Why Is Gay Marriage Wrong? - Page 5 - 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 04-14-2008, 09:52 AM   #81
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 05:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


This whole thread is a facacta idea.

<>


your whole premise is based in ignorance and prejudice.

you're arguing that at it's core, at it's essence, in it's very definition, that heterosexuality is always superior to homosexuality.

it doesn't matter what Britney Spears does or how many marriages Elizabeth Taylor has, each and every marriage a straight person has is going to be superior to the single marriage a lesbian couple has that lasts 35 years.

truly, you are judging people by their form, and not their content.

you, sir, are, yes, a bigot.

which is hilarious, in so many ways. i stand here and defend you and your religion from the protestant fundies, and then you turn around and use the very arguments they put upon you -- it's not *real* -- to use against other people?
__________________

Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 10:10 AM   #82
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




your whole premise is based in ignorance and prejudice.

you're arguing that at it's core, at it's essence, in it's very definition, that heterosexuality is always superior to homosexuality.

it doesn't matter what Britney Spears does or how many marriages Elizabeth Taylor has, each and every marriage a straight person has is going to be superior to the single marriage a lesbian couple has that lasts 35 years.

truly, you are judging people by their form, and not their content.

you, sir, are, yes, a bigot.

which is hilarious, in so many ways. i stand here and defend you and your religion from the protestant fundies, and then you turn around and use the very arguments they put upon you -- it's not *real* -- to use against other people?
i have gay friends here, in my church and outside of my church.

i'm not known as a bigot by them.

<>
__________________

diamond is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 10:47 AM   #83
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 05:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


i have gay friends here, in my church and outside of my church.

i'm not known as a bigot by them.

<>



the arguments you put forth against gay marriage are rooted in bigotry.

that at all times, in all ways, one form of relationship is by definition superior to the other.

would it not be bigoted of me to say that all white/white relationships are better at all times than any mixed race relationship?
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 10:59 AM   #84
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 04:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


Genesis 2:24
That passage says nothing about, the reason people get married is to have sex, which is basically what your definition says.
BVS is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 11:18 AM   #85
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 04:37 PM
If you guys wanted a secular debate, why do you insist on addressing someone who is so clearly rooted in a theological opinion? Let him be, you're arguing about something that some men wrote thousands of years ago. Even if the bible did out and out condemn it, who cares?

My questions on page 5 are more philosophical/existential than anything but to me that discussion would be infinitely more interesting than bickering about scriptural interpretation...
acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 11:49 AM   #86
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 05:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by acrobatique
Just a question on "choice":

Do people posting here - gay or straight - believe that it is possible for a straight person to enjoy gay sex, yet still consider themselves "heterosexual" in terms of not being romantically attracted to the same sex? Ie, they could not date or be overly attracted to the same sex in a romantic or relationship sense, but in the throes of passion enjoy the lesbian/gay sex act?

Or do they feel that person is 'closeted' or 'in denial'?



it's a complex thing, and a mistake i think you're making is that homosexuality is only about sex. the definition of being homosexual is when you are physically and emotionally attracted to someone of the same sex. there are people who are able to form these kinds of sexual and emotional attachments with both genders, and they are probably best described as bisexuals. there are gay people who are "able" to have sex with straight people, and vice versa, but the core of sexual orientation goes far beyond being able to use another body for sexual gratification.

there is some suspicion, often with gay people, towards those who claim bisexuality, that it's a way to sort of be gay without having to deal with some of the social consequences of being gay. like a guy who says that he's not gay, he just likes to perform oral sex on other men. it may well be that he doesn't identify as gay, but that probably does mean that he's not straight either.

these identities are political and contested, and so in the end it's best to let each individual decide what suits them best. i think you'll find that most people fall comfortably into either gay/straight, and despite some transgressions (usually while one is younger), the orientation is lived out in a very complete, consistent way, in a way that feels natural to that person.



Quote:
Here's another question: if we call all unions 'marriage', can a person marry both a man and a woman? Have a three-part marriage? Why or why not? What difference does it make?

but we're not calling all unions marriage. we're calling the union between two men and two women a marriage. if you want to argue that polygamist marriages should be legal, by all means, go ahead and do so. just don't lump that in with marriage equality. polygamy has been made illegal for reasons that have nothing at all to do with gay people. argue polygamy on it's own merits, don't be lazy and assume that just because now gay people can get married, i can marry my pet rock.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 11:54 AM   #87
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 05:37 PM
[q]Gay couples face higher tax bills


MOUNT LAUREL, New Jersey (AP) -- For gay couples, the April 15 tax filing deadline can be a reminder of the disparities they face, even in a nation that is becoming more accepting of same-sex couples.

Gay couples often pay higher taxes because they don't get the federal tax benefits that go with marriage. And for couples in state-sanctioned domestic partnerships, civil unions or same-sex marriages, filing federal income taxes can involve doing three sets of paperwork instead of one.

"It's a significant financial disability," said Beth Asaro, who last year entered into one of New Jersey's first legally recognized civil unions.

While the debate over government recognition of gay marriage is a political hot-button with arguments about morality, civil rights and tradition, the tax issue is a mostly practical one for hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples.

Most states ban gay marriage and don't recognize same-sex unions in any way. Only in Massachusetts can gay couples legally marry. Since 1997, nine other states and Washington D.C. started offering civil unions or domestic partnerships that give some or all the legal protections of marriage.

Those protections include allowing gay couples to file state taxes jointly -- and potentially save them money. But they can also make tax filing more complicated for the couples.

That's because the state protections do not help with federal taxes. Under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, the government defines marriage as being allowed only between a man and a woman.

"You're running one household," said John Traier, a partner in the Butler, New Jersey, accounting firm Hammond & Traier. "But the federal government and a lot of states treat them as two households."

The same is true for straight unmarried straight couples who are living together.

There are two main effects of the different treatment under federal law.

One is the tax rate. Take two couples where one partner has a taxable income of $20,000 and the other makes $40,000. If they can file their federal taxes jointly, the tax bill would be $8,217.50. Filing separately, the combined bill would be $9,032.50 -- more than $800 higher.

Another disparity comes with the federal government's treatment of employer-provided health insurance, which also affects unmarried heterosexual couples.

For example, Dan Jessup is a project manager at JPMorgan Chase in Indiana. His partner, Bob Chenoweth, is self-employed, running two businesses out of the couple's Mooresville, Indiana, home. So Chenoweth gets health insurance through Chase.

But Jessup is required to count the company's cost of his partner's benefits as additional income for tax purposes.

State and federal taxes on those benefits cost about $1,800 per year, Jessup said.

"I certainly think about it every payday," when the extra withholding is taken from his paycheck, he said. "If you think about 10 years, $18,000 is a lot of money. That could buy me a pretty nice car."

The tax on benefits for domestic partners also applies to employers. Companies including Chase are endorsing the Human Rights Campaign's push for a bill that would end the tax on health plan benefits for people who are neither the spouse nor legal dependent of the employee. Versions of the bill have been introduced in Congress in the last three sessions, but have never moved out of committee.

A government analysis estimated the bill would cost about $10 billion in lost federal tax revenue over 10 years. Advocates for the bill say it would create savings elsewhere, including reducing the Medicaid rolls.

Ryan Ellis, the tax policy director for Americans for Tax Reform, said his group supports the concept, but not the specific language of the bill, because it does not propose increasing how much domestic partners could put into health savings accounts.

It's not just the higher bills that can be frustrating for same-sex taxpayers; it's also the process of filing taxes, particularly in states that offer some joint benefits to gay couples.

"I don't want to say it's chaotic, but it's very difficult for a lot of reasons," said Traier, the accountant who is in a civil union partnership himself.

In New Jersey and the other states where same-sex unions are formally recognized, couples can file their state taxes jointly, but they must file their federal tax returns as individuals.

That means doing income calculations twice. Many tax programs such as Intuit's TurboTax are set up to deal with that extra math.

But there are other issues where even up-to-date software might not solve.

These issues also affect unmarried straight couples.

For instance, couples with children must decide which partner gets to claim them as dependents for tax purposes on federal returns and returns in states that don't recognize same-sex unions. Similarly, couples who own homes together have to sort out how much of the mortgage interest payments each partner gets to use as a deduction, said Lara Schwartz, the Human Rights Campaign legal director.

"If you are not a different sex," from your partner, Schwartz said, "you are strangers, basically, under federal law."[/q]
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 12:08 PM   #88
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511





.

would it not be bigoted of me to say that all white/white relationships are better at all times than any mixed race relationship?
yes, and i don't think ppl of a different skin pigmentation should be used to advance an agenda.

<>
diamond is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 12:09 PM   #89
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


That passage says nothing about, the reason people get married is to have sex, which is basically what your definition says.

it's one of the main reasons, religious and personal values are another.

btw what do you think

"one flesh" means in that verse ?

I think it could mean touching pees pees w your new spouse.


<>
diamond is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 12:13 PM   #90
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 02:37 PM
So, to recap again:

1. Dictionary definitions is it.

That's all anybody has to defend a bigoted stand against equal protection and access.

Well done.
martha is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 12:25 PM   #91
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 05:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


yes, and i don't think ppl of a different skin pigmentation should be used to advance an agenda.

<>


can you not see the connection? can you not see that the arguments that were once used against interracial couples -- trust me, we can find the bible quotes -- are the *exact* same ones used against gay couples?

people like Coretta Scott King knew prejudice when they saw it, and they knew what it was liked to be judged by your form instead of your content. and so they drew parallels between different struggles. no, not all struggles are exactly the same, but all struggles have commonalities.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 12:26 PM   #92
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 05:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


it's one of the main reasons, religious and personal values are another.

btw what do you think

"one flesh" means in that verse ?

I think it could mean touching pees pees w your new spouse.


<>


it's a tighter, more secure fit for us. and we can both give and receive. so there's an equality there that you people would do well to learn from.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 12:42 PM   #93
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




can you not see the connection? can you not see that the arguments that were once used against interracial couples -- trust me, we can find the bible quotes -- are the *exact* same ones used against gay couples?

people like Coretta Scott King knew prejudice when they saw it, and they knew what it was liked to be judged by your form instead of your content. and so they drew parallels between different struggles. no, not all struggles are exactly the same, but all struggles have commonalities.
Coretta is not an ordained minister.
MLK never came out and supported Homosexuality or Gay Marriage.

MLK's neice who is an ordained minister and Republican like MLK was has stated that MLK would dis approve of Gay Unions in which I differ with her and MLK.

So now are you going to call MLK's neice a bigot as well as MLK a bigot now for their belief systems, or are you going to come to the "diamond table of reasoning"?

<>
diamond is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 12:42 PM   #94
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 02:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


If I have Harley parked in my garage because I desired a motorcycle it would be accepted that I have a mortorcycle.

Well say if a fellow named Demetre' moves in across the alley from me and says he has a motorcycle too and would like to show me his and I agree and then he whips out a Vespa Moped and I try to explain to my new friend that a Vespa Moped isn't quite a "motorcycle" but very similar and you can enjoy the same benifits there shouldn't be an issue, and I think he wouldn't have a fit aand want to write Oxford, Webster's or Meramim dictionary services to demand a change in the meaning of the word "motorcycle", ok?

You realize that my Ducati (20 years of marriage) can smoke your heavy, chrome-bound Harley of a second marriage at any stoplight.

Does that make your marriage less of a marriage?
martha is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 12:44 PM   #95
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by martha
So, to recap again:

1. Dictionary definitions is it.

That's all anybody has to defend a bigoted stand against equal protection and access.

Well done.
Martha Darling,

Are you OCD?

Read my census answer.

<>
diamond is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 12:46 PM   #96
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 02:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


Read my census answer.

No. Summarize.
martha is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 12:47 PM   #97
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by martha


You realize that my Ducati (20 years of marriage) can smoke your heavy, chrome-bound Harley of a second marriage at any stoplight.

Does that make your marriage less of a marriage?
No, it just means that as motorcyles were built in a ceratin years and maintained correctly that those marriages/motorcycles survived.

That same could be said of folks in a healthy LTRs who ride Vespas.

I *knew* the Harley analogy would whet your appetite.



<>
diamond is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 12:48 PM   #98
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 02:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by martha


No. Summarize.
i will not enable your laziness.

<>
diamond is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 12:55 PM   #99
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 04:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

it's a complex thing, and a mistake i think you're making is that homosexuality is only about sex. the definition of being homosexual is when you are physically and emotionally attracted to someone of the same sex. there are people who are able to form these kinds of sexual and emotional attachments with both genders, and they are probably best described as bisexuals.
Bisexual by most people's understanding means the ability to form relationships both emotional and sexual. I have noticed an interesting phenomenon about identifying oneself as bisexual however: if you were to ask a group of bisexual women if they could form a romantic relationship with a woman, the majority will say yes. Ask that same question of an equal number of men who call themselves bisexual, and you get some pretty different results.


Quote:
there is some suspicion, often with gay people, towards those who claim bisexuality, that it's a way to sort of be gay without having to deal with some of the social consequences of being gay. like a guy who says that he's not gay, he just likes to perform oral sex on other men.
Actually, this is mostly put forth by gay people looking to make themselves better and straight people looking to make themselves feel better. Most thinking adults realize that sexuality is a bit more complex than 'this or that'.

Quote:
i think you'll find that most people fall comfortably into either gay/straight, and despite some transgressions (usually while one is younger), the orientation is lived out in a very complete, consistent way


Hmm. I think more and more people are less and less comfortable with the polarized notion of 'gay' and 'straight'. Just my take on it. And what do you mean 'transgression'? A gay person who had straight trysts would look back at those as trangressions??


Quote:
but we're not calling all unions marriage. we're calling the union between two men and two women a marriage.
Why only two men or two women though? How do truly bisexual couples who want to realize the fullness of their emotional, romantic and sexual needs do so then in a legally recognized monogamous (well I guess it's not technically monog, but whatever) union, and why shouldn't they be allowed to affirm that committment to each other? Before you say 'well two of them can marry and just have the third as a long term committed partner', remember that gay people don't want to be told that they can't have marriage but they can be long term committed partners either, do they?

Quote:

if you want to argue that polygamist marriages should be legal, by all means, go ahead and do so. just don't lump that in with marriage equality.


Understand that I agree with your views mostly, but you do realize that what you are saying is pretty much similar to what someone who objects to the 'lumping in' of this issue with racial equality? I'm not arguing that polygamist marriages should be legal, I'm saying that what's good for gay people, why can't it be just as good for bisexual folk?

Quote:
polygamy has been made illegal for reasons that have nothing at all to do with gay people.


Really? What secular reason can you give me for why two men and a woman shouldn't be allowed to marry? Or for that matter for a man to have 3 wives? Most of what we consider law has some root in religion. Most of the stigma that polygamy has (pretty deservedly, too, in most cases) had heaped upon it could likely be a product of what happens when you marginalize a behaviour and outlaw it. People will still do it, but because of the rejection of society they circle the wagons and keep it close - which of course leads to the horrifying incest / in-breeding etc in these families..but think if it wasn't illegal - do you think that every polygamist family would have those issues? Isn't much of the stigma of promiscuity and disease heaped upon gay people a byproduct of centuries of being outlawed and outcast and misinformation spread? Just as surely as not every gay male wants to have wild unprotected sex with 100 men, I'm sure there are a number of people who would coexist in a polyamorous relationship without raping the daughter of their second wife or taking a 14 year old bride.

Quote:
argue polygamy on it's own merits, don't be lazy and assume that just because now gay people can get married, i can marry my pet rock.
Actually I'm a bit disappointed in the laziness of your answer, it's very narrow minded in my opinion. The pet rock comment? You sound like those anti-gay marriage fanatics: "what next, will I be able to marry my dog? oh noes!"

acrobatique is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 12:57 PM   #100
Registered User
 
acrobatique's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 68
Local Time: 04:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

it's a tighter, more secure fit for us. and we can both give and receive. so there's an equality there that you people would do well to learn from.
Good ol' condescension. Ever noticed that? Some actually think they're better because of their orientation. Love it.
__________________

acrobatique 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 04:37 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
×