SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage - Page 8 - 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 09-30-2008, 09:27 PM   #141
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 09:15 PM
When it comes down to it, after all the fighting and beating round the bush of the issue, the reason why they don't want it to happen is because its WRONG. How dare mom and pop go to their precious daughter's wedding to chip and the next wedding after them is two MEN with a whole bunch of fruity people and lesbians all being HAPPY over some disgusting and WRONG thing. How can they turn the happiest day of my life, seeing Judy marry Chip and then to KNOW what is happening afterwards. Where is the decency in the world? Where this type of PERVERSION is allowed to happen...blah blah blah.

People who are against same sex marriage just don't want the gays to be happy. They should be feeling ashamed and suicidal and going to the jesus classes to make em straight cause they're just choosing to be like that and its wrong, and they've got a mental condition called the devil in there and need it fixed. They don't want to see them dressed up, celebrating their love publicly and being so gawd damn happy about it.

I just love that they think, well if a man and a man get married then what defines marriage anymore, may as well let a man marry a pig or a woman marry 10 men since its all gone to shit now with the perversion.

Hmmmm.....
bigotry
affairs
mistresses
swingers parties
wife swapping
Britney Spears

oh the straight marriage is so pure and lovely. Why change it??









__________________

dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 10:49 PM   #142
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 03:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
And since the question was raised, the rights of women to own property, regardless of marital status, is implicit in the Constitution. Neither does the right to property fundamentally alter the definition of marriage as one man/one woman, since it's clear -- at least as far back as Old Testament times -- that women held such rights regardless of marital status.
One, it isn't implicit anywhere. When California wrote its Constitution in 1849, it was one of the first states to grant married women the right to own property after marriage. It wasn't happening in the rest of the States. Married women's property automatically reverted to her husband upon marriage. Look it up. Or do you remember voting to "allow" me to hold property in my own name after I married.


Two, I was indeed referring to women as property. When did you vote against that? Or did you.



Those of you who keep trotting out the "traditional marriage" BS really don't know much about the history of the institution you're trying to "defend."
__________________

martha is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 10:50 PM   #143
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 03:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Is a democratic government fundamentally one that is "of the people, by the people, and for the people," or is it rule by an isolated few who decide for all?
Maybe the all who decide for the few is more to your liking?
martha is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 10:55 PM   #144
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 10:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Maybe the all who decide for the few is more to your liking?
What else would you suggest in a system of representative government?
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 10:58 PM   #145
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 10:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Those of you who keep trotting out the "traditional marriage" BS really don't know much about the history of the institution you're trying to "defend."
According to whom? Camille Paglia?
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 11:01 PM   #146
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 03:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
What else would you suggest in a system of representative government?

Fairness and equality before the law. Same-sex marriage affects you in no way, so it's a fair deal.


But, since you're all about the "fairness" piece, and the "rights" of the majority before the rights of the minority, I'll ask you. (I asked your buddy INDY, but he's very very good at unanswered questions.)

Since elected officials followed the will of the majority when they did it, that means you're ok with early California legislators legally preventing the Chinese from getting married, right. I mean, it WAS the will of thje majority, and the majority's sensibilities must be protected and defended, right?
martha is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 11:03 PM   #147
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 03:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
According to whom?
Historians.

You should try reading some someday.
martha is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 11:07 PM   #148
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 10:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Fairness and equality before the law. Same-sex marriage affects you in no way, so it's a fair deal.
Just because you don't agree with my points about family as the basis for social order, don't make it so. Are you really so afraid of democracy? Because deciding that democratic principles should be ignored smacks of the kind of tyranny you're ranting against, doesn't it?

Quote:
Since elected officials followed the will of the majority when they did it, that means you're ok with early California legislators legally preventing the Chinese from getting married, right. I mean, it WAS the will of thje majority, and the majority's sensibilities must be protected and defended, right?
I can disagree with whatever conclusions I like, then as now. If Prop 8 collapses because people vote against it, I'll disagree with the ruling, but I'll accept the will of the people. Are you saying it should be a different way?
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 11:08 PM   #149
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 10:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
You should try reading some someday.
You should try thinking someday. See? We can both do it. But this isn't terribly constructive, is it?

Hasta manana...
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 11:09 PM   #150
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 03:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
You should try thinking someday. See? We can both do it. But this isn't terribly constructive, is it?
Not with you it isn't.

If you really think that just feminists write the history of marriage, then you really need to get out more.
martha is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 11:11 PM   #151
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 03:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
I can disagree with whatever conclusions I like, then as now.
You really didn't answer my question. It was the holy will of the majority back then to vote on an aspect of marriage, something you seem to think is a good idea.
martha is offline  
Old 10-01-2008, 01:50 AM   #152
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Is a democratic government fundamentally one that is "of the people, by the people, and for the people," or is it rule by an isolated few who decide for all?
Protecting liberties from mob rule is a fundamental element of a liberal democracy, in the case of gay marriage it seems that there is an issue of a right (namely state recognition of marriage contracts) which is not being recognised equally. The discrimination between straight and gay relationships is rooted in religious opposition as well as bigotry and not in evidence based arguments about the harm of gay marriage, mainly because the evidence from where it has been enacted is that it doesn't harm society.

Gays pay taxes just like the rest of us, they deserve equal treatment. I don't think that churches should be forced to marry gays (but then again, they do enjoy tax-free perks), but the government should recognise gay marriage. Yes, it may be offensive to a decent segment of the population, but in my mind the principle of equality under the law trumps those objections.

Opposition to gay marriage is a loosing argument; they're here, they're queer, and they want joint bank accounts, established mechanisms of inheritance, mortgages and a settled middle age - you really should get used to it, it shouldn't impact you that much.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-01-2008, 02:16 AM   #153
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 10:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Two, I was indeed referring to women as property. When did you vote against that? Or did you.
You know, after thinking about this some more, I'm surprised we disagree with each other. You seem to imply that there are some things that become apparent over time: the value of women in society. That any progressive society will recognize the value of women as more than mere property. That recognizing a woman's value should be obvious to all.

Isn't that exactly what Prop 8 defends? That women are crucial to marriage, family and society -- since family is the cornerstone institution of society, as the Declaration of Human Rights reminds us. Opponents of Prop 8 however want to put forward the notion that gender doesn't matter, at least in any significant way (if Irvine's comments are representative of mainstream opposition at all), in the constitution of family, and by extension society. Doesn't this seem to be a huge backwards step to you?
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 10-01-2008, 02:20 AM   #154
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:15 PM
How does gay marriage effect the status of straight women?

Allowing gay marriage doesn't change the proportion of gays wandering about, it won't create an explosion of faggotry or a dyke swarm (geology joke).

All it does is guarantee certain rights to gays in line with what are afforded straight couples, no polygamy or bestiality, just equal treatment under the law.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-01-2008, 02:22 AM   #155
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 10:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
The discrimination between straight and gay relationships is rooted in religious opposition
Has the Bible been brought up once in this long discussion? Certainly not by me.

Quote:
you really should get used to it, it shouldn't impact you that much.
Have you not read this board? On the contrary. The short- and long-term affects of redefining the value of gender in society as well as the constitution of family are all in play here. Not to mention the methods by which this issue has been pushed, which directly undermines the very values of democracy and self-governance in the first place.
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 10-01-2008, 02:29 AM   #156
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:15 PM
That sentence didn't finish on religion, and the value judgement of gay relationships that is implied by most opposition, if not driven by religious ideas, can definitely fall into that category.

Some areas such as free speech, equal rights and religious freedom should be protected from democratic subversion. Reconciling the treatment of citizens with the law is important, I don't think that democracy should allow majorities to extinguish minorities rights.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-01-2008, 05:02 AM   #157
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 09:15 PM
The value of gender? my gawd. I don't even know where that comes from.
I just don't understand why people are against gay marriage. I seriously, cannot understand why. Even if you think its an abomination or some shit, what does it matter if they can get married? Does is really change how marriage is viewed, because sadly, the "sanctity" of marriage is not as sacred and pure as it used to be (see me last post! )
dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 10-01-2008, 06:47 AM   #158
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 06:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
The short- and long-term affects of redefining the value of gender in society as well as the constitution of family are all in play here.
I'll ask this question again since nobody ever seems to answer it - how have the societies which have legalized gay marriage on a national basis fundamentally changed?

What is the night and day difference between Canada and the US in this respect? What are the negative consequences we are experiencing?
anitram is offline  
Old 10-01-2008, 07:03 AM   #159
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 05:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
You know, after thinking about this some more, I'm surprised we disagree with each other. You seem to imply that there are some things that become apparent over time: the value of women in society. That any progressive society will recognize the value of women as more than mere property. That recognizing a woman's value should be obvious to all.

Isn't that exactly what Prop 8 defends? That women are crucial to marriage, family and society -- since family is the cornerstone institution of society, as the Declaration of Human Rights reminds us. Opponents of Prop 8 however want to put forward the notion that gender doesn't matter, at least in any significant way (if Irvine's comments are representative of mainstream opposition at all), in the constitution of family, and by extension society. Doesn't this seem to be a huge backwards step to you?
I've seen some big stretches in your arguments on this subject(but then again they would have to be) but this is definately your biggest stretch yet. Congratulations!
BVS is offline  
Old 10-01-2008, 07:07 AM   #160
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 06:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I'll ask this question again since nobody ever seems to answer it - how have the societies which have legalized gay marriage on a national basis fundamentally changed?

What is the night and day difference between Canada and the US in this respect? What are the negative consequences we are experiencing?
But, but, don't you see, it's not the same? You're Canadian -- you all are weird right from the beginning.
__________________

indra 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 05:15 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
×