Same-Sex Marriage General Discussion Thread - Page 43 - 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 07-21-2012, 09:14 AM   #841
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
I don't think you actually believe in "defending traditional marriage."

Because you know that phrase is a crock of shit and little more than saying "state's rights" when the subject is segregation.
That's simply not true.

Dan Qualye (as a famous example) and conservatives were, and still are, just as vocal in supporting marriage when the subject is divorce or single mothers. GWB and conservatives fought to get the marriage penalty removed from the federal tax code. And we'll be there as polygamy tries to get its nose under the tent too.
They're different arguments but the commitment is no less.
__________________

INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-21-2012, 09:23 AM   #842
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 01:51 PM
But you and I both know that discriminating against gay people doesn't defend anyone's marriage. All "defending traditional marriage" means in a political context is "keep fags out."

That simply is true.
__________________

Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-21-2012, 09:27 AM   #843
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 58,208
Local Time: 04:51 AM
Irvine I met a gay couple with kids the other day. And I was so sad - their lives are already ruined. They will never make a contribution to society. Won't you think of the children?!
cobl04 is offline  
Old 07-21-2012, 10:59 AM   #844
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 01:51 PM
And to think, they brought a child into the web of sin, perversion, and war against nature. Children are not pets. When will they learn?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-21-2012, 11:05 AM   #845
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
But you and I both know that discriminating against gay people doesn't defend anyone's marriage.
That is exactly it.

INDY, what does the legalization of gay marriage have to do with defending traditional marriage? Is there a limited number of marriage licenses so that every time a gay couple gets married, a straight couple is left out in the dust? Every time a gay couple gets married, a straight couple has to get divorced to offset it?

I mean, in all seriousness, how does it affect you, as a married man, at all that two guys or two gals get hitched in your town or your county or your state or your country?
anitram is offline  
Old 07-21-2012, 01:28 PM   #846
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 01:51 PM
My sense is that INDY's opposition is more of a cultural position/alignment, similar to most GOP politicians. And this is FYM, and he's outnumbered, so I can understand makin an argument in order to make an argument. That's why we're all here.

I find it hard to believe that someone who believes so sincerely in the rights of the individual and worries about how much taxes reduce our "freedom" would fail to see how a religious conviction is justification for discrimination.

This really is one of the simplest issues out there. The contortions people will go to to either hide their own homophobia or to locate themselves along a cultural fault line (single mothers! Black poverty! Murphy Brown!) is becoming comical.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-21-2012, 01:31 PM   #847
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,900
Local Time: 02:51 PM
I don't understand the phrase "traditional marriage". What is that exactly? is this the same traditional marriage that has evolved over time? Is this the same traditional marriage for which marrying for love is a relatively recent development?
__________________

BoMac is offline  
Old 07-21-2012, 02:24 PM   #848
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511
My sense is that INDY's opposition is more of a cultural position/alignment, similar to most GOP politicians. And this is FYM, and he's outnumbered, so I can understand makin an argument in order to make an argument. That's why we're all here.

I find it hard to believe that someone who believes so sincerely in the rights of the individual and worries about how much taxes reduce our "freedom" would fail to see how a religious conviction is justification for discrimination.

This really is one of the simplest issues out there. The contortions people will go to to either hide their own homophobia or to locate themselves along a cultural fault line (single mothers! Black poverty! Murphy Brown!) is becoming comical.
Excellent
BVS is offline  
Old 07-21-2012, 02:27 PM   #849
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500

That's simply not true.

Dan Qualye (as a famous example) and conservatives were, and still are, just as vocal in supporting marriage when the subject is divorce or single mothers.
Conservatives are vocal about divorce? Now I know you aren't serious.
BVS is offline  
Old 07-21-2012, 03:11 PM   #850
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York / Dallas / Austin
Posts: 14,076
Local Time: 11:51 AM
Why isn't there a campaign to ban second marriages? Or marriages where the husband and wife don't intend to have kids?
digitize is offline  
Old 07-21-2012, 03:19 PM   #851
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
Why isn't there a campaign to ban second marriages? Or marriages where the husband and wife don't intend to have kids?

i'm going to argue the other side, as an exercise.

answer: while divorce is always sad, a second marriage at least shows a willingness to give it another try and hopefully with better results. even if a husband and wife don't intend to have kids, at least it is the correct "form" of a marriage. it is important to maintain this model so that our children't don't become confused and the definition of marriage isn't diluted.

also, we could ask NOM themselves, they have a "marriage talking points" on their webpage:

Quote:
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.”

Marriage Talking Points - National Organization for Marriage
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-21-2012, 03:59 PM   #852
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: 20,715
Local Time: 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
That's simply not true.

Dan Qualye (as a famous example) and conservatives were, and still are, just as vocal in supporting marriage when the subject is divorce or single mothers. GWB and conservatives fought to get the marriage penalty removed from the federal tax code. And we'll be there as polygamy tries to get its nose under the tent too.
They're different arguments but the commitment is no less.
Here's a novel suggestion: How about Dan Quayle and conservatives in general keep their noses out of other people's love lives. What makes you guys think you have the right to dictate what constitutes "traditional marriage"?

As has been pointed out many, many, many, many, MANY times, traditional marriage at one time would've meant I would've been some man's property instead of anything resembling a wife. So I hope conservatives are prepared to go back to that definition if they're truly hellbent on making sure we all fit into "traditional marriages", 'cause the current definition isn't the original one.

You're not protecting anyone from anything. It's a form of discrimination and you know it. In the areas where same-sex marriage has been legalized society has been going on about as good or bad as it has before (come to my state, I can prove that to you). So what you're worried about with it being legal, I really, truly do not know.
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 07-21-2012, 06:33 PM   #853
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 01:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

Here's a novel suggestion: How about Dan Quayle and conservatives in general keep their noses out of other people's love lives. What makes you guys think you have the right to dictate what constitutes "traditional marriage"?

But when women have children without being married to their fathers, the mothers are much more likely o fall into poverty and to seek out state assistance for food and medical needs. I shouldn't have to pay for that. It comes out of my tax dollars, and I shouldn't have to pay for unaffordable children because their mother couldn't wait until that man properly married her. It's everyone's business where, when, and how people have sex because children can result and those children get paid for by my tax dollars.

And that's why gay people shouldn't try to change the traditional definition of marriage.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-21-2012, 06:54 PM   #854
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I mean, in all seriousness, how does it affect you, as a married man, at all that two guys or two gals get hitched in your town or your county or your state or your country?
That is no argument. How does it affect you personally if marriage remains between a man and a woman? Most likely it wouldn't but you're thinking big picture, well so am I.

So, I'll give you a big picture answer.

1) If same-sex marriage becomes law it matters how. If it become law in Indiana or Alabama by Supreme Court decision it will divide the country the same abortion does and that divide will outlive all of us regardless of how the demographics might favor same-sex marriage in the future.

2) Marriage is not only defined by law but by religion, literature, art, music, education and societal traditions. If same-sex marriage is a civil right then the same pressures will be applied to these cultural supports to "modernize" as well.

Here is one example from Canada where you claim all is peachy with same-sex marriage.

Canadian Crackdown - Michael Coren - National Review Online
Quote:
(excerpts)
Same-sex marriage became law in Canada in the summer of 2005, making the country the fourth nation to pass such legislation, and the first in the English-speaking world. In the few debates leading up to the decision, it became almost impossible to argue in defense of marriage as a child-centered institution, in defense of the procreative norm of marriage, in defense of the superiority of two-gender parenthood, without being thrown into the waste bin as a hater. What we’ve also discovered in Canada is that it can get even worse than mere abuse, and that once gay marriage becomes law, critics are often silenced by the force of the law.

Although precise figures about gay marriages in Canada are elusive, there are thought to be fewer than 30,000, after an initial surge of around 10,000 as soon as the law was passed. But if large numbers of gay people failed to take advantage of the law, the law certainly took advantage of its critics. Again, definitive figures are almost impossible to state, but it’s estimated that, in less than five years, there have been between 200 and 300 proceedings — in courts, human-rights commissions, and employment boards — against critics and opponents of same-sex marriage. And this estimate doesn’t take into account the casual dismissals that surely have occurred.

The Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta, Fred Henry, was threatened with litigation and charged with a human-rights violation after he wrote a letter to local churches outlining standard Catholic teaching on marriage.

So far, churches have been allowed to refuse to consecrate same-sex marriages, but a campaign has begun to remove tax-free status from religious institutions that make this choice.

As I write, two Canadian provinces are considering legislation that would likely prevent educators even in private denominational schools from teaching that they disapprove of same-sex marriage, and a senior government minister in Ontario recently announced that if the Roman Catholic Church did not approve of homosexuality or gay marriage, it “would have to change its teaching.”

What has become painfully evident is that many of those who brought same-sex marriage to Canada have no respect for freedom of conscience and no intention of tolerating contrary opinion, whether that opinion is shaped by religious or by secular belief.
Now this isn't Canada but ask Catholics if our president respects their freedom of conscience and ask Chick-fil-a or Carrie Prejean if their contrary opinion is respected.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-21-2012, 06:58 PM   #855
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 01:51 PM
In a nutshell, we must prevent SSM because if SSM is legal than it will make life marginally more uncomfortable for those who believe SSM should be illegal.

This is a good reason.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-21-2012, 07:02 PM   #856
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 58,208
Local Time: 04:51 AM
You can have that contrary opinion all you like. But that doesn't mean you can stop equality.

To me that all just sounds like "OOOHHHH NOOEZZZ TEH GAYS ARE TAKIN OVER!! "

If a church does not approve of it, I don't think they should have to change its teaching (though I'd certainly like to see them change it of its own will) but they shouldn't be saying anything other than "we believe marriage is between a man and a woman" when asked. We no longer live in a society where the church gets to dictate who and who will not get married.

God, if he exists, has not wiped out Spain, the Netherlands, Canada, Argentina, Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, South Africa or Sweden. The countries themselves have not imploded due to same-sex marriage being legalised.
cobl04 is offline  
Old 07-21-2012, 07:05 PM   #857
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 58,208
Local Time: 04:51 AM
Also, Richard Dawkins, the world's most passionate atheist, the man who thinks you're delusional if you believe in a deity, has been married three times and divorced twice.

But a gay Christian couple can't get married?
cobl04 is offline  
Old 07-21-2012, 07:13 PM   #858
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York / Dallas / Austin
Posts: 14,076
Local Time: 11:51 AM
It's not hard to imagine why a marriage with Richard Dawkins may be problematic
digitize is offline  
Old 07-21-2012, 08:26 PM   #859
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,900
Local Time: 02:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

Here is one example from Canada where you claim all is peachy with same-sex marriage.

Canadian Crackdown - Michael Coren - National Review Online
Of course you would cite Michael Coren, a member of the Christian right who appears regularly on Canada's answer to Fox News.

When we "claim" that all is "peachy", it's because the end-of-the-world rhetoric against same-sex marriage by those on the right has not come to fruition. Allowing gays to marry has not resulted in any of the dire circumstances espoused by some.
__________________

BoMac is offline  
Old 07-21-2012, 09:24 PM   #860
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: 20,715
Local Time: 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
But when women have children without being married to their fathers, the mothers are much more likely o fall into poverty and to seek out state assistance for food and medical needs. I shouldn't have to pay for that. It comes out of my tax dollars, and I shouldn't have to pay for unaffordable children because their mother couldn't wait until that man properly married her. It's everyone's business where, when, and how people have sex because children can result and those children get paid for by my tax dollars.

And that's why gay people shouldn't try to change the traditional definition of marriage.
Oh, right, of course! Wow, it's amazing how much chaos you guys tend to cause all us straight people, apparently.

And yeah, why should we help them? It's not like it'd be the Christian thing to do or anything, after all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Now this isn't Canada but ask Catholics if our president respects their freedom of conscience and ask Chick-fil-a or Carrie Prejean if their contrary opinion is respected.
1, I don't respect those people's opinions one iota. But I'm not stopping them from having said opinions. Lack of respect for one's opinion is not equivalent to forcible silence. Don't worry, you and your buddies there will still be allowed to be against gay marriage all you wish. Nobody, to my knowledge, is having any intent of stopping you from feeling as you do.
2, you have sat here using religion as one of your reasons for being against gay marriage, made constant statements about how religion needs to be more involved in our government, and yet you are actually complaining about Obama's "lack of respect" for Catholics' "freedom of conscience" and fretting over the government possibly telling churches they HAVE to marry same-sex couples should it become legal nationwide?!

No. Sorry. You can't have it both ways. You want religion to be more involved in the state? You want Christian values to rule the nation? Then don't complain about the idea of the state getting involved in your religion in return (which will happen if religion gets more closely involved with the state, be sure of that). And nobody has been suggesting that if gay marriage becomes legal nationwide that churches should have to follow suit to begin with, so you're worrying over nothing! See, that's the beauty of that whole "separation of church and state" thing you often have issues with.
3, not only is Carrie's position silly, but she's a hypocritical airhead. That's another big reason nobody likes her. If you're making some "moral stand" against same sex marriage and trying to present some good "Christian" image, then my advice is to be extremely careful about the types of tapes you put out there, genius woman.

Honestly, if the best you can get for your side is Carrie Prejean and Dan Quayle, both of whom are dumb as dirt, then that should tell you something about the anti-gay marriage stance.

Quote:
it became almost impossible to argue in defense of marriage as a child-centered institution, in defense of the procreative norm of marriage, in defense of the superiority of two-gender parenthood, without being thrown into the waste bin as a hater.
Translation: Waaaah, we can't feel like we're better than other people anymore if gay marriage becomes legal!

As I have often noted many times on here, I knew plenty of kids that came from "traditional" homes whose lives turned out like crap. Just because your parents are married doesn't mean you're going to automatically have a better life by default.

Procreative? So, when are you going to make the straight marriages where people can't physically have children, or choose to not have children, illegal, then? I'm not exactly itching to have children, so if I get married and choose to never have kids, is my marriage going to be of less value than that of those who have kids? I'd really like to know the answer to that.

And the two-gender thing? Yeah, 'cause naturally a kid who grows up with two dads or two moms will never, EVER interact with anyone of the opposite gender of their parents in their lives. No family members or friends or teachers or whomever who can help them with any gender-related topics or issues, who can teach or raise them to be upstanding boys and girls. No, apparently that can only happen if they live in the house with the kid.

Yeah. Sorry. None of the anti-gay marriage arguments put forth wash. They've all been debunked numerous times. The bottom line is there is absolutely NO justifiable reason to deny two consenting adults the right to get married. None. You can personally continue to freak out and be against it for whatever reason you want, but it is not your place to actively deny them a right/privilege that you are fortunate enough to participate in. If you do that, that is discrimination, and that is illegal and wrong.
__________________

Moonlit_Angel 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 12:51 PM.


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