SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage - Page 14 - 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 10-08-2008, 04:58 PM   #261
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: 05:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Who exactly on this board has appealed to Ozzie and Harriet except for maycocksean? I think we've enjoyed a remarkably civilized discussion on these matters, citing legal precedent etc.

I was just referencing the photo that Irvine, I think it was, posted. . .Was that uncivilized?
__________________

maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-08-2008, 09:09 PM   #262
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
how are two women who live in massachusetts who are married and raising 2 kids anything but what you've described above. they are stable, they love and know how to raise their children, they can provide all that you've stated above. how are they any different than a man and a woman in massachusetts doing the same thing?
Again, I'm sure you can find examples of any family arrangement that works for somebody. And there's no guarantee that a child raised in a traditional nuclear family in a quiet suburb won't grow up to become a serial killer, terrorist or wife-beater. But if you need an analogy try this. Lots of temperaments or breeds of dogs can be used to pull a sled but a lead dog is required to keep them all on the same trail and at the same task.
Quote:
how does gay people wanting to commit their lives to one another do anything other than affirm many traditional values.
No one is stopping you from living in a committed, long-term relationship and enjoying the benefits of doing so.
Quote:
and, erm, did you really mean to say that about patriarchy?
Absolutely, radical feminists would abolish marriage... men... and razors.

Quote:
in fact, kids with lesbian parents tend to be more empathetic and more likely to be kind to their peers.
Thank you Irvine for proving my earlier point. That men and women are different.

Yolland wanted examples of what men and women bring to a marriage. Well, among other things, women bring a nurturing instinct, empathy and a deeper desire for stability. Which is why we would expect lesbian couples to be more desiring of children than gay men and for their relationships to be as lasting as opposite-sex relationships. But they're still a fatherless household. And what do fathers bring? One need only look to communities where fathers are all but nonexistent to see what's missing. An authority figure, an example for boys, some chivalry towards women and a family protector.

Everyone here knows women are better equipped than men to do some jobs in society and men others. So why the uproar that fathers and mothers are different and not interchangeable? Women are better listeners and better able to read emotions than men. Which is why they are slowly taking over my field, medicine. And I say great. Not that we men aren't good, but women are just plain better caregivers.

That's what "conservative" feminism is all about by the way. Women embracing their nature, characteristics and innate gifts and taking them out of the home and into the workforce for the betterment of society. Radical feminism, on the other hand, is about denying the feminine nature and the inherent differences between the sexes.

Quote:
you haven't show at all, and neither has nathan, how opposition to same sex marriage is anything other than homophobia.
I think your mind is already made up at this point. But I do appreciate your reading my posts, taking the time respond with valid questions and counterpoints and for remaining civil.
Quote:
we've all made the point that marriage isn't necessarily about children. martha is very happily married. and very happily without children. what on earth makes it so that she can get married, but melon and i can't marry our respective partners?
Not germane. Should a married couple divorce should their children be tragically killed or after they leave the house to pursue their own lives?
Quote:
and gay families exist -- why shouldn't they get the same conservative, traditional tools of familial stabilization that straight people get?
I'd allow you everyone of them except a marriage certificate. Why not that? Ask Joe Biden or Barack Obama.
__________________

INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-08-2008, 09:45 PM   #263
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 05:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
It's also not what I said.

I never said same-sex couples couldn't provide for, raise or love their children just as well as a heterosexuals. Or for that matter that there aren't fabulous single parent families out there. Or couples that may never marry. Or grandparents raising children. Or that traditional families are always perfect.
No, what I said was -- only marriage between a man and a women naturally results in children and is ideal for their upbringing.
That's hateful? That's controversial?

Please don't put words into my mouth or juxtapose your misconstrued idea of what supporters of tradition marriage argue.
By that logic, irresponsible heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to be married because they aren't ideal for children. If marriage should only be allowed for the ideal, then they're all out. Only responsible heterosexuals.

I honestly didn't think you would make it simply about being limited to the ideals, hence my response to your post.

Either way, I still don't say an ounce of logic involved.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 10-08-2008, 09:46 PM   #264
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 05:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
No one is stopping you from living in a committed, long-term relationship and enjoying the benefits of doing so.
Sure about that?
BVS is offline  
Old 10-08-2008, 10:17 PM   #265
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 03:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I'd allow you everyone of them except a marriage certificate.
How generous of you. Would you have "allowed" them to even have a legal relationship 50 years ago, when it was still illegal to be gay, or would you have come up with some antiquated ideals about the strong man and the soft woman?


Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Why not that?
We keep asking you, but all you've got is some idea about protecting me from the big nasty gay men trying to usurp whatever role you think I should have in my marriage. When that doesn't work, you think of the children, and when that doesn't work, you dodge the question.

None of it addresses the issue of codifying discrimination, of applying separate but equal to Irvine.
martha is offline  
Old 10-08-2008, 10:29 PM   #266
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
How generous of you. Would you have "allowed" them to even have a legal relationship 50 years ago, when it was still illegal to be gay, or would you have come up with some antiquated ideals about the strong man and the soft woman?
Don't know, wasn't around 50 years ago
Quote:
We keep asking you, but all you've got is some idea about protecting me from the big nasty gay men trying to usurp whatever role you think I should have in my marriage. When that doesn't work, you think of the children, and when that doesn't work, you dodge the question.
Or maybe you just don't like my answers.
Quote:
None of it addresses the issue of codifying discrimination, of applying separate but equal to Irvine.
Then you come up with a definition of marriage that doesn't include some while excluding others.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-08-2008, 10:31 PM   #267
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 04:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
Sure about that?
Fair point. Make that I wouldn't.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-08-2008, 10:37 PM   #268
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 03:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Don't know, wasn't around 50 years ago
You're always unwilling to face up to the fact that people used your same arguments in the past to pass laws that you claim you wouldn't have agreed with, but you never seem to want to understand that those people used the same arguments you're using and that's why you really don't have a leg to stand on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Or maybe you just don't like my answers.
You keep repeating them, hoping they'll be true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Then you come up with a definition of marriage that doesn't include some while excluding others.
We have, numerous times. And why all of a sudden do you give a shit about excluding people? It's all you've been advocating here. You're more than willing to exclude.


Oh wait! You're going to pull the children and dogs argument, next, aren't you?
martha is offline  
Old 10-08-2008, 10:39 PM   #269
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 03:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Fair point. Make that I wouldn't.
I doubt it. I'm sure if you'd been around when others were attempting to have these rights, you would have wanted to maintain the status quo. Every time I ask you about it you dodge that question.
martha is offline  
Old 10-08-2008, 10:53 PM   #270
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 05:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Fair point. Make that I wouldn't.
Well then if you wouldn't. What's the point?

If you wouldn't stop two men or two women from having all the same benefits and raise children then why all the back and forth? What has this been about? Is it just over the word?
BVS is offline  
Old 10-09-2008, 12:59 AM   #271
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: 05:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
No one's actually brought up Christianity thus far in this thread, maycocksean. And I didn't realize that one man/one woman was a strictly Christian construction. Or, for that matter, a 1960s one.
Does that mean I can't bring it up? I think you're detecting some kind of anti-Christian agenda on my part that isn't there. It wouldn't make much sense since I am a committed Christian from a pretty conservative denomination (I actually do believe the Bible is the Word of God and so on).

I'm not arguing that the one man/one woman idea is strictly Christian and certainly there are a few people who oppose gay marriage for non-religious reasons. What I was trying to get at is what may be one of the underlying reasons for the strong opposition many such as yourself have to gay marriage. I think you and I would both agree that the Judeo/Christian cultural assumptions have been the "default" setting for the past millenium or more, right? And I think we'd both agree that those cultural assumptions are beginning to lose ground to a more secular worldview. Whatever world view holds the power, gets to set the "norms" and this is most apparent in what the government sets it's symbolic seal of approval on. In essence it's the same concept behind "America is a Christian nation." You can worship whatever you want or not at all--we respect people's freedom of worship enshrined in the Constitution, BUT in school we'll pray to the Christian God, and we'll have His name on our money and in the pledge, and His laws will be on the walls of our courthouses--because that's the "default" setting, the norm for our culture. I see a similarity in the type of thinking that says "let gays have all the benefits of marriage. Let them even call it a 'marriage' if they like. But we won't put the government's seal of approval on it because the 'default' setting is one man/one woman. If the government apporoves gay marriage then it's just one more aspect of the old cultural assumptions, the old norms falling by the way side.

All I was saying is that, at least for Christians (which if memory serves me, you are, and thus I was appealing to that), we don't need to be in the business of preserving our cultural hegemony. Cultural hegemony has nothing to do with Jesus, at least from what I understand of Scripture. I know this argument doesn't speak to everyone. I wouldn't use it to address say financeguy (and I'm sure A_Wanderer finds it maddening that it would even be considered a usefuld defense of same-sex marriage).
maycocksean is offline  
Old 10-09-2008, 08:15 AM   #272
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 06:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Again, I'm sure you can find examples of any family arrangement that works for somebody. And there's no guarantee that a child raised in a traditional nuclear family in a quiet suburb won't grow up to become a serial killer, terrorist or wife-beater. But if you need an analogy try this. Lots of temperaments or breeds of dogs can be used to pull a sled but a lead dog is required to keep them all on the same trail and at the same task.
this is totally confusing to me. why don't the children of lesbians deserve the same protection as the children of heterosex parents? why is their family unit less-than the other. why won't you help some people by giving them the tools to construct the strongest possible relationships. won't everyone benefit? isn't this good for everyone? especially the children?

Quote:
No one is stopping you from living in a committed, long-term relationship and enjoying the benefits of doing so.
the state of Virginia certainly is. and if you go back and take a look at Sullivan's very personal essay, when you do finally call it marriage, you give straights and gays something very important in common, something that, when you really look at it, is the only actual difference between them.


Quote:
Absolutely, radical feminists would abolish marriage... men... and razors.
what does your odd definition of "radical feminism" have to do with same sex marriage?

Quote:
Thank you Irvine for proving my earlier point. That men and women are different.
yes, i've always agreed that they are different. one only has to see the differences between gay men and lesbians to see just how different. but this doesn't change the fact that it is illegal to use gender as a form of discrimination, and it's discriminatory to view gender as some sort of determinate that decides what you must do in life. all little girls must grow up to be mommies? all little boys must grow up and be firemen? come on, we were past this stuff when i was in first grade. your gender does not determine your role in society. you, the individual, determines your role in society.

which leads us to this paragraph:

Quote:
Yolland wanted examples of what men and women bring to a marriage. Well, among other things, women bring a nurturing instinct, empathy and a deeper desire for stability. Which is why we would expect lesbian couples to be more desiring of children than gay men and for their relationships to be as lasting as opposite-sex relationships. But they're still a fatherless household. And what do fathers bring? One need only look to communities where fathers are all but nonexistent to see what's missing. An authority figure, an example for boys, some chivalry towards women and a family protector.
this is rooted in nostalgia, not fact. nurturing instinct? empathy? all these things can and are shared by some men, and some men have this in greater droves than many women. yes, on the whole, more lesbian couples want children more than gay male couples, but many gay male couples want children (and, as should be repeated, gay couples with kids *really* wanted those kids, they are loved and cherished and not looked upon as burdens like in some straight relationships.

tell me, INDY, where are the studies that show that the children of two lesbians suffer from the same social maladies that fatherless african-american youth in the inner cities suffer from. those kids in northampton, MA are every bit as fatherless as those kids in SE Washington DC, and so they're all suffering, right? they'd have the same tendencies towards whatever anti-social behavior.

that and the lack of chivalry where they'd actually let a woman enter a room without standing up. it's terrible, i tell you, kids of lesbians are just suffering so.



Quote:
Everyone here knows women are better equipped than men to do some jobs in society and men others. So why the uproar that fathers and mothers are different and not interchangeable? Women are better listeners and better able to read emotions than men. Which is why they are slowly taking over my field, medicine. And I say great. Not that we men aren't good, but women are just plain better caregivers.
this is broadly, generally true, but let me tell you, i was a better preschool teacher than my sister ever would be. and i would happily hire some lesbians to build my back porch. and because society doesn't ascribe roles on the basis of gender, it is up to the individual to determine what it is that he or she is going to do with their life.

you have noticed, INDY, that some girls like to play in the dirt and that some boys like to play piano? that some girls are impatient and distracted and some boys are quiet and listen carefully and choose their words even more carefully? that your gender doesn't mean that you should only want to be a mommy, and that your gender doesn't mean that you want to go out an shoot a moose from an airplane.

and, gosh, if we're going to go this way, maybe all kids need a gay man instead of a mother and a father. we're all smart and neat and we dress well, and we make good bank, but we're emotional and we love old musicals so the child will certainly be exposed to music at a young age. and since we're so emotional, they'll get this motherly nurturing not from a mother but from a father. wow! what an amazing thing to offer a child. a man who isn't wrapped up in machismo and worried that he's going to sissify the boy if he doesn't throw the football in the backyard with him.



Quote:
That's what "conservative" feminism is all about by the way. Women embracing their nature, characteristics and innate gifts and taking them out of the home and into the workforce for the betterment of society. Radical feminism, on the other hand, is about denying the feminine nature and the inherent differences between the sexes.
not sure what this has to do with same sex marriage. and i know quite a few people who'd disagree with your assessment.


Quote:
Not germane. Should a married couple divorce should their children be tragically killed or after they leave the house to pursue their own lives?
this seems to be what your advocating. and what nathan is advocating. that the only purpose of being a man and the only purpose of being a woman is to marry and procreate and create their magical alchemy in the production of children. we don't allow any deviations from this, right, because that's the ideal. and we don't want to encourage anything but the ideal, so whether through choice or circumstance, we must not allow anyone to marry -- "since it is primarily an institution for raising children" -- who will not be having children. we should consider divorcing them if they cannot procreate, but maybe if they'll adopt it might be okay. but if they don't want children, they have no business being married.

this is what you folks are telling us when you make marriage contingent upon children, and you're doing so not because you've actually thought this out but because it's the only thing you can think of to justify discrimination.


Quote:
I'd allow you everyone of them except a marriage certificate. Why not that? Ask Joe Biden or Barack Obama.
why the resistance to the word?

as for Barry and Joe -- despite the fact that SNL perfectly got to the heart of their cowardice -- they're trying to win INDYana. so they're playing the game.

but it's okay. i'm used to being political fodder.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-09-2008, 09:30 AM   #273
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 06:47 AM
You Californians are gonna let this go down the tubes if you don't pull it together soon.
anitram is offline  
Old 10-09-2008, 10:13 AM   #274
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 03:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
You Californians are gonna let this go down the tubes if you don't pull it together soon.

I know. It's amazing how fear and lies can win over a voting population.
martha is offline  
Old 10-09-2008, 10:54 AM   #275
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 06:47 AM
the state of california forcibly eradicating hundreds of thousands of marriages would be the equivalent of Bull Connor turning the fire hoses and dogs on civil rights activists.

then i think the gays should vote on whether or not they should continue to pay taxes and go to jury duty.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-09-2008, 12:34 PM   #276
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Petaluma, CA
Posts: 359
Local Time: 11:47 AM
Just to drop in on this thread. I heard Armistead Maupin on the radio yesterday and he was emphatic about the need for us heterosexuals who believe in gay marriage to go out and vote against this proposition in November. I'm going to donate to the campaign this afternoon. I was telling some customers last night that rejecting this initiative would be one of the few things that could make me feel better about our country.
MissMoo is offline  
Old 10-10-2008, 11:33 AM   #277
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 06:47 AM
Quote:
The Connecticut Supreme Court today ruled that denying marriage rights to same-sex couples is unconstitutional.

...

"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," the ruling says.

...

"The guarantee of equal protection under the law, and our obligation to uphold that command, forbids us from doing so. In accordance with these state constitutional requirements, same sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry."

Eight same-sex couples sued, claiming their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process were violated when they were denied marriage licenses.
47 states to go.
anitram is offline  
Old 10-10-2008, 12:36 PM   #278
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 03:47 AM
Stupid activist constitutions.
martha is offline  
Old 10-10-2008, 02:15 PM   #279
War Child
 
TheEdge U2JT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: In a house filled with boys, guitars, pets and a lot of love!
Posts: 947
Local Time: 02:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
I know. It's amazing how fear and lies can win over a voting population.
Why is it always fear and lies? Or your a bigot? Or you're homophobic? Why cant you accept that many feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman. You guys always have to make it out to be a spiteful stance. Maybe is just anger manifesting itself because you are not getting what you want.

It was the same thing in the 1990's with the vote to eliminate affirmative action in California. If you were for it, you were labeled a racist. However, it passed by a HUGE margin. Its the reason why we have these propositions. The people of the state get to decide.

Apparently, a person is not entitled to have an opinion and express it unless it agrees with the liberal side of things.
TheEdge U2JT is offline  
Old 10-10-2008, 02:24 PM   #280
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 05:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEdge U2JT View Post
Why is it always fear and lies? Or your a bigot? Or you're homophobic? Why cant you accept that many feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman. You guys always have to make it out to be a spiteful stance. Maybe is just anger manifesting itself because you are not getting what you want.

It was the same thing in the 1990's with the vote to eliminate affirmative action in California. If you were for it, you were labeled a racist. However, it passed by a HUGE margin. Its the reason why we have these propositions. The people of the state get to decide.

Apparently, a person is not entitled to have an opinion and express it unless it agrees with the liberal side of things.
That's not it at all. It's the fact that "many feel that marriage should be between a man and woman" is not a reason. You can FEEL that way all you want, but why should your feelings get in the way of equality? What logical or legal reason do you have? None. I've never seen one secular answer, in fact I haven't seen any strong religious answers either but that's another thread.

Hey guess what, I feel tribute bands should be banned. Many agree with me, should we make it law?

Why would anyone want to ban tribute bands? Let me see, maybe they have a prejudice against them...

If you can't give me a logical reason for something then I'm lead to believe you don't want to provide equality for personal selfish reasons... therefore bigotry.
__________________

BVS 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 05:47 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
×