Massachusetts high court: Same-sex couples entitled to marry

[Timber Loftis]

Yorick, you're prejudiced on the issue. You are guilty of exactly what I suggested -- deciding the outcome and then reverse engineering a reason to justify it. You need to do some soul-searching.

I've disproved your argument about 3 different ways, appealed to your sensibilities, and now I'm done. You simply can't see it, and that combined with you moving into what I affectionately call "Yorick Argue-with-stop-sign Stubborn Mode" ("YASM"), I'm going to bow out of the debate before I wind up banging my head on my desk.

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

Me either -- gay couples rear children. Statistically more successfully than straight couples, btw.

Oh, and the gay couple I saw on TV last night were rearing their OWN children. Each man had used the same surrogate mother to have his own children. Since they used the same mother, the children were even legitimately blood brothers and sisters. But, you want to cut them out of the loop based on some trumped up reason.

It's like picking any arbitrary factor to hang your argument on. It's the logical equivalent of saying gay couples can't wed because the don't have missionary sex. Or saying they can't wed because they can't have penis/vagina intercourse. These are all differences, but none offer a logical distinction.

As I said, I'm bowing out. I don't truck with those who discriminate. Prejudice is rooted in illogic, so one can't defeat it through using logic. Logic is basically all I know to use, so faced with an impossible task of changing your prejudice, I'll simply bow out.

Bye guys. See you next thread.

[Spelca]

Yorick, overpopulation is not just about how many people are living around you in the city, it's about the lack of resources, food, fresh water, extinction of species, lower standards of living, etc. You make it sound very romantic, but the fact is that the planet cannot support the growth of human species as it is today.

[ 02-06-2004, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

Well, i find gay marriages or relationship icky but they probably feel the same about straight people. Its a new age and times are changing. Eventually its going to happen. I personally would not take any actions to stop it mainly because Bush (and conservatives) is against it. He and others like him think gay marriages will destroy straight marriages. I don't get it. How is it going to stop heterosexual marriages. People are going to get married and stay married until divorce or death does them apart. This IMO is just a religious issue. Oops! Should I have not said that since there is a ban on religious discussion. Then please just ignore that last part. Peace. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Yorick, you're prejudiced on the issue. You are guilty of exactly what I suggested -- deciding the outcome and then reverse engineering a reason to justify it. You need to do some soul-searching. I've disproved your argument about 3 different ways, appealed to your sensibilities, and now I'm done. You simply can't see it, and that combined with you moving into what I affectionately call "Yorick Argue-with-stop-sign Stubborn Mode" ("YASM"), I'm going to bow out of the debate before I wind up banging my head on my desk. quote: I see no reason why child rearing couples shouldn't be given breaks that nonchildrearing couples don't.

Me either -- gay couples rear children. Statistically more successfully than straight couples, btw.

Oh, and the gay couple I saw on TV last night were rearing their OWN children. Each man had used the same surrogate mother to have his own children. Since they used the same mother, the children were even legitimately blood brothers and sisters. But, you want to cut them out of the loop based on some trumped up reason.

It's like picking any arbitrary factor to hang your argument on. It's the logical equivalent of saying gay couples can't wed because the don't have missionary sex. Or saying they can't wed because they can't have penis/vagina intercourse. These are all differences, but none offer a logical distinction.

As I said, I'm bowing out. I don't truck with those who discriminate. Prejudice is rooted in illogic, so one can't defeat it through using logic. Logic is basically all I know to use, so faced with an impossible task of changing your prejudice, I'll simply bow out.

Bye guys. See you next thread. [/QUOTE]As I said, I'm not seeking negative discrimination, but positive encouragement based on assessment of social ills and what I believe makes for mental health in individuals.

I am not prejudging anyone and don't appreciate accusations that suggest I am. I am pointing out the obvious - that gay couples cannot procreate - and arguing for some sort of social encouragement be given to couples that are creating life.

And yes, if you'll notice, as a result of this thread I have moved from "possible" to "actual" creation of life, so yes that means giving couples that are creating life breaks that are not given to childless couples.

Somehow, if society is not to completely fall apart, the nuclear family and then the extended family needs to be encouraged and supported.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Spelca: Yorick, overpopulation is not just about how many people are living around you in the city, it's about the lack of resources, food, fresh water, extinction of species, lower standards of living, etc. You make it sound very romantic, but the fact is that the planet cannot support the growth of human species as it is today.

I reject out of hand the assertion that there are too many people. The resource management of the planet is what needs to change. The amount of people may actually prompt a revision in the pathetic way we have ravaged the planet up until this point.

The motor vehicle is the single worst invention in human history. Unparalled pollution, desecration of environment through highways, parking lots, urban expansion and rubbish. Throw in the weight problems, back problems and accidents that all adversely affect human health, and the motor vehicle is a disaster.

"Wide open spaces" are wonderful, and I love them too. However, I do not call a seven lane highway filled with thousands of one-person cars a "wide open space" but an ecological nightmare.

Look at the example in Singapore. Go and visit it and see how 2.3 million people fit into an island it takes 45 minutes to drive across. Because car ownership is discouraged, cabs are everywhere and very very very cheap.
There is a proliferation of plants and trees . It is the greenest city I have ever seen anywhere, and leaves cities with abundant room to shame.

All this out of necessity. There are nations with far more room who could be managing their resources, their space, with way more effectiveness.

And yes it means a lifestyle change. It means a total rethink about our values, our planet, our life.

The suburban house is a modern phenomena only available becasue of the car. Throughout human history, you've either had apartment-style city living, or country style self sufficiency.

Self sufficiency is still attainable - I have visited places in Australia like this.

Add in increased mobility through the internet and modern delivery systems and things look even better.

Throw in the alternatives such as high rise cities. Polises that offer very high quality of life.

The finest place I have lived in was on the 30th floor of a high rise in Singapore, with unparallelled ocean views, abundant space inside, marble floors, a wonderful breeze. Downstairs was grass, trees and plants not concrete. You could breathe. Move. There were shops within walking distance. There was a community feel, yet space to move. ersonal space in a communal context.

The opposite, western suburban living, is an isolated existence, where TV is the community. People isolationally drive, alone, from place to place, to huge houses. Where they suffer from lonliness, to the point they stay up and chat online as their only means of speaking with other humans.

Community is rewarding. You can have community, and space. these are choices we are making that are not set in stone. Human society is constantly changing, and I see a future of better resource management and city planning.

I lived in the Australian desert as a child. You don't get more isolated than that. 20 million for a nation the size of America. Most live in the east. We were in the north west. No-one there. You could drive ALL DAY and not see another car.

Don't tell me there are too many people.

When I was in Atlanta I saw so much wasted space. Throw out the car, and the malls get smaller. No need for the huge parking lots you have to drive through to get from place to place. Put them closer and you can... (shock horror) WALK! Yes walk! And get this....

WALKING GETS EASIER THE MORE YOU DO.

In New York, you walk everywhere. Initially it takes energy, but the body adapts. Makes you healthier. Saves time and money spent in a gym.

The population of my country fits into an area the size of metropolitan Sydney.

It doesn't have to be the way it is. These are resource choices. DOn't buy the myth that there are too many people. It's bullshit.

[Yorick]

iginally posted by Spelca: it's about the lack of resources, food, fresh water, extinction of species,

Again, resource management. There is more water on the planet than land. Yes it's salt water, but then we'll find a way to remove the salt. Evaporation does that naturally.

We humans recycle water too. It doesn't disappear. We drink it, it flows through us, and comes out again. There is more than enough water on the globe. Again, with resource management, we could shrink the cities and create more farm land. We could start using ocean farming as well.

A shift in diets back to LESS MEAT, would mean more grain. The amount of grain it takes to feed one beef producing cow, can feed an entire village.

Humans don't need to eat meat every night. I'm not a vegetarian, but a simple shift to eating less meat per week is not hard. Better for the planet. Better for your health. Cheaper too.

Oh... but that's another one of those lifestyle change thingeys isn't it?

[ 02-06-2004, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Night Stalker]

Evil or not though, those vehicles and eye sore roads are the lynch pin in keeping a large population of people sustained. Transportation of resources is what has allowed every major society to flourish. Waste management is another key pin.

As much as you like New York, it could not function today as you know it with out the massive supply infrastruct that feeds into and out of it.

Canals and rivers used to be the method of choice. In fact, the Hudson River and the New York Canal (completed in the mid 1800s) are the reason that NYC surpassed Philly as the major economic power house of the East Coast.

Those functions are now replaced by highways which are much faster and have higher through put than any current supply chain.

As for the topic at hand, the law allows for certain legal rights in a coupled relationship, from a legal stand point there is no reason that any couple willing to file the right paperwork should be denied those benefits. This country went through all of these arguements before during the Civil Rights Movement. Replace "Niggers/Negreos" with "Gays" and you have the same verbal sewage spewing from the hardliner's mouths, only this time the President is one of the sewers.

I don't care about religious connotations of marriage, who can procreate with whom, or by what methods of boinkin is done to do it. Discrimination is discrimination. If one class of citizens is granted certain rights of a legal paired partnership, then the law should grant that courtesy to any pairing, reguardless of race, creed, or sexual preference.

It was once illegal for Blacks and White to marry, and it was just a silly then to forbid it as it is today with gays.

[Yorick]

Europe gets by with more people in less space with greater public transport. Highways are not the solution. Single occupant cars are not the solution either.

[Yorick]

More people than America that is.

[Night Stalker]

Europe is also very different from America in that it is criss crossed with many rivers while America only has a few large ones. And even with all the rivers available they still have large rail and highway systems. America's highway system did not develop into what it is today until Eisenhower beheld Germany's massive infrastructure and it's capabily to quickly move resources anywhere needed.

Though I agree with you that public transport is severely lacking in America.