equality blooms with spring - Page 46 - 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 11-14-2009, 11:47 AM   #901
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 04:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Do you feel it is more honorable to have an opinion based on conscience or one based on politics?
Conscience, which is why I know that eventually gays and lesbians will be treated like full citizens. Your conscience tells you that it's ok that they're not.



Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
As of this moment, gay marriage is not a Constitution right.
Is straight marriage? Can my marriage be nullified by a majority vote in my state?


Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Many believe they already do have full Constitution rights...
And they're fooling themselves, with their conscience somehow clear.


The Fourteenth Amendment:
Quote:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Law-abiding and taxpaying gays and lesbians are denied the full rights and protections of the US Constitution. They don't get the same rights and protections I do as a straight married woman. That's ok with your honorable conscience? Is that what you're "holding the line" for? Is that what you'll be telling your gay or lesbian grandchild?
__________________

martha is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 12:10 PM   #902
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post

that's far milder than what the church is threatening to do.
The Catholic Church is not making a threat - they are saying that under this new law they will be prohibited from obtaing a certificate to receive this money because of their current, and long standing religious views on homosexuality.

The Catholic charity work will continue.
__________________

AEON is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 12:20 PM   #903
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post

Law-abiding and taxpaying gays and lesbians are denied the full rights and protections of the US Constitution. They don't get the same rights and protections I do as a straight married woman. That's ok with your honorable conscience? Is that what you're "holding the line" for? Is that what you'll be telling your gay or lesbian grandchild?
Again, I simply agree with Obama and Clinton that gay marriage is not a marriage because a marriage is between a man and a woman. There can be no protection of something that does not even exist.

If you accept the definition that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman (as I do - along with these Democratic heroes), then that automatically excludes any other possible combination.
AEON is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 12:42 PM   #904
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,900
Local Time: 08:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Do you feel it is more honorable to have an opinion based on conscience or one based on politics?
My conscience, which is why I cannot justify denying rights that I enjoy to a entire group of people. I am no better than Irvine, and he is no better than I, so why do I have more rights than he does?
__________________

BoMac is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 12:45 PM   #905
Blue Crack Addict
 
daygloeyes2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: No Emily's Allowed
Posts: 26,571
Local Time: 07:33 AM
I vehemently disagree with Obama and Clinton's shared stance on gay marriage.
daygloeyes2 is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 12:50 PM   #906
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 07:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
I certainly agree.

I wonder what President Obama's grandchildren will think of him when they hear him say, "I believe a marriage is union between a man and a woman"

Will he be remembered as an old fashioned bigot? A backwards thinking conservative who is "fearful and intolerant"?
FDR and JFK are remembered for their rather cowardly records on civil rights, just as much as Truman and LBJ are remembered for their advances. So it is worth noting that people do take notice, and Obama's record on this front will be remembered for what it is, even if, like FDR and JFK (and Clinton, for that matter), he is remembered positively in other respects.
melon is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 12:57 PM   #907
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 07:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
The Catholic Church is not making a threat - they are saying that under this new law they will be prohibited from obtaing a certificate to receive this money because of their current, and long standing religious views on homosexuality.
Have government officials charged with enforcing this law concurred with this opinion, or is this the Church having their usual histrionic hissy fit when they don't get their way? After all, they "punished" people for suing them over the sex scandals by closing lots of churches. That'll show 'em for challenging their authority.
melon is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 12:59 PM   #908
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 07:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Many believe they already do have full Constitutional rights...
Then, by this logic, it appears that gay people have better constitutional rights in other countries, and that the U.S. is effectively backwards.
melon is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 01:03 PM   #909
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 07:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
if the church wishes to receive government money with which it then seeks to aid the poor, all the church has to do is to give all their employees the same benefits whether they are married to a person of the same gender or the opposite gender. that's it. is that really so awful? that they have to follow the rules?
The question this begs too is whether we would be okay with giving government money to religious organizations that would refuse to hire black people, according to their belief structures. Why are gay people an acceptable punching bag when it comes to government funding?
melon is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 01:05 PM   #910
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 04:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Again, I simply agree with Obama and Clinton that gay marriage is not a marriage because a marriage is between a man and a woman. There can be no protection of something that does not even exist.

If you accept the definition that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman (as I do - along with these Democratic heroes), then that automatically excludes any other possible combination.
You quoted me, then didn't even address the quote.
martha is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 01:07 PM   #911
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 04:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I would like to ask you to outline the negative effects that legalizing gay marriage has had in nations where it is legal today. How has Canadian, Dutch, Spanish etc. society suffered, tangibly or otherwise, from this legislative move?
Since AEON apparently has you on ignore, I'll take a stab at it.

I can only think of the reduced tax revenues from once-single people finally getting the married tax benefits.
martha is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 03:15 PM   #912
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 06:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
The question this begs too is whether we would be okay with giving government money to religious organizations that would refuse to hire black people, according to their belief structures. Why are gay people an acceptable punching bag when it comes to government funding?
Because black people are naturally born that way. Gay people are deviants leading a willingly sinful life, obviously.
Diemen is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 03:25 PM   #913
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Since AEON apparently has you on ignore....
Not at all - I just don't always have the time to answer every question. Sometimes the threads move pretty darn fast. I do my best with the time I have.

To answer the question - I don't think enough time has passed (a few years) to determine much of anything.
AEON is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 03:30 PM   #914
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
Have government officials charged with enforcing this law concurred with this opinion...
No, I don't think they have concurred. It seems their view is that Catholic Church is actively refusing to make the necessary changes to earn the certificate - and the Catholic Church believes the city is actively forcing them to change their stance on homosexuality by mandating the certificate.
AEON is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 03:34 PM   #915
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 04:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
To answer the question - I don't think enough time has passed (a few years) to determine much of anything.
How much time needs to pass before you will be able to determine something?
martha is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 03:38 PM   #916
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
FDR and JFK are remembered for their rather cowardly records on civil rights.
In grade school, I don't recall hearing anything negative about these two president's at all.

As a college student taking history - of all the knocks against FDR, I usually heard more about his handling of the Depression and the delayed entry into WWII. The negatives on JFK were Vietnam escalation and Bay of Pigs (and personal life).

I really have not read or heard too many negative comments about their civil rights track records. If such criticism is around - it doesn't seem to have made it to the top of the list.

And please correct me if I'm wrong - wasn't Clinton also seen as a civil rights president? Didn't people refer to him as the nation's "first black president?"
AEON is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 03:42 PM   #917
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 06:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Again, I simply agree with Obama and Clinton that gay marriage is not a marriage because a marriage is between a man and a woman. There can be no protection of something that does not even exist.

If you accept the definition that a marriage is a union between a man and a woman (as I do - along with these Democratic heroes), then that automatically excludes any other possible combination.
Previously you stated that marriage is the union of a man and woman, ordained by God. Does that mean that, in your opinion, civil marriages are not actual marriages? I'm sure you know that the government recognizes and gives full benefits and rights to marriages that are not officiated by clergy or ordained ministers. Heck, in California (and I'm sure several other states), you can have family members or friends deputized for a day in order to legally officiate your wedding. So it seems pretty clear that God does not have to enter the picture in order to legitimize a wedding, at least in the eyes of the government.

So if God doesn't enter the picture for government recognition and application of rights and benefits, why should gays not be allowed to gain those same rights and benefits, and even title? Does it really boil down to "well, that's not what the definition of marriage is?" Because I find that a truly baffling position to take, especially coming from someone as intelligent as you, AEON.

I guess what I'm trying to wrap my head around, and would love for you to articulate more is precisely why this change would be unacceptable to you. It must be more than just trying to prevent a minor change in the words used to define it. Only a relatively short while ago in our own Western culture marriage out of love was hardly the prevailing notion. And yet our culturally accepted definition of marriage changed as times did.

What ill or harm to society are you trying to prevent here?
Diemen is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 03:43 PM   #918
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
How much time needs to pass before you will be able to determine something?
I am not trying to determine anything here. Anitram used these countries as examples - and I'm saying those examples are not yet valid.

If you are asking when I would accept these as valid examples - I would think it would take a generation or two.
AEON is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 03:43 PM   #919
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 04:33 AM
AEON, you're the only one here who keeps holding up Clinton and Obama has "heroes" of the left. Everyone else here who supports full Constitutional rights for gays and lesbians has repeatedly expressed their unhappiness with and disdain for these two men in this area. One would think that either you weren't paying attention, or that your only argument for your position rested entirely on Clinton's and Obama's support for your position.

So, now, instead of addressing people's legitimate questions and counter-arguments, you're discussing the relative merits of dead presidents. It's a fascinating topic, of course, but I think it's one that you can too easily hide behind.
martha is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 03:46 PM   #920
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 06:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
In grade school, I don't recall hearing anything negative about these two president's all.

As a college student taking history - of all the knocks against FDR, I usually heard more about his handling of the Depression and the delayed entry into WWII. The negatives on JFK were Vietnam escalation and Bay of Pigs (and personal life).

I really have not read or heard too many negative comments about their civil rights track records. If such criticism is around - it doesn't seem to have made it to the top of the list.
You're right, I don't think text books will touch upon these types of issues, even at the college level, but most of the docs I've seen on History Channel or any book that goes deeper into their lives definately touches upon these aspects. I'm sure the same will go for Bush and Obama. I think the text book version of his legacy will be somewhat positive, but in depth looks will more than likely not...

But I think overall the social conservative movement, the loud voices will make the text books and not in a favorable way.
__________________

BVS 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 06:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×