Silly Mrs. Clinton - Page 11 - 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 08-13-2007, 08:18 PM   #201
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 03:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris


Ok, if you say so. This is exactly what my wife and I have. I don't care what you call it. Seems odd that you would think that gay couples wouldn't want this.

What about it don't you think they would like, the name? I'm not worried about the name.
Did you and your wife have a ceremony or did you just sign a contract? Really, that's all you and your wife have? Then why do you call her your wife, why not just your interdependent?

I don't know why you would rather dumb down the relationship rather than upgrade what homosexuals can do to be equal with what you have.
__________________

BVS is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 08:20 PM   #202
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris


and...? You've never heard of two farming brothers not having sex together who live together?
__________________

martha is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 08:22 PM   #203
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 03:17 AM
Quote:
I don't know why you would rather dumb down the relationship rather than upgrade what homosexuals can do to be equal with what you have.
Why do you only want to limit it to 'xxxxxsexuals'?

Are you saying that people can't have a ceremony for unions/partnerships?

I have no problem calling our legal realationship a union or partnership or interdependent partnership. I have no problem calling my SO my partner. I like it better actually than wife.
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 08:23 PM   #204
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,341
Local Time: 04:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


Nice assumption.

I like Kucinich because he's the only one for actual marriage.
My "assumption" is that you will be voting in the national election.

And Kucinich won't be a nominee. Neither will Ron Paul....or Mickey Mouse. I have no idea where Mickey stands on gay marriage. But I imagine he supports civil unions, many American do.
Bluer White is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 08:27 PM   #205
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 03:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris


Why do you only want to limit it to 'xxxxxsexuals'?
People like to express their love.

Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris


Are you saying that people can't have a ceremony for unions/partnerships?

I have no problem calling our legal realationship a union or partnership or interdependent partnership. I have no problem calling my SO my partner. I like it better actually than wife.
You still haven't shown me anyone who wants this. I don't see any brothers and sisters lining up for this.
BVS is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 08:29 PM   #206
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 03:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bluer White


I have no idea where Mickey stands on gay marriage. But I imagine he supports civil unions, many American do.
Actually Mickey is pretty gay friendly.
BVS is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 08:30 PM   #207
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 03:17 AM
Quote:
You still haven't shown me anyone who wants this. I don't see any brothers and sisters lining up for this
Apparently the people in Alberta Canada want it. I don't really feel like going through every other country right now, but just might someday!
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 08:30 PM   #208
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris
As long as it's not limited to romantic involvement about sexual orientation.
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris
I'd like to neurtralize the religious aspect of it, and take it out of the argument.
You seem to be suggesting the 'romantic' and 'religious' aspects are one and the same. But civil marriage presumes a longterm romantic relationship just as clearly as religious marriage does. Why does broadening that definition to include gay couples (a type of romantic relationship) call for dismantling the whole premise altogether? I think this is why you're attracting suspicion--it's hard not to see it as a way to avoid legitimizing gay relationships as 'real' romantic relationships worthy of founding a household deserving of government benefits upon. Because that, of course, is what all the controversy out there ultimately boils down to. It's not about whether adults with dependent relatives or friends deserve certain special legal benefits to assist them in that effort.
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_i...hip_in_Alberta
Quote:
Since 2003, Adult interdependent relationships have been available to both same-sex and different-sex couples in the Canadian province of Alberta, providing some but not all the rights and benefits of marriage.
......................................................
Furthermore, "Non-conjugal friends living together in a relationship of interdependence for a continuous period of not less than three years will become adult interdependent partners, whether or not they intend to. While it may be possible to contract out of some of the statutes amended by the Adult Interdependent Relationships Act," it is not possible to contract out of the Dependants Relief Act. Thus, if two elderly friends, same-sex or different-sex, live together in a platonic relationship for several years, when one dies, the other may be able to claim a larger share of the deceased's estate than any surviving children, even if the two friends never signed an adult interdependent partnership agreement.
Sounds like Alberta (which also recognizes same-sex marriage, so this isn't an 'alternative' to that) had quite a different set of interests in mind in implementing this act.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 08:33 PM   #209
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 03:17 AM
Quote:
You seem to be suggesting the 'romantic' and 'religious' aspects are one and the same. But civil marriage presumes a longterm romantic relationship just as clearly as religious marriage does. Why does broadening that definition to include gay couples (a type of romantic relationship) call for dismantling the whole premise altogether? I think this is why you're attracting suspicion--it's hard not to see it as a way to avoid legitimizing gay relationships as 'real' romantic relationships worthy of founding a household deserving of government benefits upon. Because that, of course, is what all the controversy out there ultimately boils down to. It's not about whether adults with dependent relatives or friends deserve certain special legal benefits to assist them in that effort.
Good points Yolland. I'm not for dismantling the premise. Just including platonic relationships. I don't care what the institution is called.
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 08:40 PM   #210
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 03:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris


Apparently the people in Alberta Canada want it. I don't really feel like going through every other country right now, but just might someday!
Yes people will settle if they have to, that's no suprise.


"In 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its landmark ruling in the case of M. v. H., which essentially required all provinces to extend the benefits of common-law marriage to same-sex couples, under the equality provisions of Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.[3] Owing to the conservative political climate in the province, the government of Alberta was slow to respond, but in 2000 Alberta did amend the provincial Marriage Act to specifically limit marriage to different-sex couples.

In January 2002, the Alberta Law Reform Institute, funded in part by the provincial government, published its recommendations in a report, Recognition of Rights and Obligations in Same-Sex Relationships.[4] Subsequently, Bill 30, establishing adult interdependent relationships, was introduced in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta in the spring session of 2002 but was not passed at that time. In the fall session, the bill was re-introduced as 30-2 and was passed with amendments as the Adult Interdependent Relationships Act (S.A. 2002, c. A-4.5) on December 4, 2002. The act was proclaimed in force on June 1, 2003.[5]

The act did not amend the Marriage Act, but did amend 69 other Alberta laws, including:[6]"


This wasn't implemented because some brothers wanted "some but not all the rights and benefits of marriage", it was a settling to at least get some rights for gay couples.
BVS is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 08:44 PM   #211
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 03:17 AM
Back to the subject at hand:

Quote:
Dear Abby,
My husband is a liar and a cheat. He has cheated on me from the beginning, and, when I confront him, he denies everything. What's worse, everyone knows that he cheats on me. It is so humiliating. Also, since he lost his job six years ago, he hasn't even looked for a new one. All he does all day is smoke cigars, cruise around and bullshit with his buddies while I have to work to pay the bills. Since our daughter went away to college he doesn't even pretend to like me and hints that I may be a lesbian. What should I do?
Signed: Clueless


Dear Clueless,
Grow up and dump him. Good grief, woman. You don't need him anymore! You're a United States Senator from New York running for President of the United States. Act like one!!!!
Silly Mrs. Clinton!
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 08:48 PM   #212
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 03:17 AM
Be careful, 2861 may call that hate speech.
BVS is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 09:00 PM   #213
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 09:17 AM
Considering its trajectory, I have to disagree with the insinuation that this thread ever really had a 'subject'...

I do find it ironic that so many people seem to find it easy enough to perceive Hillary Clinton (agreements or disagreements with her actual platform aside) as a dutiful 'good wife' who forgives her husband's iniquities for the relationship's sake, when such an attitude almost certainly wouldn't be extended to a male candidate whose wife had such a (public) history. Then again, I don't think these kinds of relationship crises and how the two people involved choose to handle them are really anyone else's business, and in any case, it's an unworthy basis for judging her political acumen.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 09:00 PM   #214
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Well Madelyniris just cleaned everybody's clock-quite handsomely I might add.

dbs
diamond is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 09:30 PM   #215
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 03:17 AM
How so?

Did you read the same thread I did?
BVS is offline  
Old 08-13-2007, 11:10 PM   #216
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
I do find it ironic that so many people seem to find it easy enough to perceive Hillary Clinton (agreements or disagreements with her actual platform aside) as a dutiful 'good wife' who forgives her husband's iniquities for the relationship's sake, when such an attitude almost certainly wouldn't be extended to a male candidate whose wife had such a (public) history. Then again, I don't think these kinds of relationship crises and how the two people involved choose to handle them are really anyone else's business, and in any case, it's an unworthy basis for judging her political acumen.
But it's all they got.
martha is offline  
Old 08-14-2007, 07:39 AM   #217
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,786
Local Time: 04:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MadelynIris
Back to the subject at hand:

Silly Mrs. Clinton!
Nothing like Christian conservatives blathering on about the "sanctity of marriage" and then wanting a couple to get divorced when even they don't want to!
melon is offline  
Old 08-14-2007, 07:43 AM   #218
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 03:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
Well Madelyniris just cleaned everybody's clock-quite handsomely I might add.

dbs


I give credit to MadelynIris for not being blindly biased, unlike many opposing gay marriage.

Congratulations on another hit-and-run post that brings nothing to the topic.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 08-14-2007, 08:43 AM   #219
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,212
Local Time: 04:17 AM
What exactly does her marital relationship have to do with her run for President?

Rudy Giuliani's kids apparently hate him too Where's the dear Abby letter for that?

Many people choose to stay with spouses after affairs and infidelities of many different types, whose business is that but theirs?
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 08-14-2007, 12:55 PM   #220
Blue Crack Addict
 
Varitek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on borderland we run
Posts: 16,861
Local Time: 03:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha




Jesus. Does no one read the fucking countless threads on this anymore? Or do they forget what they posted?
It's a different one or two posters in every thread - very rarely do the logic-less anti-marriage posters return (at least to FYM) once they have experienced this 20-on-1 facts-on-assertions phenomenon that "keep right" guy (can't remember the numbers in his username) ran from.

But it also makes for a boring thread - the same 8 posters (sometimes myself included) reiterating the same logical points while somebody spouts one of the four items on the list you made and then ultimately gives up or, in the case of one recent poster, gets himself banned. They are usually relatively new posters, at least to FYM, and as someone pointed out earlier, often young enough that they can't legally marry themselves (perhaps hence that angle of argument?). Obviously they can't be ignored - it's too hard for many of us to stay silent when faced with that kind of hate, especially when it is not composed as a solid argument. But it makes for a really boring thread over and over and over again.

edit: I forgot! It's also a conversation that nearly always occurs in a thread that started out with a different topic (though I agree with Yolland's assessment about this thread).
__________________

Varitek 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 03:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×