Same-Sex Marriage General Discussion Thread - Page 44 - 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, 10:14 PM   #861
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 10:30 AM
You guys, come on. My husband and I just celebrated our 23rd wedding anniversary. But every day, every day, we look at each other and weep a tear. We know that the states that allow the gays to marry are slowly destroying the holiness of our own marriage.

It's sad. Just sad.



 
__________________

martha is offline  
Old 07-21-2012, 11:47 PM   #862
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
This really is one of the simplest issues out there.
Then why does it lose every (30 to be exact) time it's put to the vote of the people?
__________________

INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-21-2012, 11:51 PM   #863
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Then why does it lose every (30 to be exact) time it's put to the vote of the people?

because THE PEOPLE are always right. the Civil Rights era taught us this when Kennedy freed the slaves.

a vote against SSM is a vote against my kids being gay. it's amazing the power that 5% of the population has, and why it's a call to arms that even in a state like NC over 40% of the population will vote for the rights of such a tiny minority. whenever we vote on minority rights, the minority always loses, thankfully. but we must be vigilant. might always makes right, and democracy means having a direct vote on the issues and the courts are filled with unelected, unaccountable tyrants who should never take minority rights into consideration. it's all mob rule. because i don't want my kids to be gay.

you know that as well as i do.

of course, i wouldn't have wanted VA to have voted on interracial marriage in the 1960s in the era of Loving vs. VA.

TOTALLY different. i'm not a racist. conservatives haven't been officially racist since 1989. TOTALLY different.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-22-2012, 12:35 AM   #864
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 11:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post

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?
Which is exactly what I never said. I believe democracy works best in a religious (pluralistic) society. The Founders thought the same. That isn't support for a state religion.
Quote:
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).
I understand there are two equations to religious freedom codified in our Constitution. There can be no "establishment of religion" NOR, nor, nor, nor, nor, nor, nor... any "prohibiting the free exercise of." I was referring to the recent HHS mandate that religious organizations supply contraceptives against their religious conscience.
Quote:
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!
Quote:
See, that's the beauty of that whole "separation of church and state" thing you often have issues with.
"I often have issues with."
Quote:
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.
Oh,oh. Personal attacks, the debate must not be going well for you.

Quote:
Just because your parents are married doesn't mean you're going to automatically have a better life by default.
Non sequitur. No one says that.

Quote:
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.
Non sequitur. No one says that.
Quote:
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.
Two adults? What are you going to say when Muhammad moves here from Myanmar with his 3 wives and expects his marriage to be respected? You gonna "freak out" and "deny them a right/privilege that you are fortunate enough to participate in"? Wouldn't that be "illegal and wrong"?

Quote:
Translation: Waaaah, we can't feel like we're better than other people anymore if gay marriage becomes legal!
I've been nothing short of civil and respectful in this debate. Fully understanding this is an emotional issue, if that can't be reciprocated that tells me it's time to "ignore" the same-sex marriage thread so it can be 100% dissent-free.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 07-22-2012, 12:42 AM   #865
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

Two adults? What are you going to say when Muhammad moves here from Myanmar with his 3 wives and expects his marriage to be respected? You gonna "freak out" and "deny them a right/privilege that you are fortunate enough to participate in"? Wouldn't that be "illegal and wrong"?
It will at least be easier to defend based on scripture, so there's that.
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-22-2012, 12:58 AM   #866
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 01:30 PM
The free exercise of my religion requires me to be free of married homosexuals.

It's really a simple issue.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-22-2012, 01:04 AM   #867
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean

It will at least be easier to defend based on scripture, so there's that.
Agreed. Religious people like us do need to be aware that when we argue for Biblical marriage, historically that means one man an many wives. At least even in this situation a penis goes inside a vagina, so god likes it. It does become an issue, though, where we require the law to ensure that our religious views are reflected by law. What, then, of Muslims? Knowing that we have the right god, we should put these issues to a vote as well. That way we'll prove to Mohammad and his wives that though we admire their opposing genitalia, they still displease us and should please stop.

My religious freedom means the law tells me I am always right.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-22-2012, 01:55 AM   #868
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: 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Which is exactly what I never said. I believe democracy works best in a religious (pluralistic) society. The Founders thought the same. That isn't support for a state religion.
Yeah, everyone can follow whatever religion they wish, but do you think this nation was founded on Christian principles and should incorporate them into our laws?

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I understand there are two equations to religious freedom codified in our Constitution. There can be no "establishment of religion" NOR, nor, nor, nor, nor, nor, nor... any "prohibiting the free exercise of." I was referring to the recent HHS mandate that religious organizations supply contraceptives against their religious conscience.
I know what you were referring to. What I was getting at was that you have an issue with that, fine. There's a valid concern there. But if you do indeed think Christian beliefs should help guide our government, then you're advocating at least some mix of church and state.

And I'm simply saying that if that's the case, then don't be surprised when things like Obama getting involved in the religion/contraception issue happen as a result. If church can influence the state, then state can influence the church. Don't like it? Then we should keep the two as separate as possible.

You can be as Christian as you please in your personal life. But your faith should not be the basis for our lawmaking process. Nor should the Muslim faith, or the Jewish faith, or any other faith. And should an atheist run things, they shouldn't make their laws based on the simple fact that they're atheists, either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
"I often have issues with."
Well, you often seem to think that religion is equal to morality. I know you're fine with people following other religions, but I also recall us having discussions where the implication seems to be that we're more moral if we have religion in our lives.

Plus, in part, the "you" was a general "you" as well. It wasn't flat out directed at you specifically.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Oh,oh. Personal attacks, the debate must not be going well for you.
No, it's going fine for me. Come on. Honestly. You can't find better people to support your side than those guys?

I'm sorry, but I'm tired of this. In order to get respect one has to earn it. And those people haven't earned it. Quayle felt the need to go after Murphy freaking Brown, a fictional character, for promoting the "wrong lifestyle" by having a child out of wedlock. On a TV show. And Carrie Prejean made herself look like a fool every time she was on TV (the infamous Larry King interview comes to mind).

I'm tired of the anti-gay rights people complaining that their feelings are being hurt when people attack their beliefs on this issue. Really? What about the feelings of gay people, who are being told flat out, via the recent article you shared, that their relationships are "inferior" to straight people's because they don't have all the proper "requirements"? Gay people have been killing themselves because they've been told that they don't deserve the same rights as anyone else. If a lesbian's partner is dying in the hospital, she cannot go see her because their relationship is not recognized. I just saw a letter in the recent USA Today where someone said that it was good that the Boy Scouts were keeping their ban on letting gays in, because if gays were allowed to be part of the scouts that apparently meant that straight kids would have to fear being hit on or sexually harassed by gay people as a result. I don't know about you, but I find all of that pretty freaking offensive.

So I'm not too bothered about claiming people like Quayle and Prejean are less than brilliant. They've yet to prove otherwise.

Besides, I thought relying on celebrities to help one's opinion was generally frowned upon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Non sequitur. No one says that.
What do you mean, no one says that? You yourself noted that with this from the previous page:

Quote:
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.
They're opposed to divorce and single mother households. Why? Because they think children should grow up in two parent homes. And I've heard that argument made by many on the anti-gay side for god knows how long now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Non sequitur. No one says that.
It's not a non-sequiter, it's pretty relevant, actually. The article you linked to stated that marriage was important because of its procreative aspects, right? And that's why gay couples shouldn't get married, because they cannot actively produce children the natural way. Am I correct that that's the argument?

Well, then, the next logical question is that if, in those people's eyes, a big part of marriage is the ability to produce children, why not go ahead and stop people who are infertile or choose not to have kids from marrying as well? You could at least argue for the infertile couple that that was due to circumstances beyond their control, but then again, science has made it possible for people to fix that problem. And even if we excuse the infertile couples because it's not their fault, well, that still leaves the couples who choose to not have kids. They physically can, they just don't want to. So why are they allowed to get married even though they're not actively procreating, but gay couples, who also aren't actively procreating, can't?

Please. I really want you to answer this. I want to know what the exact difference is. If it's not the fact that one couple is gay and another is straight, then what is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Two adults? What are you going to say when Muhammad moves here from Myanmar with his 3 wives and expects his marriage to be respected? You gonna "freak out" and "deny them a right/privilege that you are fortunate enough to participate in"? Wouldn't that be "illegal and wrong"?
I mentioned "two adults" because of the topic at hand-right now, we are talking about gay couples being allowed to marry. But if Muhammed came here with his 3 wives, and they're all of legal age and consenting, no, I'm not going to freak out or deny them the things I'm able to do. I really couldn't care less if polygamy is legal and they all live together. I'm very consistent in my views on this issue-I feel the same way about polygamy that I do about gay marriage or couples living together unmarried or a man and a woman getting married. It should be allowed, and the only requirements I ask for are that, again, everyone, no matter the relationship, must be of legal age and consenting.

I'd also point out that the argument could be made that polygamy is a bit different an issue from gay marriage because you can choose to be polygamous, but you can't choose to be gay, and therefore that's a factor in why the two types of marriages aren't looked at on the same level in terms of legalization by some people. But somehow I feel you're going to disagree with me on that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I've been nothing short of civil and respectful in this debate. Fully understanding this is an emotional issue, if that can't be reciprocated that tells me it's time to "ignore" the same-sex marriage thread so it can be 100% dissent-free.
Civil, sure, but again, agreeing with articles that state the "superiority" of two gendered households, and how letting same sex couples marry will somehow bring the downfall of society, and supporting denying people the right to get married simply because it doesn't sit well with your personal beliefs, aren't exactly what I'd call respectful beliefs.

And yeah, I'm emotional about this. Recent events further make it clearer just how crazy it is we have debates over stuff like this to begin with. Denying people equal rights makes no sense at all. Again, there's no justifiable reason for it. We have so many bigger issues to worry about in this world. So many. There's enough nastiness in the world as it is, denying gay people rights only adds to it.

Conservatives talk all the time about personal freedom and keeping the government out of our lives and quote our founding documents all over the place. Well, denying people the right/privilege to marry is not allowing them personal freedom. Wanting the government to ban gay marriage is forcing the government into our lives and regulating it. The Declaration of Independence gives us the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Pray tell me how denying same sex couples marriage equality gives them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Or ignore this thread if you wish. It'd be a shame if you did, though, because I'd really like to get some answers to these questions.
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 07-22-2012, 12:05 PM   #869
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

I understand there are two equations to religious freedom codified in our Constitution. There can be no "establishment of religion" NOR, nor, nor, nor, nor, nor, nor... any "prohibiting the free exercise of." I was referring to the recent HHS mandate that religious organizations supply contraceptives against their religious conscience.


absolutely. the existence of gay and lesbians and, worse, their desire to commit to each other for life in love is a direct violation of my right to the free exercise of my religion. if the state in which i live recognizes these relationships, it violates my religious rights and my religious conscience. it doesn't matter that my life is in no way impacted in a practical sense, it's my conscience that's impacted knowing that the state where i pay taxes is supporting these relationships and treating them as if they are equal to my own.

equal treatment under the law is against my religion.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-22-2012, 07:23 PM   #870
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: 12:30 PM
Yeah, I love that people worry about their taxes supporting things like this. Like I said in another thread, EVERYONE is paying taxes towards things they may not personally agree with. Join the club.

I would like to also note that I've been in something of a crabby mood the last couple days, hence why some of my comments yesterday may have come on rather strong. But I still stand by my overall sentiments. People can believe whatever they want about this issue. I cannot force someone to change their views.

However, if I think an argument is weak, if I think people advocating said argument aren't exactly consistent and strong in making that argument, I'm going to call them out on it. If someone finds that to be an attack, so be it. It's not my intention, but, hey, matter of opinion, I guess. It's just frustrating to me that this has to be such a big issue. It's not fair, it's not right to make people feel like, if not actually be, second-class citizens. And that's what denying them marriage equality would be doing.
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 07-22-2012, 10:21 PM   #871
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 12:30 PM
How is it possible that the argument against gay marriage just got worse? That has to be the dumbest argument I've ever seen, only the westboro church can outdo that fucked up logic.
BVS is offline  
Old 07-22-2012, 11:06 PM   #872
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 01:30 PM
i wish people would realize that the Pilgrims came to the USA for the religious freedom to discriminate against others, and that right is sacred.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-23-2012, 09:19 AM   #873
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 01:30 PM
gawker.com

City of Boston, Jim Henson Company Refuse to Do Business with Chick-fil-A

Neetzan Zimmerman

Boston mayor Thomas Menino issued a candid statement last week expressing his distaste for the possibility that the controversial fast-food chain Chick-fil-A might open up a branch in Beantown.

"Chick-fil-A doesn't belong in Boston," said Menino. "You can't have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We're an open city, we're a city that's at the forefront of inclusion."

Dan Cathy, president and COO of the Atlanta-based company's president, incurred the wrath of many when he told the Baptist Press recently that Chick-fil-A was "guilty as charged" in their opposition to same-sex marriage.

Chick-fil-A is reportedly hoping to open a store in Boston, right across the street from City Hall and steps away from the city's iconic Freedom Trail. "That's the Freedom Trail," Menino told the Boston Herald. "That's where it all started right here. And we're not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail."

The mayor vowed to make it "very difficult" for Chick-fil-A to obtain the licenses necessary to open an establishment in Boston.

Meanwhile, the Jim Henson Company has also made it clear that they are no longer interested in doing business with Chick-fil-A.

"The Jim Henson Company has celebrated and embraced diversity and inclusiveness for over fifty years and we have notified Chick-Fil-A that we do not wish to partner with them on any future endeavors," the company said in a statement on its Facebook page. "Lisa Henson, our CEO is personally a strong supporter of gay marriage and has directed us to donate the payment we received from Chick-Fil-A to GLAAD."

Chick-fil-A recently began including Jim Henson's Creature Shop toys in their Kid's Meals, and will presumably continue to do so until August 18th.

Elsewhere, activists have launched a call for a National Same-Sex Kiss Day at Chick-fil-A to take place on August 3rd. You can learn more on the initiative's Facebook page.
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-23-2012, 09:58 AM   #874
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 01:30 PM
It's really awful that good, quality, and often charitable companies are punished by elites simply for speaking out about their deeply held beliefs. Millions of Americans want to discriminate against gay people, as is their protected religious right to do so, and Chik-Fil-A has every right to as well. If there's one thing Mitt Romney has taught us it's that corporations are people, and as people, they are guaranteed the religious freedom to deny civil rights to people who are against their religion.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-23-2012, 10:02 AM   #875
Self-righteous bullshitter
 
BoMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Soviet Canuckistan — Socialist paradise
Posts: 16,900
Local Time: 02:30 PM
Amen, brother!
__________________

BoMac is offline  
Old 07-23-2012, 10:09 AM   #876
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York / Dallas / Austin
Posts: 14,076
Local Time: 11:30 AM
As much as I completely disagree with Chick-Fil-A's stance, I have strong reservations against the City of Boston actively working to ensure that no CFA branches open in the city for that reason.
digitize is offline  
Old 07-23-2012, 04:24 PM   #877
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
As much as I completely disagree with Chick-Fil-A's stance, I have strong reservations against the City of Boston actively working to ensure that no CFA branches open in the city for that reason.
I can see that side of it as far as-obviously Mayor Menino doesn't know the gay marriage and gay rights stance of every business in the city of Boston. Chick-Fil-A was just very public about it. So are you going to ask that of every potential business, ask them what their stance is? I'm sure you'll get the truth, when you make that a condition of doing business. On the other hand, how you can have the guy being so public about it when Boston and MA have such a pioneering history in gay rights and gay marriage? Doesn't it make you look like a hypocrite for allowing them to open now? I don't agree at all with the guy's stance (chicken guy), obviously. But I do think that can be a slippery slope, to start making those types of decisions about businesses.

Guess you could argue that freedom to do business is a freedom too, and freedom for consumers to choose whether or not they want to support the place. I'm sure the Freedom Trial might already have businesses who discriminate in some way, shape or form. Or who are owned by someone who is opposed to gay marriage.

On a much lighter note, Mayor Menino should really stick to that " or whatever the hell the name is". It would work for Varitek putting it through the uprights, Wekler and Grabowski...and on and on and on. I need some video of the mayor saying Chick-Fil-A.
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-23-2012, 09:22 PM   #878
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 09:30 AM
Muppets dump Chick-Fil-A to support gay marriage | Reuters
deep is offline  
Old 07-23-2012, 10:06 PM   #879
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 01:30 PM
Also, Sally Ride was gay.

Thankfully, her partner of 27 years will be denied federal death benefits because of DOMA.
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-23-2012, 10:38 PM   #880
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 09:30 AM
She was not gay when she went into space. That would have been really big news.
__________________

deep 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 12:30 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
×