Massachusetts Court rules state cannot ban gay marraige

[Ned]

Mindseye, the critical portion of your post is your statement that you had no "choice." I think that science is beginning to accept that homosexuality is genetic and not a mental disorder. I think this lead to the recent Supreme Court decision ruling unconstitutional laws banning sodomy.

But the fact that such laws existed in the majority of states also illustrates why homosexual marriage is not accepted by most Americans. It will take some time for this attitude to change. If the Supreme Court again forces the issue by decision, this will again become another Roe v. Wade. (I think the Supremes could hold the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional because it impairs the right to travel.)

Also, throughout this thread I have not seen one of the reasons for tax breaks for traditional families. The presumption is that the woman will stay at home to raise the kids and support her husband in his career. This model does not correspond in gay marriages even if gays can raise kids.

While we allow single moms to raise kids by themselves, we as a society encourage father-mother families as the best for kids. We also do not encourage raising kids in "gay" families. Allowing gay marriage may signal such an encouragement where no such encouragement is intended.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ned
While we allow single moms to raise kids by themselves, we as a society encourage father-mother families as the best for kids. We also do not encourage raising kids in "gay" families. Allowing gay marriage may signal such an encouragement where no such encouragement is intended.

As I already noted, unless you can cite studies showing that a rasing a child in a mother father family is better than one with two parents of the same sex, such a policy is nothing more than based on prejudice and imposing religiously based moral views upon others. The studies may show that children are BETTER off being raised in homosexual two parent households for all we know.

[Ned]

Mordoch, Why does the party who relies on thousands of years of history have to rely on studies? I would think the party proposing a change from the norm should provide the studies.

Who has the burden of proof? The party of change or the party of status quo?

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Ned
Mordoch, Why does the party who relies on thousands of years of history have to rely on studies? I would think the party proposing a change from the norm should provide the studies.

Who has the burden of proof? The party of change or the party of status quo?

I believe that the past studies arenot correctly done or the methord use are wrong. Remember when they said eating butter was bad to you because of the polyunsat fat. While they re-exaime the orginate study an found to save money instead of useing real butter they use palm tree oil which isnot eaten or use in any foods eaten by human which mean the orginate study was badly flawed. When they ban that sweetner back in the 1970's because they believe it cause cancer was flaw they where given the rat would haven equall to than person drinking 700 1 liter bottle of diet soda
aday, drinking bottle of string water aday can kill you by causeing cancer.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Ned
Mindseye, the critical portion of your post is your statement that you had no "choice." I think that science is beginning to accept that homosexuality is genetic and not a mental disorder. I think this lead to the recent Supreme Court decision ruling unconstitutional laws banning sodomy.

But the fact that such laws existed in the majority of states also illustrates why homosexual marriage is not accepted by most Americans. It will take some time for this attitude to change. If the Supreme Court again forces the issue by decision, this will again become another Roe v. Wade. (I think the Supremes could hold the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional because it impairs the right to travel.)

Also, throughout this thread I have not seen one of the reasons for tax breaks for traditional families. The presumption is that the woman will stay at home to raise the kids and support her husband in his career. This model does not correspond in gay marriages even if gays can raise kids.

While we allow single moms to raise kids by themselves, we as a society encourage father-mother families as the best for kids. We also do not encourage raising kids in "gay" families. Allowing gay marriage may signal such an encouragement where no such encouragement is intended.

All true. Most Americans, and indeed most people in most of the world, are against homosexual unions (with rare exceptions, such as in certain tribes of New Guinea), but we can also change, and are always in the process of change culturally. We can come to accept that homosexuality is an anomoly and not normal, but also perfectly acceptable.

Its like downs syndrome or any other birth "disorder", its not "normal" (in a evolutionary biological sense), but we can accept them for it.

Edit: I didn't mean "normal" in any subjective way, just that its not the norm.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Spiffor
...but I'd like to know what motivates individuals to be hostile to the idea of Gays wearing a marriage ring.

Cultural conditioning. Its a powerful thing. Humans are designed to soak in culture and behavior... just look at little kids.

[David Floyd]

I'm still waiting for Ben Kenobi to respond. Still waiting...

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ned
Mordoch, Why does the party who relies on thousands of years of history have to rely on studies? I would think the party proposing a change from the norm should provide the studies.

Who has the burden of proof? The party of change or the party of status quo?

Conventional wisdom at various times has held that the world is flat and the earth stays in one place while the sun orbits around it. Conventional wisdom also held that maggots spontaniously were generated from rotten meat. Coventional wisdom with "thousands of years of history" is often horrendiously wrong. I might add, that I don't believe there used to be such a concern about the two parent issue in wealthy families since a nursemaid would be raising the child and the child would hardly ever see their parents anyways. You're talking about granting one group rights that another group won't get (or at least taking measures based on one group's behavoir being undesirable) without any concrete logical reason behind such a policy you're looking at a clear cut case of discrimination. When you are the one talking about restricting the ability of individuals to conduct certain behavoir, the burden of proving why this is needed falls on your side, and saying "tradition" doesn't cut it.

[Berzerker]

Mordoch -

As I already noted, unless you can cite studies showing that a rasing a child in a mother father family is better than one with two parents of the same sex, such a policy is nothing more than based on prejudice and imposing religiously based moral views upon others. The studies may show that children are BETTER off being raised in homosexual two parent households for all we know.

I wouldn't doubt for a minute a homosexual child might be better off in a homosexual household simply because of the detachment the child would feel in a heterosexual household, but the converse is also true, a heterosexual child might feel a detachment from the parents in a homosexual household. Then there's the problem of dealing with other kids when they discover mommy and daddy are actually mommy and mommy or daddy and daddy. You can complain about discrimination or bigotry toward homosexuals all you want, but that won't make it disappear. That kid will feel discomfort because of how his peers view his family... And since the vast majority of people (and children) are not homosexual, we don't need any study showing that it is better for a child to grow up in a heterosexual household. It's just common sense...

Mindseye -

Well, since you brought up "other parts of the globe", both China and Europe have far-from-recent traditions of same-sex marriages.

Oh really? Feel free to post the proof...

As I have pointed out time and time again, those who speak of "traditional" forms of marriage usually are in fact referring to marriage as practiced in the industrialized west during the latter half of the twentieth century.

Not me, so since you're quoting me, address what I've said, not what others say.

Marriage based primarily on mutual love, between two equal and consenting adults, irrespective of race or religion, isn’t "traditional" marriage.

Why not? You seem to think marriage in one culture negates traditional marriages everywhere else.

For example, as recently as 150 years ago a man could marry a 13-year old.

Every culture has had "age of consent" limitations on the age of the people getting married, the fact life spans were so short and nature's design (puberty) led to marriages between young people is irrelevant, we have our age of consent, they had theirs. Btw, I believe men can still marry ~15 year olds in some states.

Within living memory a black or Asian man could not marry a white woman. Thank heavens the law broke with these "traditions".

This was not a tradition, it was a temporary and isolated law. The fact is people of different races have always married even if frowned upon by some people and outlawed in a few states over a few decades.

You may not feel there is status associated with marriage, but many of those denied the official sanction feel all too keenly the status their relationships are denied. It is very real, I assure you. Being allowed an equal but "second class" form of marriage is, as Andrew Sullivan put it, nothing more than a finer form of discrimination.

What exactly is it about the word "marriage" that homosexuals need to be identified with? Don't give me that stuff about being a second class citizen, this is about a word and it's definition. If homosexuals were really concerned about a word and the status it conveys, why don't they demand the government call them heterosexuals instead of homosexuals? Oh, because they aren't heterosexuals? Why not? Oh yeah, because words have definitions!!! Aren't homosexuals already accepting a word to describe themselves that sets them apart from most people?

Maybe single people think they're second class citizens too. Maybe they want the status of being "married" even though they aren't, if we're going to re-define "marriage" to include same sex relationships, why not re-define the word to include single people who are merely dating (or not dating)? There is a reason words have definitions... Maybe criminals don't like the status of being criminals, let's just call them "law-abiding" people...

And if that chorus is composed of a lot more voices than just those of politicians?

Gee, I don't know. What percentage of the population does it take to re-define a word?

Seems you are saying that unions between gay people are in some fundamental way different from those of straight people (i.e. they are not red roses, but are, in fact, pigs).

That "fundamental way" is the word used to describe the union between straight people - "marriage". Do homosexuals want us to call them heterosexual too?

Beyond legal sanction, how are they so very different?

"Marriage" is a word to describe a certain type of contract/union between men and women. Homosexuals, by definition, do not fit that description.

And who is to decide just what is a pig or a red rose?

People with eyesight?

Who are you to call a gay person's relationship a "pig" while someone else's is a "red rose"?

I am me...Would you prefer a black rose and a red rose or will black and red people take offense now?

Is a gay person's love for their life-mate somehow less worthy than someone else's?

PC strikes again, now we have to watch the metaphors we use lest someone read an insult into our choice of words. I was going to ask who you were to assume I meant the homosexual relationship was the pig and not the rose, but what's the point? You seek out insults where none exist so you'd probably object to the metaphor of a red rose too...

Even if you had used a less offensive choice of terms (a low blow, by the way), the question would be unchanged.

Why do you find pigs offensive? I like pigs more than red roses and I find your comment offensive. And no, I'm not saying I like homsexuals more than heterosexuals or that I like heterosexuals more than homsexuals, these are metaphors and I was offering an anology (you know...oops...you don't know).

You mean, just like alternatives to what you call "traditional" marriage existed before current laws "invented" it?

I meant what I said, here it is again:

"I'm saying these actions existed before politicians passed laws "inventing" them."

I was referring to the concepts of murder and theft and the acts that qualify as murder and theft matching those concepts (if you had read what Ramo and I were debating you would be informed of the context ). You want to transfer that statement to marriage? Fine, the concept of marriage preceded the current laws defining marriage and if the laws don't match the preceding concept, then the laws are a perversion of "tradition" and language.

As defined by who?

By just about everyone except for a tiny minority of homosexual activists and their supporters.

You seem to be terribly selective in the "traditions" you draw upon for this definition.

Oh really? I can't wait for the proof you have to back that up.

Just as the "certain kind of situation" you refer to has not always been, as you pointed out, between two people, neither has it always been between two adults, nor has it always been between people of different genders. In the past it was also "traditionally" restricted to people of the same race. Should we continue that tradition?

Ah, so your accusation of hypocrisy is based on your own unproven assertions about traditional marriages. Nice, I believe that's called "circular" logic. So you believe a law banning asian and black men from marrying white women passed by a tiny minority of the world's population in a tiny geographical area for a tiny part of mankind's history qualifies as a "tradition" that nullifies the rest of the world's traditions? That happens to be your argument...

[David Floyd]

Berzerker,

While I'm not sure that I disagree with your points, I do question your motivation.

Even assuming that "marriage" properly means what you say it does, who is being hurt by allowing homosexuals to marry? It doesn't hurt you, it doesn't hurt heterosexual marriage relationships, and since we're speaking hypothetically, no one is getting government benefits anyway.

So again, what is your motivation for not allowing two consenting adults to define a term however they want, in a private contract?

Oh, and you might make an argument that that is all well and good in a hypothetical world, but in the real world, benefits do exist. Don't make that argument. My response will be "Great! This is a way for people to get back some of the money the government took from them!" Again, this doesn't hurt you, because you aren't being forced to pay the benefits - the benefits received are probably much less than the taxes those individuals paid, so it seems to me that from your (our) perspective, allowing homosexual couples to marry and receive economic benefits is a POSITIVE thing, regardless of the historical definition of the term "marriage".

I guess it boils down to this: What do you care?

Same question to BK, by the way.

[Berzerker]

Coventional wisdom with "thousands of years of history" is often horrendiously wrong.

Which has nothing to do with how words are defined. "Marriage" just happens to be a word chosen to describe a certain type of relationship between men and women. And there was a word to describe the view that the sun orbited the Earth. A new idea came along that said the Earth orbited the Sun instead. Did the people who came up with that new view simply use the word to describe the previous view or did they come up with a new term? Ah, helio-centrism was born...

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Which has nothing to do with how words are defined. "Marriage" just happens to be a word chosen to describe a certain type of relationship between men and women. And there was a word to describe the view that the sun orbited the Earth. A new idea came along that said the Earth orbited the Sun instead. Did the people who came up with that new view simply use the word to describe the previous view or did they come up with a new term? Ah, helio-centrism was born...

So, why does this prohibit the state from granting civil unions to everyone and allowing private organizations to come up with their own definitions of marriage? It also certainly doesn't explain why homosexuals can't be allowed to have "civil unions" with essentially the same legal rights as marriages. Incidentally, sometimes the meaning of words just change. The phrase "gay old time" doesn't have the immediate conotations that were intended when the Flintstones cartoon initially incorperated the words in their theme song!

[Drake Tungsten]

Which has nothing to do with how words are defined. "Marriage" just happens to be a word chosen to describe a certain type of relationship between men and women. And there was a word to describe the view that the sun orbited the Earth. A new idea came along that said the Earth orbited the Sun instead. Did the people who came up with that new view simply use the word to describe the previous view or did they come up with a new term? Ah, helio-centrism was born...

Wow, Berz, you actually make some good points in the posts that are short enough that I'll actually read them.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Mordoch -

I wouldn't doubt for a minute a homosexual child might be better off in a homosexual household simply because of the detachment the child would feel in a heterosexual household, but the converse is also true, a heterosexual child might feel a detachment from the parents in a homosexual household. Then there's the problem of dealing with other kids when they discover mommy and daddy are actually mommy and mommy or daddy and daddy. You can complain about discrimination or bigotry toward homosexuals all you want, but that won't make it disappear. That kid will feel discomfort because of how his peers view his family... And since the vast majority of people (and children) are not homosexual, we don't need any study showing that it is better for a child to grow up in a heterosexual household. It's just common sense...

Oh wonderful, since people discriminate against a group, that gives us a reason why we should continue to discriminate against them. That same logic could be used to argue that since people discriminate against African-Americans, we should prohibit them from adopting children to spare any children the potential discrimination they might receive. Incidentally, after the Civil Rights Act was passed, a store owner argued he was not barring African-Americans from his shop due to his prejudice against them, but because his customers were prejudiced against African-Americans and he didn't want to risk harming his business by angering his non-African-American customers. This argument was firmly shot down when it reached the US Supreme Court and they ruled against the store owner, and if a court ever ruled on your argument, I expect the same results would occur. The suggestion is also disturbing since it seems to potentially set up a vicious repeating cycle.

[Panzer32]

unelected courts having the power to override elected government? =