Mass. Lawmakers Reject Gay Marriage Ban
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, September 19, 2005 02:17
VIEWED: 7009
PAGE 3 of 5
And marriage under those conditions has no place in law; it's a moral/religious concept and not a civil one. Remove all mention of marriage from laws, so all are entitled to civil unions, and leave the addition of "marriage" to the concept as the perogative of churches where it belongs.
The whole concept of solemnifying a relationship between two people is based on their desire for that relationship. If two consenting adults desire that and are denied it for reasons that have no civil purpose whatsoever, that is a problem and bears correcting. Trying to tie it to racial bias is a strawman.
---------------------------
I didn't do it.
You can't prove it.
The sheep are lying.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I do this 'aw shucks' and call them 'folk' and they eat it up.
"Since few men are wise, rule by the majority is the rule of fools..." Guess it works for juries to
.Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Civil Union is the elegant solution. It gives the same legal rights as marriage. It is a new entity at law so it carries none of the baggage marriage does in terms of precedent and such. And it can be applied to all sorts of relationships beyond the sexual realm. My favorite example are elederly cousins living together, sharing expenses and such being able to legally combine their resources and to pass them one to the other should one die.
So you want to ripout the legallity of marriage and call it Civil Union...
Hmm... so your reasoning seems to be:
cause homosexuals aren't good enough for 'proper' marriage, give 'em something that sounds similar, and hope they don't notice...
I, at least, can see why your probably a very good laywer...
I have a proposal, how about we get rid of this stupid love thing, yeah, gets in the way of religous fundamentallists and they're appologists, and since they run America, that can only be a good thing, can't it?
Or even better, lets stop everyone from getting married! Thats so much better! Then we're oppressing everyone equally! That'll be okay, won't it Hero?
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Picking cotton is a tradition. But slavery is a discredited institution that is not consistant with American values.
Your argument is that slavery is not consistent with American values? Well, many (including myself) would argue that discrimination based on sexual preference is not consistent with our values, either.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
If we are to be dictated by moral judgements, I offer you a trade. Gay marriage for a ban on abortion and a creation theory to be named later.
I would think that allowing gays to marry is more akin to witholding moral judgement, rather than imposing it upon others. And I am all for teaching Creationism. . .as long as its not in a science class. Leave it for a theology or mythology class.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Lets look at it another way. Black man wants to buy your house. Is it discrimination to refuse to sell it to him because he is black? Yes. Is it discrimination to refuse to sell it to him because it is not for sale (ie not available)? No.
This analogy sounds nice, but it doesn't actually apply to a little thing I like to call "reality." We are talking about two willing individuals who want to enter into a union, so it is not a case of one partner not "being for sale," as it were.
------------------
"Remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I look at it another way. In the not too far past, people hated gays because they were promiscuous and engaged in orgiastic, indicriminate bath house sex. Now people hate gays because they want to get married and be faithful to each other and take care of each other.
It seems to me that we should be trying to figure out what values we want to promote, and I'm all for equality between partners, committment and responsibility. I would only be concerned if one person appears to be at a significant legal or practical disadvantge compared to the other and there appeared to be significant possibility of coercion or abuse.
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Maybe its just that people (those opposed to gay marriage) hate homosexuals...
One wonders why that is...
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It would have something to do with the superstitious worship of a certain supernatural book, I believe. It seems often to be the culprit when related issues of hatred/bigotry come up.
---------------------------
I didn't do it.
You can't prove it.
The sheep are lying.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmmm, maybe, I was thinking something more individual tho...
You see once apone a time there was this research done, involving Homophobic people...
Scientist asked a bunch of people their opinions on homosexuality.
Then they showed them gay porn.
Then they asked them if what they had seen turned them on.
Both those that had and had not expressed Homophobic attitudes answered the same way, no.
But there was, erm, how should I say, certain signs, that, that was not the case for the Homophobic men...
However, I think religion is also a major factor...
All in all, theres alot of reason, few have anything to do with homosexuallity itself:
Quote:
Alternatively, homophobia may be a projection of individuals' insecurities about their gender identity, says Patrick Suraci, a Manhattan clinical psychologist and author of Male Sexual Armor: Erotic Fantasies and Sexual Realities of the Cop on the Beat and the Man in the Street. Gender identity denotes not biological sex, but male or female physical and psychological characteristics--in other words, how masculine or feminine a person appears. Asked to define "masculinity," the 134 New York policemen and 1,392 civilians interviewed for Male Sexual Armor "commonly responded, not being homosexual," says Suraci. The tendency of men to define gender in terms of sexual orientation may explain why more men than women are homophobic. That men tend to be more phobic about gay men than gay women could be explained by the cultural taboo against anal sex.
Finally, some psychologists speculate that the disgust some men feel toward male homosexuals is rooted in fear and hatred of women. "Gay men are often perceived as feminine [by heterosexual men]," says Richard Isay, clinical professor of psychiatry at Cornell Medical College in New York, and author of Being Homosexual: Gay Men and Their Development.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/articles/nowack.html
Zen Buddhist to the Hotdog Vendor:
"Make me one with everything."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I can't think of any logical, dispassionately rational reason that gays shouldn't have every right possessed by straight folk, including marriage. To argue otherwise carries the direct implication that they are either not truly human beings, or not full citizens. I'd like to think that Americans have more common decency than that."
Sorry to quote myself from above, but I'm still waiting for a response to this from the opponents of gay marriage. Let me rephrase it as a question:
For those of you who oppose the rights of gays to marry, what is your honest reason for denying gays the same rights that you claim for yourselves?
Those of us who believe that any acknowledged set of human rights ought to pertain to all adult, mentally competent human beings would really like to know.
perfessergee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
For those of you who oppose the rights of gays to marry, what is your honest reason for denying gays the same rights that you claim for yourselves?
I have several reasons. They range from religon, which opposes homosexuality in general, to legal, which denies homosexual persons special legal status reserved for other minorities and respects a traditional understanding of the nature of marriage.
I've gone into great detail on the legal issue. You don't agree. We can probably leave it at that.
Quote:
Those of us who believe that any acknowledged set of human rights ought to pertain to all adult, mentally competent human beings would really like to know.
I agree that any ackowledged set of human rights ought to extend to all persons.
The problem is that gay marriage is not an ackowledged human right. It could be, it may become, but it presently is not.
Freedom to marry is granted to all competant adults, a homosexual man is free to marry any woman who will have him, as is any other man, there's simply no discrimination to complain about. Discrimination only arises when people are treated differently. If a heterosexual man could marry another heterosexual man but homosexuals were denied that right, then you'd have a case, hell I'd represent you (that way you'd win).
The argument here is not about the right to marry, its the definition of marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman, always has been. I explained above about the conflict between State laws leading to the Supreme court consulting precedent, Federal Law, and the constitution. None of those things supports your conclusion, unless the court ascribes special scrutiny to homosexual issues as they do to minority issues. They presently don't do that, so unless you change the Federal Law or the Constitution (or build a time machine and go back and redefine marriage through the ages) you have little or no chance or winning (unless the court decides to just make it up on its own like the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or the Mayor of San Fransisco).
Now Civil Unions are something I can agree with. I do not condone anything that promotes gay relationships. I support Civil Unions because I believe in the right to contract. I think it could be useful for partnerships (same sex and otherwise) of many types, not just sexual.
Should an otherwise competent man be allowed to marry more then one woman? A child? An animal? A corporation? Land?
I admit to having great affection for a plate of buffalo wings during last Sunday's Browns game, but marriage was out of the question (the relationship, while fulfilling, just didn't last).
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I have several reasons. They range from religon, which opposes homosexuality in general, to legal, which denies homosexual persons special legal status reserved for other minorities and respects a traditional understanding of the nature of marriage.
In the 21st century, most forward-thinking Christians acknowledge the Bible for what it is: a series of stories, inspired by faith and written by men, which provide a pretty good moral compass to live your life by. It was also a product of its time(s), with hits like “Honky-Tonk Menstruating Women (Are Unclean And Impure)” and “Whores Should Be Burned To Death.” If the Bible can be so wrong about something as commonplace as menstruation, couldn’t it also be wrong in its views towards homosexuality? Shouldn’t its wisdom be tempered with a little bit of common sense on the part of the reader? Only the most stubborn will claim the Good Book as the unerring and immutable Word of God, refusing to combine its ethical precepts with critical thinking and rational thought; incidentally, these are the same people who hide behind the Bible to defend their bigotry.
And can we please stop with this "traditional understanding of the nature of marriage" crap? There is no "traditional understanding of marriage," unless you mean to suggest that women are property and they are at the whims of their husband. How many times do I have to say, traditions aren't always good. Female genital mutilation is a tradition in many parts of the world; that doesn't mean that it's right.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Should an otherwise competent man be allowed to marry more then one woman? A child? An animal? A corporation? Land?
This is an example often brought up by opponents to letting homosexuals marry, mainly because they think it sounds good, without realizing it's complete bullshit. Not only does it demean homosexuals by comparing their loving, committed couple to the acts of beastiality and pedophilia, it makes no sense. We are talking about two fully grown adults wishing to join themselves in marriage, fully cognizant of the choices they are making. That is in no way the same as someone proposing that they marry a minor or a household pet, because common sense dictates that children are not able to enter into a legal contract by themselves, and animals don't talk.
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
The problem is that gay marriage is not an ackowledged human right. It could be, it may become, but it presently is not.
Why don't we stop calling it "gay marriage"? I often use the term myself, because we are innundated with it, but let's face it: homosexuals are not asking for a special kind of marriage just for them. They merely want the same kind of rights afforded to heterosexual couples. So, if anything, we're talking about marriage equality.
Besides which, whether marriage is specifically acknowledged as a right or not is irrelevant. Gays are people, too. They should have the right, same as anyone, to happiness. If that means marriage, who the fuck are you to stand in the way of that?
------------------
"Remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME