Massachusetts to allow gay marriage

“"Save your breath, Buck. I used to engage these boobs in debate, but their circular logic is booring and never ending."
bacpac

Translation: Sometimes they said things I couldn't deal with without thinking and that made my brain hurt.”

“"Your post did not address a single thing I said, Dewd. In that regard, it was pretty much nonsensical."
Tilt

well, i thought i caught in the thread(i admit i just skimmed throught it) that you said it shows hatred if you disagree with homosexuality.

furthurmore, why don't you just adreess what i said? are you nonsensical too?

": ""Believing that homosexuals are "unnatural" and "wrong" and "sinful" is hate. Call it what it is. you hate homosexuals." - Phaedrus

perhaps i got tilt mixed up with phaedrus or laq?

this is a rediculous statment....i think taxing people into ablivion is unatural....does that meaN I HATE LIBERALS FOR IT? OF CORSE NOT. phaed, do you hate me for being a conservative? you disagree with me, so you must hate, acording to your logic....”

“... and evryone else's. (pout, pout, sniff)”

“Going back to the numbers, 12 States have repealed same sex relations out of 50. So, I guess one could say that at one time, there was 26 States out of 50 that outlawed same sex relations. Going further, one might deduct that this could stand as a trend, a point of change, or a "turning point" on this issue. At this rate, it would be a fair assumption that in the coming years, more states would repeal, (or as some might use the term, "fall") these laws, leaving on the back side - change in the law that would give the same rights to same sex marriages as hetrosexual marriages enjoy.

While on the subject, some of the "benifits" of marriage (which I might add again that the divorce rate for America still stands at 50% this morning) that gay couples would enjoy:

Health Insurance benifit of a spouse.

Life Insurance (I'm guessing that you could name anyone, but I don't know fer sure. That's why it's listed)

Being able to live as a gay person, or together as a couple, in public free of harrassment (or as close to it as possible. This is a "perfect world" comment, but you get the drift).

When you get right down to it, there's not much that you're "giving up" that much, are we? The Traditional Family home is in shambles.

Buck askes: what do we define as the "new family unit" What is acceptible and what's not (sorry for the paraphrase).

Buck - First, if it was up to me to define it and everyone would abide by it, which is - FAT CHANCE-
I would say that in the perfect situation, the new family "unit" should comprise of two individual influances, be it two females, or "traditional", that would build a stable home, by bringing in proper amount of funds, to keep food on the table, roof over yer head and a bed for you to sleep in. Maybe a coupe of extra bucks for some extras.

The influances are important because the children will emulate what they see from them. Both must be strong, caring, flexible, loving and able to provide a great starting point. That being said, incestual unions would not be permitted, as they would not be able to provide a stable home life due to:

the strains of being related AND being married

adverse health effects on the children they produce

unfit social behavior - I believe incestual intendtions are a sexual diviance in the mental health field. Even if they are not, I would think it would go without sayng that a incestual home wuld really have the odds against them to be a successful unit.


It's not as cut and dry as you think, Buck. It's not going to be mass chaos like you fear, when we extend these rights to gay couples.

Also, gays have been 'round for 1,000 of years. Some cultures excepted it until, like the Pagan religions, the went the way side when the modern form of religion took hold and deemed it a sin.”

“Let's focus for a moment on the "natural" issue and the "evolutionary basis" question.

First, researchers have foundhomosexual behavior in every avian and mammalian species they've looked at.

But, more importantly - if you just looked at what as natural and based in evolution, you would find no basis for marital fidelity. And you would find a strong basis for rape. All those birds that mate for life - they cheat. The males and the females. The same is true for "monagamous" mammals. The evolutionary basis is this: male cheating results in more of his DNA being spread around. Female cheating results in more genetic diversity for her off-spring and the opportunity to get particularly helpful genes into her descendants. Rape for males? Same thing - it helps the male spread his genes around. Females can get pregnant only a finite number of times and have reason to be more selective and to reject males. It's not in the male's individual interests to acept rejection or to expend huge amonts of energy courting every female they want to impregnate.



There have been attempts to understand the evolutionary reasons for homosexuality. Some people argue that having a small percentage of homosexuals in a population has been helpful in our evolutionary past. Homosexuals would be part of the community and would help their neices, nephews and other young relatives to survive and would help the community as a whole. Others have suggested that homosexuality might have some sort of genetic switch... when a population became too large for available resources, the percentage of homosexuals in the population would increase. This would reduce population growth and help keep the species from destroying the environment they lived in.

From a purely scientific point of view, some of the discussions of the evolutionary basis for homosexuality are similar to the discussions of altruism. Altruistic behavior exists in most mammalian and avian species, yet it would seem to be an evolutionary disadvantage... so the evolutionary explanation would have to be either that it involves the evolutionary equivalent of having one's wires crossed - or it must have to do with benefits for one's kin (those who share genes). This is not to put a moral value on homosexuality (I can see someone blowing a fuse over linking homosexuality and altruism), after all - my point is about separating the notion of evolutionary "fitness" from any notion of "moral" fitness.”

“Modern religion deemed it a sin?
What did God think of Soddom and
Gomorrah!”

“Sorry, I concider modern anything that happened after Emperor Constantine.

Party On!”

“It can be somewhat of a catch 22 to use religion as a reason for denying homosexual marriage. Yes, the Tanach says that for a man to lie with another man as he would a women is an abomination and the punishment is death it’s not as cut and dry as that. Some think it is a prohibition against actually penetrating another man (if so, Clinton was right, oral sex isn’t intercourse!). And it’s also wrong to assume that the Jewish courts were stoning homos left and right. If one person was put to death in a 70 year span the Sanhedrin was considered to be a “bloody court”.

While the Tanach does say it is best to not be homosexual it really comes down to this…free choice.

Devarim 30:15-16

“15. Behold, I have set before you today life and good, and death and evil, 16. inasmuch as I command you this day to love the Lord, your God, to walk in His ways, and to observe His commandments, His statutes, and His ordinances, so that you will live and increase, and the Lord, your God, will bless you in the land to which you are coming to take possession of it.”

I don’t feel we have the right to deny others their free choice as long as it doesn’t harm others.

When I was a conservative christian I was very against anything dealing with homosexuals having equal rights because I felt it was a sin. But one day I thought that with all sin being equal, I reasoned, “Do you have friends who abuse alcohol? Yes. Do you have friends who have lied? Yes. Do you have friends who fornicate? Yes. And do you love them and stand by them? Yes. So what’s the difference?”.”

“Nigal, you are a queer-lovin' and tolerant #&@!(*&%$@#@!##%$#^$!!!!

Whoodda thunk it?”

“laqtis, nice double standard, it doesn't do much for your credibility. Substitute homosexual for incestuous in what you wrote above and you get:

Both must be strong, caring, flexible, loving and able to provide a great starting point. That being said, homosexual unions would not be permitted, as they would not be able to provide a stable home life due to:

the strains of being homosexual AND being married

adverse health effects on the children they produce

unfit social behavior - I believe homosexual intentions are a sexual diviance in the mental health field. Even if they are not, I would think it would go without sayng that a homosexual home wuld really have the odds against them to be a successful unit.

And this is for everyone arguing for homosexual unions: If you're going to take the stance that two homosexual adults should be able to enjoy all the benefits of marriage, you are being hypocritical if you do not extend that same benefit to all relations between adults, whether it be incestuous, polygamy, or whatever. To do otherwise is to do the very thing you shout out against, you are imposing your beliefs on others.”

“Is that the Liberal agenda, out with God and in with Gays?

Has all this flaming assmoking really changed anyones opinion here about this issue. Same sex marriage.

Aren't we forcing acceptance of this lifestyle in some regards. I mean some folks don't like God pumped into their life, literally to a point where they despise everything religious. And I think the same could be said about other folks in regards to having the gay lifestyle force into their lives.

I've learned to tolerate both, and I'll credit the S. of N.D. and family for that.

Do you really believe the gay discrimination is going to stop even if Gov mandated? I wonder how many gays are wishing they kinda stayed in the closet and kept things on the down low.”

“Whatnever -- You can draw the line and let time deal with it. If later down the road it is seen as a nessesity, they will have to deal with it, just like we're dealing with this now.

BTW - Homosexuality is NOT concidered a sexual diviance, so nana-nana, boo-boo, as they say.

Please feel free to put words in my mouth if that will give you SOME point to argue from. I am really having a hard time understanding that this group is aruging FOR incestual relations, if rights are extended to gays. Quite interesting!


Enemy of my enemy is my friend!?!”

“Nigal, I'm really touched.

Well, not like that >:^O”

“The Bible does not and never did say slavery was right
-- Buck
08:00:16 PM
11/18/03

Oh, really...

Leviticus 25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, [shall be] of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that [are] with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit [them for] a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.”

“Don't the leather and whip people
like to be slaves?”

“Nice stuff, VioLiN!”

“It's ironic that in this country Michael Jackson can legally get married but gay and lesbian couples can't in most states.”

“"When the gay population approaches (fifty) percent, I will consider it normal. Until then I shall believe that something is causing it. With the rapid advances in our knowledge, I hope that the cause will someday be discovered and, eventually, corrected."
-- nowslimmer
05:21:53 PM
11/18/03


Redheads are something like 1 or 2 percent of the world's population. Left handed people account for ~10%.

Do you also hope for the day when these abnormalities will be "corrected"? Do you advocate withholding equal protection under the law to these genetic minorities?

While we're at it, about 75% of the world population is non-white. Can white people marry?

How about people with what could properly be considered genetic defects? Should people with anemia or webbed feet be denied the right to marry?”

“If you're going to take the stance that two homosexual adults should be able to enjoy all the benefits of marriage, you are being hypocritical if you do not extend that same benefit to all relations between adults, whether it be incestuous, polygamy, or whatever. To do otherwise is to do the very thing you shout out against, you are imposing your beliefs on others.

LOL. Ridiculous.

Here, let me rewrite your sentence to illustrate its stupidity:

"If you're going to take the stance that two heterosexual adults should be able to enjoy all the benefits of marriage, you are being hypocritical if you do not extend that same benefit to all relations between adults"

One doesn't necessarily follow the other, genius.”

“My old man(84) was born left-handed.

The wicked nuns of Our Lady Of Misery "corrected" that flaw with a whoopin ' stick.

He writes right-handed but is equally adept with a fork with either hand.”

“Violin, you are errantly plucky verses from the context in order to make it say something it doesn’t. You have to look at what “slavery” actually is in Judaism. It isn’t the “swing low sweet chariot”, shackles and working the fields type slavery. Bondsmans and bonds maidens were more like employees. To suggest that G-d would deliver the Jews out of the actual slavery of Egypt and then give them permission to do the same to others is in error. You have to learn exactly what the Law says referring to the treatment of it’s fellow man and to the non Jews to understand the issue fully.”

“BTW - Homosexuality is NOT concidered a sexual diviance, so nana-nana, boo-boo, as they say.

Not today, of course. Duh! It was considered such by the psychiatric field not very long ago however.


Please feel free to put words in my mouth if that will give you SOME point to argue from. I am really having a hard time understanding that this group is aruging FOR incestual relations, if rights are extended to gays. Quite interesting!

Typical wiggling around to avoid the logical contradiction you've created for yourself. I put no words in anyone's mouth; my post was merely to illustrate the hypocrisy of your argument.

Only an idiot would think that anyone here is arguing for incestuous unions.

That is brought up to show the hypocrisy of the "let consenting adults do whatever they want" arguments -- either you draw a line as to what is acceptable or you let it be a free-for-all. Anyone who uses that argument to support homosexual unions yet does not also support incestuous unions is just as guilty of drawing a moral "line in the sand" as those who are against homosexual unions. And when they start crying intolerance they lose all credibility because they are showing just as much intolerance.”

“Does anyone know what percentage of gays/lesbians support gay marriage?

I am just curious because it seems strange to me that a group of people who have been so rejected from society would vociferously embrace the most traditional of its cultural practices.

Why not create something new?

I also wonder if legalization of gay marriage RIGHT NOW is in the best interests of equal rights for gays and lesbians.

It seems to me that we have had a steadily greater acceptance of gays/lesbians in society before this debate. Now we have a backlash because a cherished cultural practice is being "attacked." Why not enjoy the growing number of places with domestic partnerships and let marriage become legal in a more natural way than court order?

I think that this whole debate could result in fewer rights for gays/lesbians than more.”

“Mutt, thanks for helping illustrate my point:

A person either supports marriage for everyone or that person draws a line and supports marriage only for certain classes of people.

Some say marriage should be limited to two adults of opposite sex. Some say marriage should be limited to two unrelated adults.

BOTH stances are intolerant of alternate lifestyles.”

“One of the dissenting judges is a
lesbian. Don't forget to flame
her.”

“A person either supports marriage for everyone or that person draws a line and supports marriage only for certain classes of people

True, but we can morally draw a line where combinations are harmful, i.e. for incestuous or blood relatives, children below a particular age, those that can't make the decision (including animals) etc.

Now, two consenting same sex adults are NOT causing harm to themselves or anyone else. Thus, it should be legal.”

“The reason homosexuality was no longer considered to be sexual deviance by psychiatry is that there was no scientific evidence to substantiate that it was a disorder.

Psychiatry had its roots in Fruedian theory, which held that the oedipal complex (which required lusting for Mom and wanting to off Dad) was essential for normal development. As psychiatry struggled to become more scientific, theories of psychopathology were reformulated in light of the evidence or lack of evidence.

As far as incest goes: there are demonstrable public health problems related to incest. Prohibitions against incest are far more culturally widespread than prohibitions against homosexuality. Lastly, many incestuous relationships (esp. between parent and child) are inherently non-consensual.

Whereas homosexuality produces no children, incest can produce higher rates of genetic abnormalities.”

“Nigal, since when is bondage not bondage?

Employees????
Where they free to come and go as they pleased?

Slavery was accepted by primitive man, (and still is among still-primitive men).
That would include ancients in the Middle East.”

“Another argument on homosexuality vs. incest.

There is tremendous evidence that there are a lot of people who can only find sexual satisfaction and romantic/emotional fulfillment in homosexual relationships. There is no evidence for a class of people who only find satisfaction and fulfillment in incestuous relationships.”

“True, but we can morally draw a line where combinations are harmful

Bingo! The only difference then is where the line is drawn; some consider homosexual unions harmful, some consider them harmless.

Argue that part all you want, but avoid the silly intolerance arguments and "foisting your morals on people" b*llsh:t because BOTH sides of the debate are just as guilty of each. The only differences is where they draw the line.”

“Tara!

You asked yesterday why churches that require procreation in marriage also support celibacy.

According to this layman's knowledge of Catholic practice...

A marriage is really performed by the couple. The ceremony is just that - a ceremony. The congregation just witnesses. The actual marriage, traditionally, begins at consummation. This does raise questions about those with physical impediments or advanced age. Most of the time, priests make "pastoral" decisions to allow these marriages to go through.

But, if you follow the logic to its logical extension, sex is what really, traditionally, starts the marriage. Hence, the wariness to support it in forms outside of marriage.

There has also been a historical desire within the Catholic Church to "rise above" the toils and tribulations of the world. The pleasures of the world have traditionally been frowned up because they take focus away from God and the coming salvation.

So, those who give up sex are considered to have "risen above" the world and are, hence, closer to God. This kind of ignores all of the priests with nice houses and great vacation trips and long curriculum vitae's but, anyway...

This line of thinking manifests itself in the institution of marriage in the sense that sex for pleasure is frowned upon. Each sexual act should have the possibility of offspring. This is why masturbation, condoms, anal and oral sex are all against the official rules.

Of course, the church also provides for the idea that individuals cannot ignore their God-given conscience. Someone with a well-developed attempt to understand God cannot be faulted for following his/her conscience, even if it is against church law. Many priests use this as an "out" when marrying the 50%+ couples who live together during marriage formation.”

“The only difference then is where the line is drawn; some consider homosexual unions harmful

But they would be wrong - the evidence just doesn't support that. Sorry, but science speaks louder than your contrived opinion.”

“Maybe I'm confused Nigal but this :

http://www.searchgodsword.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T8230

seems to confirm my interpretation. I'm only fluent in English, so I'm at something of a disadvantage.”

“And of course I'm veering wildly off-topic.”

“but avoid the silly intolerance arguments and "foisting your morals on people" b*llsh:t

When science clearly refutes your position that homo marriage is harmful, then that is indeed what you're doing - foisting off your intolerant, bigoted religious beliefs on the rest of us.”

“This thread has had some activity since last night!

I have steadfastly refused to debate the incest part of the christian argument. It's ridiculous, and not work addressing.

phaed, do you hate me for being a conservative? you disagree with me, so you must hate, acording to your logic...."
stratdewd
07:55:38 AM
11/19/03

No strat, I am not trying to keep you from marrying, starting a business, filing joint taxes with your spouse, having children or doing any of the other things we both have rights to do.”

“Mutt is right. The key is the absence of evidence and real scientific evidence.

If I consider being raised by rigid, narow minded homophobes to be bad for the child - that should have nothing to do with marrow minded homophobes marrying. Even if I convince the majority of people in this country, it shouldn't allow us to interfere with them marrying and having kids.”

“When science clearly refutes your position...

Your ignorance of modern science is showing. Even in the physical sciences there is more conjecture and theory than hard evidence.

The social sciences are even worse. Pretty much no matter what you want to say, you can find scientists who will support that. What opinions and studies see the light of day depend on what theories are currently in vogue. Propose a hypothesis that is contrary to the current activist stance (whatever that may be, I'm being neutral here) and not only will you probably never see a dime of grant money, but even if you do succeed in doing your study or experiment you'll probably never see it published in a "reputable" journal.

So when you say science clearly... I laugh, because science doesn't clearly do much of anything and if you think it does you're incredibly naive.”

“deed: You are taking a right wing post-modernist position. There are limits to what science can show, but there is real rigor and standards in science. Your commitment to remaining in ignorance shows.”

“And while I'm at it, let me reinforce something that it appears a few folks haven't figured out for themselves.

I am trying NOT to advocate a particular position here. I have intended only to point out the hypocrisy of certain arguments which have been put forth.”

“LOL. I was wondering if you were going to trot out the Conspiracy Theory fallacy.”

“The social sciences are even worse. Pretty much no matter what you want to say, you can find scientists who will support that. What opinions and studies see the light of day depend on what theories are currently in vogue. Propose a hypothesis that is contrary to the current activist stance (whatever that may be, I'm being neutral here) and not only will you probably never see a dime of grant money, but even if you do succeed in doing your study or experiment you'll probably never see it published in a "reputable" journal.

So when you say science clearly... I laugh, because science doesn't clearly do much of anything and if you think it does you're incredibly naive."
deeddawg
10:41:44 AM
11/19/03


Alright, Deed, show me the science that says homosexuals have poor effects on childhood development as was espoused earlier in the thread and is the conservative reason for not wanting homosexuals to be able to adopt. Give me one source that can be verified.

According to your logic: where there is a demand for a scientific study that says X, a scientist will develop a study that says X. Let's see yours.”

“I have intended only to point out the hypocrisy of certain arguments which have been put forth.

Well, you failed miserably and have blown your credibility to boot with your diatribe on science.”

“For an interesting quiz on Biblical attitudes on slavery check out this:

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0401/slavery.html



It is partisan, but if you click for answers it will give you the Biblical citations.”

“It's useless phaedrus. This is always the point in these debates where the religious a$$holes become willfully ignorant.

Science is WRONG! The bible is GOD's word!

Not saying Deeddawg is taking the religious slant, however.”

“ped: you clearly haven't been involved in science very much.

mutt: what conspiracy theory? I made a neutral statement about how things are.

*shrug* Believe what you want. I don't much care.”

“*shrug* Believe what you want. I don't much care."
deeddawg
10:50:53 AM
11/19/03

Translation: I have absolutely no evidence fo my opinion, but it's more work to rethink it than to ignore the fact.”

“One thing I don't like about this decision is the idea that because of the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution, a couple from Michigan could take a weekend trip to Massachusetts, get married, and force Michigan to recognize the marriage.

Of course, they could also just move to Windsor, live married and commute to their unmarried lives in Detroit. :)”

“Well, you failed miserably and have blown your credibility to boot with your diatribe on science.

Terribly sorry you feel that way. *shrug*”

“I believe the truly "anti-gay marriage" nuts should move to Massachusetts and become voters there and fight this thing!!!”