The sacred institution of 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 06-11-2006, 07:14 PM   #46
Refugee
 
toscano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,032
Local Time: 06:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Here's a better question: How do you explain to two men who have been in a loving relationship that they can't get married because one of them isn't a woman?
You would expain it's illegal.....
__________________

__________________
toscano is offline  
Old 06-11-2006, 07:18 PM   #47
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 07:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by toscano


You would expain it's illegal.....
But when they ask why, what do you say?

Hmmm, let's see...

So far we got; status quo , it will lead to incest, what else?

Nothing not one damn logical reason.

Just bigotry...
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 06-11-2006, 07:29 PM   #48
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 01:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


I like the discussion, I just don't appreciate the combining of homosexuality with incest.

The problem with your analogy is that the likelyhood of birth defects between a nephew and aunt are actually pretty low probably the same as non related couples.

But like I stated before what if they go before the state and prove they can't reproduce? This makes your comparison moot. Why can't you figure that out? Your whole line of questioning become moot.
Birth defects for offspring of first cousins and nephew/ aunt and uncle/niece are common enough that such unions are against the law. Even Amish communities have come to understand this, and now make significant efforts to get their young people to meet up with Amish from different communities.

Whats far more questionable and rare is finding, first cousins or uncle/niece aunt/nephew situations where they could prove that reproduction was 100% impossible. People who have had surgery to prevent reproduction as well as people have been found to be infertile have had occurances where reproduction does in fact occur. The probability may be 99.99% that it won't happen, but I'm not sure if its ever 100% unless the person has essentially changed their gender. With Gay persons, it is always 100% impossible.

But lets just say that it could occur, that there could be say an uncle/niece pairing where reproduction is 100% impossible. How would you argue that they could not get married? That situation does not make mine line of questioning moot, all it does is add another group of people to the whole issue, provided they can prove that reproduction is 100% impossible.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 06-11-2006, 07:38 PM   #49
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 01:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Nothing's wrong with it. But your questions are ridiculous and have nothing to do with gay marriage. You couch your fear and bigotry in "questions" that have nothing to do with two people wanting that same kind of marriage that I have. Like most bigots, you want to make a link between the behavior you fear and behavior that has nothing to do with the real issue.
What makes you think that I'm afraid of a certain type of behavior or that I'm a "bigot"? Who does an individual have the right(or no right) to enter into marriage with and why? Thats the issue. If you think thats a ridiculous question and it has nothing to do with the issue of Gay marriage, I don't understand why you even bother to respond.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 06-11-2006, 07:40 PM   #50
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 07:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht

But lets just say that it could occur, that there could be say an uncle/niece pairing where reproduction is 100% impossible. How would you argue that they could not get married? That situation does not make mine line of questioning moot, all it does is add another group of people to the whole issue, provided they can prove that reproduction is 100% impossible.
Yes it does make it moot. How can you not see that?!

Because given this example you just gave the argument of incest marriage between heterosexuals stand on it's own!!! It takes homosexual marriage out of the equation and makes your line of questioning completely useless. I don't know how to make that any clearer...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 06-11-2006, 07:44 PM   #51
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 07:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


What makes you think that I'm afraid of a certain type of behavior or that I'm a "bigot"?
Because you've gone so totally out of your way to create this rediclous line of questioning that doesn't even stand up.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 06-11-2006, 07:47 PM   #52
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 01:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Here's a better question: How do you explain to two men who have been in a loving relationship that they can't get married because one of them isn't a woman?
Its essentially the same question, not a better one. I don't have an answer for it.

Once again though, can you explain to an adult uncle why he can't marry his adult nephew? You've already stated that the law in regards to this type of marriage should be the same for both straight and gay people. That means your against an adult uncle marrying his adult nephew. So how would you explain to them that they can't get married?
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 06-11-2006, 07:55 PM   #53
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 07:04 PM
Your entire line of questioning basically only works if you A) are a bigot, B) do not believe that homosexuality is a natural human condition (ie, you believe it is a choice), C) are extremely cynical and want to deny the freedom of others because someone may try and take advantage of it or D) a combination of the above.

So quit dancing around the issue and clouding the dialogue with ridiculous slippery slope arguments and come clean. For or against?
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 06-11-2006, 07:58 PM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,557
Local Time: 08:04 PM
I don't care who gets married to who as long as they have an open bar at the reception
__________________
randhail is offline  
Old 06-11-2006, 08:01 PM   #55
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 07:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


Its essentially the same question, not a better one. I don't have an answer for it.
No it's a better one.

Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht

Once again though, can you explain to an adult uncle why he can't marry his adult nephew? You've already stated that the law in regards to this type of marriage should be the same for both straight and gay people. That means your against an adult uncle marrying his adult nephew. So how would you explain to them that they can't get married?
You treat it the same way as straight marriage. Why is this so hard for you. Two CONSENTING adults that don't have any predisposition to reproducing children with birth defects should be allowed to get married. How's that?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 06-11-2006, 08:09 PM   #56
Refugee
 
toscano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,032
Local Time: 06:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


But when they ask why, what do you say?

You say "because not enough people care enough about the issue to vote to change the law"

Now, I have no idea what the voting demographics are out there, but if they are anything like me (middle income white male married homeowner with teenage kids and aging parents) there are tens if not hundreds of issues which are given higher priority.

I would not campaign for or against gay marriage, let 'em get married if they want, but quite frankly it's not something that gets most of my voting demographic (the ones I know anyway) terribly fired up either way. With so many issues which directly affect the voting public a lot more immediately and personally, I think it's at least part of the reason why it's not yet legal. Bigotry by omission ? If you want, I really don't care what you call it.
__________________
toscano is offline  
Old 06-11-2006, 08:15 PM   #57
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 01:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Yes it does make it moot. How can you not see that?!

Because given this example you just gave the argument of incest marriage between heterosexuals stand on it's own!!! It takes homosexual marriage out of the equation and makes your line of questioning completely useless. I don't know how to make that any clearer...
No, all you've done with this example is added one more group of people to the list of those that currently do not fall under what many consider to be a traditional form of marriage, that being an adult man and an adult women who are not immediate family members.

Any adult immediate family members capable of reproduction would never be allowed to marry because of that fact.

You claim that there could be immediate family members 100% incapable of reproduction. So, if such a case could occur, would such family members be allowed to marry? Why or why not?

Everyone agrees that you need to have consenting adults for it to be considered a marriage. This means you could have 5 different groups of people, of which only one would fit under what is regarded as the traditional form of marriage. Each of the 5 could be in a polygamous form as well.

Hetero
Gay
Hetero immediate family(reproduction possible)
Hetero immediate family(reproduction impossible)
Gay immediate family

Polygamous form of any of the above 5


Everyone would agree that Hetero immediate family marriages where reproduction is possible should be banned because of the birth defects that could happen to offspring. This of course would also include a polygamous form of this type of marriage which would be banned as well.

For the remaining four:

Hetero
Gay
Hetero immediate family(reproduction impossible)
Gay immediate family

which if any would you ban and why? What about polygamous versions of those types of marriages?
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 06-11-2006, 08:15 PM   #58
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 01:04 AM
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 06-11-2006, 08:20 PM   #59
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 07:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by toscano


You say "because not enough people care enough about the issue to vote to change the law"
And that's about the dumbest "reasoning" I've ever heard. Would this have been an accptable answer to tell a black person why they can't sit in the front of the bus?


Quote:
Originally posted by toscano

(middle income white male married homeowner with teenage kids and aging parents)
I could have guessed this...

Quote:
Originally posted by toscano

I would not campaign for or against gay marriage, let 'em get married if they want, but quite frankly it's not something that gets most of my voting demographic (the ones I know anyway) terribly fired up either way. With so many issues which directly affect the voting public a lot more immediately and personally, I think it's at least part of the reason why it's not yet legal. Bigotry by omission ? If you want, I really don't care what you call it.
It shouldn't be a campaign issue. It should be legalized and then we can move on with real issues.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 06-11-2006, 08:23 PM   #60
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 01:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

No it's a better one.



You treat it the same way as straight marriage. Why is this so hard for you. Two CONSENTING adults that don't have any predisposition to reproducing children with birth defects should be allowed to get married. How's that?
So your saying that all of the following four consenting adult groups should be allowed to get married?

Hetero
Gay
Hetero immediate family(reproduction impossible)
Gay immediate family

Martha seemed to indicate that only the first two should be allowed to get married and the last two should be banned.

Wanderer has already said he does not have an objection to three of those groups. He also does not object to polygamous forms of those types of marriages. Not sure how Wanderer feels about the hypothetical "Hetero immediate family(reproduction impossible)" group.
__________________

__________________
Maoilbheannacht 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 08:04 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