Same Sex Marriage Thread-Part 2 - Page 50 - 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 03-28-2013, 08:46 AM   #981
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 01:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Please submit your marriage resignation by COB tomorrow. We simply can't have anyone who isn't ideal, and your lack of procreation will be dealt with by HR.

Think of the children.

DAMMIT. And only a year and a half away from 25 years.


__________________

martha is offline  
Old 03-28-2013, 11:00 AM   #982
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
If one is making generalizations that same sex marriage messes up kids, and then one points to families without fathers in the home, then more than likely the absent father was a straight man who left his family. And then didn't pay child support.

You are not the one making these generalizations, but the ones who are, are ignoring the straight man elephant in the room.
oooooooh. I suck at internetting
__________________

Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 03-28-2013, 02:13 PM   #983
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 04:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
DAMMIT. And only a year and a half away from 25 years.


why are you right now denying children their right to a mother and a father?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-28-2013, 02:33 PM   #984
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 6,437
Local Time: 08:51 AM
I was married once, didn't last long at all. We rushed it, we were stupid, and we corrected a very big mistake.

I also don't ever want children. Never have, never will. I took measures to make sure this stays true, and honestly I wouldn't make a good dad. Have no desire to be a parent, and wouldn't make the effort if I had been one.

I don't see myself getting married again. No point, but I'd never stop anyone else from trying because of my own opinion on the subject.

but that's not ideal.
BEAL is offline  
Old 03-28-2013, 02:46 PM   #985
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 04:51 AM
plus ca change, plus la meme:

Quote:
Won’t Somebody Think of the Children

By Brian Palmer|Posted Wednesday, March 27, 2013, at 4:34 PM


During yesterday’s oral arguments over the constitutionality of California’s ban on gay marriage, Justice Antonin Scalia claimed that there is “considerable disagreement among sociologists” as to whether being raised by a same-sex couple is “harmful to the child.” The lawyers arguing the case repeatedly brought up the landmark 1967 decision Loving v. Virginia, which struck down interracial marriage bans. Did supporters of the ban argue that interracial marriage was harmful to children in that case, too?

Absolutely.
The state of Virginia presented two arguments in support of its interracial marriage ban in 1967. The first was that the authors of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution explicitly stated that they did not intend to strike down anti-miscegenation laws, which were common in the 19th century. The second argument was that interracial marriages were uniquely prone to divorce and placed undue psychological stress on children.

The parallels between the two cases are striking. The defenders of California’s Prop 8 rely heavily on the work of University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus, who argued in a 2012 study that the children of people who engage in same-sex relationships have worse psychological, social, and economic outcomes. (The study generated enormous controversy, and its conclusions have been largely rejected by other social scientists.) In 1967, the state of Virginia’s expert of choice was Albert Gordon, whose book Intermarriage: Interfaith, Interracial, Interethnic attacked the adequacy of interracial parenting. According to Virginia’s solicitor general Robert McIlwaine, Gordon concluded that interracial marriages “hold no promise for a bright and happy future for mankind” and “bequeath to the progeny of those marriages more psychological problems than the parents have a right to bequeath to them.” Interracial marriage is so undesirable, McIlwaine continued, that its negative effects can’t even be managed. He argued that it “causes a child to have almost insuperable difficulties in identification and that the problems which a child of an interracial marriage faces are those which no child can come through without damage to himself.”

Virginia didn’t merely critique the parenting skills of interracial couples—the state attacked their very mental stability. Again citing Gordon, McIlwaine claimed that people who have the temerity to engage in interracial marriage have a “rebellious attitude towards society, self-hatred, neurotic tendencies, immaturity, and other detrimental psychological factors.” The implication was that these qualities rendered them unfit parents. The fact that the defenders of Prop 8 did not make similar arguments about gay people before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, even though such attitudes still exist, is an indication of how society has changed since 1967. (The language used in the oral arguments is another indication: Both the justices and the attorneys in the Loving oral argument repeatedly used antiquated racial terms like Mongol, Malay, negro, and mongrel.)

There are a few interracial parenting arguments from Loving that Prop 8’s defenders simply could not adapt to their own case. For example, pointing to comments by a University of Chicago professor, Virginia hinted in 1967 that intermingling the genes of different races might result in unknown physical deformities.

It’s somewhat surprising that the attorneys for Prop 8 chose to make the “bad parents” argument at all, because it gained no traction in 1967. Justice Potter Stewart pointed out during the hearing that “one reason that marriages of this kind are sometimes unsuccessful is the existence of the kind of laws that are in issue here.” Chief Justice Earl Warren apparently found the argument so unconvincing that he barely mentioned it in his opinion striking down Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law.

The anti-anti-miscegenation reformers may have faced a slightly easier road back in 1967 than gay marriage advocates face today. In the 13 years that passed between Brown v. Board of Education and Loving, more than a dozen states repealed their bans on interracial marriage. Today, nine states have approved gay marriage, either by vote, legislation, or judicial decision. Although there is little data on public attitudes toward anti-miscegenation laws in 1967, only 37 percent of Americans supported them by 1972. Nearly one-half of the country still opposes gay marriage.

Gay marriage at the Supreme Court: Did interracial marriage opponents claim to be helping the children? - Slate Magazine
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-28-2013, 03:07 PM   #986
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Jive Turkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,646
Local Time: 04:51 AM
I knew that was a mistake. Well, too late now. Society is fucked
Jive Turkey is offline  
Old 03-28-2013, 03:23 PM   #987
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 19,218
Local Time: 04:51 AM
So, I ask of you INDY, what exactly is different between the argument you are making about the ideal parenting unit and the argument made in 1967 regarding interracial parents?
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 03-28-2013, 04:39 PM   #988
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 01:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
why are you right now denying children their right to a mother and a father?


 
We keep trying to have children. Frequently.
martha is offline  
Old 03-28-2013, 05:17 PM   #989
More 5G Than Man
 
LemonMelon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywoo
Posts: 68,427
Local Time: 01:51 AM
I have never nor will ever understand what makes having a shitty mother and father more ideal than having two great mothers or two great fathers.
LemonMelon is offline  
Old 03-28-2013, 06:34 PM   #990
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 12:51 AM
.
Quote:
Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, said on Tuesday that same-sex marriage advocates have a more convincing argument than opponents, who do nothing but rehash scripture to make their point.

"The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals," O'Reilly said Tuesday on Fox. "That's where the compelling argument is. 'We're Americans. We just want to be treated like everybody else.' That's a compelling argument, and to deny that, you have got to have a very strong argument on the other side. The argument on the other side hasn't been able to do anything but thump the Bible."

O'Reilly has previously stated he takes a libertarian view on the issue, and repeated Tuesday night that it's a decision that should be left up to the states. "I support civil unions. I always have. The gay marriage thing, I don't feel that strongly about it one way or another."
deep is offline  
Old 03-28-2013, 06:44 PM   #991
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,305
Local Time: 04:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
I knew that was a mistake. Well, too late now. Society is fucked
Yup. We created a monster:

LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 03-28-2013, 07:34 PM   #992
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 19,218
Local Time: 04:51 AM
O'Reilly's statements fit in with what Irvine was saying, that the GOP base is trying to ease the party into accepting gay marriage and ditch it as a platform issue.
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 04-03-2013, 10:10 AM   #993
Refugee
 
PennyLanePHINS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NY
Posts: 1,168
Local Time: 04:51 AM
Read that Uruguay's senate has approved it. The lower house already did a few months ago, now they have to approve modifications. The President already said he will sign it, so it is pretty much legal there now.

Random but don't you love how long it all takes? Oh politics, imagine if you could take so long to do something at your job?
PennyLanePHINS is offline  
Old 04-03-2013, 12:13 PM   #994
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,305
Local Time: 04:51 AM
Doesn't it make you sad that a country like Uruguay is beating us to so many of these civil rights achievements?
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 04-03-2013, 08:55 PM   #995
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 58,208
Local Time: 07:51 PM
That's a bit unfair on Uruguay.
cobl04 is online now  
Old 04-10-2013, 09:54 PM   #996
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:51 AM
UPDATE: High School Will Allow Rick Santorum to Deliver Speech After Originally Canceling Over His ‘Extreme’ Gay Marriage Stance | TheBlaze.com

Quote:
Apr. 10, 2013
UPDATE: High School Will Allow Rick Santorum to Deliver Speech After Originally Canceling Over His ‘Extreme’ Gay Marriage Stance
Wash. State Suing Christian Florist After She Refuses to Provide Flowers for Gay Wedding | TheBlaze.com
Quote:
Wash. State Suing Christian Florist After She Refuses to Provide Flowers for Gay Wedding
Apr. 10, 2013

Ferguson’s office is seeking an injunction that would permanently require Arlene’s Flowers & Gifts to provide services to gays and lesbians. Should the company continue to avoid compliance, a $2,000 fine would be imposed for each failure to abide by the law.

“As attorney general, it is my job to enforce the laws of the state of Washington,” Ferguson said in a statement. “Under the Consumer Protection Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against customers on the basis of sexual orientation. If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service.”
Calif. Tax Bill Seeks to Punish Boy Scouts’ for Gay Ban, Targets Group’s ‘Unfortunate Discriminatory and Outdated Practices’ | TheBlaze.com

Quote:
Calif. Tax Bill Seeks to Punish Boy Scouts’ for Gay Ban, Targets Group’s ‘Unfortunate Discriminatory and Outdated Practices’
Apr. 10, 2013
Furor over the Boy Scouts of America’s stance on gays continues to rage. Now, California lawmakers are considering taking some tax exemptions away from youth groups that do not accept gay, transgender or atheist members — a move intended to pressure the Scouts to lift its ban on gay Scouts and troop leaders.
Some cities have withdrawn free rent and other subsidies from the Boy Scouts over the years, but legislation introduced by state Sen. Ricardo Lara would make California the first state to target the Scouts for its anti-gay policy.
FORWARD!!

Just reckoned I'd note that what has been scoffed at on this thread for 5 years is now happening quickier than even I thought possible.

Thought crimes.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 04-10-2013, 10:00 PM   #997
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,305
Local Time: 04:51 AM
I don't understand you whatsoever.
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 04-10-2013, 10:05 PM   #998
45:33
 
cobl04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: East Point to Shaolin
Posts: 58,208
Local Time: 07:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
FORWARD!!
Yes, because nothing says progress like telling young kids in the Scouts that atheism and being gay are wrong. Holy fuck that's boneheaded of you.

A major reason I quit Scouts was because I was forced to recite the line "I will do my duty to my Queen and to my God". When I was 14, for fuck's sake.
cobl04 is online now  
Old 04-10-2013, 10:06 PM   #999
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 19,218
Local Time: 04:51 AM
Why would you possibly be against this?
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 04-10-2013, 10:16 PM   #1000
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 04:51 AM



Replace the word "gay" or "same-sex" with the word "Jewish" or "black." Re-read.
__________________

Irvine511 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 03:51 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
×