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

Yorick · 02-11-2004, 01:56 AM

I am defining a (singular) couple (plural) in the context of life partnership encouragement, as being two individuals conjoined by the creation of new life. Without the conjoinment resultant from that new life the two individuals are not as united as ones that are united by common offspring.

That may be harsh but it is reality. Simply the way it is. Without a child you can walk away a lot easier.

I make no apologies for having the belief that society depends on blood families unity. In fact, I'll go further and say I have the right to hold those opinions in any society that grants freedom of religion, and furthermore I can encourage those families financially, emotionally or any other way I can because it is my life, my money and my time.

Now, if there are others like myself, we have the right to decide where our money goes, where our time goes and what values we wish to see in the collection of lives in our society.

Don't attempt to silence pro-blood family views by calling "prejudice" or other such rot.

I live in New York. Varieties of cohabitation, even long term, between heterosexual males, homosexual males, heterosexual females, homosexual females, opposite heteros, opposite homosexuals and other combinations exist. Love exists between roommates. Some of that love is expressed sexually, others do not express their love sexually.

What I am choosing to do is single out those cohabiting individuals that choose to express their love sexually and create a life as a result, and ecourage those individuals for the good of the society to remain together and build upon what they've created.

I make no apologies for holding such a view and resent any implications of PREjudice or negative discrimnination.

It's damn hard to hold a marriage together. I couldn't do it. The government of my country made sure it was a tremendous burden on us when she got sick and couldn't work for a year. I care about others in a similar predicament, who simply cannot afford to have the most natural thing in the world occur - have a child.

Seeing as it is an impossibility for two homosexuals to preclusively have a child, we already have imbalance and inequality that is pointless trying to balance.

Enough said.

[ 02-11-2004, 02:00 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

02-11-2004, 01:56 AM	#51
Yorick Very Mad Bird Join Date: January 7, 2001 Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam) Age: 53 Posts: 9,246	I am defining a (singular) couple (plural) in the context of life partnership encouragement, as being two individuals conjoined by the creation of new life. Without the conjoinment resultant from that new life the two individuals are not as united as ones that are united by common offspring. That may be harsh but it is reality. Simply the way it is. Without a child you can walk away a lot easier. I make no apologies for having the belief that society depends on blood families unity. In fact, I'll go further and say I have the right to hold those opinions in any society that grants freedom of religion, and furthermore I can encourage those families financially, emotionally or any other way I can because it is my life, my money and my time. Now, if there are others like myself, we have the right to decide where our money goes, where our time goes and what values we wish to see in the collection of lives in our society. Don't attempt to silence pro-blood family views by calling "prejudice" or other such rot. I live in New York. Varieties of cohabitation, even long term, between heterosexual males, homosexual males, heterosexual females, homosexual females, opposite heteros, opposite homosexuals and other combinations exist. Love exists between roommates. Some of that love is expressed sexually, others do not express their love sexually. What I am choosing to do is single out those cohabiting individuals that choose to express their love sexually and create a life as a result, and ecourage those individuals for the good of the society to remain together and build upon what they've created. I make no apologies for holding such a view and resent any implications of PREjudice or negative discrimnination. It's damn hard to hold a marriage together. I couldn't do it. The government of my country made sure it was a tremendous burden on us when she got sick and couldn't work for a year. I care about others in a similar predicament, who simply cannot afford to have the most natural thing in the world occur - have a child. Seeing as it is an impossibility for two homosexuals to preclusively have a child, we already have imbalance and inequality that is pointless trying to balance. Enough said. [ 02-11-2004, 02:00 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ] __________________ http://www.hughwilson.com