|
Mass Court rules on gay marriage (again)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| PHALPAX |
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court basically said to the state legislature that there is no civil union compromise....marriage is only acceptable. It's a rather hard-line stance the court is taking; my question is will it backfire? Thoughts any one?
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...ed_to_marriage/ |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
Bush finally will have an election year issue: Bigotry.
Of course it will be in the campaign ads. :*( |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSZ
Bush finally will have an election year issue: Bigotry.
Of course it will be in the campaign ads. :*( |
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". |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| 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". |
big·ot ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bgt) n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
opposition to gay marriage is bigotry, becuase homosexuals are DIFFERENT from heterosexuals.
Until a large gay lobby also has say in these rulings, maybe then will the homophobic majority in the US govenrment have a valid stance. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
big·ot ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bgt) n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
opposition to gay marriage is bigotry, becuase homosexuals are DIFFERENT from heterosexuals.
Until a large gay lobby also has say in these rulings, maybe then will the homophobic majority in the US govenrment have a valid stance. |
That's a pretty vague definition, in the same sense I could call you a bigot for being partial to Palestinians.
Being unsupportive of gay marriage isn't bigotry... refusing to make special concessions for a particular minority group does not constitute discrimination. It is only when they are actually oppressed, and considering that many states were willing to compromise with civil unions, one can hardly say it was oppressive. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
That's a pretty vague definition, in the same sense I could call you a bigot for being partial to Palestinians.
Being unsupportive of gay marriage isn't bigotry... refusing to make special concessions for a particular minority group does not constitute discrimination. It is only when they are actually oppressed, and considering that many states were willing to compromise with civil unions, one can hardly say it was oppressive. |
Its one thing to be partial to palestinians becuase they are just palestinians, and it is another thing to be partial with palestinians becuase they are suffereing.
Im not supporting palestinians becuase they are Arab or muslim or middle eastern, i support human rights, something that they certianly dont know the meaning of becuase some of them kill innocents, while the rest of their race gets punished for it.
In the case of gay marriages, it is Bigotry becuase they are discriminating and using their sexual orientation as a basis for depriving them of something that they feel they should have too. Why is it hetereosexuals that have to make this decision? Why cant it be an issue that invlolves a spectrum of people with varying sexaul orientations? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
In the case of gay marriages, it is Bigotry becuase they are discriminating and using their sexual orientation as a basis for depriving them of something that they feel they should have too. Why is it hetereosexuals that have to make this decision? Why cant it be an issue that invlolves a spectrum of people with varying sexaul orientations? |
Just because they want it doesn't mean they should have it. There is a limit to how far you can go when classifying "groups" and the "rights" they have. I can't get a $10 million loan because I don't have enough credit - am I then to say that the banks are discriminating against me and all other people with low-to-moderate credit ratings? |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Just because they want it doesn't mean they should have it. There is a limit to how far you can go when classifying "groups" and the "rights" they have. I can't get a $10 million loan because I don't have enough credit - am I then to say that the banks are discriminating against me and all other people with low-to-moderate credit ratings? |
Using exaggeration and specific examples to illustrate an issue that involves a large group of people, is not going to help support your argument.
With respect to their wants, you make it sound as if its something that someone needs to earn. They are human, they LOVE, they WANT to get married, but are gay. Thats its, they are gay. How is that characteristic detrimental to themselves or anyone else if they want to get married? WHy can they not have the same rights as other HUMANS tat happen to be heterosexual? |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
Using exaggeration and specific examples to illustrate an issue that involves a large group of people, is not going to help support your argument.
With respect to their wants, you make it sound as if its something that someone needs to earn. They are human, they LOVE, they WANT to get married, but are gay. Thats its, they are gay. How is that characteristic detrimental to themselves or anyone else if they want to get married? WHy can they not have the same rights as other HUMANS tat happen to be heterosexual? |
This has already been discussed AT LENGTH in the original gay marriage thread and I'm not going to continue the discussion here.
The simple fact is that marriage was an institution created to support children and the raising of families. In short, the benefits derived from marriage are to support two individuals who at least have the potential of having kids. Homosexuals can't have kids. Blind people can't drive cars, deaf people can't serve in the military, and weak people can't join the police force. Life is unfair.
Now I already know the obvious response to this which is, what is the guarantee that heterosexual couples will have kids? Obviously, there is no guarantee, and if the law could be rewritten to only provide the financial benefits to the couples who actually HAVE kids, I would be 100% in support of that. However, that is not the law, and I do not support providing those benefits to people who are GUARANTEED to NEVER have children. If they want to create a union out of contract, similar to those that the religions institutions grant alongside state-sanctioned marriage, then that is fine, and I'm in favour of civil unions. However, any further insistence on "real marriage" is simply to make a public statement or whine for rights that they simply aren't entitled to, and I don't think anybody should be forced to support it or be labelled as a bigot for doing otherwise.
There were numerous other points brought up in the other thread as well that I won't get into. Suffice it to say, it is a matter of OPINION that homosexuals are being "deprived" of a "right" to be married. Whoever said that state-sanctioned marriage was a "right", anyway? It has to be paid for, and minors can't do it, so it's obviously not a universal right. It's not written into our constitution/charter either.
I'm not going to discuss the issue any further in this thread because it was already discussed in another thread, and you were included in that discussion. The issue was mostly settled, with the greater proportion of people (including marriage supporters) believing that civil unions were a good compromise. Now you are choosing to backpedal and take your bleeding-heart liberal stance on the issue again - that's fine, but I'm not going to get sucked into the endless rhetoric again. Simply stated, opposition to gay marriage is not bigotry.
Edit: what occrider said. :p |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
This has already been discussed AT LENGTH in the original gay marriage thread and I'm not going to continue the discussion here.
The simple fact is that marriage was an institution created to support children and the raising of families. In short, the benefits derived from marriage are to support two individuals who at least have the potential of having kids. Homosexuals can't have kids. Blind people can't drive cars, deaf people can't serve in the military, and weak people can't join the police force. Life is unfair. |
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".
| quote: |
Now I already know the obvious response to this which is, what is the guarantee that heterosexual couples will have kids? Obviously, there is no guarantee, and if the law could be rewritten to only provide the financial benefits to the couples who actually HAVE kids, I would be 100% in support of that. However, that is not the law, and I do not support providing those benefits to people who are GUARANTEED to NEVER have children. If they want to create a union out of contract, similar to those that the religions institutions grant alongside state-sanctioned marriage, then that is fine, and I'm in favour of civil unions. However, any further insistence on "real marriage" is simply to make a public statement or whine for rights that they simply aren't entitled to, and I don't think anybody should be forced to support it or be labelled as a bigot for doing otherwise. |
So you do admit that they are deprived of a right! And I beleive they should fully fight for it. And if they want to adopt a child and raise it, then they have more of a right. 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. 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? 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?
| quote: |
There were numerous other points brought up in the other thread as well that I won't get into. Suffice it to say, it is a matter of OPINION that homosexuals are being "deprived" of a "right" to be married. Whoever said that state-sanctioned marriage was a "right", anyway? It has to be paid for, and minors can't do it, so it's obviously not a universal right. It's not written into our constitution/charter either. |
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.
| quote: |
I'm not going to discuss the issue any further in this thread because it was already discussed in another thread, and you were included in that discussion. The issue was mostly settled, with the greater proportion of people (including marriage supporters) believing that civil unions were a good compromise. Now you are choosing to backpedal and take your bleeding-heart liberal stance on the issue again - that's fine, but I'm not going to get sucked into the endless rhetoric again. Simply stated, opposition to gay marriage is not bigotry.
Edit: what occrider said. :p |
I change my stance, they deserve every right a heterosexual couple does. |
|
|
|
|
