Massachusetts Court rules state cannot ban gay marraige

[mindseye]

Berzerker -

What, after all that, no summary of your position? I was hoping for one.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Possibly you don't realize this, but you're making fun of your own argument there.

What neither you nor David seemed to catch was that my post was a joke, which the presence of two smilies was supposed to indicate.

(...) and most homosexuals apparently support the Democrat Party which will not legalize homosexual marriage. I think that shows the real agenda here, it's about money/benefits, not human rights. That's a smokescreen homosexuals use to hide behind...

Are you saying that the general support of Democrats over Libertarians by gays is evidence of their true motives behind the push for gay marriage?

If this is the extent of your evidence, your case appears pretty weak, indeed.

This is why I would like to see a summary of your position, it is hard to glean it from fragmented snip-n-quote fests. Much of your objection to gay marriage seems to be based on your assumptions concerning the motives of gays, yet you have never offered any evidence for this, other than that it is simply your opinion.

[Boris Godunov]

Of course, he's figured it out! Gays don't want the right to marry out of things like love or protection of relationships--it's all about a sinister plot to steal benefits. Them evil, evil gays...

Now I see...Berz is incensed that gays don't support the Libertarian party. Well, maybe gays don't support Libertarians because, despite their stance on gay marriage, their other platform positions are fairly repugnant? I am rather relieved to think we're not one-issue voters.

[Ned]

Sure Christianity is against divorce. But the basic Roman Law and culture had divorce. This was not some "Asiatic" practice that was alien to Western Civilization. Divorce was the civil norm, not the exception.

In contrast, polygamy was proscribed by both Roman law and Christian law. Thus the Supreme Court could accurately say that Western Civilization found the practice odious.

I also submit that Roman law and Christian law are also in sync on the issue of gay marriages. This is why I think there is an adequate basis in Reynolds for not accpeting any "rights" arguments that somehow Western civilization recognizes some fundamental right to gay marriages.

This said, I think the issue is a matter for each individual state to decide for themselves by a vote of the people - not by court decision overriding the will of the people. It would certainly help the gay cause here if they could get the Caltholic Church to seriously address this issue. I think the gays have a good case based on the fact that homosexuality is genetic. It would seem to be incredibly poor doctrine to suggest that the only proper sex a gay man could have is with a women in a traditional marriage. If God created his creatures homosexual, he must have done so for a purpose. We should respect his purpose and adapt doctrine accordingly.

[Berzerker]

Mindseye -

Berzerker -

What, after all that, no summary of your position? I was hoping for one.

Sure, homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. You needed that "summarised"?

What neither you nor David seemed to catch was that my post was a joke, which the presence of two smilies was supposed to indicate.

Of course it was a joke, and the joke not only poked fun at David for referring to marriage as a contract, it makes fun of your insistence that marriage is about love or a relationship that cannot be fulfilled without some politician's blessing. You didn't notice the irony in your joke? I sure did...

Are you saying that the general support of Democrats over Libertarians by gays is evidence of their true motives behind the push for gay marriage?

Yup. I saw the same lack of commitment from the pro-life people when the voters of New Jersey had a choice between 2 pro-choice Republicrats and a pro-life libertarian, the pro-life candidate got 5% of the vote and that was primarily from libertarians. That told me abortion wasn't nearly as important as the trough these pro-lifers have their snouts buried in...

If this is the extent of your evidence, your case appears pretty weak, indeed.

I see you offered nothing to refute my "weak" argument. You've provided us with all the evidence we need regarding your motives in this thread, when I asked you to explain why you need the government's blessing you offered up a variety of benefits afforded married people after claiming it was all about "love".

This is why I would like to see a summary of your position, it is hard to glean it from fragmented snip-n-quote fests. Much of your objection to gay marriage seems to be based on your assumptions concerning the motives of gays, yet you have never offered any evidence for this, other than that it is simply your opinion.

You just ignored my evidence, including your own arguments which only confirm my "assumptions" about your motives.

Boris -

Of course, he's figured it out! Gays don't want the right to marry out of things like love or protection of relationships--it's all about a sinister plot to steal benefits. Them evil, evil gays...

You can read the thread or ignore what Mindseye has said to justify homosexual marriage. He also claimed it was about "love" but when asked why he needed the government to recognise this love, he started running down a list of benefits afforded married people. How does the government "protect" a homosexual relationship? Seek those protections instead of marriage, pretty simple...

Now I see...Berz is incensed that gays don't support the Libertarian party.

Hardly, just pointing out their bait and switch as evidence of their motives.

Well, maybe gays don't support Libertarians because, despite their stance on gay marriage, their other platform positions are fairly repugnant? I am rather relieved to think we're not one-issue voters.

Yeah, while the LP supports homosexual marriage, it doesn't support all the benefits. And since homosexuals want the benefits, the LP's position in support of homosexual marriage does y'all no good. Besides the benefits, what exactly do homosexuals find repugnant about the LP? Drug legalisation? Nah, that can't be it. No benefits for being married? Yup, that's it...

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Sure, homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. You needed that "summarised"?

That's it? Really? So if the legal definition is changed so that it is not an oxymoron, you have no other objections? Great!

I see you offered nothing to refute my "weak" argument.

Huh? Twice I refuted that feeble argument by noting the fact that so many gays support marriage as opposed to civil unions. Check my summary, the last paragraph of the "Benefits" section. If what you assert were true, why would gays bother seeking marriage? Civil unions would be a far easier way to achieve their goal, if that was really the case.

You have yet to square this inconvenient fact with your theory. I'm still waiting.

You've provided us with all the evidence we need regarding your motives in this thread, when I asked you to explain why you need the government's blessing you offered up a variety of benefits afforded married people after claiming it was all about "love".

Your persistant misrepresentation of my arguments is tiresome. In this thread I've made it very clear that there is more than one motivation, that benefits is one of them, but not the most important.. Here is just one example:

Originally posted by mindseye
Berzerker, trust me on this: when gay people fight for their right to marry like anyone else, obtaining monetary benefits is not the prime motivator. It’s about respect and equality in the eyes of the law. It's about something that the majority of people in our society aspire to. It's about marrying the person you love.

You just ignored my evidence, including your own arguments which only confirm my "assumptions" about your motives.

Could you please quote that evidence? I must have somehow missed it. However, if your evidence consists simply of the lack of gay support for the Libertarian Party, then don't bother, as the logic behind that is too absurd to merit re-stating.

(Mindseye) also claimed it was about "love" but when asked why he needed the government to recognise this love, he started running down a list of benefits afforded married people.

In fact, in the exchange you refer to, I didn’t mention benefits at all, I spoke of legal recognition, which means a lot more than just "benefits" . Here it is, to refresh your memory:

You need the government to validate your love?

Unfortunately, I do. Without that validation, the government won't recognize my union in the same way it recognizes those of straight people, in many legal ways. Just one example, if I find the man of my dreams and form a life-long union with him, I cannot bring him back to the US, except under a two-week tourist visa! On the other hand, if my straight (American) friend finds a life-mate, he/she is automatically granted US citizenship.

Why do you have such a hard time understanding that there may be more than one motivation involved? Is it maybe because that doesn’t square with your "evil agenda" theory?

Let me state this as clearly as possible so you can once and for all drop this ridiculous allegation: I believe there are many reasons gay people seek equal access to marriage. Among them are respect, fairness, equality in the eyes of the law, as well as an end to the unfair distribution of economic benefits. I do not believe economic benefits is the primary motivation for most gays seeking access to marriage. H*ll, for me, it's the least important reason, as I stand to gain nothing in tax or employment benefits (I live abroad).

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Ned
Sure Christianity is against divorce. But the basic Roman Law and culture had divorce. This was not some "Asiatic" practice that was alien to Western Civilization. Divorce was the civil norm, not the exception.

In contrast, polygamy was proscribed by both Roman law and Christian law. Thus the Supreme Court could accurately say that Western Civilization found the practice odious.

I also submit that Roman law and Christian law are also in sync on the issue of gay marriages. This is why I think there is an adequate basis in Reynolds for not accpeting any "rights" arguments that somehow Western civilization recognizes some fundamental right to gay marriages.

This said, I think the issue is a matter for each individual state to decide for themselves by a vote of the people - not by court decision overriding the will of the people. It would certainly help the gay cause here if they could get the Caltholic Church to seriously address this issue. I think the gays have a good case based on the fact that homosexuality is genetic. It would seem to be incredibly poor doctrine to suggest that the only proper sex a gay man could have is with a women in a traditional marriage. If God created his creatures homosexual, he must have done so for a purpose. We should respect his purpose and adapt doctrine accordingly.

Europe is becomeing more Islamist very year lately as is america. Roman Law and Christian Law isnot the only law recognite by the hight court anymore. When the hight court struch down Texas and some other State's anti-sodney law their said they look at other legal system
outside of the traditson one use in America. Plus some Homosexual did than historal reseach on anti-homosexual law. The Canal law of the 8th century was so poorly written that the Church today doesnot know what it really
mean,the nearest mean they figure is that any sexual practive that doesnot get than woman pregeant is illegal like oral sex, pulling your penis out too soon, any the woman must get pregeant the first time you have sex with her. The anti-sodney law in America where not really enforce by the authority the State with the best record New York State from the founding of the federal government to 1900 out of 1 million pental arrest only 27 where for anti-sodney law an they all hetesexual men being divorse by they wifes for annal sex with then.

[Ned]

Charles, I have no doubt that the Catholic Church's extremism on sex came as a reaction to Manichaeanism. It was at this time that the church first required bishops to be celibate. The person who wrote most broadly on the topic of sex at the time appears to have been Saint Augustine, who before he became a Catholic, was a Manichaean.

As you may know, the American Catholic Church largely does not agree with the Church doctrine on sex and, to some degree, on abortion. It appears that we are going to have to wait for new Pope before we can see any real movement in these areas. I expect that the next election is going to be real bloodbath between the Americans and the conservatives. Hopefully we can elect an American Pope.

As to Europe becoming increasing Muslim, I don't think it has become sufficiently Muslim to recognize and/or sanction polygamy. I do agree that the Supreme Court looked to Europe to help declare unconstitutional laws on sodomy. This is very consistent with their statements in Reynolds that polygamy was inconsistent with Western civilization. But looking to Western Europe provides little benefit to the advocates of polygamy and gay marriages, for neither are broadly recognized in Europe today. In fact the recent controversy over gay bishops in the Anglican Church illustrates just how difficult a question this is.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Of course, he's figured it out! Gays don't want the right to marry out of things like love or protection of relationships--it's all about a sinister plot to steal benefits. Them evil, evil gays...

Now I see...Berz is incensed that gays don't support the Libertarian party. Well, maybe gays don't support Libertarians because, despite their stance on gay marriage, their other platform positions are fairly repugnant? I am rather relieved to think we're not one-issue voters.

[Berzerker]

Mindseye -

That's it? Really? So if the legal definition is changed so that it is not an oxymoron, you have no other objections? Great!

You want me to repeat my objection to forcing people to provide benefits to "married" homosexuals too? I don't know why you need a summary after debating this issue ad nauseum. Yes Mind, it's an oxymoron and I don't care if the "legal" definition changes, it will still be an oxymoron. The politicians can legalise murder too and call it moral, that doesn't mean I'm obliged to accept their oxymorons. Btw, since the "legal" definition doesn't include homosexual marriage now, does that mean you should just accept it? I'm wondering why you think I'm obliged to accept a re-definition of marriage if the law changes while you don't accept the current definition enshrined in the law. Hmm...

Huh? Twice I refuted that feeble argument by noting the fact that so many gays support marriage as opposed to civil unions. Check my summary, the last paragraph of the "Benefits" section.

Are you claiming you introduced new evidence in your summary? I haven't seen you offer evidence of what homosexuals want, but then again, I didn't read your summary since I assumed you were just repeating what you've already said.

If what you assert were true, why would gays bother seeking marriage? Civil unions would be a far easier way to achieve their goal, if that was really the case.

Let me see, "marriage" affords more benefits? You chastise me for making assumptions about the motives of homosexuals while you do the same thing...

Your persistant misrepresentation of my arguments is tiresome. In this thread I've made it very clear that there is more than one motivation, that benefits is one of them, but not the most important..

No Mind, when I asked you what exactly it is about the blessings of politicans that will "fulfill" your dreams, feelings, love, etc., you started running down a list of BENEFITS! Accusing me of mis-representing your arguments is plain silly.

Could you please quote that evidence? I must have somehow missed it. However, if your evidence consists simply of the lack of gay support for the Libertarian Party, then don't bother, as the logic behind that is too absurd to merit re-stating.

Read the thread, hell, just read your posts. But I see you ignored the fact that most homosexuals support a party that opposes homosexual marriage and reject a party that supports it. Btw, how about stating the absurdity of my logic before claiming it isn't worth re-stating.

In fact, in the exchange you refer to, I didn’t mention benefits at all, I spoke of legal recognition, which means a lot more than just "benefits" . Here it is, to refresh your memory:

I've quoted the relevant part here:

the government won't recognize my union in the same way it recognizes those of straight people, in many legal ways.

So according to you, validating your love = legal benefits. You cited immigration laws wrt you and your partner and I told you to seek a change in the immigration laws. You don't need to re-define "marriage" for that...

Why do you have such a hard time understanding that there may be more than one motivation involved? Is it maybe because that doesn’t square with your "evil agenda" theory?

Because the only motive you've offered are legalising certain benefits afforded married heterosexuals. And don't start quoting Borus as if those are my words.

Let me state this as clearly as possible so you can once and for all drop this ridiculous allegation: I believe there are many reasons gay people seek equal access to marriage. Among them are respect, fairness, equality in the eyes of the law, as well as an end to the unfair distribution of economic benefits. I do not believe economic benefits is the primary motivation for most gays seeking access to marriage. H*ll, for me, it's the least important reason, as I stand to gain nothing in tax or employment benefits (I live abroad).

ALL OF THESE REASONS are about government enforced benefits.

[mindseye]

Well, if you didn't even read my summary, I'm not going to bother re-stating anything I've already written.

One new thing I will respond to:

Btw, how about stating the absurdity of my logic before claiming it isn't worth re-stating.

The problem is that you assume gays support one party over another solely on the basis of their stand on gay marriage.

I think the real reason that few gays support the Libertarian Party is precisely the same reason that few straights support it. The Libertarian stance on gay marriage, while laudable, is not enough to sway gays who, in most other respects, find the Democratic Party much closer to their beliefs. I suspect the Communist Party also supports gay marriage, but the failure of many gays to vote Communist certainly could not be taken as "proof" of anything concerning their true motivations on this matter.

I enjoy cannabis, but I'm not going over to the Libertarians just because they want to legalize it. Is that some kind of indicator of how I really feel about smoking? No, it means that, despite being in accordance on a couple of issues, my personal political idealogy is far closer to that of the Democratic Party.

What strikes me as ironic about your claim is that you yourself support a political party that does not agree with your stand on gay marriage, yet you seem incredulous that anyone else could do the same.

[Ned]

mindseye, et al., the issue of gays should not be a partisan issue. If it does become one, though, all it will do is provide even more incentive for the people to move into the Republican party, the only place where social conservatives seem to be welcome. The Republican Party is already the majority party in the US. This issue will only add to their majority.

(If you think this is wrong, I heard that Bush beats Dean by 2-1 margins in both New Hampshire and Vermont. You can imagine Bush's margins in the South.)

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Ned
mindseye, et al., the issue of gays should not be a partisan issue. If it does become one, though, all it will do is provide even more incentive for the people to move into the Republican party, the only place where social conservatives seem to be welcome. The Republican Party is already the majority party in the US. This issue will only add to their majority.

(If you think this is wrong, I heard that Bush beats Dean by 2-1 margins in both New Hampshire and Vermont. You can imagine Bush's margins in the South.)

Not all republican are social conservatives alot are also liberal
too. There is than major resolt taken place in the republican party against Bush and the social conservatives who are seem as extremist and touble maker. First alot of non-fundie christian republican donot want than religious war with Islam which the South Bap seem to want with they intolance remark.

Europe is going to become increase Islamic as the brith rate of Europeam woman goes down Europe is going to have to allow more middle-east people in to do the work to keep the econ going and care for elder european. French have already over 6 million muslum than they are increase seem as inportant to the future of French. Alot of French people are convert over to Islam also.

The Hight Court also look to ancient greek law, ancient Baby law, and Islamic Law. The Quran does disapprove of homosexual , the Quran also disapprove of being oppector
of other people civil right. So Islam try to strike than balance between the two, it will take action against homosexual who will rape boys as it will take action against any child raper, in most Islamist country there is no witch hunt for homosexual as long as it not done in public

[Ned]

Charles, just let me say that I really enjoy your posts. You seem to have a very good understanding of history and what is going on in the world.

I heard on the news that the Germans are going to erect a memorial to the 10-15 gays executed by the NAZIs during WWII. The NAZIs seem to reflect European views on race and homophobia, but without any tolerance. To the extent this is true (then and perhaps now), one cannot blame European homophobia on the religious right as the NAZIs were hardly religious.

It is my thesis, though, that the solution to homophobia lies as much in changing religious dogma as it does in civil rights legislation. All the religions seem to disapprove of homosexuality.