Writing an op/ed on Gay Marriage - Page 2 - 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 02-24-2005, 02:56 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 05:51 PM
y'all are giving me lots of great ideas, thanks so much! it'll be a lot easier to write it. and trust me i will post it when i do write it.
__________________

__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 03:02 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:51 AM
I have made an argument before about "God given free will" ~ if somebody is gay and you think that it is a matter of choice then they are simply using that "God given free will".

The problem isn't logic ~ it is theology. The problem with most arguments against gay marriage is that they are grounded in religious belief ~ now there are some decent cases to be made against gay marriage (undue benefits for gays that were designed to help families) but they fail because you can make the same argument against childless couples.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 03:38 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 05:51 PM
What I have to say to people who believe homosexuality is a choice, I ask them when they chose to be straight.
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 04:11 PM   #19
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
I have made an argument before about "God given free will" ~ if somebody is gay and you think that it is a matter of choice then they are simply using that "God given free will".

The problem isn't logic ~ it is theology. The problem with most arguments against gay marriage is that they are grounded in religious belief ~ now there are some decent cases to be made against gay marriage (undue benefits for gays that were designed to help families) but they fail because you can make the same argument against childless couples.

and the argument fails because gay people can create families via adoption, artificial insemination, children from a previous marriage, or members of the extended family who now live with the gay couple.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 05:35 PM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2democrat
What I have to say to people who believe homosexuality is a choice, I ask them when they chose to be straight.
when i saw your picture
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 05:37 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:51 AM
this may not be what you are looking for

but life would be simpler if we all ended up this


Quote:
To Fix Gay Dilemma, Government Should Quit the Marriage Business
By Alan M. Dershowitz

The decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declaring that gays have a constitutional right to marry could become a powerful wedge issue in American politics. There is, however, a way to avoid that.
Alan M. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard University.

Those who oppose gay marriage believe deeply that marriage is sacreda divine, a blessed sacrament between man and woman as ordained in the Bible. If they are right, then the entire concept of marriage has no place in our civil society, which recognizes the separation between the sacred and the secular, between church and state.

The state is, of course, concerned with the secular rights and responsibilities that are currently associated with the sacrament of marriage: the financial consequences of divorce, the custody of children, Social Security and hospital benefits, etc.

The solution is to unlink the religious institution of marriage — as distinguished from the secular institution of civil union — from the state. Under this proposal, any couple could register for civil union, recognized by the state, with all its rights and responsibilities.

Religious couples could then go to the church, synagogue, mosque or other sacred institution of their choice in order to be married. These religious institutions would have total decision-making authority over which marriages to recognize. Catholic churches would not recognize gay marriages. Orthodox Jewish synagogues would not recognize a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew who did not wish to convert to Judaism. And those religious institutions that chose to recognize gay marriages could do so. It would be entirely a religious decision beyond the scope of the state.

Under this new arrangement, marriage would remain a sacrament, as ordained by the Bible and as interpreted by each individual church. No secular consequences would flow from marriage, only from civil union.

In this way, gay couples would win exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples in relationship to the state. They would still have to persuade individual churches of their point of view, but that is not the concern of the secular state.

Not only would this solution be good for gays and for those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds, it would also strengthen the wall of separation between church and state by placing a sacred institution entirely in the hands of the church while placing a secular institution under state control.

Although this proposal may sound radical, it does not differ fundamentally — except for labels — from the situation that exists in many states today. Throughout the United States, couples have the option of being married civilly by going to town halls or to a justice of the peace and simply signing a marriage certificate. They also have the option of going to a church, synagogue or mosque and being married in a religious ceremony. So most Americans already have the choice between a sacrament and a secular agreement ratified by the state.

All that would be different would be the name we give the secular agreement. The word "marriage" would be reserved for those who chose the religious sacrament.

Though some traditionalists would be certain to balk at an explicit division between marriage and civil union, a majority of Americans already agree that gay couples should be allowed to join in secular unions with the rights and responsibilities that generally accompany marriage.

So let each couple decide whether they want to receive the sacrament of marriage or the secular status of civil union. And let the state get out of the business of determining who should receive holy sacraments.

3 December 2003

Copyright © 2003 Los Angeles Times
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 05:40 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:51 AM
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 05:49 PM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 01:51 PM
Re: Writing an op/ed on Gay Marriage

Quote:
Originally posted by U2democrat


If the goal is to protect marriage, then do something about divorce, don't limit marriages.


Ok those are my main arguments for now. Any suggestions and/or articles you know of are much welcome.
There have been some great arguments offered here, and I don't really have anything so special to offer. However, (you just knew that was coming, didn't you?) I would leave out any suggestion to restrict divorces as a way to "protect" marriage. I mean, isn't restricting divorce, similar to restricting marriages? Shouldn't people who find they are incompatible be able to divorce, without having to prove they are the "correct" kind of miserable to be allowed a divorce?

Sadly, I know of many marriages where the divorce was the best thing about the marriage.
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 06:34 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 10:51 AM
Re: Re: Writing an op/ed on Gay Marriage

Quote:
Originally posted by indra


There have been some great arguments offered here, and I don't really have anything so special to offer. However, (you just knew that was coming, didn't you?) I would leave out any suggestion to restrict divorces as a way to "protect" marriage. I mean, isn't restricting divorce, similar to restricting marriages? Shouldn't people who find they are incompatible be able to divorce, without having to prove they are the "correct" kind of miserable to be allowed a divorce?

Sadly, I know of many marriages where the divorce was the best thing about the marriage.
I can't speak for U2Democrat but I'm guessing her suggestion was to prove a point that would hit home for a lot of people, not to seriously propose restricting divorce. What's more damaging to the "sanctity" of marriage than the divorce rate in this country?
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 06:36 PM   #25
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 11:51 AM
How about just...duh they're human.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 06:40 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 05:51 PM
Re: Re: Re: Writing an op/ed on Gay Marriage

Quote:
Originally posted by joyfulgirl


I can't speak for U2Democrat but I'm guessing her suggestion was to prove a point that would hit home for a lot of people, not to seriously propose restricting divorce. What's more damaging to the "sanctity" of marriage than the divorce rate in this country?
you can be my spokesperson anytime

yes that's what i was implying.
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 06:41 PM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 05:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


when i saw your picture


how flattering!
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 02-24-2005, 07:13 PM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
I have made an argument before about "God given free will" ~ if somebody is gay and you think that it is a matter of choice then they are simply using that "God given free will".
I HATE it when fellow Christians don't know what the shit they're talking about and give everyone else a bad name. "Free will" in the Protestant/Calvinist sense of the term doesn't apply to choices like sexual preference (and I don't personally think this is a consciouse "choice" anyway). Free will has to do with spirituality/theology and whether or not one devotes his or her life to Christ. Today I chose to wear jeans and a blue hoodie - but this is NOT an example of free will, it's just a regular old choice. Whoever is giving you some lame ass excuse of "free will" needs to first go back to theology class and learn the history and true meaning behind that concept.

/religious rant

I like what joyfulgirl said about being able to marry whoever you want for whatever reason...unless it's someone of the same sex.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 01:19 AM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,255
Local Time: 11:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic
I like what joyfulgirl said about being able to marry whoever you want for whatever reason...unless it's someone of the same sex.
As did I...excellent point, never considered that one before * to joyfulgirl*.

There's tons of great things in here to use . Good luck on your report, U2democrat...and yes, I, too, would love to see it when you're done .

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 06:16 AM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 10:51 AM
Mary Kay Letourneau, the teacher who served time in prison for having sex with an underrage student, can and plans to marry that same student now that he's of age. She can marry the boy she raped when she was 34 and he was 13. But two consenting adults of the same sex who love each other cannot marry.
__________________

__________________
joyfulgirl 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 12:51 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