Ironworks Gaming Forum - Massachusetts high court: Same-sex couples entitled to marry

Ironworks Gaming Forum (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/index.php)

- General Discussion (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=36)

- - Massachusetts high court: Same-sex couples entitled to marry (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=76629)

Quote:

Originally posted by Stratos:
Basing your moral beliefs on the Bible is not in itself neither better nor worse than basing it on any other source, until proven otherwise. Ignoring an opinion only because it come from a Christian is ridicolous, but if you disagree with an opinion for any other reason doesn't automatically mean that you disagree with everything that person says. Things like this always goes both ways.

Your pastor have some good points and the one he made about 'moral discrimination' being neccessary for a orderly society is completely correct, otherwise laws wouldn't exist, but I think he misses some VERY important points; can homosexuality be considered so wrong that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry? Does 'gay marrige' disrupt the society in such a way that it shouldn't be legal?

There are good reasons we don't allow other 'moral wrongs' such as murder, theft, rape and phaedophilia, but are there equally good reasons to a ban on 'gay marriages'? Here the opinions a divided, both here on IW and in the real world, so the discussion continues.

Those are good points, Stratos...and it is at those points that the discussion centers on the "religious" aspects rather than the "secular" aspects of homosexuality, so we'll simply have to understand that Christians DO believe homosexuality is that wrong based on the Bible and leave it at that - since that aspect is not open for discussion. Likewise, I understand that others don't accept homosexuality as being "that wrong" because their beliefs differ from mine.

I posted my pastor's comments for two reasons. 1)Because he did a good job of addressing the issue without resorting to saying "Because the Bible says so", and 2)I have felt like I was compromising my beliefs with some of my previous comments and needed to reaffirm that I - personally - do not agree with gay marriages.

I appreciate your response, though, and I applaud the fact that you could disagree with my pastor, yet still respect his views (which also mirror mine).

Whenever I decide to follow moral advice in the bible, I look at WHY that advice is given, and what the result will be in my life. I have subsequently only found benefit in my life - and if applied throughout a society, benefit to the entire society as well.

Keeping in mind, that under grace a Christian can "pick and choose" in a sense the advice they take, and that the Priests in ancient Judaism were also the doctors. What were often "Gods laws" were descriptive health procedures.

"All is permissable, but not all is beneficial" says Paul.

Quote:

Originally posted by Night Stalker:
Nice dodge, and ignore.

For one thing America is NOT a democracy. Democracy, like Communism has never existed as a large scale government. Both are ideologies that have never existed. America is a tiered Representitive Republic.

That is irrelevent. I am speaking of democractic principles generally, some of which America contains.

America is a Republic, yes, which is a Representative Democracy.

I stand by what I said. I am unmoved. It is the onus on a government to educate and inform the masses, not to override their democratic rights.

And no it's not a dodge. Until we address this fundamental and foundational issue, the rest of the discussion is doomed to disagreement.

Cerek, I can appreciate your and your pastors views. I find one point of his that fails to hold muster though, the point that it is currently illegal in 38 States (including Liberal Cali). I say that because of the point I have made reguarding Interracial marriage. Inter-racial marriage was once illegal too, and later deemed UnConstitutional.

Depravity and perversion and morality are all relative terms and mean different things to different people. In America, we take our cues from mostly Judeo-Christian values, and more particularly Puritanical values, but such is not the case for the whole world. As America is a true melting pot balance must be attained for society to function. Now, I do agree, that it is foreigners responsibility to conform to the existing structure, not the other way around, but it is inevitable that cultures swing both ways.

Personally, I DON'T agree with the lifestyle (except lesbianism as presented by Good Ol' Uncle Hef! [img]tongue.gif[/img] :D :D For at heart I am a lesbian in a mans body!! [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] ), I just don't see any LEGAL reason for it to be forbotten.

A bit of poignant sarcastic humor sent to me in email....

WHY SAME SEX MARRIAGES CANNOT BE ALLOWED.

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, Cadbury cream eggs, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid becasue they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire counrty. That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to things like cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "seperate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

To break an unjust law as an act of civil disobedience is to answer to a higher form of law. One of equality and freedom. Like the civil disobedience in the civil rights era led to dismantling of Jim Crow and seperate-but-equal and the formation of just and fair laws to replace them, The city of San Fran and others are merely answering the "higher" law and order- the calling of conscience, by defying the so-called "laws" of discrimination and prejudice.

[ 02-28-2004, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Quote:

Originally posted by Chewbacca:

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

Hetrosexual marriage predates slavery, social problems of the united states, "illegal" divorces. In fact socially recognised homosexual coupling predates U.S. social problems, and was prevalent in world powers that had slavery at the same time.

Quote:

Originally posted by Chewbacca:
To break an unjust law as an act of civil disobedience is to answer to a higher form of law. One of equality and freedom. Like the civil disobedience in the civil rights era led to dismantling of Jim Crow and seperate-but-equal and the formation of just and fair laws to replace them, The city of San Fran and others are merely answering the "higher" law and order- the calling of conscience, by defying the so-called "laws" of discrimination and prejudice.

Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Chewbacca:
To break an unjust law as an act of civil disobedience is to answer to a higher form of law. One of equality and freedom. Like the civil disobedience in the civil rights era led to dismantling of Jim Crow and seperate-but-equal and the formation of just and fair laws to replace them, The city of San Fran and others are merely answering the "higher" law and order- the calling of conscience, by defying the so-called "laws" of discrimination and prejudice.

Wrong wrong wrong. Who decides this "higher form of law" other than the subjective individual? That's all you are doing. Applying your values. Anyone could say they are following a higher law. A Nazi, a bigot, anyone. Hitler could have said he was following a higher law reinstating Aryans to their proper place.

You have to remove subjectivite morality from the issue of a society determining it's own direction. [/QUOTE]WRONG WRONG WRONG.

So you think that equality isn't a great value? Did Hitler beleive in equality? Do bigots?

Are they really my values? I look for and accept values as "mine" that follow a common theme of what is the greatest potential of human experience in a society. What is better than equality? What is better than liberty? What is better than "brotherly" love? What is better than peace? These values are no more mine than they are next person who manifests them.

America has a history of progressive social evolution. Beginning with the freedom of religion and the seperation of church and state, to the end of slavery, to women's sufferage and to the civil rights movement.

My veiwpoint that equality and liberty is a law higher than any given man-made law that is contrary is reinforced by the very history of the nation and is quite evidently neither solely my own nor wrong.

[ 02-29-2004, 02:43 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

A notable writing concerning history of marriage:

Link

Quote:

Virtually all scholars agree that we have witnessed a major transition in the meaning of marriage in the years from 1600 to 1995. In 1600, marriage for almost all Europeans and Europeans in America was primarily an economic arrangement negotiated between families in which family considerations of status, future economic stability, and prosperity were the most important considerations in selecting a potential spouse. By 1995, most Americans consider the primary purpose of marriage to be a commitment to emotional and psychological support between two individuals.
Here are hisorical notations about some of the dramatic changes in the legal structure of marriage in Western Europe and the United States.
*
1. From the 5th to the 14th centuries, the Roman Catholic Church conducted special ceremonies to bless same-sex unions which were almost identical for those to bless heterosexual unions. At the very least, these were spiritual, if not sexual, unions.
*
2. In 1076, Pope Alexander II issued a decree prohibiting marriages between couples who were more closely related than 6th cousins.
*
3. In the 16th century, servants and day laborers were not allowed to marry in Bavaria and Austria unless they had the permission of local political authorities. This law was not finally abolished in Austria until 1921.
*
4. From the 1690s to the 1870s, “wife sale” was common in rural and small-town England. To divorce his wife, a husband could present her with a rope around her neck in a public sale to another man.
*
5. Marriage was strictly a civil and not an ecclesiastical ceremony for the Puritans in Massachusetts Bay until 1686.
*
6. The Pilgrims outlawed courtship of a daughter or a female servant unless consent was first obtained from parents or master.
*
7. Until 1662, there was no penalty for interracial marriages in any of the British colonies in North America. In 1662, Virginia doubled the fine for fornication between interracial couples. In 1664, Maryland became the first colony to ban interracial marriages. By 1750, all southern colonies, plus Massachusetts and Pennsylvania outlawed interracial marriages.
*
8. Under English common law, and in all American colonies and states until the middle of the 19th century, married women had no legal standing. They could not own property, sign contracts, or legally control any wages they might earn.
*
9. In 1848, New York became the first state to pass a Married Woman’s Property Act, guaranteeing the right of married women to own property.
*
10. Throughout most of the 19th century, the minimum age of consent for sexual intercourse in most American states was 10 years. In Delaware it was only 7 years.
*
11. As late as 1930, twelve states allowed boys as young as 14 and girls as young as 12 to marry (with parental consent).
*
12. As late as 1940, married women were not allowed to make a legal contract in twelve states.
*
13. In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state anti-miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia.
As a result of the decision, Virginia and fifteen other states had their anti-miscegenation laws declared unconstitutional. Those states were: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia.

In the fifteen years prior to the decision, fourteen states had repealed their anti-miscegenation laws. Those fourteen states were: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.
*
14. In 1978, New York became the first state to outlaw rape in marriage. By 1990, only a total of ten states outlawed rape in marriage. In thirty-six states rape in marriage was a crime only in certain circumstances. In four states, rape in marriage was never a crime.

These examples, and there are more, clearly document that marriage has not been an unchanging institution with unchanging definitions of who can marry and under what circumstances. Those who claim otherwise distort the historical record.

[ 02-29-2004, 03:39 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]