so I can have his money; I can marry a man so he'll get a green card; I can marry a man because we got drunk in Las Vegas. I can marry and divorce men as often as I want--just because I can. But two members of the same sex who have been together for 20 years, who own property together and who have raised children together, cannot marry.

A gay friend of mine did marry a woman some years ago so she could get a green card, and as a "fuck you" to a country that won't allow him to marry his partner of 25 years.
__________________

__________________
joyfulgirl 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 08:11 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