|
Mass Court rules on gay marriage (again) (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
Well, once again the examples that you attached alongside homosexual marriage are not in accordance. Homosexuals may not be able to biologically bear children, but they can have them and raise them. THEY DO NOT HAVE A DEFECT LIKE BEING BLIND OR DEAF. You are obviously comparing their inablilty to procreate as the basis of why they shouldnt be allowed to be married. As well there is no rationale behind why they shouldnt be given that right. You just state becuase "they are gay". |
Well, the inability to bear children is a defect. It's a psychological defect in their case, but a defect nevertheless.
| quote: | | So you do admit that they are deprived of a right! And I beleive they should fully fight for it. |
People gain rights based on their behaviour and achievments, not everything is granted at birth. It is not a fundamental human right, same as driving or serving in the army. If they are not fit for it, well, life sucks.
| quote: | | And if they want to adopt a child and raise it, then they have more of a right. |
Not only that they don't have more of a right, it is questionable whether they should have any right to adopt children at all. If they should be allowed to adopt children, then I agree they should recieve standard family subsidies. However, no coherent study has been performed on the effects of homosexual parents on a child's well-being so I believe it is wise to be reluctant on that matter. Not to mention the peer pressure during puberty. Imagine what would happen to a kid if his friends would learn that he has two gay dads. I believe it is more important to worry about the well being of a child than to worry about the emotional scars of two adult people who consentually don't want to have any children of their own.
| quote: | | You seem to be complaining about two things here, that one, Homosexuals cant bear children and "real marriage" only should be given to those who can "HAVE" them, and two, that they seem to be whining about a "right" that they are deprived of. |
It is not a right, it is a privilege limited by one's age, sanity, and sexual preference. If some people can't adjust to it, well, too bad.
| quote: | If your reasoning is that a real marriage should entail the upbringing of children, then why cant they be entitled to that if that is also their plan?
Because there is a 100% certainty that homosexuals can't have children, so whether they are planning on having some or not really doesn't make the difference.
[quote]Should a woman who cant biologically bear a child but wants to adopt one be deprived of a "real marraige" becuase she cant "HAVE" children as you so eloquently put it? |
No, because of two reasons. First one is that it's easier, and often the only way possible, to make a standardization than to deal with each relationship independently. I can't see how the state should know if a woman is incapable of having children or not. Sometimes people who think they can't have children get them in the end, and sometimes those who are capable don't. It's really something that cannot be known in advance. Now, providing child tax cuts to families after they get children is a compromise we all generally agreed on, so I don't see why you are reiterating the old thread. But even here I must mention that the compromise is not a completely just one, as subsidies towards heterosexual families which yet don't have children can encourage them to make few in the future. Providing such subsidies to gay couples is rediculous.
| quote: | | Whoever said that state-sanctioned marriage wasnt a "right"? And if you are going to bring up the constitution/charter into this, which is always being amended, as another factor to support your argument, we can go on forever. |
Well, it's a right as well as it's a right to drive a car or to work as a university professor. However, it is not a fundamental right which all people posess, it is a right that is gained through one's personal actions.
| quote: | | I change my stance, they deserve every right a heterosexual couple does. |
Well, how can you be then against blind people getting driver's licenses? Or do you think they should get some too? Maybe even make it easier for them to get those, to balance out their inequality considering their vision defects? |
|
|
| rizen |
| quote: | Originally posted by DR86
I'm in agreement with DigiNut on this. To have two gay men (or women) be married is seriously a no-no. However, civil unions are fine. |
If cousins in the south get married, which is a no-no too right? why not gays? |
|
|
| whiskers |
| i'm totally fine with gay marriage and if people are way too negative about it, well, like socrates said, those are the people who THINK they know something yet they know nothing. |
|
|
| PHALPAX |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I thought we all came to an agreement in the gay marriage thread? Limit gay marriages in the religious context ... call them civil unions or anything they want besides marriage ... and remove marital rights and privelidges granted to heterosexual unions and instead provide child-bearing privelidges. |
I created this thread on the basis of the intensification of this conflict and how it now has turned another corner. What I expected (and most likely many TA's on this forum) is that there was to be a civil union compromise in Mass, much like the situation in Vermont. What I find profoundly intriguing now is that the Mass SJC has pushed the envelope as far it can go. It is very feasible that the Mass SJC revised stance may carry itself to the Supreme Court, which could be somewhat interesting. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
*high fives Tito*
Muah!
Rizen, cousins getting married isn't a "no-no". For many of us, it's a little "too close for comfort", but despite it being taboo, it's never been considered immoral by any religious institution or illegal by any state (at least, not to my knowledge).
Then again, considering how many instances of incest there are in the bible, that's not the most reliable source now is it... hmm... food for thought. You kind of have to ignore Genesis, then the religious angle makes sense. :p
I stress that this isn't about religion though. It's about the purpose and function of marriage, analyzed from a completely secular and rational perspective; I'm not arguing on the basis of morals, only logic. I don't consider homosexuality "immoral" - just unsuitable for marriage. It surprises me in a big way that the court would reject civil unions, and it's bothersome how they didn't seem to justify their reasoning for this rejection very well. To be honest, I think I smell lobbying... |
|
|
| smokeape |
Too many liberals here. Homo marriages don't need to be recognized by our society. Such behavior is clearly outside the norm, else we wouldn't be busting at the seams with a population explosion. Homo marriages are best delegated to the pages of Ripley's Believe it or Not along with the other freaks. Homosexual behavior is not normal and, if you want to argue differently, then you must condone bestiality as well.
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| Q5echo |
If cousins in the south get married, which is a no-no too right? why not gays?
ok I'll say it, I'm from the south and I would 've married my cousin seriously I still have a crush on her (hey we can't choose our parents what are ya gonna do?) |
|
|
| smokeape |
If you're male, it's only natural to want to screw your hot female cousin. If your cousin was male, it's not natural to want to shove your dick up his poopshoot just like you wouldn't have a great desire to do the same to your neighbor's Labrador Retriever. So what was your point again?
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by smokeape
If you're male, it's only natural to want to screw your hot female cousin. If your cousin was male, it's not natural to want to shove your dick up his poopshoot just like you wouldn't have a great desire to do the same to your neighbor's Labrador Retriever. So what was your point again?
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by smokeape
If you're male, it's only natural to want to screw your hot female cousin. If your cousin was male, it's not natural to want to shove your dick up his poopshoot just like you wouldn't have a great desire to do the same to your neighbor's Labrador Retriever. So what was your point again?
[[[smoke]]] |
my point is that we can't choose our parents. can't chose the "defects" we were born with so we surely can't chose who we want to spend the rest of our lives with. Civil unions are a great place to start. I just think we can be a little more progressive about this. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by smokeape
Too many liberals here. Homo marriages don't need to be recognized by our society. Such behavior is clearly outside the norm, else we wouldn't be busting at the seams with a population explosion. Homo marriages are best delegated to the pages of Ripley's Believe it or Not along with the other freaks. Homosexual behavior is not normal and, if you want to argue differently, then you must condone bestiality as well.
[[[smoke]]] |
At first, i thought you were trying to ridicule anti-gay marriage supporters by looking stupid, but then i realized its what you really are. |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
For arresting homosexuals in their own homes, you might have a case; but opposition to gay marriage is not bigotry. Even in our explosive thread about gay marriages, most people agreed that civil unions were a pretty fair compromise.
Very bothersome that they're using my own home province as a "precedent". |
I'm talking about the ads that will be running. |
|
|
|
|
