Same Sex Marriage Thread-Part 2 - Page 35 - 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 10-14-2012, 03:43 AM   #681
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Have I ever personally attacked either of you? Please ignore me if you can't be passionate and civil at the same time.
actually, no. I'm erasing what I first wrote and saying: Indy, I'm sure if we met in real life I'd think you're a fine person. Shit on here gets blown up more than it should. I honestly mean that
__________________

Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 10-14-2012, 06:38 AM   #682
Galeonbroad
 
Galeongirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Schoo Fishtank
Posts: 70,778
Local Time: 10:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
There's no reason boys can't wear dresses and if you're a "modern, educated" parent... nothing to see here.
Didn't expect to ever say this, but for the first time we agree on something here.

Gender stereotypes are exactly that. Stereotypes.

As a kid, I preferred to play with action figures and lego rather than dolls and make up. Man. I must be some butch lesbian then!


Oh wait. No actually, I turned out quite straight and fine with that. Shocking, eh? Why not let kids be kids? Find their own path?
__________________

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraceRyan View Post
And if U2 EVER did Hawkmoon live....and the version from the Lovetown Tour, my uterus would leave my body and fling itself at Bono - for realz.
Don't worry baby, it's gonna be all right. Uncertainty can be a guiding light...
Galeongirl is offline  
Old 10-14-2012, 06:45 AM   #683
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 04:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey
actually, no. I'm erasing what I first wrote and saying: Indy, I'm sure if we met in real life I'd think you're a fine person. Shit on here gets blown up more than it should. I honestly mean that
I would agree.

INDY, I actually do feel that you have been personal but in the vein of JT's post I generally separate delivery and staunchness here from real life people.
anitram is offline  
Old 10-14-2012, 07:57 AM   #684
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kony Island Baby
Posts: 10,244
Local Time: 06:40 PM
Ok, wanna talk nationalism? Let's talk nationalism. Let's boogie. The secret ballot (aka the Australian ballot) and compulsory voting. The US should adopt the latter. Clean out the stables. I rest my case.
Kieran McConville is offline  
Old 10-14-2012, 08:42 AM   #685
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 04:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

Actually I've been very consistent as you now can see.
I am not sure how you saying that you are "torn" one time demonstrates that you have been as strong of a supporter of legislated gay marriage as you have been a supporter of anti-SSM marriage. I respect that you recognize the difference in the process but even in that post I sensed that you still had issues with the outcome.

Quote:


Which, however one feels about SSM, should be considered truly dangerous to a free society, especially when "bigotry" or "hate speech" is in the eye (or ear) of the offended. A point that sadly alludes some of you.
There are lots of issues to take with that article. It is very clearly written by somebody who has read a lot about our legal system but isn't actually familiar with how it operates or the context.

We should begin by recognizing that Canada is not the best country to compare the US to with respect to free speech because our constitutional documents do not place the emphasis on the same things and your free speech clause reads differently than our section on freedom of expression under the Charter.

Now for the boring law lesson. Section 15 of the Charter states that every individual is equal under the law and has the right to equal protection under, and equal benefit of, the law. It also enumerates grounds for discrimination, which include: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. These grounds are an example, and you have section 15 protection so long as you can demonstrate that you have been discriminated against on an analogous ground. Back in the mid-90s, our Supreme Court found that sexual orientation was implicitly read into section 15 and thus, is an analogous ground. From that point on, legalization of SSM was the obvious conclusion. All these articles that you post suggest that suddenly there is a rash of cases being brought before the federal and provincial human rights tribunals (which you should be aware of are not courts and therefore have very limited powers, particularly when it comes to enforcement - constitutional litigation, that is to say Charter litigation is extremely expensive and therefore it is almost never undertaken except in some landmark case where you have big firms willing to go pro bono). Well the reason that these cases are popping up isn't that there is a concerted effort to stifle free speech, it's because sexual orientation was not considered a discriminatory ground until the mid-90s! It sure sounds insane, but there are still states in the US where you're free to fire somebody for being gay. In Canada, equal protection under the law extends to every aspect of the law. The reason you have more complaints to the tribunals is because discrimination which was previously legal (if immoral, IMO) is now no longer legal. The percentage of cases argued on freedom of expression grounds before the tribunals is TINY. Most of these cases encompass things like landlord/tenant issues, workplace harassment and other workplace issues like constructive dismissal, educational/bullying issues in schools, sexual harassment.

It is by no means that our tribunals sit and exist for the purpose of curtailing free speech. The fact that you can find articles that point to some seemingly harsh findings (without context and without the benefit of reading the judgment) doesn't tell us anything other than some journalist took the time to find them. If you gave any one of us a day to comb through US judicial or quasi-judicial findings, do you think that we wouldn't be able to find absurd, out-of-context quotes or seemingly absurd findings to prove that the US is anti-free speech or is anti-women or is anti-vegetarians? Legal judgments are just like statistics - you can always find ones to support any position. That does not mean that the spirit of the law is interpreted thusly in the nation on the whole.

But perhaps the most operative section of our Charter is section 1, which actually permits the government to curtail the rights of individuals which are set out in the Charter. In short, it allows the government to, in very limited circumstances curtail your freedom of speech. The test is very onerous and very steep, and without going into the many prongs of it and turning this into a first year constitutional law exam, essentially the onus is on the government to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the curtailment of your rights is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. There are may requirements, but basically for your freedom of speech to be restricted, there must be a pressing and substantial objective and the means must be proportional: they must be rationally connected to the objective, the impairment of rights must be minimal and there must be proportionality between the infringement and the objective. If this test is met, then you may not have absolute freedom of speech like you do in the US. I really should emphasize that it is only in extreme circumstances that such tests are actually met.

So you can take the position that we have less freedom of speech in Canada and are thus less free. I think when this position is taken it is usually taken by uninformed people who don't really understand the context and can't be bothered to find out. But again, our countries are not a good comparison for freedom of speech cases because we prioritize different things in different ways. A mere look at your "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" as contrasted with our analogous language of "peace, order and good government" should be a relatively simplistic, yet useful tool in informing the difference.

Do I prefer the Canadian model? Yes, because as somebody who has lived (as a practicing lawyer) and worked in both countries, I prefer the flexibility of one over the rigid constitutional analysis of the other which treats the founding fathers as if they had the foresight of God and penned a document that was equally as relevant in 50, 200, or 650 years. But that is simply my own preference. The difference between you, INDY, and most people outside of the US is that we are able to recognize that our countries have some very good aspects and some things that need to be improved, but we don't need to go screaming from the rooftops that we are humanity's last great hope (to be honest, the only way I can react to such a statement is with laughter).
anitram is offline  
Old 10-14-2012, 06:58 PM   #686
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 19,218
Local Time: 04:40 AM
There are very few political issues that are right-and-wrong. Two, by my count: same-sex marriage and capital punishment. Everything else is shades of gray.
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 10-16-2012, 06:18 PM   #687
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
oooooh, I see. Your point is that we should try and nib it in the bud before it becomes a problem! Honestly man, what are you trying to get across? Because it would really seem that you have a problem with children either knowing about homosexuality or knowing from an early age that they might be homosexual themselves.
Are you implying that gay men typically wear girl's clothes as boys? Seems sorta like stereotyping. No, I don't mind "tom girls" or boys that don't care for girls, it's the move towards gender-neutral child-rearing I think is crap. It will cause just as much harm, ill-prepare children for the real world, as the self-esteem movement has. IMO
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-16-2012, 06:21 PM   #688
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I am not sure how you saying that you are "torn" one time demonstrates that you have been as strong of a supporter of legislated gay marriage as you have been a supporter of anti-SSM marriage. I respect that you recognize the difference in the process but even in that post I sensed that you still had issues with the outcome.



There are lots of issues to take with that article. It is very clearly written by somebody who has read a lot about our legal system but isn't actually familiar with how it operates or the context.

We should begin by recognizing that Canada is not the best country to compare the US to with respect to free speech because our constitutional documents do not place the emphasis on the same things and your free speech clause reads differently than our section on freedom of expression under the Charter.

Now for the boring law lesson. Section 15 of the Charter states that every individual is equal under the law and has the right to equal protection under, and equal benefit of, the law. It also enumerates grounds for discrimination, which include: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. These grounds are an example, and you have section 15 protection so long as you can demonstrate that you have been discriminated against on an analogous ground. Back in the mid-90s, our Supreme Court found that sexual orientation was implicitly read into section 15 and thus, is an analogous ground. From that point on, legalization of SSM was the obvious conclusion. All these articles that you post suggest that suddenly there is a rash of cases being brought before the federal and provincial human rights tribunals (which you should be aware of are not courts and therefore have very limited powers, particularly when it comes to enforcement - constitutional litigation, that is to say Charter litigation is extremely expensive and therefore it is almost never undertaken except in some landmark case where you have big firms willing to go pro bono). Well the reason that these cases are popping up isn't that there is a concerted effort to stifle free speech, it's because sexual orientation was not considered a discriminatory ground until the mid-90s! It sure sounds insane, but there are still states in the US where you're free to fire somebody for being gay. In Canada, equal protection under the law extends to every aspect of the law. The reason you have more complaints to the tribunals is because discrimination which was previously legal (if immoral, IMO) is now no longer legal. The percentage of cases argued on freedom of expression grounds before the tribunals is TINY. Most of these cases encompass things like landlord/tenant issues, workplace harassment and other workplace issues like constructive dismissal, educational/bullying issues in schools, sexual harassment.

It is by no means that our tribunals sit and exist for the purpose of curtailing free speech. The fact that you can find articles that point to some seemingly harsh findings (without context and without the benefit of reading the judgment) doesn't tell us anything other than some journalist took the time to find them. If you gave any one of us a day to comb through US judicial or quasi-judicial findings, do you think that we wouldn't be able to find absurd, out-of-context quotes or seemingly absurd findings to prove that the US is anti-free speech or is anti-women or is anti-vegetarians? Legal judgments are just like statistics - you can always find ones to support any position. That does not mean that the spirit of the law is interpreted thusly in the nation on the whole.

But perhaps the most operative section of our Charter is section 1, which actually permits the government to curtail the rights of individuals which are set out in the Charter. In short, it allows the government to, in very limited circumstances curtail your freedom of speech. The test is very onerous and very steep, and without going into the many prongs of it and turning this into a first year constitutional law exam, essentially the onus is on the government to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the curtailment of your rights is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. There are may requirements, but basically for your freedom of speech to be restricted, there must be a pressing and substantial objective and the means must be proportional: they must be rationally connected to the objective, the impairment of rights must be minimal and there must be proportionality between the infringement and the objective. If this test is met, then you may not have absolute freedom of speech like you do in the US. I really should emphasize that it is only in extreme circumstances that such tests are actually met.

So you can take the position that we have less freedom of speech in Canada and are thus less free. I think when this position is taken it is usually taken by uninformed people who don't really understand the context and can't be bothered to find out. But again, our countries are not a good comparison for freedom of speech cases because we prioritize different things in different ways. A mere look at your "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" as contrasted with our analogous language of "peace, order and good government" should be a relatively simplistic, yet useful tool in informing the difference.

Do I prefer the Canadian model? Yes, because as somebody who has lived (as a practicing lawyer) and worked in both countries, I prefer the flexibility of one over the rigid constitutional analysis of the other which treats the founding fathers as if they had the foresight of God and penned a document that was equally as relevant in 50, 200, or 650 years. But that is simply my own preference. The difference between you, INDY, and most people outside of the US is that we are able to recognize that our countries have some very good aspects and some things that need to be improved, but we don't need to go screaming from the rooftops that we are humanity's last great hope (to be honest, the only way I can react to such a statement is with laughter).
Thanks for your answer, if its ok I'll paste your answer in a new thread dealing with freedom of speech which I'll start after the election. I think the subject is not only interesting but of great importance.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-16-2012, 06:34 PM   #689
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Are you implying that gay men typically wear girl's clothes as boys? Seems sorta like stereotyping. No, I don't mind "tom girls" or boys that don't care for girls, it's the move towards gender-neutral child-rearing I think is crap. It will cause just as much harm, ill-prepare children for the real world, as the self-esteem movement has. IMO
Not all, but I'm sure some might That poster just seems to be saying "if a boy wants to wear a wig for fun, it's not a big deal". I think you're just taking it the wrong way. We probably have similar thoughts on 'gender neutral' child rearing. Nothing wrong with painting a boy's room blue and a girl's pink. But if the boy decides at some point that he wants to play with My Little Pony, I don't think that's a problem either. I've said in other threads that gender roles aren't always bad, but you have to let people stray from them if they choose
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 10-16-2012, 06:39 PM   #690
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
This is something I have asked a zillion times in this thread, and what I, above anything else I've asked, want an answer to: Why do you and others who think along the same lines as you on this issue think it's your place, your right, to tell others what to do with their love lives, to decide who can and can't get married?
As I've pointed out, all societies have and do define, limit and "decide who can and can't get married" based on numerous criteria. You seem to have a more libertarian (and consistent in my opinion) view of marriage but unless you're an anarchist you would discriminate against someone's "love" as well.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-16-2012, 06:45 PM   #691
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kieran McConville View Post
Ok, wanna talk nationalism? Let's talk nationalism. Let's boogie. The secret ballot (aka the Australian ballot) and compulsory voting. The US should adopt the latter. Clean out the stables. I rest my case.
That's what you'd rally the troops off to war to defend? OK
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-16-2012, 07:13 PM   #692
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:40 AM
nevermind. It's an endless cycle
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 10-16-2012, 07:46 PM   #693
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kony Island Baby
Posts: 10,244
Local Time: 06:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
That's what you'd rally the troops off to war to defend? OK
Yeah. Ok.
Kieran McConville is offline  
Old 10-16-2012, 07:48 PM   #694
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 04:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500

Are you implying that gay men typically wear girl's clothes as boys? Seems sorta like stereotyping. No, I don't mind "tom girls" or boys that don't care for girls, it's the move towards gender-neutral child-rearing I think is crap. It will cause just as much harm, ill-prepare children for the real world, as the self-esteem movement has. IMO

I think your child will let you know if he wants to wear a dress or not.

But I see nothing wrong with telling little girls that they can grow up to be doctors if they want, and telling little boys that they can be nurses or kindergarten teachers if they want.

THAT my friend is gender neutral parenting.

What you're worried about is a fabrication of the right wing cash-for-paranoia industry.

And none of this has anything to do with Adam and Steve getting married.

If you think it does, my gosh, it's pretty self-evident that you're making up objections as you go. What's next -- letting two men get married projects weakness and that's why Assad murders his own people?

Get an argument.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-16-2012, 07:53 PM   #695
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: 03:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
As I've pointed out, all societies have and do define, limit and "decide who can and can't get married" based on numerous criteria. You seem to have a more libertarian (and consistent in my opinion) view of marriage but unless you're an anarchist you would discriminate against someone's "love" as well.
There are relationships I do not approve of being legal because they are abusive and there's no consent between the parties involved. There is a danger to one or both of the people involved. Those are logical reasons.

A gay couple who have been together for years, love each other, would be great parents, similar age, all that good stuff. Why do you think you have the right to stop those people from marrying? There is nothing harmful or dangerous about their relationship, so why do you think the laws should bar them from a legal marriage? Please answer that question.
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 10-18-2012, 08:11 AM   #696
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 03:40 AM
This is not about hatred, please look the other way:

CNN's Carol Costello Kicks Bryan Fischer Off Show For Spewing Anti-Gay Hatred (VIDEO)
BVS is offline  
Old 10-18-2012, 09:54 AM   #697
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 6,437
Local Time: 08:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
A gay couple who have been together for years, love each other, would be great parents, similar age, all that good stuff. Why do you think you have the right to stop those people from marrying? There is nothing harmful or dangerous about their relationship, so why do you think the laws should bar them from a legal marriage? Please answer that question.
Because they don't fit what society should look like to those that are against gay marriage. They will spout off, despite studies showing otherwise, that the best relationship for a child is a mother/father.

Which is just an argument for those SSM that want to adopt. Then you ask what if two couples who are in love, want nothing to do with kids, why should they not marry?

And you'll get either a preference answer ("I think it's wrong/sick/etc"), or that it'll take away from the sanctity of marriage. Despite marriage already having an above 50% divorce rate. So "regular" marriage already has an issue.

There is no good reason why TWO consenting adults cannot get married if they so choose two. Other places around the world have allowed it, and their society still functions.

It's always come down to some people think it's gross or different. I think people who believe in an invisible sky God are delusional, but they have every right to believe or worship. I'm not going to try and stop them unless they try to govern their beliefs on me.

I have yet to run into a homosexual that has infringed on my rights
BEAL is offline  
Old 10-18-2012, 09:59 PM   #698
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 58,208
Local Time: 07:40 PM
The slanderous attack on freedom and liberty by the homosexual agenda continues

Federal Court in New York rules Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional | Gay Star News
cobl04 is online now  
Old 10-18-2012, 11:26 PM   #699
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 04:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobl04
The slanderous attack on freedom and liberty by the homosexual agenda continues

Federal Court in New York rules Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional | Gay Star News


And by liberal activists judges legislating from the bench too! Appointed by Bush 1.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-19-2012, 08:38 PM   #700
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 58,208
Local Time: 07:40 PM
Make sure you watch until the end

__________________

cobl04 is online now  
 

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 03:40 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
×