Massachusetts high court: Same-sex couples entitled to marry

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

I'm gone for two days and THIS happens?

Ok, where do I begin?
The polygamy thing I'm not touching... I don't know if you're joking or not. It might be sarcasm, it might not be... so I'm leaving it alone.
Secondly, what if a woman is sterile, Yorick? Should she not be allowed to marry? She can't have kids.
Thirdly, read 1984 by George Orwell. This takes what you're saying to a logical conclusion. Maybe you think it's a good idea, but I certainly don't. Marriage should be based on love between two people. Nothing more, nothing less.
Or am I missing your point entirely? Are you being facetious? It's difficult to tell when you don't kno wa person...

[skywalker]

My wife and I have been married for over 20 years and have produced not one child. As a matter of fact we decided not to have kids right from the beginning? Does that mean we have no right to be married. Do we not belong to that special club in which, apparently, gay couples are not allowed to be a part of. When you think about it, being married without children is a bad idea if you have no kids, taxwise. I married my wife Deb because I love her and wanted to make a lifetime committment to her. Maybe that was wrong?

Marriage is all about pledging your love to another and pledging to stay with that person for the rest of your lives. To not cheat and treat them fairly. To aid them in sickness, to support them through bad times and share the good times. I do not recall bearing children being part of traditional marriage vows. Procreating to me is a side effect of marriage, not a condition of it.

Mark

[ 02-06-2004, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: skywalker ]

[Timber Loftis]

Don't twist Yorick's argument guys. Skywalker, Yorick argues that because you two could theoretically, if you were perfectly healthy and desired to do so, produce a child.

It's a lame-o way to distinguish the fact that "ability to procreate" does not provide an acceptable test for who should marry. It's a "post hoc" and afterthought argument latched onto by those who are struggling desperately for ways to justify their predjudice.

I've found that a lot of people begin by not wanting to allow gays to marry based on prejudice. Then, once the conclusion is determined, they want to backpedal and reverse engineer an argument to get to that conclusion.

I ain't seen any such arguments that worked yet. I'm waiting with baited breath, of course.

[skywalker]

I did read Yorick's posts before adding my [img]graemlins/twocents.gif[/img] . I guess my view has been colored by the subsequent posts. Mostly I just get bugged by people (talking of people outside this forum, ok?) that seem to profess that marriage is a Special Club that only a man & woman can belong to. They take it as a religious union and then attach to it legal rights and that is just wrong to me.

But procreation has little to do with the act of getting married. It is a mindset that leads the human race into over-population.

Mark

[Yorick]

I totally reject the notion that the earth is overcrowded. It is a simple cop-out that ignores the bad choices our societies have made.

There is more than enough land, food and water to sustain larger and larger populations.

What we could do is get rid of the car for starters. That would shrink cities and heal the environment.

With less space for roads, parking at both ends (origina dn destination) plus greater concentration of urbanality rather than the sprawl and wasted space that now exists.

I have comfortably lived in New York and SIngapore, both of which maximise space and fit enormous amounts of people into smaller spaces.

The car is the problem, not overpopulation.

And what is the easier solution. Mass genoiced of humanity or a lifestyle change?

Please, don't bring up overpopulation.

As to procreational marriage, I am precisely speaking about procreation because socities health depends on the existence of strong blood relational familys. It has been shown that drug addiction, crime and vioence in society is directly related to the breakdown of the extended and nuclear families.

I am speaking about providing some incentive, some encouragement to a man and a woman who are creating such a mini society, to stay together for life.

Even if I am single, gay or married without a child, I would like to see child rearing families encouraged above and beyond what the rest of us are, simply because our society depends on it.

All a society is is an extension of the family principle. The have's caring for the have nots.

Ask yourself what society is, what a familiy is, and ask yourself what you are doing to strengthen or undermine both entities.


And for the last time, Mark and others, it is about POTENTIAL. The ability to procreate PROVIDED all is well. Not whether the couple are well or choose procreation or not.

[Timber Loftis]

"I like wide open spaces." -- Woodrow Wilson

Frankly, I don't give a golly gosh darned if we CAN find a way to beehive more people together. I'm pretty well sick of looking at them all the damned time. If we were smart and controlled our populations, we could all continue to enjoy our cars and big portions of food and weekend wilderness getaways.

What's the point in trying to people the earth with people? Why do we want more of us? Viral tendancies? Because we enjoy each others' smell so much? WHY WHOULD YOU WANT TO GROW THE POPULATION????

Here's a real social trend: as people become more financially successful and educated, they tend to have less kids. natural tendancy, which is why the EU/US populations would actually be shrinking if it weren't for all the damned unwashed masses clambering across our borders to steal jobs.

Now, don't we WANT people to be successful, wealthy, and educated? Well, then, we need to accept the fact that there will be fewer of them. Natural tendancy -- their own behavior, not social policy, will dictate lower populations.

Or are you willing to trade comfort for all people in exchange for simply having more people? If so, WTF???? Please explain, because for me it DOES NOT COMPUTE.

Oh, and nice of you to sidestep the other issue. I note your demurrer.

[Timber Loftis]

Gay people adopt, Yorick. And they all have the POTENTIAL to adopt. And, from what I've seen, these function like nuclear families.

And, gay couples are much more likely to have one stay-at-home parent, meaning old-fashioned child rearing is more likely. Your argument fails again.

Step back and examine your prejudice. I suspect it is not any logical argument driving your belief but rather a certain "oogie-ness" you feel in the pit of your stomach about gays being "married." Do a little soul searching on it. It's one thing to live alongside them as second-class citizens, but to make them truly equal... gets you right in the gut, doesn't it?

[ 02-06-2004, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Yorick]

I am sick of the issue, and need to get to work.

On the overpopulation, comfort in highly populated areas is wonderful. The whole REASON for living in New York IS THE PEOPLE. People create culture. People are nice to look at and talk to.

Isolation is the worst punishment you can inflict on a prisoner.

I don't live in New York because it's easy, because it's pretty. Becasue I have a nice view. But the people. the collective energy of creative minds influencing each other is palpable. Intoxicating.

Masses of humanity is energy.

CROWDING doesn't mean the same thing as lots of people either. You can maintain personal space in cities with many people. You can be lonely in a city of many people.
You can, with better social choices, be able to access wide open spaces easier.

Remove the car, and plan wilderness areas nearer to cities, and people could access closer wilderness areas, instead of having to fly halfway around the world to Australia to find empty land.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Gay people adopt, Yorick. And they all have the POTENTIAL to adopt. And, from what I've seen, these function like nuclear families. And, gay couples are much more likely to have one stay-at-home parent, meaning old-fashioned child rearing is more likely. Your argument fails again. Step back and examine your prejudice. I suspect it is not any logical argument driving your belief but rather a certain "oogie-ness" you feel in the pit of your stomach about gays being "married." Do a little soul searching on it. It's one thing to live alongside them as second-class citizens, but to make them truly equal... gets you right in the gut, doesn't it?

It's not a matter of equality. What is equality? A gay couple cannot procreate, therefore they aren't on an equal footing.

1+1 = 2, 3, 4 or 5 with a healthy hetero couple
1+1 will only ever equal 2 with a gay couple.

That is not equality. That is DIFFERENCE. It is not a matter of discrimination. Nature already does that.

I am not discriminating against an individual homosexual. I am seeking to discriminate FOR child rearing families. Positive encouragement, because I believe society depends on it.

[Yorick]

And if it comes to that then yes. Make a new word for "Mother of my child" or "Father of my child".

Makes a point that you can never get a new one. The child you created means there is a permanent and inseperable bond between you and your spouse.

And yes I AM divorced. In ten years together, we had no children either.

I see no reason why child rearing couples shouldn't be given breaks that nonchildrearing couples don't.

Why shouldn't we encourage a spouse to choose to stay home and raise the kids? A childless couple can both work. They are in a financially better situation.

So if it comes to that, just find a way to assist actively procreating couples. Seperate them from all other couples and give them tax breaks and whatever else helps them stay together providing a stable foundation of balance, love, rolemodelling and consistency for the young minds they are bringing into the world.