Writing an op/ed on Gay Marriage - Page 3 - 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 02-25-2005, 06:40 AM   #31
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 12:20 AM
It's always been beyond my entire realm of understanding how someone can oppose it, and now with this thread, as succinct and as accurate as it can possibly get, I'd like to see someone even try. And this is not a challenge for anyone to do so...Great thread.
__________________

__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 06:43 AM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 08:20 AM
here where I live, marriage is not restricted to a man and a woman...but between a man and women. yep, that's right. polygamy is alive and well and legal. So it's ok to have one many plus four women, but one man plus one man...

not that that has anything to do with the States, but as I think of it, in Christianity, the early Bible days were cool with polygamy (remember Jacob?) What does that have to say about the so-called sanctity of marriage?
__________________

__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 07:38 AM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:20 AM
I am not sure if this is a religious school or a public one.

My 2 cents worth.

I believe there is a stereotypical view of homosexual relationships. It saddens me to no end, because I am witness to a relationship that is approaching 30 years. I am talking about the fact that there is a stereotype of homosexuals being promiscuous, and never developing loving, long lasting, relationships. What we witness in young adolescents, learning, experimenting and figuring out sexuality is not considered promisuous, because we witness heterosexuals calm down, and settle down, and move towards what we consider long term-relationships.

I do not think the sterotype disappears fro the homosexual, because we are in new and uncharted territory for society. The stigma up until the last 30-40 years was that there was something mentally wrong. We know this not to be true. There are other barriers that the homosexual community have had to work hard to overcome, so we have not yet reached a period, where healthy loving relationships have had the chance to be witnessed by society as a whole.

When you get right down to it, there is absolutely nothing about marriage that is dependant on a penis and a vagina. Actually, they seem to be the pieces of equiptment that get most of us into trouble when we do not control them.

SO I would say to you, focus on what a marriage is. What is a marriage? What does it mean to be married? Because there is absolutely nothing that a marriage is about that requires a penis or a vagina.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 07:43 AM   #34
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
if i were you, i'd focus on the denial of basic rights -- like those 1,049 tax cuts -- on the basis of an involuntary, inchangable human characteristic that does not harm anyone.
As I read this thread, this seems to be the most concrete and compelling argument. Government goes well beyond sanctioning marriage to areas of financial impact and defining obligations and liabilities based on marital status.

It would be hard to show that the tax cuts and other laws, rules and regulations that are triggered by marital status have anything to do with the gender of the married couple. As such, there is no rational basis for the government's failure to recognize such relationships (be it marriage or civil union).
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 10:27 AM   #35
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 08:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I am not sure if this is a religious school or a public one.

My 2 cents worth.

I believe there is a stereotypical view of homosexual relationships. It saddens me to no end, because I am witness to a relationship that is approaching 30 years. I am talking about the fact that there is a stereotype of homosexuals being promiscuous, and never developing loving, long lasting, relationships. What we witness in young adolescents, learning, experimenting and figuring out sexuality is not considered promisuous, because we witness heterosexuals calm down, and settle down, and move towards what we consider long term-relationships.

bra-VO.

might this stereotype, which has some basis in reality, come from the fact that we don't allow homosexuals the legal and social tools from which to create a loving, long-lasting, monogamous relationship?

seems thuddingly obvious to me.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 10:40 AM   #36
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: 19,271
Local Time: 07:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
bra-VO.

might this stereotype, which has some basis in reality, come from the fact that we don't allow homosexuals the legal and social tools from which to create a loving, long-lasting, monogamous relationship?

seems thuddingly obvious to me.
Makes sense to me. And I'll second that bravo-couldn't agree more with your post, Dread.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 11:00 AM   #37
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,498
Local Time: 08:20 AM
you know, sometimes you can't make a loving, lasting, monogamous relationship on your own.

you need help from society, and, yes, even the government.

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 12:21 PM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:20 AM
How the hell is gay marriage ever going to be accepted when, a girl cannot have her photo in the yearbook because she wore a tux?

We are so far away!
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 12:41 PM   #39
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: 19,271
Local Time: 07:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
How the hell is gay marriage ever going to be accepted when, a girl cannot have her photo in the yearbook because she wore a tux?
Are you serious?

Holy crud, that's lame.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
We are so far away!
No kidding...

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-28-2005, 12:16 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,430
Local Time: 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


It would be hard to show that the tax cuts and other laws, rules and regulations that are triggered by marital status have anything to do with the gender of the married couple. As such, there is no rational basis for the government's failure to recognize such relationships (be it marriage or civil union).
Actually, a married couple is still taxed higher than single people are. REAL tax deductions come with children and homeownership.

My wife and I were depressed when we got married to learn that we'd each be at a lower tax bracket if single than by getting married.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 02-28-2005, 03:12 PM   #41
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
How the hell is gay marriage ever going to be accepted when, a girl cannot have her photo in the yearbook because she wore a tux?
How is that a homosexual issue?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-28-2005, 03:34 PM   #42
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 07:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


How is that a homosexual issue?
Take a look for yourself:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._02/005731.php
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-28-2005, 04:27 PM   #43
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:20 AM
I wonder if the principle knew the girl's sexual orientation based on the photo...
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-28-2005, 04:49 PM   #44
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,694
Local Time: 07:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
I wonder if the principle knew the girl's sexual orientation based on the photo...
Does that even matter? Why would you reject the photo in the first place?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-28-2005, 10:57 PM   #45
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 09:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
I wonder if the principle knew the girl's sexual orientation based on the photo...
I imagine it was known. Even if it wasn't, the insistance on rigid gender roles as shown by pulling the photo because she was wearing boy's clothes is disturbing to me.
__________________

__________________
indra 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 08:20 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