equality blooms with spring - Page 5 - 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 04-08-2009, 02:58 PM   #81
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 03:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Not gonna restart the whole argument but if they had any less rights than you or I then I'd agree. They have the same right to marry anyone I do
you know that is not true.


you and I can marry anyone we love that agrees to marry us.



you are acting like when "gay marriage" is recognized the 92% or whatever the number is for straight people will be made to choose a spouse of the same sex.


it is legal for you and I to date and have intimate relations with members of the same sex, 30+ years ago it was not.
Because it is legal now are you more inclined to date someone of the same gender?
__________________

deep is offline  
Old 04-08-2009, 02:59 PM   #82
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Except many of these people have actually been physically or verbally intimidated.
This is terrible behavior. As terrible as the behavior of any group that is furious at being denied full Constitutional protection. Personally, I thought this behavior was counterproductive, as it gave people like you plenty of distractions from the real issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
How was this case critically different from any other instance of someone suing their county or state on the grounds that their constitutional rights were violated? Should states be able to arbitrarily declare particular subjects of legislation ineligible for judicial redress?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
can you give an example of any SCOTUS decision that isn't a "judicial fiat"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
But do we apply this to other issues of Constitutional protection? To wait and see how it goes, mean while generations of people wait to see if their Constitutional protection doesn't offend the majority?
Now, how about a focus on the real issue and the real questions.
__________________

martha is offline  
Old 04-08-2009, 03:00 PM   #83
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 07:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Not gonna restart the whole argument but if they had any less rights than you or I then I'd agree. They have the same right to marry anyone I do, just not...


so i have a right to marry your daughter?

are you sure?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-08-2009, 03:01 PM   #84
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
so i have a right to marry your daughter?
Do I?
martha is offline  
Old 04-08-2009, 03:02 PM   #85
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 07:52 AM
It's ridiculous that anyone is still arguing over Civil Rights in 2009. Gay rights, women's right, the rights of minorities in any way, shape or form are civil rights and in a broader sense Human Rights. To deny them to anyone is absolutely despicable.
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 04-08-2009, 03:03 PM   #86
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 03:52 AM
easy guys, you might get an acceptance
deep is offline  
Old 04-08-2009, 03:32 PM   #87
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 07:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
I dunno about this reasoning - how come the constitution doesn't protect the rights of the unborn in spite of the wishes of the majority of the US electorate?


here you go.

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-08-2009, 03:35 PM   #88
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 07:52 AM
since INDY is kind of alone on this and it isn't easy to keep up, here's the NRO's opinion piece on the subject. not that this is INDY's position, but just to add something to the discussion:


Quote:
The Future of Marriage
By the Editors

One of the great coups of the movement for same-sex marriage has been to plant the premise that it represents the inevitable future. This sense has inhibited even some who know perfectly well that marriage is by nature the union of a man and a woman. They fear that throwing themselves into the cause of opposing it is futile — worse, that it will call down the judgment of history that they were bigots.

Contrary to common perception, however, the public is not becoming markedly more favorable toward same-sex marriage. Support for same-sex marriage rose during the 1990s but seems to have frozen in place (at least according to Gallup) since the high court of Massachusetts invented a right to same-sex marriage earlier this decade.

Our guess is that if the federal judiciary does not intervene to impose same-sex marriage on the entire country, we are not going to see it triumph from coast to coast. Rather, we will for some time have a patchwork of laws. The division will not be so much between socially liberal and conservative states as between those states where voters can amend their state constitutions easily and those where they cannot. Thus same-sex marriage is likely to stay the law of the land in Massachusetts, Iowa, and Vermont, and perhaps also in New Hampshire.

In two of those states, at least, democratic procedure is now being respected. Vermont has chosen to recognize same-sex marriages legislatively, and New Hampshire may do so. Other states, such as Connecticut, have legislated recognition of civil unions for same-sex couples. While free from the taint of lawlessness, these decisions seem to us unwise. Few social goods will come from recognizing same-sex couples as married. Some practical benefits may accrue to the couples, but most of them could easily be realized without changing marriage laws. Same-sex couples will also receive the symbolic affirmation of being treated by the state as equivalent to a traditional married couple — but this spurious equality is a cost of the new laws, not a benefit. One still sometimes hears people make the allegedly “conservative” case for same-sex marriage that it will reduce promiscuity and encourage commitment among homosexuals. This prospect seems improbable, and in any case these do not strike us as important governmental goals.

Both as a social institution and as a public policy, marriage exists to foster connections between heterosexual sex and the rearing of children within stable households. It is a non-coercive way to channel (heterosexual) desire into civilized patterns of living. State recognition of the marital relationship does not imply devaluation of any other type of relationship, whether friendship or brotherhood. State recognition of those other types of relationships is unnecessary. So too is the governmental recognition of same-sex sexual relationships, committed or otherwise, in a deep sense pointless.

No, we do not expect marriage rates to plummet and illegitimacy rates to skyrocket in these jurisdictions over the next decade. But to the extent same-sex marriage is normalized here, it will be harder for American culture and law to connect marriage and parenthood. That it has already gotten harder over the last few decades is no answer to this concern. In foisting same-sex marriage on Iowa, the state’s supreme court opined in a footnote that the idea that it is best for children to have mothers and fathers married to each other is merely based on “stereotype.”

If worse comes to worst, and the federal courts sweep aside the marriage laws that most Americans still want, then decades from now traditionalists should be ready to brandish that footnote and explain to generations yet unborn: That is why we resisted.


there's also this:

http://www.politico.com/singletitlev...id=18852128001
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-08-2009, 03:46 PM   #89
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 07:52 AM
and here's more from the people who brought you the above ad:



Quote:
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE:
Answering the Toughest Questions

Strong majorities of Americans oppose gay marriage. Supporters of SSM therefore seek to change the subject to just about anything: discrimination, benefits, homosexuality, gay rights, federalism, our sacred constitution. Our goal is simple: Shift the conversation rapidly back to marriage. Don’t get sidetracked. Marriage is the issue. Marriage is what we care about. Marriage really matters. It’s just common sense.



I. THE MOST EFFECTIVE SINGLE SENTENCE:

Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:

"Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,
they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us."

This allows people to express support for tolerance while opposing gay marriage. Some modify it to “People have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.”

Language to avoid at all costs: "Ban same-sex marriage." Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife” NEVER “banning same-sex marriage.”



II. MAIN MESSAGE THE 3X5 CARD.

• Marriage is between a husband and wife. The people of [this state] do not want marriage to be anything but that. We do not want government or judges changing that definition for us today or our children tomorrow.

• We need a marriage amendment to settle the gay marriage issue once and for all, so we don’t have it in our face every day for the next ten years.

• Marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers.

• Do we want to teach the next generation that one-half of humanity—either mothers or fathers—are dispensable, unimportant? Children are confused enough right now with sexual messages. Let’s not confuse them further.

• Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose; they don’t have a right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.



III. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

1. Are you a bigot? “Why do you want to take away people’s rights?”
“Isn’t it wrong to write discrimination into the constitution?”

A: “Do you really believe people like me who believe mothers and fathers both matter to kids are like bigots and racists? I think that’s pretty offensive, don’t you? Particularly to the 60 percent of African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage as the union of husband and wife isn’t new; it’s not taking away anyone’s rights. It’s common sense.”

2. Isn’t the ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage?

A: “Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the love of their own mom and a dad, and women don’t get stuck with the enormous disadvantages of parenting alone.” “Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your mother—or your father.”

3. Why do we need a constitutional amendment? “Isn’t DOMA enough?”

A: “Lawsuits like the one that imposed gay marriage in Massachusetts now threaten marriage in at least 12 other states so far. We need a marriage amendment to settle the issue once and for all, so we don’t have this debate in our face every day. The people get to decide what marriage means. No-end run around the rules by activist judges or grandstanding San-Francisco-style politicians.”

4. What’s the harm from SSM? “How can Adam and Steve hurt your marriage?”

A: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.”

A: “If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.”

“Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."

“Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”

“When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.”

“One thing is for sure: The people of this state will lose our right to keep marriage as the union of a husband and wife. That’s not right.”

5. Why do you want to interfere with love?

A: “Love is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.”

6. What about benefits? Don’t gay couples and their kids need the benefits and protections of marriage?”

A: “If medical proxies aren’t working, let’s fix that problem. If people need health care, let’s get them health care. Don’t mess with marriage.”

A: “The issue isn’t benefits, it is marriage. Local folks can decide benefits. This is about the meaning of marriage, our most basic social institution for protecting children. “

7. Isn’t divorce the real threat to marriage?

A: “High rates of divorce are one more reason we should be strengthening marriage, not conducting radical social experiments on it.”

8. Are you saying gays cannot be good parents?

A: “Two men might each be a good father, but neither can be a mom. The ideal for children is the love of their own mom and dad. No same-sex couple can provide that.”

9. What about older or infertile couples? If they marry why not same-sex couples?

A: “Every man and woman who marries is capable of giving any child they create (or adopt) a mother and a father. No same-sex couple can do this. It’s apples and oranges.”
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-08-2009, 03:52 PM   #90
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 07:52 AM
^That is the most bullshit argument I've ever read in my life. I wrote better persuasive papers in high school. How the fuck does allowing you and Memphis to get married, re-define my future marriage to my future husband, whomever he is.? We'll still both be a male and a female as far as I know. A marriage of a gay or lesbian couple has no more to do with that of a heterosexual couple than that of another hetero couple.
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 04-08-2009, 03:54 PM   #91
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
would you like to cite your sources?
Here's the latest article I read. There are others.
The New Blacklist

Quote:
ever been to a pro-life or pro-choice march? you'll see lots of verbal intimidation. please show me a contentious social issue in which both sides discuss the issue by mutually affirming the worth and value of the other side's argument.
No actually. But you do that unanimously I'm sure. The point of the google maps is to give those that donated pause should there be a next time. "They will know where I live." It sure sounds like intimidation.

Quote:
or maybe it's just really unpopular in Hollywood given the fact that most people in the arts work with gay people all the time.

you can assume all you want, but does it surprise you that such a thing would be unpopular amongst the "Hollywood Left"?
Fine, but they should recognize that makes their personal scolding and lecturing as well as any "messages" their products deliver on the matter nothing less than propaganda.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 04-08-2009, 04:01 PM   #92
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Still focusing on the rowdy guys and not the issues.

Kinda makes me wonder if you have anything else to say?
martha is offline  
Old 04-08-2009, 04:01 PM   #93
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 07:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Here's the latest article I read. There are others.
The New Blacklist
The Weekly Standard

just pointing that out.

do you think this is in any way comparable to the actual 1950s McCarthy-era blacklist? or is this just hysterical hyperbole?


Quote:
No actually. But you do that unanimously I'm sure. The point of the google maps is to give those that donated pause should there be a next time. "They will know where I live." It sure sounds like intimidation.

yes, it's done unanimously. and it's public information. anyone can look it up. i suppose it's tough when the gays get organized, but there is absolutely nothing beyond the pale here, nothing illegal, and nothing that hasn't been done before.


Quote:
Fine, but they should recognize that makes their personal scolding and lecturing as well as any "messages" their products deliver on the matter nothing less than propaganda.

so it's the "uppity" thing again. that's really what it seems to be boiling down to. i understand that you don't like being called a bigot or homophobic. i'm sure segregationists didn't like to be called racists either.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-08-2009, 04:02 PM   #94
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Tradition don't mean shit!!!
Spoken like a true progressive including the obligatory profanity.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 04-08-2009, 04:03 PM   #95
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 07:52 AM
I buried my grandmother today.

She lived 88 very excellent years on this planet. The last few were hard, but overall she had a good life and a good family. She was one of 6 children, born on a farm and only finished the 6th grade. She was literate and liked to read (especially the tabloids), and very pious. She prayed 5 rosaries every day, never missed a weekly mass so long as she was healthy enough to attend. She buried her husband 26 years ago, never remarried, and instead moved in with her son and baked anything her grandchildren wanted. She loved the old Pope, she had a cherished rosary from Fatima, and while she was very proud that her grandchildren were successful, she would have been perfectly happy if we were less ambitious and more traditional (yes, I bet she's still hoping that I make an honest woman of myself...).

I remember distinctly when gay marriage was an issue here. One of her sisters-in-law was talking about how she's always voted for the Liberals but won't this time because they're for "gays marrying, can you imagine such a thing?" And my grandmother's response was "well, Anne, I don't think they want to marry us...."

That's my bright line test. If you fail it, my opinion of you is very low.
anitram is offline  
Old 04-08-2009, 04:05 PM   #96
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 07:52 AM
^Your grandma rocks.
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 04-08-2009, 04:13 PM   #97
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 04:52 AM
INDY must have me on ignore. Could someone else ask him those questions again?
martha is offline  
Old 04-08-2009, 04:16 PM   #98
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 06:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Spoken like a true progressive including the obligatory profanity.
Where did "tradition" play with interracial marriage, women's rights, or any other social issues where conservatives have been on the wrong side of history?

And my one four letter word isn't offensive at all, not compared to some of the comparisons and leaps of logic you make...
BVS is offline  
Old 04-08-2009, 04:17 PM   #99
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 07:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Spoken like a true progressive including the obligatory profanity.


i think the point is that tradition also gave us racism, sexism, slavery, genocide, etc. that while tradition is nice and can be looked to in order to give some a sense of structure, meaning, and purpose, deference to tradition simply because it's tradition is little more than a Flat Earth way of viewing the world.

we burned witches at the stake out of tradition.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-08-2009, 04:45 PM   #100
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Where did "tradition" play with interracial marriage, women's rights,
Iowa's had a pretty strong tradition of being on the advanced side of these two things.
__________________

martha 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 06:52 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
×