Same Sex Marriage Thread-Part 2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
In general, when someone starts their sentence with "I'm not xxxx, but I just" it's being followed by just that they claimed they're not. :rolleyes:

That letter. Wow. Way to support and love your child for following its heart.


I'd like some response to my post from a few days back, Indy, as I'm genuinely interested in your answers.
 
Someone like Indy should just answer straight up....

Do you believe homosexuals to be human beings? If the answer is no, then it makes the marriage question easy and understandable.

If the answer is yes to being fellow humans, then the question is why are you denying a basic right for one group of your own species?

The answer is "I think it's gross".

But for some reason a lot of people are afraid to answer exactly that, maybe a weird fear of being insensitive. Instead they hide behind a "definition" from a book written 2000 years ago full of "gross" stuff (torture, rape, child abuse, mass murder, jealousy, anger, fear )

It's like comedy. You may not find something funny, and you're correct to think that. Others may find that exact thing you didn't like, as being hilarious, and they're right too! It's called an opinion. I do not want laws created out of subjectivity. I want laws created out of factual evidence or as close to that as we can find that helps a society function.

Two dudes marrying, will not end civilization. And for the argument, a man marrying ten wives COULD have a negative impact on society (that's nine chicks I can't score with ;) )....and seriously you run into consent, abuse, child endangerment, legal issues (divorce, death, law suits, etc).

Marriage for two consenting adults, no matter what gender, is coming.
 
I feel like INDY just keeps moving the goalposts.

I don't see what relevance historical definitions and understandings of relationships and gender roles have in this discussion. Did people contemplate that someday women will be ministers or reverends? Did people contemplate that women would be presidents, doctors, lawyers and politicians? Hell, did people contemplate women voting? Did they contemplate that we would cohabit before marriage and that in some cultures (like Sweden) that is the predominant form of cohabitation these days? Or that we would be able to adopt children of other races or marry people of other races? The human race has been all about progress from day 1 - that is why we have democratic societies today, that is why we have technology and industry and medicine and everything else that comes with progress. 100 years ago, how many of us here who are people of colour or female would not have been able to live the lives that we do today? Is that really the barometer that we should be using?

I asked INDY about the negative impacts on a society where gay marriage is legal. He then cited Michael Coren (LOL) saying that in Canada there has been an increase in human rights tribunal complaints and cases against people who are anti-gay marriage. Seriously? What an absurd argument. Obviously once gay marriage is legalized and aside from changing the definition in the Family Law Act, it also follows that analogous changes are made in every other piece of provincial and federal legislation that you would then see more legal action. Because before it was legalized, it wasn't an established right, therefore you could not litigate on discriminatory actions. But once that became an enumerated right, of course people took to the human rights tribunal as they should. But I guess to INDY the more important thing is that people who wish to discriminate be able to do so with impunity. THAT is the real injustice.

As for the Chick-Fil-A, like somebody said, what has Chick-Fil-A done for you that's so important that you'd rather line up for an hour to eat there and boast about it than stand up for the rights of your citizens who are friends, family, coworkers, neighbours? Maybe INDY just doesn't have close friends who are committed gay couples and simply doesn't get it on that level, I don't know.

As a personal aside, I got engaged this past weekend. We are both thrilled and excited to celebrate with our families and friends. We'll be able to marry where and when we want and have all the rights of the state bestowed upon us. It's a wonderful thing and even though I have been with my fiance for a while and we live together (in sin!), I do feel differently now and that feeling is a great one. So if somebody can explain to me why I should withhold that happiness and the rights flowing therefrom from my gay and lesbian friends, I'm all ears.
 
Congratulations Anitram! :) And that was a great post.

I still don't see the link between gay people and polygamy. And I don't understand how that link was made in the first place.
 
anitram said:
I feel like INDY just keeps moving the goalposts.

I don't see what relevance historical definitions and understandings of relationships and gender roles have in this discussion. Did people contemplate that someday women will be ministers or reverends? Did people contemplate that women would be presidents, doctors, lawyers and politicians? Hell, did people contemplate women voting? Did they contemplate that we would cohabit before marriage and that in some cultures (like Sweden) that is the predominant form of cohabitation these days? Or that we would be able to adopt children of other races or marry people of other races? The human race has been all about progress from day 1 - that is why we have democratic societies today, that is why we have technology and industry and medicine and everything else that comes with progress. 100 years ago, how many of us here who are people of colour or female would not have been able to live the lives that we do today? Is that really the barometer that we should be using?

I asked INDY about the negative impacts on a society where gay marriage is legal. He then cited Michael Coren (LOL) saying that in Canada there has been an increase in human rights tribunal complaints and cases against people who are anti-gay marriage. Seriously? What an absurd argument. Obviously once gay marriage is legalized and aside from changing the definition in the Family Law Act, it also follows that analogous changes are made in every other piece of provincial and federal legislation that you would then see more legal action. Because before it was legalized, it wasn't an established right, therefore you could not litigate on discriminatory actions. But once that became an enumerated right, of course people took to the human rights tribunal as they should. But I guess to INDY the more important thing is that people who wish to discriminate be able to do so with impunity. THAT is the real injustice.

As for the Chick-Fil-A, like somebody said, what has Chick-Fil-A done for you that's so important that you'd rather line up for an hour to eat there and boast about it than stand up for the rights of your citizens who are friends, family, coworkers, neighbours? Maybe INDY just doesn't have close friends who are committed gay couples and simply doesn't get it on that level, I don't know.
Click to expand...

Very good and thought out post.

anitram said:
As a personal aside, I got engaged this past weekend. We are both thrilled and excited to celebrate with our families and friends. We'll be able to marry where and when we want and have all the rights of the state bestowed upon us. It's a wonderful thing and even though I have been with my fiance for a while and we live together (in sin!), I do feel differently now and that feeling is a great one. So if somebody can explain to me why I should withhold that happiness and the rights flowing therefrom from my gay and lesbian friends, I'm all ears.
Click to expand...

Congratulations! :applaud:
 
In all fairness, INDY is arguing alone (eith the exception of Iron Horse who shows up to tell us he will of Jesus from time to time). And he does try to put some reasoning behind his stance (as opposed to naked proclomations). That can't be easy to keep up.

And congrats to anitram.
 
cobl04 said:
I don't really see the problem with polygamous marriages either to be honest. :shrug: A little weird, sure, but if everyone was in agreeance...
Click to expand...

I just think that it'd give too many issues with most daily things. The paperwork would be enormous. Besides that I don't really see how a polygamous relationship is beneficial to everyone. I don't know anyone in one, either. All I know it from is the Arabian sheiks or African princes with their harem, and mormons. Not quite a good example for equal rights, or women rights for that matter.
 
cobl04 said:
I don't really see the problem with polygamous marriages either to be honest. :shrug: A little weird, sure, but if everyone was in agreeance...
Click to expand...

I don't see how those types of marriages or relationships work out. If its tough for two people to be in such a relationship, how can three, four or more survive? I can't imagine the jealousy and competition going on there.
 
cobl04 said:
I don't really see the problem with polygamous marriages either to be honest. :shrug: A little weird, sure, but if everyone was in agreeance...
Click to expand...

Money. Marriage as a legal entity is mainly about shared assets. Having polygamy complicates it beyond the government's ability to sort it out.
 
Marriage was polygamous for, you know, centuries.

It very traditional, and what better way to show just how different and special the genders are than to give men multiple sex partners within the bounds of matrimony?

Let's stop pretending the genders are the same.
 
Irvine511 said:
Marriage was polygamous for, you know, centuries.

It very traditional, and what better way to show just how different and special the genders are than to give men multiple sex partners within the bounds of matrimony?

Let's stop pretending the genders are the same.
Click to expand...

It would be harder more difficult to do this within a Biblical traditional polygamous marriage.
 
Jive Turkey said:
Hiding your bigoted beliefs behind frivolous reasons doesn't make you any less of a bigot. In fact, the idea that you might not even realize you're being a bigot might make you more of one.
By the same token, simply saying "I'm not anti gay, I just.." doesn't make you less anti gay
Click to expand...

Ta-da.

INDY500 said:
I respect that you are consistent but you can't choose to be polygamous if it's illegal where you live. If marriage is about love, commitment and support who are we to judge if a man falls in love with 3 women? If marriage is anything but between one man and one woman you can't.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand. What I mean is, you aren't born polygamous. It's not an orientation, it's not an innate part of your being. It's a type of lifestyle you can choose to be a part of. The same can't be said for gay people.

And many polygamists have figured out how to get around the legality issue-they legally marry one person and have "religious/spiritual ceremonies" with the others.

Again, I've never said we should judge such a thing. I honestly do not care if a man has three wives. I do think it sucks that only the men can do that and they won't allow a woman to have three husbands-there's definitely a sexist aspect to polygamy that I don't support. But them all living together in and of itself is really none of my concern, and I'm certainly not about to sit here and demand laws denying such unions if, once again, everyone involved is of legal age and consenting. Besides, as has been noted, the Bible sure doesn't seem to have an issue with the concept!

I'm still curious as to how you can sit here and talk about the value of personal freedom and yet continue to support denying gay couples the right to get married. Isn't that infringing on their personal freedom? Why do you think you have the power to make such a decision about their lives? When you do get back to answering everyone's questions more fully, I really hope those are among the ones you answer, because I'm dying to hear the reasoning.

Unless Axver is right and you are just taking the piss. Which I sincerely hope you are, because if you aren't, that's just really sad.

Also, congratulations, anitram! And, as always, excellent post :up:.
 
Read and throw yourself through the nearest window.

The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) has warned Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings that her decision to press ahead with gay marriage could lead to future apologies to children who “have no say in being separated from their biological parents”.

“In 20 or 30 years, we will have a generation who will say, `who made the decision I should never have had a mother or father?’”

Brown also compared same-sex parenting to the stolen generation.

“Are we not learning from the mistakes of the past – situations like the forced adoptions and stolen generation – where children are taken from their biological parents and raised by someone else?” he said.
Click to expand...

Yes, because when gay marriage is legalised, the authorities will rip children out of the homes of heterosexuals. :doh:

Gays raising new ‘stolen generation’: ACL | Star Online
 
Congratulations Anitram! Best wishes for you both!

My wife and I just celebrated our 15th anniversary, and I can tell you that you've got lots to look forward to!
 
It's the Australian Christian Lobby, which might as well just change its name to Homophobics R Us, because 95% of the shit they talk about is how gay marriage will destroy Australian society. :rolleyes:
 
INDY I'd like you to answer this one - if gay marriage were legalised in the States, what would you do? Would you move overseas? Would you protest against it? You couldn't keep that up until the day you died. Eventually you would give up, and gay people will continue to get married, and it won't affect your life in any way. What will the anti-gay marriage people do?
 
cobl04 said:
Read and throw yourself through the nearest window.



Yes, because when gay marriage is legalised, the authorities will rip children out of the homes of heterosexuals. :doh:

Gays raising new ‘stolen generation’: ACL | Star Online
Click to expand...



same thing here.

Bryan Fischer Defends Call For 'Underground Railroad' Abduction Of Children From Gay Parents

and look at the little slideshow at the end. it's so insane what relatively mainstream people can say about gay people.

remove the word "gay" and replace it with "jewish" or "black" and it's nothing more than hate speech.
 
in all seriousness. what person would advocate the abduction of children from parents who love and care for them? how is this not a hate group?
 
But remember, they're "pro-family", and stuff! Just like how they value the institution of marriage, despite the fact that they want to restrict who can get married (all the while they complain about how "promiscuous" gay people are).

It really boggles my mind that the pro-gay rights side has had to fight as long as it has against nonsensical arguments like the ones mentioned above. This fight should've been over and done a LONG time ago.
 
You could argue that for any minority group fighting to have equal rights. It looks pretty silly now when we look back and see how we treated minorities and women.

We will look back on this time too and wonder, WTF were we thinking? Look over the course of human history and while it's great we've made progress, it's still awfully sad to think of what we have done to our fellow kind.

Seems to be a common theme behind all of these hate messages too *AHEM....religion*


These hate groups can continue to spew their garbage of linking homosexuals to child rapists, or animals, or whatever else they feel is necessary to show how backwards and mean spirited they are.
 
Saw this on a friend's facebook page and thought of this thread immediately.

On her radio show, Dr. Laura said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Schlesinger, written by a US man, and posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as quite informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

James M. Kauffman,

Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,

Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

P.S. (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian.)
Click to expand...
 
Funny, and it should give any Christian who has reservations or outright opposition to same-sex marriage pause.

And I say that as a pretty conservative Christian myself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
Hello, hello!
Replies
2
Views
893
Ralph_Sutter
R
M
Ticketmaster app
Replies
3
Views
508
rosephile
R
R
Help a MacPhisto out! - Night #2 (9/30) at the Sphere (pics and videos)
Replies
3
Views
749
Ralph_Sutter
R
U
Hello, From Dallas, Texas
Replies
3
Views
542
TheFlyZooTV
T
K
U2 Show Logistics Question/Theories
Replies
7
Views
753
lazarus
lazarus

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom