Why Is Gay Marriage Wrong? - Page 13 - 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 04-15-2008, 08:48 PM   #241
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 04:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


OK - here it is the truth as I see it - If I were living in bizzaro world and my wife said hey, know what I am bisexual and I want to invite someone into our lives of the female persuasion to enter into a marriage - I would think about it for a few minutes and then come to the conclusion that there was NO WAY IN HELL I could handle two women for more than two minutes hehe.....and then in the words of Kramer - I;m out!!!!
Exactly. In fact most bisexuals I know are the same way, one is sometimes even more than they can handle. Just because you are attractive to both, doesn't mean you need both to be emotionally or even sexually fulfilled, and just because you are attracted to both surely doesn't mean you can handle both at the same time...
__________________

BVS is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 10:31 PM   #242
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 05:53 PM
i guess what's concerning me in this discussion is the assumption that the removal of the requirement of opposite-gendered pairings for the status of marriage necessitates the removal of any other standards so that all constructions of relationships be given equal weight to a marriage.

certainly, this is the conservative straw man argument. if that once you let Joe and Jim marry, then Joe and Jim and Jane and Fido the dog can all get married. and i hope this discussion has elucidates exactly why that's not the case at all.

i think there's a discussion to be had on polygamy, and this idea that it's the only way for a bisexual to be happy is one point of consideration amongst others. but i hope we've amply demonstrated why the one-on-one pairing of a marriage is critical to the definition of a marriage in the way that opposite-sexed pairing isn't.

do we all buy that? or can someone make the argument that if you allow Memphis and i to marry, then you have to let Jack and Jane and Jill get married.

am curious.
__________________

Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 11:10 PM   #243
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:53 PM

Just as an aside, the majority of the posters favoring changing the meaning of the word "marriage" would be ok with not violating the civil rights of this gentleman depicted in this true life documentary, correct?

Zoo" is an extraordinary glimpse into the life of a seemingly normal Seattle family man whose secret sexual appetites led to his shocking death. Directed by acclaimed filmmaker Robinson Devor ("Woman Chaser," "Police Beat"), the film explores the ensuing media coverage and public outcry that uncovered a secret community of zoophiles, who call themselves "zoos." This expressionistic rendering of how apparently upstanding citizens banded together and videotaped their journey into the most taboo realms of behavior, reveals the enormous gulf between what we appear to be and who we really are.
diamond is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 11:16 PM   #244
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 05:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
Just as an aside, the majority of the posters favoring changing the meaning of the word "marriage" would be ok with not violating the civil rights of this gentleman depicted in this true life documentary, correct?

<insert bullshit, etc.>
When you can get an animal to develop consciousness, free thought, and language to express those feelings, then we can talk.

Until then, it is no different than rape, and your entire argument is--as expected--offensive, illogical crap.
melon is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 11:17 PM   #245
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 02:53 PM
Yay! The old "gay marriage means animal marriage" argument!

You never disappoint db. We can always count on you to offend and disgust.
martha is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 11:19 PM   #246
Blue Crack Addict
 
unico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Rage Ave.
Posts: 18,749
Local Time: 04:53 PM
i'm surprised it took him 17 pages to bring it up
unico is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 11:23 PM   #247
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 02:53 PM
Well, the stories about how hot gay men are for him didn't really work, and nobody was responding to anything else he tried.
martha is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 11:24 PM   #248
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


When you can get an animal to develop consciousness, free thought, and language to express those feelings, then we can talk.

We weren't talking about the animal, rather the man and his civil rights, please stay on topic.

<>
diamond is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 11:27 PM   #249
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 04:53 PM
Don't even try and act like you have a legitimate argument, here, dbs. The man had sexual appetites for creatures that could not express consent, and certainly didn't share his sexual attraction.

It's a bogus argument and you know it.
Diemen is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 11:28 PM   #250
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen
Don't even try and act like you have a legitimate argument, here, dbs. The man had sexual appetites for creatures that could not express consent, and certainly didn't share his sexual attraction.

It's a bogus argument and you know it.
Whose rights supercede who's in your world?

<>
diamond is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 11:30 PM   #251
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 04:53 PM
I refuse to engage you any further on this. Your argument is offensive and completely without merit.
Diemen is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 11:32 PM   #252
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:53 PM
Back to the topic at hand, I submit the fidings from the very capable poll taking folks in whom the liberal media hold in highest esteem.:

Stable Majority: Most Americans Still Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

Special Report: The Same-Sex Marriage Debate

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Overview of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate
The Constitutional Dimensions of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate
A Stable Majority: Most Americans Still Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Resources
Map: State Policies on Same-Sex Marriage
Religious Groups' Official Positions on Same-Sex Marriage
Same-Sex Marriage Candidate Comparison
Same-Sex Marriage in California
Redefining Marriage Around the World
Same-Sex Marriage Timeline

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Return to the gay marriage issue page

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More: Research, news, blogs
April 1, 2008

In the time since the Massachusetts high court declared the state’s ban on gay marriage unconstitutional in 2003, public opinion on the issue has remained relatively stable. Indeed, majorities of Americans have consistently opposed legalizing same-sex marriage – from 53% opposed in a summer 2003 survey conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, to 55% opposed in an August 2007 Pew survey. The 2007 poll found 36% of the public in favor of allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed, about the same as in 2003. (See An Overview of the Same-Sex Marriage Debate.)

As with many other social issues, opinions about same-sex marriage are closely linked with partisanship, ideology and religion. For instance, opposition to gay marriage is lowest among self-described liberal Democrats (26%) and highest among conservative Republicans (83%), with other ideological and partisan groups falling in between. Those who identify themselves as independents are roughly divided on the issue, with 49% opposed to same-sex marriage and 41% in favor of it.


Religion also plays an important role in determining the public’s views on the issue. Those who attend worship services once a week or more are much more likely to oppose same-sex marriage (73%) than those who attend less often (43% opposed). Opinion also varies quite dramatically across religions. About eight-in-ten evangelicals (81% of white evangelicals and 79% of black evangelicals) oppose gay marriage, while Catholics and mainline Protestants are much more divided on the issue. Indeed, the proportion of white, non-Hispanic Catholics and white mainline Protestants who oppose gay marriage (49% and 47%, respectively) is significantly smaller than among the population as a whole (55%). Hispanic Catholics’ opposition to gay marriage is similar – at 52%. (Compare public opinion with religious groups’ official positions on gay marriage.)

Age is another demographic characteristic that affects attitudes on this issue. Opposition to gay marriage is most pronounced among older Americans, with more than two-thirds (67%) of those age 65 and older opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage. On the other hand, roughly half of all adults under age 30 (49%) favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed.

While a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, a similar majority supports civil unions (which grant gay couples most of the legal rights of marriage without the title of marriage), by a 54% to 42% margin, according to a Pew poll from August 2006.


Even opponents of gay marriage are divided on whether it would be a good idea to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. When asked in the 2006 Pew survey whether a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is a good idea or a bad idea, only about half of those who oppose gay marriage said it is a good idea.



This report was written by David Masci, Senior Research Fellow, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.


Related Articles
Attached Thumbnails
gmopposefavor.gif  
diamond is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 11:35 PM   #253
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen
I refuse to engage you any further on this. Your argument is offensive and completely without merit.
diamond is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 11:47 PM   #254
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 05:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
Stable Majority: Most Americans Still Oppose Same-Sex Marriage
In other news, this is completely irrelevant. The mob also hates Mormons; yet, I don't see you changing your faith for the whims of the "majority."
melon is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 11:49 PM   #255
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 10:53 PM
diamond, I seem to recall warning you both publically and via PM back in February that you would be suspended from FYM if you continued to make posts for no other purpose than attempting to get a rise out of people. There's jokingly needling one another to break up the tension, then there's gratuitous flat-out trolling and we all know the difference.

I will not warn you again.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 04-16-2008, 12:19 AM   #256
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by melon


In other news, this is completely irrelevant. The mob also hates Mormons; yet, I don't see you changing your faith for the whims of the "majority."


define "mob"
are you talking about the Mafia?

Or are you infering that the will of the people as equivilent to "The Mob"?

And what does that have to do with Freedom of Religion in our country?

And how does sexuality equate to one's religious convictions or the definition of the word "marriage" figure into this at all?

I've stated that I'm ok Gay unions so what's the fuss?

That's right until you change or redefine the meaning of a certain word -your movement is stalled.

Kind of stupid -don't you think?

So, is this more about having your civil rights or a tantrum over the meaning of a word that you can't accept?

<>
diamond is offline  
Old 04-16-2008, 12:31 AM   #257
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 05:53 PM
this exhausts me, but if you switch the poll question slightly and throw civil unions into the mix, you get a majority of Americans who support legal recognition for gay relationships.

the mainstream, all-American position is that gay people should have access to a civil union that would contain the same rights as marriage.

and here's the critical point in that poll:

[q]Opposition to gay marriage is most pronounced among older Americans, with more than two-thirds (67%) of those age 65 and older opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage. On the other hand, roughly half of all adults under age 30 (49%) favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed. [/q]

i'm sorry you're, again, on the wrong side of history and humanity, diamond.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-16-2008, 12:37 AM   #258
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
this exhausts me, but if you switch the poll question slightly and throw civil unions into the mix, you get a majority of Americans who support legal recognition for gay relationships.

hug:
Which I said i was ok with.

So the problem is you demand that the gay nupitals be called "marriage" when the majority of citizens are more comfortable calling it a "union".

So, what's the issue?

The issue is your folks aren't after anything more than an agrument over the meaning of the word marriage.

<>

A Vespa isn't a motorcycle no matter how close you want to argue the 2 are.

<>
diamond is offline  
Old 04-16-2008, 12:42 AM   #259
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 05:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


Which I said i was ok with.

So the problem is you demand that he be called "marrige" when the majority of citizens are more comfortable calling it "union".

So, what's the issue?

The issue is your folks aren't after anything more than an agrument over the meaning of the word marriage.

<.


the issue is we want to have the same tools to build strong relationships and families that you do. a civil union is one way, but marriage is a better way. why make such a distinction? why is that so precious to you? why are you so insecure about it? what's going to happen if two men become married? what worries you so much, my pet?

the issue is that you people seem to need yet another way to make yourselves feel better about your shortcomings and failures, and so, you choose to kick an already marginalized group, and then ask them to thank you for not stepping on their throats, as if i should be so grateful to you for not letting me have ice cream, but here you go, pet, have a peppermint patty.

what else do you want? sure, you can have a ceremony, but absolutely no clinking of the wine glasses lest the two men kiss. that's only what *married* people are allowed to do. and none of this "first dance" stuff either -- it's weird for us to watch two women dance cheek-to-cheek, and then what do they do? do the brides then dance with each other's fathers? what about the mothers! just too strange -- so, no, let's ban that.

could you write out a list of things i am and am not entitled to? after all, they are yours to give me.

thanks, sweet pea.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-16-2008, 12:52 AM   #260
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




the issue is we want to have the same tools to build strong relationships and families that you do. a civil union is one way, but marriage is a better way. why make such a distinction? why is that so precious to you? why are you so insecure about it? what's going to happen if two men become married? what worries you so much, my pet?

the issue is that you people seem to need yet another way to make yourselves feel better about your shortcomings and failures, and so, you choose to kick an already marginalized group, and then ask them to thank you for not stepping on their throats, as if i should be so grateful to you for not letting me have ice cream, but here you go, pet, have a peppermint patty.

what else do you want? sure, you can have a ceremony, but absolutely no clinking of the wine glasses lest the two men kiss. that's only what *married* people are allowed to do. and none of this "first dance" stuff either -- it's weird for us to watch two women dance cheek-to-cheek, and then what do they do? do the brides then dance with each other's fathers? what about the mothers! just too strange -- so, no, let's ban that.

could you write out a list of things i am and am not entitled to? after all, they are yours to give me.

thanks, sweet pea.
have your holy matrimony ceremony anyway you see fit.

the grooms exchange rings, do a first dance, i will do the toast etc etc etc.

the reason i won't call it something that's not is the same reason i wont call a zebra a horse.

also it's for the margialized cpls' own protection.

if gay cpls are being discriminated against it will be easier to track if they have or have not the exact same govt benefits afforded to traditional married folk.


if everbody is "married" then ppl will have to start proving if they are gay or not and once they prove their gayness then they will have to establish how they were shorted benifits.

I'm trying to streamline future headaches.

If out of the box we understand it's a gay partnership from the get go, by calling it something other than marriage it will save a lot of time if there is a claim of withholding of govt benifits.

<>
__________________

diamond 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 04:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×