equality blooms with spring - Page 47 - 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, 03:52 PM   #921
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
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.
The reason I use Clinton and Obama as examples is to illustrate that 1) opposition to gay marriage is more "mainstream" than you are leading people to believe, 2) that this opposition cannot be disregarded as some "right wing conspiracy" when someone as liberal as Barack Obama also opposes it, and 3) they are two men known for championing civil rights - the fact that they have not championed gay marriage indicates that even these two liberal leaders do not consider this a civil rights issue.

I believe it is important that people realize that opposition to gay marriage runs across party and ideological lines. To paint those in here that oppose gay marriage as dishonorable, mean spirited, bigots - is to also paint the current face of American liberalism with the same brush.
__________________

AEON is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 04:08 PM   #922
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 06:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
The reason I use Clinton and Obama as examples is to illustrate that 1) opposition to gay marriage is more "mainstream" than you are leading people to believe, 2) that this opposition cannot be disregarded as some "right wing conspiracy" when someone as liberal as Barack Obama also opposes it, and 3) they are two men known for championing civil rights - the fact that they have not championed gay marriage indicates that even these two liberal leaders do not consider this a civil rights issue.

I believe it is important that people realize that opposition to gay marriage runs across party and ideological lines. To paint those in here that oppose gay marriage as dishonorable, mean spirited, bigots - is to also paint the current face of American liberalism with the same brush.
To be completely honest, I think this is a slightly naive stance.

I wouldn't be suprised if Clinton and Obama truly had a much more liberal stance on this in their hearts, but they know they would lose voters. Just like I would venture to say that many Republicans deep down are probably not as pro-life across the board as some may seem(I think if they were they would try harder to actually do something about it rather than it just be a platform stance), I'm sure some would support it in certain cases. This, unfortunately is the ugly side of politics.

I know a lot of Republicans that support gay marriage, in fact they pretty much hate their party's stance on most social issues and they think the ultra right social conservatives are a bunch of yahoos that ruined their party, but they don't vote on social issues. Just like I know there are a few Democrats that are either on the fence or don't support gay marriage.

I don't paint those that are against gay marriage as bigots. I think most are ignorant, and I honestly believe that term can be used in a non-mean spirited way, and then there are many that are indeed bigots. I think the ignorant are those that have really trully given much thought to why they are against it but that the change scares them, I know of at least two conservatives that have fit into that category and have changed their stance since posting in FYM. I think the very vocal ones that have had their arguments shut down time and time again and cannot be honest as to why they truly are against gay marriage are the ones that history will judge.
__________________

BVS is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 04:19 PM   #923
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 07:16 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.



really?

Quote:
Bill Clinton Backs Same-Sex Marriage
By Michael Tracey

July 14, 2009


Bill Clinton Backs Same-Sex Marriage


Michael Tracey: The former president's reversal is the highest-profile one to date. It may also have political implications for the future of the Defense of Marriage Act.

After speaking at the Campus Progress National Conference in Washington, DC, on July 8, the former president was asked if he supported same-sex marriage. Clinton, in a departure from past statements, replied in the affirmative.

Clinton opposed same-sex marriage during his presidency, and in 1996, he signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which limited federal recognition of marriage to one man and one woman. In May of this year, Clinton told a crowd at Toronto's Convention Centre that his position on same-sex marriage was "evolving."

Apparently, Clinton's thinking has now further evolved. Asked if he would commit his support for same-sex marriage, Clinton responded, "I'm basically in support."

This spring, same-sex marriage was legalized in Iowa, Vermont, Connecticut, Maine and New Hampshire. In his most recent remarks on the subject, Clinton said, "I think all these states that do it should do it." The former president, however, added that he does not believe that same-sex marriage is "a federal question."

Asked if he personally supported same-sex marriage, Clinton replied, "Yeah." "I personally support people doing what they want to do," Clinton said. "I think it's wrong for someone to stop someone else from doing that [same-sex marriage]."

The former president joins a string of prominent Democrats who have recently switched their position on the issue, including former Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean, New York Senator Charles E. Schumer, New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine and Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd.

"Bill Clinton joins other important public figures in stepping solidly into the twenty-first century in support of same-sex marriage equality," said the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's executive director Rea Carey. "We certainly hope other elected officials, including President Obama, join him in clearly stating their support for equality in this country. Same-sex couples should not have to experience second-class citizenship."

Clinton's reversal is the highest-profile one to date. It may also have political implications for the future of the Defense of Marriage Act. President Obama has pledged to repeal the law, but in June, the Justice Department filed a brief in federal court defending the law's constitutionality.

A recent Gallup poll found that a majority of Democrats favor same-sex marriage.

Print: Bill Clinton Backs Same-Sex Marriage
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 04:24 PM   #924
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
really?
Well, I guess you changed his mind...

Now I only have Barack Obama in my corner (oh my). Is he ignorant or willfully intolerant?
AEON is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 04:25 PM   #925
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
To paint those in here that oppose gay marriage as dishonorable, mean spirited, bigots - is to also paint the current face of American liberalism with the same brush.


the following people are allowed to marry:

1. atheists
2. a man and a woman of any age difference so long as they are able to consent
3. agnostics/the irreligious
4. people who are infertile
5. post-menopausal women
6. people who never plan to have children

so, tell me, what can an opposite-sex couple do that a same-sex couple cannot do? it seems that "ordained by god" is entirely moot, since there's no religious requirement to getting married, nor are people required to have children in order to get married.

please tell me why opposing genitalia is so critical to civil marriage.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 04:27 PM   #926
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Well, I guess you changed his mind...

Now I only have Barack Obama in my corner (oh my). Is he ignorant or willfully intolerant?


my guess is that if Obama sails to a 2nd term, which seems likely if the economy continues to approve (a big *if* though, anything can happen), we'll see more progress in his 2nd term.

it's also understood that DADT is likely going to be removed as part of the 2011 defense appropriations bill.

every last poll shows that the younger you go, the more people are in support of marriage equality. why do you think the kids feel this way? are they wrong?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 04:29 PM   #927
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:16 AM
Irvine,

Could you please offer YOUR definition of marriage? We know from above posts that BVS would potentially support group marriages between financially independent 16 years olds - I'm curious what your definition is and why the nation should accept your definition over the one currently in place.

And Martha, what is your definition?

And Melon? Yours? Diemen? A_Wanderer?
AEON is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 04:36 PM   #928
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Irvine,

Could you please offer YOUR definition of marriage?


two consenting adults who wish to commit their lives to one another.

i'd like to ask you -- the definition of "a man and a woman" is what has risen up in response to same-sex marriage. that law has not been on the books for decades. it is something that has been added in order to specifically bar gay people from access to the special rights and privileges of marriage.

that language is an active assault on gay people and their families.

i want to know why that distinction -- which serves only to exclude gay people -- is so critical to marriage. i want to know what will happen to marriage if gay people are allowed to get married.

you realize you are free to teach your children that marriage is only between a man and a woman and that the only real marriages are those performed by your church. and if your son is gay and he gets married to another man in the state of CA you can look him in the eye and tell him that his marriage isn't real and isn't ordained by god.

you are free to do that.

but why do you need to bar gay people -- around 5% of the population -- from marriage? what good is accomplished by this?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 04:40 PM   #929
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 04:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
And Martha, what is your definition?

Two non-related, mentally competent adults who love each other and are willing to enter into the commitment that makes a marriage.

And, no, AEON, I'm not going to travel down your ludicrous path and answer questions about children, animals, or any other stupid dodge you can think up.

You tell me why my definition is inferior to yours.

And then tell me one more time why you get to decide Irvine and Memphis can't get married.
martha is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 04:54 PM   #930
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 06:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post

Could you please offer YOUR definition of marriage? We know from above posts that BVS would potentially support group marriages between financially independent 16 years olds -
You know what, this is cheap and a purposeful perversion of my words, and you are quite aware of this. And as tactful as you often try to come off as, it's this passive agressiveness that makes it hard to take that sincere sometimes. For this was not my definition of marriage.

As the definition stands now, 16 year olds can get married under certain circumstances, and in many cultures including many stories in the Bible this age was quite appropriate.

And as I've said before, I DO NOT THINK it is possible to creat a legal union of group marriages where it's truly consentual therefore not equal, unfair, and not something I would support. But yes I could be wrong and if such a way was possible I would support it, that is the difference between you and I, an open mind and the willingness to know that I do not have all the absolutes.

As it stands now my definition is the union between two consenting adults. It's not that difficult.
BVS is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 05:17 PM   #931
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
really?
Politicians don't lead. Politicians follow the winds of change. Good sign for gay marriage.
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 05:39 PM   #932
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
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?"
I'm guessing your history courses were likely quite traditional--and, as such, would have been geared toward how each president furthered hegemonic goals. Such topics as to how presidents' policies affected minorities are usually the vanguard of revisionist historians. Frankly, I actually have a preference for reading traditional history, so that's not a slam unto itself, but it is wise to understand each discipline's benefits and limitations.

Nonetheless, it is noted that it was Eleanor Roosevelt who was much more liberal when it came to civil rights legislation, and it has been noted that she would often advocate legislation further than what FDR had been comfortable with, as his reticence was mainly due to fears of popular backlash. And JFK was ultimately the same, in terms of reticence, and Obama's current inaction is being compared to him. LBJ did take a giant calculated risk in doing the right thing, but noted that, by advancing civil rights, he believed that the Democratic Party would lose the South for generations to come. How sad, really, that he was correct, and--like it or not--the Democratic Party's failures in the South can very much be traced to the enacting of civil rights legislation. Likewise, I'm guessing that Obama and the current Democratic Party's inaction is out of fear of history repeating itself.
melon is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 05:45 PM   #933
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
And Melon? Yours?
Very simple. Write a law that replaces all current legislation that makes reference to marriage as "a man and a woman" and replace it with "two people."

All related state concerns regarding marriage ages, the permitted degree of cousin marriages, polygamy, etc. etc. etc. are already addressed in other laws, so by merely amending the basic marriage law to be gender neutral, no further cans of worms are opened. If future generations wish to alter laws to contract or expand how close of a cousin you can be or to even legalize polygamy across the board, for instance, then they would have to amend those laws specifically at a later time and would cover everyone equally across the board. Gender discrimination in marriage, however, is increasingly unacceptable in light of contemporary revelation.
melon is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 05:55 PM   #934
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
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.
The Catholic Church, unfortunately, has a pattern of histrionic behaviour to further political aims. I would ask the Church as to whether they refuse to hire or serve non-Catholics, as, officially, their salvation is in doubt by not accepting papal authority. And does the Church refuse to hire and provide benefits for divorcées, as divorce is prohibited? Do they turn away homeless women or fire female employees who get pregnant while unmarried?

Perhaps this is a greater argument in favour of national health care. The private sector cannot be counted on to serve the public interest without discrimination.
melon is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 06:13 PM   #935
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 07:16 AM
On a related note, which one of these science fair projects is publicly acceptable?



melon is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 06:13 PM   #936
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 04:16 AM
Oh good Lord.
martha is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 06:27 PM   #937
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 06:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
The insert is mine. I hope you are beginning to see which organization is putting conditions on the funding. You just said it yourself - "all the church has to do is..."

That, by definition, is conditional.
But they don't do this every day for divorced people?
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 06:30 PM   #938
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 07:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
I don't think Catholicism permits such disagreements and considers you a Catholic in good standing. Other denominations do - but I am fairly certain the Catholic Church requires you accept/follow the catechism to consider yourself Catholic.

I could be wrong.
Catholicism is, unofficially, as much as broad culture as, say, the varied sects of Judaism. That's not to say that the Vatican accepts this, but it is as much to say that the church belongs to the people as much as it does the hierarchy. Why there aren't, say, "Orthodox," "Conservative" and "Reform" Catholics probably has much to do with the nature of Catholicism in that you're brought up from a very early age to believe that there are no other "true churches" than them. And, I believe, that makes disaffected Catholics finding a home at other churches a far more difficult proposition than, say, deciding to go from Methodist to Southern Baptist.

Personally, I've debated whether it would be worthwhile for me to become Anglican, as here in Toronto there are a good number of gay friendly Anglican churches, including those of the Anglo-Catholic rite. In fact, one of them is probably more "Catholic" in ritual than modern Catholicism is in itself. Still, as much of an independently-minded Christian as I have become, I still find it to be a difficult proposition, although I can really no longer sit in the pews and pretend that all is swell within the Catholic Church anymore.
melon is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 07:04 PM   #939
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 04:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
Very simple. Write a law that replaces all current legislation that makes reference to marriage as "a man and a woman" and replace it with "two people."

All related state concerns regarding marriage ages, the permitted degree of cousin marriages, polygamy, etc. etc. etc. are already addressed in other laws, so by merely amending the basic marriage law to be gender neutral, no further cans of worms are opened. If future generations wish to alter laws to contract or expand how close of a cousin you can be or to even legalize polygamy across the board, for instance, then they would have to amend those laws specifically at a later time and would cover everyone equally across the board. Gender discrimination in marriage, however, is increasingly unacceptable in light of contemporary revelation.
I certainly appreciate your view - and I obviously agree with you on the number count (as well as the others that have responded above). However, why should society accept our opinion of marriage over those that DO wish a higher number count? Why put this burden on future generations to change when - in theory - you could make this change now? Also, how easy or difficult would you make marriage and divorce? And the point you made about altering the meaning of marriage even further down the line is a good one.

One of the reasons I oppose gay marriage is that it will simply empty the institution of marriage of its meaning. You are essentially asserting that marriage should now be some sort of legal contract between any two adults (possibly more in the future) that want to enter this contract at any given time for any given means.

In my view, the Bible does offer a model for marriage and explains why it is an essential social and biological component - as well as a mechanism for individual spiritual growth. This does not mean we all perfectly achieve it, but it is the goal – the model exists. Like so many other teachings in the Bible – I believe this model is what is best for society as a whole. And what of the non-Christians (or those that don’t subscribe to this)? What model do you propose and by what authority should people/society accept your model? Also, the point still remains – the continued loosening of the definition will eventually lead to an utterly meaningless word - especially if there is no longer a model to base the definition.

There is also the concern that legalizing gay marriage will eventually lead to the government enforcing this view on the religious institutions that teach that homosexual behavior is wrong and that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is why the issue between DC and the Catholic Church is worth looking at – because there will always be the threat of a government system imposing it’s idea of right and wrong on the churches idea of right and wrong. Is it rational to suspect that the government will use every opportunity to enforce its arbitrary views of right and wrong in any way it can? Is it only a matter of time before sermons teaching that homosexual behavior is a sin become hate crimes? I think it is, and so do many others.
AEON is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 07:27 PM   #940
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 64,498
Local Time: 04:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
... because there will always be the threat of a government system imposing it’s idea of right and wrong on the churches idea of right and wrong.
But why should a church's idea of right and wrong dictate the norm? Why should the views of some churches be enforced on whole sectors of people, regardless of what their own beliefs might be?
__________________

corianderstem 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 06:16 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
×