SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage - Page 20 - 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 10-22-2008, 01:26 PM   #381
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by namkcuR View Post
What do you mean 'marriage must mean something'? Are you saying that if gay marriage is allowed, then all of a sudden marriage doesn't mean anything anymore? That's absurd. Marriage is still the legal joining and lifetime commitment of two people...
Where do you come up with that restriction?
Quote:
As for your last comment...you're going against your own point. There are things written in the constitution that should already provide that gay marriage is permitted, even though that right isn't spelled out verbatim. "All men are created equal." "Equal protection."
The state has a right to limit rights. Free speech has it's limits, felons can be denied the right to vote or own firearms. The state can also define the terms of qualification for any kind of license. Medical, driving and yes, marriage.

Quote:
Furthermore, gay marriage is not outlawed verbatim by the constitution either.
Correct. If it is silent on the definition of marriage than how can a court give us one? The answer is, legally they can't, but that doesn't seem to matter anymore. That the constitution is silent -- that the right isn't inalienable, should mean that it is up to the people to decide and we do that through our representatives or in some cases, ballot initiative.
Quote:
There's no law against gay marriage, technically speaking, and there's already grounds in the constitution that should allow for gay marriage, so this is a matter of interpretation, not legislation.
But it hasn't been recognized. And the mayor of S.F. was breaking the law when he was marrying couples last year. And several states do have constitutions recognizing only man-women marriage.
Quote:
It is perfectly within the bounds and rights of the judicial branch to look at the constitution or a state constitution and say, 'hey, you've been reading this wrong, it allows for this, court adjourned.'
Right, court adjourned, end of discussion. It's We The Judges not We The People.
__________________

INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-22-2008, 01:44 PM   #382
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 07:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Races aren't inherently different -- the sexes most definitely are.

i see.

so women really don't have an enumerated right to vote, do they.

i guess it's fine to discriminate on the basis of gender -- since any fool can see that men and women are different -- but certainly not on race, because no fool would ever make the mistake of thinking that blacks and whites are different, or 3/5ths of a person, or that there was a biblical reason for the creation of the different races.

yes, that's all historical nonsense. right?
__________________

Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-22-2008, 01:48 PM   #383
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 07:03 AM
oh, randomly, as for the "homosexuals can marry straight people" we have a word for that.







fraud.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-22-2008, 02:10 PM   #384
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
nm = never mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Again, MLK's "Promised Land" was one that existed from our founding.
Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution:

Quote:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
This was why the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were necessary. The framers of the Constitution were obviously not in agreement that black men and white men were equal. Many of them believed that black people were inherently inferior, ordained so by nature (God), and thus not deserving of citizenship or even liberty. And look what it ultimately took to get those amendments passed! This is why Sean's question is important.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 10-22-2008, 02:21 PM   #385
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post

after all, this isn't wild speculation based on fear, ignorance, and loathing on your part. you can back this up. you have real examples. now's your chance -- go for it.
why don't you write 'Up From Civil Unions' so we straights (breeders is the term you've used before) can understand the hardships homosexual couples in America face having to live with "virtually" (equivalent in all but name), "virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples."
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-22-2008, 02:27 PM   #386
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 07:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
why don't you write 'Up From Civil Unions' so we straights (breeders is the term you've used before) can understand the hardships homosexual couples in America face having to live with "virtually" (equivalent in all but name), "virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples."


"breeders" is a term i've used ironically. and it's kind of cute. besides, we need something to counter the "faggots, burn in hell."

i guess i'm being ungrateful. it is magnanimous of straight people to even look me in the eye and shake my hand, let alone accord my fake relationship based on perverted lust any sort of status.

it's so easy to feel weary, to say, "yes, the black could get on the bus, why did the have to sit in the front? everyone on that bus was going to arrive at the same destination at the same time. it's just a stupid seat on the bus. who cares who's in the front or in the back? whites have always sat in the front, blacks have always sat in the back, why change that? it doesn't make any practical difference, does it?"

anyway, i'll set aside the 1049 tax breaks. here's why it matters, and in language written by someone i know you've respected in the past:

Quote:
The 'M-Word' Why It Matters To Me

What's in a name?

Perhaps the best answer is a memory.

As a child, I had no idea what homosexuality was. I grew up in a traditional home - Catholic, conservative, middle class. Life was relatively simple: education, work, family. I was brought up to aim high in life, even though my parents hadn't gone to college. But one thing was instilled in me. What matters is not how far you go in life, how much money you make, how big a name you make for yourself. What really matters is family, and the love you have for one another. The most important day of your life was not graduation from college or your first day at work or a raise or even your first house. The most important day of your life was when you got married. It was on that day that all your friends and all your family got together to celebrate the most important thing in life: your happiness, your ability to make a new home, to form a new but connected family, to find love that puts everything else into perspective.

But as I grew older, I found that this was somehow not available to me. I didn't feel the things for girls that my peers did. All the emotions and social rituals and bonding of teenage heterosexual life eluded me. I didn't know why. No one explained it. My emotional bonds to other boys were one-sided; each time I felt myself falling in love, they sensed it, pushed it away. I didn't and couldn't blame them. I got along fine with my buds in a non-emotional context; but something was awry, something not right. I came to know almost instinctively that I would never be a part of my family the way my siblings one day might be. The love I had inside me was unmentionable, anathema - even, in the words of the Church I attended every Sunday, evil. I remember writing in my teenage journal one day: "I'm a professional human being. But what do I do in my private life?"

So, like many gay men of my generation, I retreated. I never discussed my real life. I couldn't date girls and so immersed myself in school-work, in the debate team, school plays, anything to give me an excuse not to confront reality. When I looked toward the years ahead, I couldn't see a future. There was just a void. Was I going to be alone my whole life? Would I ever have a "most important day" in my life? It seemed impossible, a negation, an undoing. To be a full part of my family I had to somehow not be me. So like many gay teens, I withdrew, became neurotic, depressed, at times close to suicidal. I shut myself in my room with my books, night after night, while my peers developed the skills needed to form real relationships, and loves. In wounded pride, I even voiced a rejection of family and marriage. It was the only way I could explain my isolation.

It took years for me to realize that I was gay, years later to tell others, and more time yet to form any kind of stable emotional bond with another man. Because my sexuality had emerged in solitude - and without any link to the idea of an actual relationship - it was hard later to reconnect sex to love and self-esteem. It still is. But I persevered, each relationship slowly growing longer than the last, learning in my twenties and thirties what my straight friends found out in their teens. But even then, my parents and friends never asked the question they would have asked automatically if I were straight: so when are you going to get married? When is your relationship going to be public? When will we be able to celebrate it and affirm it and support it? In fact, no one - no one - has yet asked me that question.

When people talk about "gay marriage," they miss the point. This isn't about gay marriage. It's about marriage. It's about family. It's about love. It isn't about religion. It's about civil marriage licenses - available to atheists as well as believers. These family values are not options for a happy and stable life. They are necessities. Putting gay relationships in some other category - civil unions, domestic partnerships, civl partnerships, whatever - may alleviate real human needs, but, by their very euphemism, by their very separateness, they actually build a wall between gay people and their own families. They put back the barrier many of us have spent a lifetime trying to erase.

It's too late for me to undo my own past. But I want above everything else to remember a young kid out there who may even be reading this now. I want to let him know that he doesn't have to choose between himself and his family any more. I want him to know that his love has dignity, that he does indeed have a future as a full and equal part of the human race. Only marriage will do that. Only marriage can bring him home.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-22-2008, 02:33 PM   #387
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 07:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
why don't you write 'Up From Civil Unions' so we straights (breeders is the term you've used before) can understand the hardships homosexual couples in America face having to live with "virtually" (equivalent in all but name), "virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples."


and as a follow up, i think this is a great post.

it tells me what it is you don't understand, which is that i'm a person too. not a virtual person, a person. and i'm every bit your equal, and deserving of the same rights, protections, and respect that you are accorded.

you've still to answer my question: why did you get married?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-22-2008, 03:27 PM   #388
Blue Crack Addict
 
Varitek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on borderland we run
Posts: 16,861
Local Time: 06:03 AM
Highly disturbing:

Fresh Intelligence : Radar Online : Hip Young People Hate Gay Marriage
Varitek is offline  
Old 10-22-2008, 03:33 PM   #389
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 06:03 AM
V, I may have referenced you at some point in this thread, if I recall correctly.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 10-22-2008, 03:46 PM   #390
Blue Crack Addict
 
Varitek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on borderland we run
Posts: 16,861
Local Time: 06:03 AM
oooooh i can search now!
Varitek is offline  
Old 10-22-2008, 05:33 PM   #391
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 05:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
and as a follow up, i think this is a great post.

it tells me what it is you don't understand, which is that i'm a person too. not a virtual person, a person. and i'm every bit your equal, and deserving of the same rights, protections, and respect that you are accorded.
Seems to be a mutual misunderstanding.

Why do you feel it is not possible for someone to be A) completely opposed to redefining marriage while also B) believing that homosexuals are created in God's image and C) able to recognize their dignity as human beings and equality before the law?
And, do you really think opposition to same-sex marriage is based solely on "fear, ignorance, and loathing"?
I've kept my arguments completely secular but there is entire moral argument on religious grounds to be made. True, the law is secular but should it not still reflect the morals of those it governs. And the vast majority of Americans still believe marriage to be between one man and one woman, a belief which predates America, our common law and has only been the cornerstone of Western civilization for 2000+ years.

Plus, for me, marriage is clearly defined in the New Testament of the Bible. Mk 10:6-9

There, now this thread has gays, guns and God.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-22-2008, 09:52 PM   #392
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 07:03 AM
i can think of no reason to withhold the word "marriage" other than to maintain an arbitrary distinction between two unions, and the distinction clearly means that one is preferable to the other.

civil unions are inherently unequal. there is no redefinition of marriage, not insofar as other "redefinitions" -- can't marry 13 year olds, can't marry your first cousin, can't marry 5 women -- have further altered the definition.

the fear comes from the thinking that calling two women "married" will somehow degrade a man and a woman who are likewise married.

the ignorance comes from the thinking that a same-sex couple is inherently different in substantive ways from an opposite-sex couple. (are there differences? yes. but no more than the difference between, say, Mr. and Mrs. Yolland and Mr. and Mrs. Dreadsox)

the loathing comes from the need to maintain a distinction in order to reaffirm one's status as a preferred group.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-22-2008, 10:05 PM   #393
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 04:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
the need to maintain a distinction in order to reaffirm one's status as a preferred group.

Yep.




just like Alabamans and Georgians had to
martha is offline  
Old 10-23-2008, 02:46 AM   #394
Blue Crack Addict
 
Varitek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on borderland we run
Posts: 16,861
Local Time: 06:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
God, do I hate willful ignorance.

Anyone remember the poster Varitek? She doesn't post much anymore because she's studying abroad in Europe, but she is the child of a lesbian couple. And she could come in here right now and point-by-point explain to you how her childhood was just as "beneficial" as any other one.

Defining that as an ideal, and saying that same-sex couples can never provide for their kids as well as heterosexuals, is not only blatantly false, it's pure, 100%, hateful bigotry. At this point you've heard way too many facts and opposing viewpoints from people who've actually lived it for it to be anything other than willfully ignorant bigotry.

My hope is that posts like this, in the near future, would get one suspended on a forum like this.


Thanks Phillyfan (although I'm working in Europe...2 years ago when I was studying abroad in Europe was when I got quite into FYM, though, and had a thread about being the child of lesbians).

I agree that posts like that are so objectively wrong and bigoted and as offensive as saying "black people shouldn't have children for xyz reasons."
Varitek is offline  
Old 10-23-2008, 06:10 AM   #395
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 06:03 AM
I'll take credit for that mistake: my bad. We'll get 'em next time, V.
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 10-23-2008, 06:49 AM   #396
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Utoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lovetown
Posts: 8,343
Local Time: 07:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i can think of no reason to withhold the word "marriage" other than to maintain an arbitrary distinction between two unions, and the distinction clearly means that one is preferable to the other.

.......

the loathing comes from the need to maintain a distinction in order to reaffirm one's status as a preferred group.

People forget that we've already had our experiment with "Separate But Equal."


It failed miserably.







and it's still failing
__________________
Utoo is offline  
Old 10-23-2008, 12:09 PM   #397
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,613
Local Time: 04:03 AM
Washington's Other Sex Scandal: - Reason Magazine

http://www.mega.nu/ampp/baldwin_pedo...osexuality.pdf

Okay these articles bother me.

Irvine? Melon? Please pick them apart and show me how wrong they are.
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 10-23-2008, 12:33 PM   #398
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 04:03 AM
A message of not hating:



<>
diamond is offline  
Old 10-23-2008, 12:43 PM   #399
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 07:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Washington's Other Sex Scandal: - Reason Magazine

http://www.mega.nu/ampp/baldwin_pedo...osexuality.pdf

Okay these articles bother me.

Irvine? Melon? Please pick them apart and show me how wrong they are.


you know, i really shouldn't have to do this.

any idiot would realize the sources, would realize that one person does not speak for millions.

do the math. use your powers of critical analysis.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-23-2008, 12:48 PM   #400
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 07:03 AM
I am very concerned about this article:

Most Wanted American Pedophile Arrested in Thailand

Purpleoscar, please reassure me that you are not a sick heterosexual pervert who wants to fuck little girls.
__________________

anitram 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 06:03 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
×