The sacred institution of marriage... - Page 7 - 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, 11:52 PM   #91
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 12:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


And marrying for love didn't really occur until the 19th century. Your point?



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

Well, once again, explain why the adult gay uncle cannot marry his adult gay nephew? How about adult gay first cousins? Why is that an issue of special rights as opposed to one of equality?

In heterosexual incest, the primary arguement against it is the birth defects of potential offspring. In Gay incest, this problem does not exist.
__________________

__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 06-11-2006, 11:54 PM   #92
Refugee
 
toscano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,032
Local Time: 05:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


What? Nice avoidance of the issue.
Not really. Again, not even a 'nice try' . You really will have to do better.




Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Really, how many laws hold back the white straight male? I'd like to know.

I don't owe you an answer. You don't know, simnple as that. (here's a clue though, my parents were WWII evacuees and other countries DO discriminate, even against white straight males) How 'bout you grasshoppa, been discriminated against by law ?


Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


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.

And you're not getting it. The Reps were smart enough to make an issue out of something most people would normally not care about had an alternative been placed in front of them that could intelligently address issue that might have have had more of an impact in their lives.

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


But just like the issue you avoided earlier.
I get straw-man arguments, I just choose not to indulge them






Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar



And all of this proves my point. We have a lot of bigots in this country.
You seriously believe everyone who voted for Bush did so solely on an anti-gay bigot level ? Or perhaps because the opposition was an incompetent buffoon incapable of forming a policy position he could stand behind for more than 10 minutes ?
__________________

__________________
toscano is offline  
Old 06-11-2006, 11:55 PM   #93
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 07:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht
Hetero incest is obviously always going to be illegal because of the birth defects of potential offspring.
Considering that it doesn't take marriage to have children, this is generally a side topic. Even then, I believe that there are a few states in the U.S. where you can marry all the way up to your first cousin. In other words, unless you want to marry someone in your immediate family, you certainly have wide latitude to commit legal incest in the U.S. Unlike the fact that every state ignores gay marriages in Massachusetts, these incestuous heterosexual marriages are recognized across the board, provided you were married in the handful of states where it is legal.

Quote:
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.
Well, it's for the society of the future to come to that conclusion. For our current society, this is pretty much a non-issue that only bigots dig up to oppose gay marriage. Ironically, the Utah DOMA essentially made it much more difficult to prosecute de-facto polygamy, since it made it illegal to define these relationships as common-law "marriages." They are, instead, strangers choosing to co-habitate, which is not illegal.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-11-2006, 11:58 PM   #94
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 07:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht
Well, once again, explain why the adult gay uncle cannot marry his adult gay nephew? How about adult gay first cousins? Why is that an issue of special rights as opposed to one of equality?
Find me a gay uncle who wants to marry his gay nephew, and we'll have this discussion.

It's a matter of "special rights" only if it is illegal for a heterosexual uncle to marry his heterosexual niece. The question of "children" is irrelevant, particularly since one or both parties involved could be medically infertile. As such, your question of mutant children would be irrelevant.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-11-2006, 11:59 PM   #95
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 12:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
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.
How many openly gay people could you name 25 years ago? If your going to allow marriage beyond adult hetero couples, then your going to need to look at everything and define what is and what is not legal. Avoiding settling these issues is what holds up progress.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 06-12-2006, 12:02 AM   #96
Refugee
 
toscano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,032
Local Time: 05:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


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."
Try: "It was illegal, and while not fair to that very small part of society, I had neither the energy or time to spare on fighting the cause for that segment of the population because I was working my ass off to ensure your Mother/Father were well fed, sheltered, clothed and educated, so that they in turn were better prepared to provide for you. I did vote for the political party more sympathetic to their cause, but they were a bunch of idiots who couldnt get themselves in a one-horse race because most people at that time didn't have gay marriage as a priority in their lives"

I can live with myself. Thanks for caring about my grandkids-to-be.
__________________
toscano is offline  
Old 06-12-2006, 12:05 AM   #97
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 12:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Considering that it doesn't take marriage to have children, this is generally a side topic. Even then, I believe that there are a few states in the U.S. where you can marry all the way up to your first cousin. In other words, unless you want to marry someone in your immediate family, you certainly have wide latitude to commit legal incest in the U.S. Unlike the fact that every state ignores gay marriages in Massachusetts, these incestuous heterosexual marriages are recognized across the board, provided you were married in the handful of states where it is legal.



Well, it's for the society of the future to come to that conclusion. For our current society, this is pretty much a non-issue that only bigots dig up to oppose gay marriage. Ironically, the Utah DOMA essentially made it much more difficult to prosecute de-facto polygamy, since it made it illegal to define these relationships as common-law "marriages." They are, instead, strangers choosing to co-habitate, which is not illegal.

Melon
I don't know of any states where its legal for first cousins and Uncle/niece, Aunt/nephew marriages to happen.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 06-12-2006, 12:08 AM   #98
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 07:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


I don't know of any states where its legal for first cousins and Uncle/niece, Aunt/nephew marriages to happen.
Um...

Quote:
Twenty-four states prohibit marriages between first cousins, and another seven permit them only under special circumstances. Utah, for example, permits first cousins to marry only provided both spouses are over age 65, or at least 55 with evidence of sterility. North Carolina permits first cousins to marry unless they are "double first cousins" (cousins through more than one line). Maine permits first cousins to marry only upon presentation of a certificate of genetic counseling. The remaining nineteen states and the District of Columbia permit first-cousin marriages without restriction.
From CNN.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 06-12-2006, 12:11 AM   #99
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


How many openly gay people could you name 25 years ago? If your going to allow marriage beyond adult hetero couples, then your going to need to look at everything and define what is and what is not legal. Avoiding settling these issues is what holds up progress.
Fine define it on the basis of consent and harm

1) All parties must consent to the relationship and the form of it's legal sanction.

2) All parties must be capable of offering that consent, this disqualifies children, animals and the severely mentally retarded.

3) The relationship cannot involuntarily infringe upon the rights or liberties of parties within or parties outside.

This would allow straight marriage, gay marriage and polygamous marriage between people

It would also allow to some degree legal sanction of incestuous relationships, but importantly the social conditioning of people from a young age is a natural force against this. Quite simply the number of inviable incestuous relationships would be so low and hurt so few people I would not oppose it outright - I cannot see good cause to oppse them even on the basis of the gross factor.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-12-2006, 12:13 AM   #100
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,640
Local Time: 06:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by toscano


Not really. Again, not even a 'nice try' . You really will have to do better.
You can keep ignoring it, I really don't care.




Quote:
Originally posted by toscano


I don't owe you an answer. You don't know, simnple as that. (here's a clue though, my parents were WWII evacuees and other countries DO discriminate, even against white straight males) How 'bout you grasshoppa, been discriminated against by law ?
I'm not talking about other countries. No, I'm a straight white male.


Quote:
Originally posted by toscano


And you're not getting it. The Reps were smart enough to make an issue out of something most people would normally not care about had an alternative been placed in front of them that could intelligently address issue that might have have had more of an impact in their lives.
I agree they were smart to make this an issue, that way the bigots come out to vote. Still doesn't make it right.



Quote:
Originally posted by toscano


I get straw-man arguments, I just choose not to indulge them
But you are...






Quote:
Originally posted by toscano


You seriously believe everyone who voted for Bush did so solely on an anti-gay bigot level ? Or perhaps because the opposition was an incompetent buffoon incapable of forming a policy position he could stand behind for more than 10 minutes ?
Did I say everyone? No, but the "moral vote" did come out and help his cause. You can't deny that.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-12-2006, 12:14 AM   #101
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 12:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Find me a gay uncle who wants to marry his gay nephew, and we'll have this discussion.

It's a matter of "special rights" only if it is illegal for a heterosexual uncle to marry his heterosexual niece. The question of "children" is irrelevant, particularly since one or both parties involved could be medically infertile. As such, your question of mutant children would be irrelevant.

Melon
But hetero couples where one individual have been termed medically infertile have on rare occasions produced offspring. What this means is that there is always a chance no matter how small when it comes to the issue of Hetero immediate family members getting married. With Gay immediate family members, the chance for reproduction is zero. The question of childern is why the hetero immediate family member marriage is illegal. But since Gay immediate family members cannot produce childern, this cannot be a reason used to make such a union illegal.

Wouldn't it be better to settle the entire issue as opposed to avoiding the discussion. Its obvious that such relationships exist despite the fact that few people know of them. Not so different from the way it was decades ago with Gay people.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 06-12-2006, 12:16 AM   #102
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,271
Local Time: 07:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht

What this means is that there is always a chance no matter how small when it comes to the issue of Hetero immediate family members getting married.
Yeah, my cousin without a uterus might magically conceive someday.

You're talking about such insignificant statistical improbabilities here, honestly.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 06-12-2006, 12:17 AM   #103
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,640
Local Time: 06:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by toscano


I can live with myself. Thanks for caring about my grandkids-to-be.
I'm glad you can. And believe me there were many during segregation that used the same excuse you just did to hide their racism.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-12-2006, 12:21 AM   #104
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:26 AM
Quote:
Wouldn't it be better to settle the entire issue as opposed to avoiding the discussion. Its obvious that such relationships exist despite the fact that few people know of them. Not so different from the way it was decades ago with Gay people.
No it really isn't, heterosexual sex is an evolutionary mechanism to encourage variation in a species, we are biologically hard wired to not engage in incest. Homosexuality is also a biological phenomena perhaps to do with protecting genetic material down the generations, a gay uncle may prove adventageous in providing for offspring and will share 25% genetic material with his neice or nephew. Incest however does not encourage variation or the survival of the genetic information, the similarity between immediate family members leads not only to inviable offspring (but one problem) but weakened immune systems and potential birth defects, there is some argument that in extreme stresses the increased rate of mutation by forced incest may help a species to survive but in general it is a disadvantage and is not practiced.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-12-2006, 12:22 AM   #105
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,331
Local Time: 04:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by toscano
Try: "It was illegal, and while not fair to that very small part of society, I had neither the energy or time to spare on fighting the cause for that segment of the population ...."


You must be so proud when you look in the mirror. I'm glad the men in the early part of the last century didn't all think this way when women were trying to wrestle to right to vote from men like you.
__________________

__________________
martha 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 07:26 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