Why Is Gay Marriage Wrong? - Page 12 - 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 04-15-2008, 11:05 AM   #166
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 08:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
[B]Violence on TV, sex on TV, porn on the internet, marijuana, swearing, blasphemy, interracial sex, hate speech, sedition laws, sodomy laws etc.

not all, but in several of these examples i can find reasons that people would outlaw them beyond the ick factor. violence on TV may lead to violence in society, sex on TV may lead to underaged sex, marijuana can be a gateway drug, etc.

i think it's more complex than just the ick factor.

but most of the media censoring has much to do with ratings as with anything else. HBO has lots of violence, nudity, and even ample buttfuckery. it's the broad reach of network TV that censors itself to such a degree, and most of that is because the offense some might take would result in the loss of revenue.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 11:05 AM   #167
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:26 AM
I shouldn't need to point out that I have no issue with the gays in any way shape or form.

I think that the ick factor can be motivation enough for some people, not all homophobia can be reduced to religion, it follows that it is possible if not probably for some opposition to gay marriage to be driven by secular reasons.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 11:06 AM   #168
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: 05:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
swearing,
I first read this as "sweating" and was more than willing to outlaw it.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 11:13 AM   #169
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 07:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Violence on TV, sex on TV, porn on the internet, marijuana, swearing, blasphemy, interracial sex, hate speech, sedition laws, sodomy laws etc.
Some of these no longer exists because the courts started to realize they couldn't stand. Violence, swearing and sex on tv isn't banned, only regulated for certain stations. Marijuana has many other agurments against it other than offensive, they may not be strong ones, but they exist.

Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer

It may not be right, it may be homophobic but there can be a completely secular and self-interested reason to not allow gay marriage.
But when asked if there is a secular argument, it's assumed that it is at least strong enough to stand on it's own, this one doesn't.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 11:28 AM   #170
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:26 AM
Maybe not in the USA; but that is conditional. If there was a state that demanded a strict moral code in the name of national pride and the country was entirely atheistic and that code outlawed homosexuality that law would be secular.

I just don't think that it is fair to say that the religious have a monopoly over homophobia or that one can say gay marriage has a lot of positive arguments in secular debate and then disqualify mere possibility that a secular argument against it can exist.

The arguments in favour in the secular world are so strong that I don't think anybody needs to silence dissent in that fashion.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 11:47 AM   #171
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 08:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
I shouldn't need to point out that I have no issue with the gays in any way shape or form.

I think that the ick factor can be motivation enough for some people, not all homophobia can be reduced to religion, it follows that it is possible if not probably for some opposition to gay marriage to be driven by secular reasons.


i think the "ick" factor is what's behind pretty much all homophobia, and that "ick" comes from misogyny. it's all pretty secular, when it comes down to it, all religion does is give it a patina of respectability.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 12:29 PM   #172
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 02:26 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
polygamy is expressly not legal. if you think it should be, then make the argument on those grounds, don't say that a poly relationship is an immutable part of being bisexual because i know many bisexuals who would disagree with you.
Exactly.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 12:32 PM   #173
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 07:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




i think the "ick" factor is what's behind pretty much all homophobia, and that "ick" comes from misogyny. it's all pretty secular, when it comes down to it, all religion does is give it a patina of respectability.
It is interesting how lesbians never get brought up in the debate, it's always gay men, even in religious discussions.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:31 PM   #174
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 08:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
sodomy is most certainly not illegal
Is that so, in every state now? I thought there were a few holding on for dear life

So let me get this straight, pardon the pun - you would assert that to be able to marry a man is an immutable part of being gay? That's absolutely as ridiculous as (what you believe to be) my assertion that poly marriage is an immutable part of being bisexual, and you know it.

(pardon graphic descriptions below, but I think we need to put this in a purely sexual context for a second)

What you are doing here is called splitting hairs. You're saying to the bisexual who wishes to be committed (and, for sake of context, sexually exclusive) to both of their partners 'hey bisexual girl, you have to make a choice, marry the guy, hell he can give you oral sex and well maybe it's not the same but hell, make that sacrifice' or 'hey bisexual guy, y'know, you have to make a choice - so every other Sunday, have the missus strap on a big rubber thing and ride you, it's not the same, I know, but you can make do'. That's basically what it amounts to, UNLESS you invite someone outside the relationship in, isn't it? And what do we do when the two of you fall in love with him, he doesn't want to go home and neither do you want him to, and y'all want to live happily ever after, committed / exclusive, etc etc?

Tell you what: I know two different gay guys who don't even have gay sex, they'd rather remain single/chaste/whatever. I know other gay guys who don't feel any special desire to be married to anyone. So I'm going to conclude that since not every single last gay has this burning genetic need to be "married" to the object of his desire, you don't need it either and it's not an "immutable part of your orientation". Therefore, I rule that you don't get to have gay marriage. You DO have a choice, you know. You can marry a woman, and still be gay. Gay guys can have great relationships with real meaningful emotional connection with women, of course they can, cmon! Society will love you, you won't be "illegal", and when you feel that hankering, well I'm sure the missus will oblige and give you a good ride or let you invite a boy toy in for the night, won't she?

How's that sound?
__________________
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:42 PM   #175
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: 05:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique


How's that sound?
Bitter. Confused. Arrogant. Shit-stirring.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:43 PM   #176
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 08:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by me

Name one perfectly valid way in which any homosexual marriage has any negative effect on your marriage.
Did you come up with one yet diamond?
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:47 PM   #177
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 08:26 PM
Condensed version, this is what it boils down to for me.

The traditional and currently legal (in most states / countries) definition of marriage is a matrimonial union of a man and a woman.

You believe that as a gay person you believe that the definition should be expanded to give you the right to marry your partner of like orientation. I tend to agree.

I believe that the definition should further be expanded to allow bisexual people to marry my partners of like orientation. You don't seem to agree.

I think you're hypocritical, and that's basically what my argument amounts to.
__________________
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:48 PM   #178
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: 05:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique
to both of their partners
Are the partners just there to satisfy the bisexual person who owns them? Do they have other partners to met their needs? Is the female partner strictly lesbian? Is the male partner strictly straight? Are they happy with their secondary, split roles in this "relationship"?

Denying gay men and lesbians the right to marry because you want a permanent threesome is indeed "splitting hairs." You can advocate for the kinds of relationships you want, but it's disingenuous to deny gay and lesbian couples the right to marry because you can't marry two people.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:49 PM   #179
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 08:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Bitter. Confused. Arrogant. Shit-stirring.
I know, huh? Those gays and trannies and bisexuals and all of them, they should shut the hell up and stop causing trouble for us straight folk. God why can't they just be normal?

__________________
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 01:50 PM   #180
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: 05:26 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique


I know, huh? Those gays and trannies and bisexuals and all of them, they should shut the hell up and stop causing trouble for us straight folk. God why can't they just be normal?

Nice assumptions for a newbie who has no idea who's who here and what we've been fighting to change.

Good job.
__________________

__________________
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 08:26 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