The sacred institution of marriage... - Page 10 - 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 06-12-2006, 02:15 AM   #136
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
intedomine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 7,947
Local Time: 04:43 PM
Love is natural. Love is real.

Marriage is man-made.

Marriage is an idea, and a bloody good one at that. Well done to the chap who developed such a good and convenient idea. Yet there is nothing so sacred about something that is so artificial.

Interracial marriage was banned 100 years ago. Homosexual marriage should now be 100% allowed too. No reason for it not to, and it's hardly gonna destroy the institution of marriage. And i ask, how can gay marriage be "destructive" when it become increasingly inclusive?

Marriage is not about the ability to make babies either. Why should it be? Who said? It's about 2 people wanting to have some kind of mutual union, not about what kind of genitals someone and their lover possesses and what these genitals can do.

The continuing failure to allow homosexual couples to marry would be to carry shameful baggage from the depths of the horrible selfish history of the human race. A history in which racism and homophobia was "normal." A history in which rape often went unpunished and paedophilia often went unnoticed. A history in which people were executed or sent overseas cause they stole a loaf of bread. A history in which dictators were allowed to dictate oppressively and democracy was constantly suppressed and avoided. A cruel and unfair history in which hate and prejudice was prevelant. A history in which many marriages were arranged by control-freak parents. A history in which men and women were forced into marriage, not by love, but by society instead.

We should attempt to leave all the bad things behind and think sensibly. Love is, and always has been, real. Marriage meanwhile, is a great idea, but is not the least bit natural and should be constantly challenged and redefined when necessary.
__________________

__________________
intedomine is offline  
Old 06-12-2006, 02:29 AM   #137
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 12:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


But its obvious from the first post in this thread that it was never exclusively about gay marriage. In fact, only one sentence in the first post even references gay marriage.
But that's what this thread was about, we try to keep things on topic in FYM.

Sometimes it doesn't happen but we try.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 06-12-2006, 02:37 AM   #138
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
blueeyedgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bottom of the earth
Posts: 6,774
Local Time: 05:13 PM
What an interesting 10 pages I've just read. I didn't realise that the issue of gay incest kept some people awake at night worrying, obviously the fact I've never spent any time thinking about it makes me the strange one

As for the topic at hand, I was able to live in a defacto relationship for years with all the rights afforded to me as if I had been married. Noone's picketing on the streets to stop straight people living together and demeaning the "sanctity" of marriage.
__________________
blueeyedgirl is offline  
Old 06-12-2006, 02:41 AM   #139
Babyface
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10
Local Time: 01:43 AM
damn, wrong person.

See below for my "real" persona.
__________________
freya is offline  
Old 06-12-2006, 02:44 AM   #140
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 02:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by blueeyedgirl
What an interesting 10 pages I've just read. I didn't realise that the issue of gay incest kept some people awake at night worrying, obviously the fact I've never spent any time thinking about it makes me the strange one

You slacker! You'd never make a good, God-fearing American....
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 06-12-2006, 02:59 AM   #141
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
blueeyedgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bottom of the earth
Posts: 6,774
Local Time: 05:13 PM
Obviously! And I also need to develop a schizoid personality Indra!!!!
__________________
blueeyedgirl is offline  
Old 06-12-2006, 11:14 AM   #142
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: 10:43 PM
Call up Canada and ask about how they handle the unruly hordes of gay relatives attempting to get married. Better yet, call up Massachusetts. It's cheaper.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 06-12-2006, 11:23 AM   #143
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 01:43 AM
man, the things i miss when i spend a beautiful Sunday at Gay Pride ...

i can't possibly engage in this discussion, there's no time. i'm meeting my gay uncle for sex this evening, and then we're going to get married in Massachusetts.

i suppose that the only question i have is that if we start to tighten the "definition" of marriage, how much "tighter" are these rules going to get? if it can only be betweeen a marriage and a woman -- that is, we start to say that gender matters in marriage -- can we also not start to say that, guess what, race matters? religion matters? class matters? reproductive status matters?

the slippery slope arguments go just as strongly in the other direction.

though i have to admit: the incestuous gay relatives who want to get married is a new one.

well done to who ever thought that one up.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-12-2006, 01:46 PM   #144
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:43 AM
I'd like to get back to the original post. Why limit it to "Christian Heterosexual Republicans? Why isn't John Kerry's name on there? Has he not been both divorced and stated publicly that marriage should be only between a man and a woman?
Are Bill & Hillary, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reid, John Edwards, Jesse jackson, Tom Daschle, Joe Biden, Joe Leiberman and many more Democrats and liberals all bigoted towards homosexuals simply because they oppose same-sex marriage? Or do they, while respecting the dignity and worth of each individual, remain unconvinced that we should jump headlong into the social experiment of redefining marriage.

So to those of you who say there are no sound arguments against same-sex marriage. Why the debate? Why the sudden rush by so many states, including Oregon and California to pass statues against same-sex marriage. All bigory and fear? Some, to be sure, but all? The inability to see the world through the eyes of another is very narcissistic isn't it?

Finally, societies and institutions do change. If one truly believes that same-sex marriage is for the betterment of society, than which do you think the better tactic to move it forward is?
Playing on people's guilt, name calling and failing to recognize the believes of others.
Or changing people's hearts the way Andrew Sullivan does in his writings?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 06-12-2006, 02:09 PM   #145
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 06:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
Or do they, while respecting the dignity and worth of each individual, remain unconvinced that we should jump headlong into the social experiment of redefining marriage.

So to those of you who say there are no sound arguments against same-sex marriage. Why the debate? Why the sudden rush by so many states, including Oregon and California to pass statues against same-sex marriage. All bigory and fear? Some, to be sure, but all? The inability to see the world through the eyes of another is very narcissistic isn't it?
What exactly are the sound arguments against same-sex marriage that are not rooted in fear or bigotry?
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 06-12-2006, 02:18 PM   #146
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 01:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
[B]I'd like to get back to the original post. Why limit it to "Christian Heterosexual Republicans? Why isn't John Kerry's name on there? Has he not been both divorced and stated publicly that marriage should be only between a man and a woman?
Are Bill & Hillary, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reid, John Edwards, Jesse jackson, Tom Daschle, Joe Biden, Joe Leiberman and many more Democrats and liberals all bigoted towards homosexuals simply because they oppose same-sex marriage? Or do they, while respecting the dignity and worth of each individual, remain unconvinced that we should jump headlong into the social experiment of redefining marriage.

i think they just want to win elections.

and virtually ALL of them support civil unions as a minimum, and most will say that they "believe" that marriage is between a man and a woman, but express that it is more a personal belief than something that should be written into the constitution.

this doesn't make them any less cowardly, but it does make them at least a little bet less hurtful.

and i do find these debates hurtful. it hurts me to hear people say that i somehow threaten marriage, or that i hurt families, or that i'm overthrowing society.

don't you realize that all gay people want is to be included? why would you exclude a gay person?


[q]So to those of you who say there are no sound arguments against same-sex marriage. Why the debate? Why the sudden rush by so many states, including Oregon and California to pass statues against same-sex marriage. All bigory and fear? Some, to be sure, but all? The inability to see the world through the eyes of another is very narcissistic isn't it?[/q]


sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

i think it's new, and i think it makes people uncomfortable, but so does sharing the front of the bus with a black person.

give it time. and let the states decide. and it is clearly on it's way.


[q]Finally, societies and institutions do change. If one truly believes that same-sex marriage is for the betterment of society, than which do you think the better tactic to move it forward is?
Playing on people's guilt, name calling and failing to recognize the believes of others.
Or changing people's hearts the way Andrew Sullivan does in his writings? [/q]


Sullivan also called for same-sex marriage in 1989.

he also posted this a few days ago:

[q]The latest protestation from those who favor amending the federal constitution to ban civil marriage for gay couples is that they are not bigots. Some have a good point. Sincerely believing that it's better for society that only heterosexual couples should have the right to marry is not inherently bigoted. There's an argument there, not just a prejudice or feeling. In Virtually Normal, I take pains to take this argument seriously, as it should be taken. Calling someone a bigot because she disagrees with you is not an argument. It's just an insult - like calling someone a pervert.

Nevertheless, when opponents of marriage rights for gays never even mention gays in their arguments, never address some of the legitimate concerns that many gay couples have, and refuse even to allow minimal domestic partnerships that allow us to visit one another in hospital without the threat of other family members intervening, then I think we're onto territory where complete uninterest in the fate of gay people blurs into bigotry. To have no social policy toward gays, except that they should repent or be cured or shut up, is a function of profound disrespect, intelligible only through the prism of prejudice. The same might be said of a blanket ban on all gay seminarians, regardless of their qualifications for the priesthood, the quality of their vocations, or their adherence to celibacy. Sometimes a bigot really is a bigot. Even when he's the Pope.

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/06/bigots.html

[/q]



note: nothing about gay relatives wanting to marry.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-12-2006, 02:24 PM   #147
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 01:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy


What exactly are the sound arguments against same-sex marriage that are not rooted in fear or bigotry?


it usually comes down to the idea that opposite gender pairings are best for children.

but this sidesteps couples who never have children, infertile couples, and post menupausal women.

so, yeah, i'm kind of with you.

is there a "gender matters" argument that isn't to do with childrearing?

(and that seems like more of an anti-gay adoption argument anyway)
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-12-2006, 02:35 PM   #148
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 01:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha
Call up Canada and ask about how they handle the unruly hordes of gay relatives attempting to get married. Better yet, call up Massachusetts. It's cheaper.

I'm afraid that the whole gay relative marriage issue has taken a backseat to the angry mobs here demanding man-beast nuptuals. We're going to hell in a handbasket up here, people.
__________________
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 06-12-2006, 02:38 PM   #149
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 01:43 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by VintagePunk



I'm afraid that the whole gay relative marriage issue has taken a backseat to the angry mobs here demanding man-beast nuptuals. We're going to hell in a handbasket up here, people.

as a serious question, do you think it had anything to do with the election of Stephen Harper and the new government?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-12-2006, 02:46 PM   #150
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 01:43 AM
The gay relative, or the man-beast issue? If all else fails, blame it on Harper. He eats babies, you know.

Was there really a serious question in there? I had next to no sleep last night due to a dental appointment/phobia this morning, so I'm not at my most cognizant.
__________________

__________________
VintagePunk 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 01:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com