The sacred institution of marriage... - Page 6 - 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, 10:22 PM   #76
Refugee
 
toscano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,032
Local Time: 07:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Jesus, Joseph and Mary you took my post seriously.


As witnessed by my concern for the welfare of Pottery Barn ?!!?!!

LOL!!!
__________________

__________________
toscano is offline  
Old 06-11-2006, 10:31 PM   #77
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 06:49 AM


My God, there's a lot of excuses in this thread for allowing intolerance and inequality to run rampant.

1. Won't somebody think of the uncles and nephews!
2. Won't somebody think of the polygamists!
3. No body else gives enough of a shit, so I don't have to!
4. (My personal fave) It doesn't affect me, so I don't care!

When I was at the Central High museum in Little Rock, I was looking at the faces of the white women, contorted in hate because some black teenagers wanted to go to school. I wondered where they were, if anyone had collected their stories, or were they simply too embarrassed to tell people that those faces were theirs? A decade or two from now, I hope to be wondering the same thing about the people who now stand outside courthouses, screaming Biblical obscenities at people who just want to be married.
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
Old 06-11-2006, 10:34 PM   #78
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,698
Local Time: 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by toscano


First question, nice interjection of 'conservative politicians' (can't have an FYM thread without them in it), as for the general populus, who's counting ? and the number depends on which side of a given particular fence you'd be on.

Disingenious at best, not even a 'nice try'.
What? Nice avoidance of the issue.


Quote:
Originally posted by toscano


Same answer. You still don't know.
Really, how many laws hold back the white straight male? I'd like to know.


Quote:
Originally posted by toscano


Clearly legalization of gay marriage is NOT a priority for most. Bush wouldn't be in power if it was.
You're not getting it, I know equality is not a priority for most. That's exactly why Bush is in the office. The bigot vote helped him quite a bit.

But just like the issue you avoided earlier. Ending segregation wasn't a priority for most for a long while as well.




Quote:
Originally posted by toscano


A-ha, you are starting to learn young Grasshoppa.......but you still have much to learn........because you, like the inept Democratic party, will allow the Republicans to build the stage and set the rules, even when you apparently recognize what they are doing.

Want to enact gay marriage legislation ? Take power. How to take it ? Show the voting populus you care about what they care about the most and that you can help them. My whole point here has been that the voters don't want a debate on gay marriage, they want to know how you can help them. If you gain their trust, you gain control of government. If you gain control of government you can then pass other legislation

Play the Reps game and you will lose. Again.

Only the Dems could be so inept as to lose an election to an idiot incumbent fighting an unpopular war in a down economy.
And all of this proves my point. We have a lot of bigots in this country. But just like women's right, segregation, and so many other social issues. History will prove these people to be on the wrong side, and their grandchildren can shake their heads in shame.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-11-2006, 10:35 PM   #79
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 06:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by toscano
You would expain it's illegal.....
What a wonderful legacy you're preparing for your grandchildren.


"Yes, it was illegal, and remained so, because people like me thought it was a low priority to work to end intolerance and inequality because we thought there were bigger issues to deal with."
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 06-11-2006, 11:00 PM   #80
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Yes, but like you're incest analogies there are also couples who are not related and will still reproduce with birth defects. Like those that are predispositioned to birth defects polygamy is predispositioned towards submission.



Consent implies equality not just agreement. There is no equality in a relationship where the woman is completely, by nature, submissive to the man's whim. Let's say all three wives want the same thing at the same time but he can only give to one, he chooses which one therefore it's always by his choice.
Polygamy is marriage between 3 or more people. Its not necessarily what you see on HBO about the situation in Utah.

What would you say about a polygamous marriage of 4 women? Would you say there is no equality there?
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 06-11-2006, 11:05 PM   #81
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Consent implies equality not just agreement. There is no equality in a relationship where the woman is completely, by nature, submissive to the man's whim. Let's say all three wives want the same thing at the same time but he can only give to one, he chooses which one therefore it's always by his choice.
Consent doesn't imply equality, you can have dominant and submissive partners electing to be in relationships, this argument as one against polygamy is disengenous as the involved parties are electing to be part of this and their role within the relationship.

The argument extends onto choice for sex, which treads into very nasty territory as it is essentially saying that the virtue of choice by the dominant partner that denies at least one of the other partner is what makes the relationship uneven and in some manner violates the principle of consent, what if a wife doesn't want to have sex with her husband? is that violating a principle of equality in the same way, is her denying a partner not exerting a similar form of dominance?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-11-2006, 11:06 PM   #82
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,698
Local Time: 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


Polygamy is marriage between 3 or more people. Its not necessarily what you see on HBO about the situation in Utah.
I realize that. I also know the show is fiction.

I was using it as an example. I've done a lot of research on the subject, wrote a paper on it in college.

Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht

What would you say about a polygamous marriage of 4 women? Would you say there is no equality there?
Still doesn't work, for all the same reasons.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-11-2006, 11:09 PM   #83
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
I love Canada. Gay marriage is legal, and the sky hasn't fallen. And, yes, incest, bestiality, and polygamy are all illegal.

It's really funny how Americans expend so much energy trying to be afraid of something.

Melon
But Gay marriage has not always been legal in Canada. Bestiality will never be legal because the beast can't give consent. Gay incest and polygamy may be illegal now, but those issues could come up in the future.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 06-11-2006, 11:14 PM   #84
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


I realize that. I also know the show is fiction.

I was using it as an example. I've done a lot of research on the subject, wrote a paper on it in college.

Still doesn't work, for all the same reasons.
Why should they be prevented from entering into these arrangements and having the legal recognition for their unorthodox relationships?

If we justify gay marriage on the basis of equal treatment and recognition for citizens then how can we draw an illegal border on polygamy between consenting parties.

The sexual activity is not illegal in itself, the living arrangement is not illegal so why should the legal recognition be illegal?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-11-2006, 11:15 PM   #85
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,698
Local Time: 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


Gay incest and polygamy may be illegal now, but those issues could come up in the future.
This is the part you don't get. Hetero incest and polygamy were already issues before gay marriage, IT'S NOT A CAUSE.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-11-2006, 11:32 PM   #86
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht
But Gay marriage has not always been legal in Canada.
And marrying for love didn't really occur until the 19th century. Your point?

Quote:
Gay incest and polygamy may be illegal now, but those issues could come up in the future.
Considering that heterosexual incest and heterosexual polygamy are equally illegal, there isn't much footing to do so. All successful court activity has revolved around the notion of "equality," not "special rights," contrary to the rhetoric one hears from the far right.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-11-2006, 11:35 PM   #87
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,698
Local Time: 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Why should they be prevented from entering into these arrangements and having the legal recognition for their unorthodox relationships?

If we justify gay marriage on the basis of equal treatment and recognition for citizens then how can we draw an illegal border on polygamy between consenting parties.


Because polygamy by nature is predisposed to creating submissive and one sided relationships that can't be foreseen sometimes.

Let's say the marriage starts with two people a third comes in a few years later but the second wife divorces after a year. Second wife gets awarded a nice sum in the divorce proceedings and ends up taking assets belonging to the first wife. To me I have a hard time saying this is true consent when someone can get punished for something they have no control over.

Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer

The sexual activity is not illegal in itself, the living arrangement is not illegal so why should the legal recognition be illegal?
Now the legal recognition brings in a whole new nightmare because of the issues with assets, life insurance policies, finance etc when death or divorce takes place.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-11-2006, 11:45 PM   #88
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


This is the part you don't get. Hetero incest and polygamy were already issues before gay marriage, IT'S NOT A CAUSE.
Not a cause for what?

Hetero incest is obviously always going to be illegal because of the birth defects of potential offspring. As for polygamy, just because it became and issue and the law considers it to be illegal now, does not mean a society in the future could make a different decision on the issue.

Gay marriage and its legalization is new in most countries. I don't know what the law says about Gay adult incest in Canada or if the issue has come up and been ruled on.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 06-11-2006, 11:49 PM   #89
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Because polygamy by nature is predisposed to creating submissive and one sided relationships that can't be foreseen sometimes.

Let's say the marriage starts with two people a third comes in a few years later but the second wife divorces after a year. Second wife gets awarded a nice sum in the divorce proceedings and ends up taking assets belonging to the first wife. To me I have a hard time saying this is true consent when someone can get punished for something they have no control over.
Wouldn't that be dependent on the type of marriage contract, if we were to treat polygamy between one man and two wives as the man being part of two independent marriages rather than three parties involved in a single marriage then the assets could certainly be taken away from the first wife without her control.
Quote:
Now the legal recognition brings in a whole new nightmare because of the issues with assets, life insurance policies, finance etc when death or divorce takes place.
It does bring about a slew of new issues but they would not be insurmountable and in themselves they do not seem cause to say that polygamous marriage should be illegal, perhaps it would be a lot better for the state to get our of the marriage game altogether.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-11-2006, 11:52 PM   #90
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 12:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht
Not a cause for what?

Hetero incest is obviously always going to be illegal because of the birth defects of potential offspring. As for polygamy, just because it became and issue and the law considers it to be illegal now, does not mean a society in the future could make a different decision on the issue.

Gay marriage and its legalization is new in most countries. I don't know what the law says about Gay adult incest in Canada or if the issue has come up and been ruled on.
It is such an insanely minute issue though, can you name any consentual gay incestuous partners that want to get married? It is taking the most extreme minority of minorities and using something so perverse to hold up progress.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer 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 09:49 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