can we please, please call this argument settled?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
BonoVoxSupastar said:

Step out of your box sometime and see how other people live.


this is where, in my opinion, most socially conservative views come from.

generally speaking, there's an assumed right way and a wrong way. and this makes me insane. there is no one way to be human, to be a father, to be a lover, to be a U2 fan. we all create our own meanings, our own definitions ... there is nothing more dangerous than inherited "wisdom."
 
It seems some people will never deem the issue settled, Irvine, no matter how many LOGICAL arguments are presented (and decisions made by state supreme courts, among others) regarding the legal rights for same sex marriages, while there have been ZERO logical arguments made against such a right being legalized.

What will it take?

Time (and leadership), i think, especially in the States.
 
Last edited:
nathan1977 said:


I think it is critical that children be given the best place possible to live, develop and grow. You yourself admit that a healthy marriage is "probably" the ideal place to raise children. What happened to promoting the ideal, instead of settling for something less than that?


Won't somebody please stop thinking of the chlidren? :rolleyes:


I love how children and reproduction are all these people have for their points.


Oh, and the Bible. Which, like I just said, shouldn't have anything to do with secular laws in a secular country.
 
I guess we can assume since no one's come to defend these last few ridiculous posts that this debate is over.

Now if we could just get the truth into the White House...
 
heres the thing that I dont understand.
I know this is going to make me a biggot and a racist or whatever but here goes
If two men or two women want to be together then I really have nothing to say about that. Its a sin just like any other sin we engage in during our lives. Hell, my mom is a lesbian and i still love her so Im not coming down on gays.
What my gripe is, is that I dont know why gays want to have a christian ordained thing like marriage made available to them if its against christian principles. How could a christian minister go ahead and marry two people if it goes against what he believes. Why should he be forced to do that, or risk being sued or whatever if he doesnt marry the couple?
If gays want to get married then do it with a justice of the peace or something, but dont try and force their opinions or beliefs on another person. Its the same as a christian trying to convince a gay that theyre wrong.
I dont know if Im making any sense......
But why would a gay who isnt a christian want to have a christian ceremony woven into their lives?
 
u2bonogirl said:

Its a sin just like any other sin we engage in during our lives.
You know this for sure? Well this has been debated at length in here and to be honest no one has shown me proof, but this is not the thread for it.

u2bonogirl said:

If gays want to get married then do it with a justice of the peace or something, but dont try and force their opinions or beliefs on another person. Its the same as a christian trying to convince a gay that theyre wrong.
I dont know if Im making any sense......

First of all they can't get married in a justice of peace. Secondly marriage is not only a Christian institution.
u2bonogirl said:

But why would a gay who isnt a christian want to have a christian ceremony woven into their lives?
What about homosexuals who are Christian?
 
u2bonogirl said:
If two men or two women want to be together then I really have nothing to say about that. Its a sin just like any other sin we engage in during our lives.

Like the sin of being heterosexual? I fucking hate this argument.

What my gripe is, is that I dont know why gays want to have a christian ordained thing like marriage made available to them if its against christian principles. How could a christian minister go ahead and marry two people if it goes against what he believes.

First off, no one is trying to force ministers to marry same-sex couples. They are not forced to in the European countries that have same-sex marriage, and they are not forced to in Canada. This argument, as far as I'm concerned, is moot from the start.

Secondly, there *are* Christian denominations that support same-sex marriage. There is the United Church of Christ in Canada and the U.S. The Episcopal Church in New England definitely does (although other regions may not agree). Unitarian Universalists, while not exclusively Christian (they are open to Christians and non-Christians alike, according to their very open theology), are overwhelmingly for same-sex marriage.

Additionally, some conservative Jews (their interpretation of the Talmud voids most of the Old Testament and supports the idea that sin must be a conscious choice; hence, something you can't choose like sexuality is a not a sin) and many reform Jews support it as well. This also does not include the various dissidents within established religions that have come out against same-sex marriage.

And, whether you know it or not, there are many who see no problem with the idea of gay Christians and gay marriage. Since we oh-so-technically speaking have "separation of church and state," I see no reason why same-sex marriage must be legally prohibited. This whole argument has been a religious argument, and religions that attempt to create a secular argument against it generally look like a bunch of stupid bigots.

Melon
 
u2bonogirl said:
heres the thing that I dont understand.
I know this is going to make me a biggot and a racist or whatever but here goes
If two men or two women want to be together then I really have nothing to say about that. Its a sin just like any other sin we engage in during our lives. Hell, my mom is a lesbian and i still love her so Im not coming down on gays.
What my gripe is, is that I dont know why gays want to have a christian ordained thing like marriage made available to them if its against christian principles. How could a christian minister go ahead and marry two people if it goes against what he believes. Why should he be forced to do that, or risk being sued or whatever if he doesnt marry the couple?
If gays want to get married then do it with a justice of the peace or something, but dont try and force their opinions or beliefs on another person. Its the same as a christian trying to convince a gay that theyre wrong.
I dont know if Im making any sense......
But why would a gay who isnt a christian want to have a christian ceremony woven into their lives?

:rolleyes: I'm not going to even bother for Melon and BVS have already said it all.
 
I really do feel like a minority in here. I dont particularly like being bashed on for having different beliefs than most others around this part of the forum. I know that nobody here is open to other peoples opinions if they dont match up with their own, thats just a fact.
People come in here to argue for what they believe and shun the rest.
:shrug:
I have no problem with homosexuals in the church. In fact, I would rather see them in church (if they want to be that is) than looking in from the outside and learning to hate christians. Its the other way around as well. If they were incorporated into churches more then children would probably be less afraid of them and less likely to hate.......i think im done talking now
 
u2bonogirl said:
I really do feel like a minority in here. I dont particularly like being bashed on for having different beliefs than most others around this part of the forum. I know that nobody here is open to other peoples opinions if they dont match up with their own, thats just a fact.
People come in here to argue for what they believe and shun the rest.
:shrug:
I have no problem with homosexuals in the church. In fact, I would rather see them in church (if they want to be that is) than looking in from the outside and learning to hate christians. Its the other way around as well. If they were incorporated into churches more then children would probably be less afraid of them and less likely to hate.......i think im done talking now

Well, I'll put it this way. When you come in and one of your first sentences asserts that being gay is automatically a sin like stealing candy, you're not going to win bonus points.

But I do appreciate your comments. I lament that this subject is as polarizing at it is, so fuses are short all around. It's nothing personal, and all that matters, really, is how you treat people outside of this forum. I'm very nice to the conservative and fundamentalist Christians I meet in the real world. I like individuals. It's people I hate.

Melon
 
it's interesting ... while this is a very personal topic for me, i need to stress that what is being bandied about here are IDEAS and ARGUMENTS. we do not bash people, we do not insult people, we do not call people stupid. there are no people in FYM, we only have made-up names and posited arguments that are often typed out late at night, or at work, or whatever. people need to stop taking comments personally and go after the argument -- if you can't stand to have an argument or opinion challenged, then you are running a risk when you post something in a thread about a heated topic. but i want arguments, i want disagreements, i want to be challenged -- because it makes me think.

i also think it's true, though, that when discussing homosexuality, you are getting at something that's at the very core of how someone lives their life. to even have an "opinion" or "belief" on homosexuality misses the point in the eyes of a gay person -- can you have an "opinion" or "belief" on heterosexuality?

so ... anyway, just some thoughts. though i never got the chance to respond, i did appreciate Speedracer mixing things up a bit, no matter how much i disagreed with him.

in fact, my original post in this thread was intended to be provocative and inflammatory -- i did want to start another debate after the CA court ruling. obviously, the issue is not settled, even though i personally think it should be (and, it actually is legally ... it will just take time for it to be settled culturally).
 
Last edited:
and just one more thing ... there's a difference between having an opinion and an argument. we have opinions on ice cream flavors, we can have arguments about gay marriage.

it drives me crazy when someone says something about homosexuality being a sin, or whatever (and not that this has happened in this particular thread, i mean this in general) and when that statement is challenged, the response is "you're attacking me for my beliefs/opinions!"

well, yes. i'm not attacking your preference for chocolate; i'm attacking the (in my view) irrational position that homosexuality is a sin, or whatever.

sorry. just wanted to get all that off my chest.
 
Irvine511 said:
and just one more thing ... there's a difference between having an opinion and an argument. we have opinions on ice cream flavors, we can have arguments about gay marriage.

it drives me crazy when someone says something about homosexuality being a sin, or whatever (and not that this has happened in this particular thread, i mean this in general) and when that statement is challenged, the response is "you're attacking me for my beliefs/opinions!"

well, yes. i'm not attacking your preference for chocolate; i'm attacking the (in my view) irrational position that homosexuality is a sin, or whatever.

sorry. just wanted to get all that off my chest.

Irvine,
You're probably one of the most astute intellectually on this board. It's why I post in FYM every once in a while, though usually far less than I'd like since most of the posts aren't as polite or intellectually rigorous as yours. There are a lot of attacks that take place, and part of the reason for my silence since posting is because I didn't appreciate feeling arbitrarily slammed.

It's hard to know how to post here, especially when there are people who seem quite interested in making arbitrary judgment calls about someone else, which usually serves no purpose other than to justify their own anger or position or whatever. (Everyone who slammed my thoughts about adoption assumed I was arrogant -- which is a shame, since my sister, my cousin, my aunt, and several close friends have struggled with not being able to conceive, and for them the adoption process -- while ultimately rewarding -- has been one not without pain. I have wept with them and listened to them articulate how THEY feel. My wife and I also thought we couldn't conceive for a time. But people were happy instead to start throwing around accusatory language and labels like "bigot," at which point I checked out.)

I knew that posting the Globe article was potentially inflammatory, given the goodwill extended for the previous three pages to the whole topic of gay marriage, but the (wildly liberal) school I graduated from at least made overtures towards the importance of dialogue -- and the Globe article seemed pertinent, though certainly coming from the opposing position. Everyone has ideologies and values, and usually they come from deep-seated places, no matter who you are -- and it's a mistake to just write them off. (I'm not saying you did -- you at least responded to the article -- but others were a bit more mean-spirited.)

And I do think it's possible to have an argument without resorting to attacks...another reason why I chose not to post anymore (and why I'm not using this post to reassert more views).

Not sure if I'll post again in FYM. While I enjoy responding to your posts and a few others, the majority of them seem not to be worth it...which might just be my own bad, in the end, but it is what it is. I'll keep reading your blog though -- always good stuff there.

Peace.
 
Last edited:
Nathan: i'm sorry you feel that way.

while we certainly don't agree on this issue, i do appreciate the care with which you craft your arguments -- you write beautifully. i also wanted to take the time to respond as in-depth as i could (though you could tell that i was steamed up a bit) because i respected the thought and rigor behind the argument. i may disagree, but there's craft and thought and logic. and i respect that -- just as i respect most posts by NBC because, while i feel like i live on a different planet, there's always a strong, sound argument in his posts. i really hope you don't leave, and that you're able to see past words like "bigot" because i'm sure they don't apply to you, just to a statement.

and i'm flattered you enjoy my blog. it's more therapy than anything for me, and i try to keep it kind of vague, and i'm not really as depressed as i might come across! just the place where i try to work things out.
 
i think it would do us all well to re-read Nathan's previous post, and then compare it to this article i found that could probably, and rightly, be attacked as bigoted. there's a world of difference between Nathan, and this fucking guy ...



The Basic Idea of Marriage Is to Raise Kids

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

By John Gibson

A word about gay marriage: As you might have heard, a judge in San Francisco has ruled that it is unconstitutional for the state of California to ban gay marriage (search). That means all those same sex couples who were married by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom can go back to thinking they are married.

Now, just to be clear on this, those same sex couples are something, but I am quite sure it is not married.

Why? Because marriage is something men and women do. They don't always do it well — you only have to look at the divorce rate, or the number of pregnant women killed by their spouse to realize that. But, nonetheless, for all its imperfections, for all the gory fun of divorce court, it is something that men and women do.

Why is it just men and women? Because since history has been recorded, chipped in stone, inked onto papyrus, scribed into great books or printed on your ink jet, the basic idea behind marriage has been to set up a system for the raising of kids.

The first knuckle-dragging people recognized they didn't want to raise their kids like the monkeys, so they set up another system.

Gays can't have kids — other than going to the abandoned kids store and getting one or two, or borrowing sperm from someone with more sperm than brains — so by definition they're out of the marriage game.

In theory, so would couples who get married in their eighties. Chances are good that no kids come out of that holy union. But it is at least theoretically possible. Not so with gays.

Now, gay couples should have certain rights of marriage — inheritance, insurance, visitation — all that lawyerly stuff.

But they should take the advice of a friend of mine who said he'd defend gays against any form of discrimination, but they had to pick a new word — marriage is taken.

Now what about this ruling that gay marriage is legal from the judge in San Francisco?

Well what about it? He's a judge in San Francisco — of course he says gay marriage is constitutional. You think he could live there if he said otherwise?

As they say in Jersey: "Fuhgedaboutit!"

That's My Word.

Watch John Gibson weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on "The Big Story" and send your comments to: myword@foxnews.com
 
and my straight girlfriend, Wonkette, had a priceless response to Mr. Gibson, so i'll post that and not say anything else, because i couldn't say it any better:



Wait, there's an "abandoned kids store"? We love how that makes adoption sound like you're buying things that fell off the back of a truck. Only losers get abandoned kids. They're gross. What you want are the fresh, free-range kids they sell at Whole Foods.

As for "more sperm than brains," well, that's technically true of all men.

Really. Guys with the opposite problem have to go to the abandoned kids store.
 
Nathan, I may have come off a little mean spirited but please go back and read your posts. You say things like "is pointless" and "something that can't be denied" your language drips of arrogance. You accuse others of making judgement calls upon others but that's exactly what each and everyone of your posts did.
 
Irvine511 said:
Why is it just men and women? Because since history has been recorded, chipped in stone, inked onto papyrus, scribed into great books or printed on your ink jet, the basic idea behind marriage has been to set up a system for the raising of kids.

Well, as pointed out here, there's straight people who have no desire to have children/can't have children, so I'm curious as to what he says about them?

Originally posted by Irvine511
Gays can't have kids — other than going to the abandoned kids store and getting one or two, or borrowing sperm from someone with more sperm than brains — so by definition they're out of the marriage game.

Straight couples have done all of those things, too. His point being?

And again I ask the question that begs to be asked: Why do so many people feel it's their place to care so much who does and doesn't/can and can't have children? That's something each individual couple should decide on their own, not society as a whole. I personally wouldn't mind having children someday, but if another couple wishes not to, know what? I don't really care. That's their decision to make, not mine. If someone could possibly give a valid reason for why people care so much about this, I'd love to hear it, 'cause I fail to see exactly why society insists on getting into that aspect of people's lives.

Originally posted by Irvine511
Now, gay couples should have certain rights of marriage — inheritance, insurance, visitation — all that lawyerly stuff.

But they should take the advice of a friend of mine who said he'd defend gays against any form of discrimination, but they had to pick a new word — marriage is taken.

:scratch:...I don't recall ever hearing that anyone owned certain words nowadays...

Besides that, he's missing the point-so long as gay couples have their relationships called something entirely different, even if people insist they should still get the same benefits, in most places, they won't. Most people will see them as two different things, and will treat them as such.

Angela
 
Moonlit_Angel said:


Besides that, he's missing the point-so long as gay couples have their relationships called something entirely different, even if people insist they should still get the same benefits, in most places, they won't. Most people will see them as two different things, and will treat them as such.

Angela

A probably true, unfortunate but good[as in nessescary] to point out- point, moonlit.
 
Romney Tells Off-Color Jokes at Roast


Mar 20, 4:38 PM (ET)

BOSTON (AP) - Gov. Mitt Romney traded off-color barbs with fellow politicians at a roast Sunday, even throwing his Mormon heritage into a one-liner about gay marriage, which he opposes.

"I have to admit that as a Mormon, I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman ... and a woman and a woman," he said.

The legalization of gay marriage here was among the fodder for the popular St. Patrick's Day breakfast in South Boston. Romney's out-of-state travels and rumored 2008 presidential aspirations also provided gags.
 
deep said:


"I have to admit that as a Mormon, I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman ... and a woman and a woman," he said.



:banghead:

i can't fucking stand this shit.

while i'm sure it was a joke, for a straight man to speak about the evils of homosexuality and the threat to marriage and the very basis of civilization, and THEN to turn around, even in jest, and make jokes about how really fucking hot two chicks getting it on is ... well, i just suppose it goes to show that opposition to gay marriage really is rooted in blatant homophobia and fear and insecurity.

part of me is angry, part of me would love to see a really buff gay man break poor Mitt's nose, and part of me would love to say to Mitt, "gosh, you're so straight! look at you! straight, straight, straight! gosh, i bet you just LOOOOOOOVE pussy, don't you! you're so straight! you're such a man! oh, tell us again Mitt, tell us how much you love women! tell us that you measure your own sexuality and prowess by the depth of your disgust at the thought of two homos fudge-packing -- no, no, Mitt ... push those disturbingly steamy thoughts you keep having of Stone Cold Steve Austin bending you over a stool in a Berlin leather bar waaaaay back down deep into your psyche -- and compare that to the elation and exhileration you feel when you see two hot chicks getting it on.

because, really, all lesbians are hot. and they have perfect bodies. and they want you to join in.

really.

believe Mitt; believe the fantasies your porn is selling you.

and stop fantasizing about mud wrestling with The Rock.

fucking hypocrite.


:mad:
 
No way would I ever defend a joke like that if it is anti-gay in any way, but the St Patrick's Day breakfast is notorious for that kind of crap- a bunch of politicians thinking they're funny. They have people write the speeches and jokes for them and they're all trying to outdo each other

I think it might be a polygamy joke too, I don't know

As I've said before, I don't like Romney
 
Back
Top Bottom