The W
Views: 98929452
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
16.9.14 0435
The W - Current Events & Politics - Gay Marriage In MA (Page 2)
This thread has 50 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.76
Pages: Prev 1 2
(1653 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (39 total)
ThreepMe
Morcilla








Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3664 days
Last activity: 3323 days
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.73
I don't see what the argument is all about...

If we make gays pay the price of admission (taxes) then they get to ride the ride (rights).

Personally...

I think all those who feel that Homosexual marriage will "taint" or "corrupt" anything are just scared that their little world view will have to be adjusted. And heaven forbid that anyone would have to alter askew viewpoints concerning discrimination.

Rights are for ALL. Not some, not a portion, not the ones you FEEL don't deserve them...

And BTW, I find it 10x easier to make a decision when I remove any religion from the equasion. Religion is a PERSONAL thing. It applies to you and only you. Religion and Faith do not exist for you use as a basis of morality to push upon others. And just because it's happened many time before, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Keep it in your heart, where it belongs.



I would like to congatulate Al Snow on his contact with La-Z-Boy. Because we all know Al doesn't sell chairs. - Mick Foley




Make sure to check out ThreepMe's Website of Fun
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 33 days
Last activity: 12 hours
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.12
    Originally posted by ThreepMe
    I don't see what the argument is all about...

    If we make gays pay the price of admission (taxes) then they get to ride the ride (rights).

    Personally...

    I think all those who feel that Homosexual marriage will "taint" or "corrupt" anything are just scared that their little world view will have to be adjusted. And heaven forbid that anyone would have to alter askew viewpoints concerning discrimination.

    Rights are for ALL. Not some, not a portion, not the ones you FEEL don't deserve them...

    And BTW, I find it 10x easier to make a decision when I remove any religion from the equasion. Religion is a PERSONAL thing. It applies to you and only you. Religion and Faith do not exist for you use as a basis of morality to push upon others. And just because it's happened many time before, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Keep it in your heart, where it belongs.


While I don't really disagree, IMO there are some issues where it is almost impossible for it not to creep in. I don't feel threatened, I just hold a different view of marriage. I think same sex couples are entitled to protection from discrimination, etc., but don't know why most of the reasons they wish to narried can't be solved through contracts, wills, etc. as AWA has said. They can make a commitment without a legal contract if that is the point.



Perception is reality
EddieBurkett
Boudin blanc








Since: 3.1.02
From: GA in person, NJ in heart

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 20 hours
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.35
I might be wrong on this, but I'm under the impression that the way the federal tax code is set up now, there's a marriage penalty, which says that if you have a couple with each member working, they pay more in taxes as opposed to a couple making the same income where only one is employed. Why would homosexuals want in on this? Conversely, shouldn't the government realize they could squeeze some more money out of people?

The issue of marriage as a legal institution is something that needs to be addressed, but it is too ingrained for it to be addressed easily. I think within a generation this argument will be moot.



If you're reading this, the tide was in.
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 8 hours
Last activity: 7 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.58
    Originally posted by EddieBurkett

    The issue of marriage as a legal institution is something that needs to be addressed, but it is too ingrained for it to be addressed easily. I think within a generation this argument will be moot.


That's sure enough. Whatever was anathema a generation or two ago is allowed now. (See Spears, Brittiny or anything that's on TV any night or nearly any movie) People, exposed to the(let's use an inflamatory word here, shall we? - I am feeling a little Johnny Storm welling up in me right now) evil, become desensitized. In a decade or two, I agree with you, it will probably be allowed. For more on this topic and what it means to you, me and especially your kids, I recommend (though few will take the chance) Robert Bork's excellent social commentary called Slouching toward Gemorrah. See the results of other desensitivity training.

My last post in the thread




We'll be back as soon as order is restored.....
ThreepMe
Morcilla








Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3664 days
Last activity: 3323 days
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.73
    Originally posted by DrDirt
      Originally posted by ThreepMe
      I don't see what the argument is all about...

      If we make gays pay the price of admission (taxes) then they get to ride the ride (rights).

      Personally...

      I think all those who feel that Homosexual marriage will "taint" or "corrupt" anything are just scared that their little world view will have to be adjusted. And heaven forbid that anyone would have to alter askew viewpoints concerning discrimination.

      Rights are for ALL. Not some, not a portion, not the ones you FEEL don't deserve them...

      And BTW, I find it 10x easier to make a decision when I remove any religion from the equasion. Religion is a PERSONAL thing. It applies to you and only you. Religion and Faith do not exist for you use as a basis of morality to push upon others. And just because it's happened many time before, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Keep it in your heart, where it belongs.


    While I don't really disagree, IMO there are some issues where it is almost impossible for it not to creep in. I don't feel threatened, I just hold a different view of marriage. I think same sex couples are entitled to protection from discrimination, etc., but don't know why most of the reasons they wish to narried can't be solved through contracts, wills, etc. as AWA has said. They can make a commitment without a legal contract if that is the point.


I'm sure there are plenty of "different" things same-sex couples could do that would almost be the same as marriage.

The only issue with that is, we are setting a precedent for discrimination.

Delegating same-sex couples to "contracts" as opposed to actual "marriage" and the benefits held within (insurance is a big one) is like going back to "White" and "Colored" drinking fountains.

Sure everyone can get some water, but you different people have to go elsewhere.

No matter which way you slice it, it's discrimination.

Equality has no exceptions.

edit: spelling

(edited by ThreepMe on 20.11.03 1123)


I would like to congatulate Al Snow on his contact with La-Z-Boy. Because we all know Al doesn't sell chairs. - Mick Foley




Make sure to check out ThreepMe's Website of Fun
Reverend J Shaft
Liverwurst








Since: 25.6.03
From: Home of The Big House

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 13 hours
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.27
    Originally posted by ThreepMe
    I'm sure there are plenty of "different" things same-sex couples could do that would almost be the same as marriage.

    The only issue with that is, we are setting a precedent for discrimination.

    Delegating same-sex couples to "contracts" as opposed to actual "marriage" and the benefits held within (insurance is a big one) is like going back to "White" and "Colored" drinking fountains.

    Sure everyone can get some water, but you different people have to go elsewhere.

    No matter which way you slice it, it's discrimination.

    Equality has no exceptions.

    edit: spelling

    (edited by ThreepMe on 20.11.03 1123)


Actually, I believe equality does have some exceptions.

For instance, smaller people are not allowed to ride roller coasters at parks. There is age discrimination in rights such as driving, voting, drinking alcohol, gambling, smoking, etc. Of course, these are common sense issues on which the vast majority of people agree (unlike same-sex marriages), but I illustrate them to show that people tend to get all out of sorts when the word discrimination is used. There are plenty of situations and issues which most would feel we NEED to be discriminating with.

And that's my point. When most people agree with an issue, this type of discrimation and controversy does not arise. So why do the courts have to rule on this? Pardon my ignorance, but why isn't this issue left to the voting public? (I'll prevent my political leaning from offering a potential explanation)

It just seems that this ruling sets a dangerous precedent for future marriage issues. I know Guru sarcastically quipped that "Yes, it's an automatic march that will happen without any discussion or reasoning," but I'm actually afraid that some courts would feel compelled to give rights to unions that arise out of incest or beastiality if someone were to argue for it simply because of the precedent that this sets.

Sometimes reasoning and the law conflict with each other. Witness the homeowner who gets sued by a burglar that slips and falls in the kitchen after breaking into the house. Or that woman who sued McDonald's for the hot coffee spilling on her. Or the guy that sues them for getting fat on their burgers (I think that one's pretty funny myself). It's a slippery slope, though.
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3438 days
Last activity: 3432 days
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.59
"Delegating same-sex couples to "contracts" as opposed to actual "marriage" and the benefits held within (insurance is a big one) is like going back to "White" and "Colored" drinking fountains."

Please. You can change your sexual orientation. People do it all the time. You cannot change the color of your skin. It would be best for you to be more critical of the homoseuxal propoganda you are gobbling up. Equating homosexual rights with fight for black civil rights makes many blacks quite upset.

As far as the "slippery slope fallacy" goes on this issue, if the past 40 years of American history have taught us anything, it's that slippery slopes are often quite slippery indeed, and get slid down all the time. If there are already people in this very thread biting the moral and philosophical bullet and saying there is nothing wrong with giving legitimacy to other types of abberant relationships, then Annie can bet her bottom dollar that tomorrow the North American Man-Boy Love Association will bring their cases to MA as well. LET FREEDOM RING. Martin Luther King Jr. would be so proud.

DMC
ThreepMe
Morcilla








Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3664 days
Last activity: 3323 days
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.73
    Originally posted by Reverend J Shaft
      Originally posted by ThreepMe
      I'm sure there are plenty of "different" things same-sex couples could do that would almost be the same as marriage.

      The only issue with that is, we are setting a precedent for discrimination.

      Delegating same-sex couples to "contracts" as opposed to actual "marriage" and the benefits held within (insurance is a big one) is like going back to "White" and "Colored" drinking fountains.

      Sure everyone can get some water, but you different people have to go elsewhere.

      No matter which way you slice it, it's discrimination.

      Equality has no exceptions.

      edit: spelling

      (edited by ThreepMe on 20.11.03 1123)


    Actually, I believe equality does have some exceptions.

    For instance, smaller people are not allowed to ride roller coasters at parks. There is age discrimination in rights such as driving, voting, drinking alcohol, gambling, smoking, etc. Of course, these are common sense issues on which the vast majority of people agree (unlike same-sex marriages), but I illustrate them to show that people tend to get all out of sorts when the word discrimination is used. There are plenty of situations and issues which most would feel we NEED to be discriminating with.

    And that's my point. When most people agree with an issue, this type of discrimation and controversy does not arise. So why do the courts have to rule on this? Pardon my ignorance, but why isn't this issue left to the voting public? (I'll prevent my political leaning from offering a potential explanation)

    It just seems that this ruling sets a dangerous precedent for future marriage issues. I know Guru sarcastically quipped that "Yes, it's an automatic march that will happen without any discussion or reasoning," but I'm actually afraid that some courts would feel compelled to give rights to unions that arise out of incest or beastiality if someone were to argue for it simply because of the precedent that this sets.

    Sometimes reasoning and the law conflict with each other. Witness the homeowner who gets sued by a burglar that slips and falls in the kitchen after breaking into the house. Or that woman who sued McDonald's for the hot coffee spilling on her. Or the guy that sues them for getting fat on their burgers (I think that one's pretty funny myself). It's a slippery slope, though.


Ok, maybe I need to quantify "Equality."

Equality (in this circumstance) means equal persons in equal situations.

For instance, a 14 year old Heterosexual cannot legally buy liquor. A 14 year old Homosexual also cannot buy liquor.

Equal, based on age.

Whereas, an 18 year old heterosexual couple can marry but an 18 year old homosexual couple cannot.

The only difference is sexual preference.

And when you alter terms of an agreement based on an opinion (all other factors equal), then that is just about the text book defination of discrimination.

And to DMC...You can change your sexual orientation? Really? Do me a favor, you do it! And remember, for it to be an actual change, you have to actually like it. And at last check, it has been scientifically proven that some people are just Gay. Just like some people are Black, some peolpe are Brown, and some people are White.

But regardless as to the "cause" it's the "effect" that's the problem. The Cause "homosexualtiy (no matter how it happens)" hurts no one (except some feelings, whoop-de-crap). The Effect (discrimination) does hurt.

And DMC, I think Michael Jackson had proven that you CAN cahnge your skin color. Only in American can a poor black boy grown up to be a rich white woman.

And just so you know, I know quite a few black people that not only support gay rights, but also equate them to the struggle for civil rights. And while I'm at it, I'll also equate this to Women's Sufferage (BTW, you can change your sex, so does that mean we should revoke the rights of women based on the fact that you can change it?)

And I think MLK (if still alive) would be one of the first to help Homosexuals. Do me a favor, be discriminated against for something that you have no control over, then open your mouth. Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. Nothing makes it right.




I would like to congatulate Al Snow on his contact with La-Z-Boy. Because we all know Al doesn't sell chairs. - Mick Foley




Make sure to check out ThreepMe's Website of Fun
ShotGunShep
Frankfurter








Since: 20.2.03

Since last post: 2500 days
Last activity: 2387 days
#29 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.04
THREEPME, I wasn't aware that our sexual preference is genetic. I also wasn't aware that scientists go around PROVING things. And I would say that this is probably one of the farthest theories from truth that there is.
Anyway, do you have a CITE for your PROOF?
Scientific evidence goes both ways on this one.



You Samoans are all the same. You have no faith in the essential decency of the white man's culture.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni








Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2950 days
Last activity: 2947 days
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.64
There is no "gay gene," or anything like that, but homosexuality does show up in other species as well, at least lending some credence to the belief that it is tied to genetics. It just seems odd to me that someone would choose a sexual orientation that makes them a second class citizen, but that is a far cry from proving that it's genetic.



Weekly Visitor - PSSSSHAW!

Jersey Is Dead - Just trying to help out
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 33 days
Last activity: 12 hours
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.12
    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    There is no "gay gene," or anything like that, but homosexuality does show up in other species as well, at least lending some credence to the belief that it is tied to genetics. It just seems odd to me that someone would choose a sexual orientation that makes them a second class citizen, but that is a far cry from proving that it's genetic.


Correct. There is not a "gay gene" but your sexual preference is predetermined in most cases. It screws up that whole moral choice thing. Are there people who choose to be homosexual ot bisexual or whatever? Of course, but the overwhelming majority are born that way.

Masturbation, homosexuality, and other "abberant" sexual behavior are well-documented in nature. Some evolutionary theory has given possible reasons including the benefit of males not tied to a family being there to help the group, etc. Don't know if they are correct but it is an interesting topic.

I agree with evil, what person would choose a lifestyle with all the baggage it involves.



Perception is reality
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3438 days
Last activity: 3432 days
#32 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.36
The fact is that it ultimately does not matter if homosexuality is genetic, if there are other biological/chemical factors involved. It also doesn't matter if homosexuality appears in nature. In both cases one can argue that abberant things occur in nature all the time, but that does not make them the *correct* way. In fact, it only proves their unnaturalness (or, to take the evolutionary perspective, their lack of fitness for survival). People are *moral* beings because they can struggle with and control their behavior, or any biological dispositions they may have for whatever pratice you want to argue a link for (including spousal abuse or alcoholism).

DMC

(edited by DMC on 20.11.03 1507)
ThreepMe
Morcilla








Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3664 days
Last activity: 3323 days
#33 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.73
"Abberant" and "moral" are concepts that have no difinative value.

They are all relative issues. Morality belongs in the same place that religion belongs...In your own heart. In other words, keep it to yourself.

I think the fact that it does occur in other species makes it exempt from "correct" and "incorrect." (another human concept)

How about just accepting what is and that which you cannot control?

Homosexualtiy is something that happens. Some people make it a choice, others have no choice. Even if we weed out all the "choice makers" that still leaves a portion of the populace that is still gay.

So instead of treating them like 2nd class citizens (which is only because we make it that way), why don't we just accept that fact that they do exist and they are not bad people because of it.

It's a victimless hobby. Leave these people alone and let them have the same rights and privledges that heteorsexuals have. They pay their fare, let them play.

Homosexuality, in and of itself, does NOT hurt, directly effect or harm any person, place or thing.

And for the record, I never said there was a "gay gene." Re-read my statement.



I would like to congatulate Al Snow on his contact with La-Z-Boy. Because we all know Al doesn't sell chairs. - Mick Foley




Make sure to check out ThreepMe's Website of Fun
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3438 days
Last activity: 3432 days
#34 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.36
*"Abberant" and "moral" are concepts that have no difinative value.*


So I guess the same goes for *truth*, right? If so, then why should I listen to any of your barrages as accurately representing reality? Are you here just to repeat rhetoric, or are there actually some things that are true and false that we can know with some degree of assuredness? We may need to start any conversation there, my friend.

DMC
ThreepMe
Morcilla








Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3664 days
Last activity: 3323 days
#35 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.73
    Originally posted by DMC
    *"Abberant" and "moral" are concepts that have no difinative value.*


    So I guess the same goes for *truth*, right? If so, then why should I listen to any of your barrages as accurately representing reality? Are you here just to repeat rhetoric, or are there actually some things that are true and false that we can know with some degree of assuredness? We may need to start any conversation there, my friend.

    DMC


Oh, give me a break. It's obvious that you are taking my words out of context, and taking it to some illogical extreme.

The concept of Truth, in and of itself, can be proven over and over again. (not always 100%, but even close to that is pretty good)

Morality and the concept of Abberant are not even close to what is considered "truths." And I'm not talking personal truths, I'm thinking more along the lines of "The sun rises every morning."

Many things are true and false. But I have yet to see any argument presented against gay marriage that is even close to anything resembling any truth.

Comparing Morality/abberant behavior to truth is like comparing apples to Buicks.

Morality is a different thing to almost each and every person on this planet. Truths are the same to almost each and every person on this planet.


HUGE DIFFERENCE!

But I guess showing "rhetoric" is more important than the actual points ay hand.

Anything else equally ridiculous?



I would like to congatulate Al Snow on his contact with La-Z-Boy. Because we all know Al doesn't sell chairs. - Mick Foley




Make sure to check out ThreepMe's Website of Fun
EddieBurkett
Boudin blanc








Since: 3.1.02
From: GA in person, NJ in heart

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 20 hours
#36 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.34
So let me get this straight:

1. Sexual Orientation is (for the most part) immutable.
2. Gay marriage is bad. Straight marriage is good.
3. Gender is mutable.

The solution then is not to allow gay marriage but to simply let one member of each gay couple change their gender so that the couple is then "straight". Then they can marry.

Of course, since they won't be married immediately, the non-changing partner still won't be allowed to visit their partner in the hospital right after the operation.


    Originally posted by ThreepMe
    Delegating same-sex couples to "contracts" as opposed to actual "marriage" and the benefits held within (insurance is a big one) is like going back to "White" and "Colored" drinking fountains.


A 'life partner' contract makes more sense if you require all couples, straight and gay, to sign it instead of a marriage license. Then, there's no discrimination as everyone is on the same playing field. Traditional marriage would still exist via religion.



If you're reading this, the tide was in.
Overmind
Linguica








Since: 17.10.02
From: Orlando, FL

Since last post: 3240 days
Last activity: 2340 days
#37 Posted on
Here's my take on the issue: there needs to be a distinction made between a marriage and (the best term I've seen used) a civil union. Marriages are religious ceremonies meant to unite two people under their deity. A civil union involves getting a legal marriage license and receiving the benefits and responsiblities that the government gives to the parties of that contract. One can be obtained without the other. Just as a couple can go through the ceremony and not apply for the license, so can they go to a legal official and get the license without the ceremony (like my mother and stepdad did). The reason for the confusion is that most married couples have achieved both, and that they are called the same thing, "marriage".

As far as homosexuality goes, the theory that I happen to believe states that it is neither genetic nor chosen, but rather comes from prenatal conditions. From what I understand, all fetuses are born genetically female. At some point, the Y chromosome in males kicks in to start a chemical process that makes them boys (one of my instructors called it an "androgen bath"). If that process is interfered with (particularly when the brain chemistry is formulated), the hardwired gender orientation may be altered. Thus, when one's sexuality asserts itself at puberty, a guy may be sexually oriented like a woman would normally be, and vice versa.

The theory makes sense to me since homosexuality seems to only take place in mammals (i.e. animals that go through live birth, rather than lay eggs). It would also explain the absence of a "gay gene". Just some food for thought...

Here's a link mentioning this theory.
If I have a chance, I'll look for more links about this later and post them here.

Here's another link I just found.

(edited by Overmind on 20.11.03 1957)


Unimaginable is the power of HHH. Anyone who stands against him faces certain doom. (paraphrased from Magus, Chrono Trigger)
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3438 days
Last activity: 3432 days
#38 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.36
"Morality and the concept of Abberant are not even close to what is considered "truths." And I'm not talking personal truths, I'm thinking more along the lines of "The sun rises every morning."

Many things are true and false. But I have yet to see any argument presented against gay marriage that is even close to anything resembling any truth."

Fair enough, we can keep going down that road later. But first there is a problem that you need to clear up. You are saying that morality is not a true concept. However, you have been going out of your way to tell us that we *should* accept homosexuals and what they do, that they are not "hurting" anyone and therefore what they do is acceptable. Why should anyone *not* believe that you are dealing with moral terms here and defining your own "morality" which you feel is true?

DMC
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 8 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#39 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.65
This thread's over.



CRZ
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread rated: 5.76
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread ahead: from "The West Wing" to real life
Next thread: Slow News Day in England
Previous thread: New York Sun - credibilty
(1653 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The statute in question uses the term "gaming" as do many people (most?) in the industry. - StingArmy
The W - Current Events & Politics - Gay Marriage In MA (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.181 seconds.