Massachusetts high court: Same-sex couples entitled to marry

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I cannot even begin to answer that question without going down the road of discussing religion. I suggest you withdraw it.

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: All I am going to say is that you don't give atheists enough credit, Yorick. Pick up The Happy Heretic by Judith Hayes. It's a very good book.

I simply wish to understand the mindset of those that are different from me.

There is no need for defensivenes, or feeling slighted, insulted or demeaned. I have no understanding of what it is to approach life monogamy without those two elements underpinning such a commitment, so would be interested in understanding why such an undertaking would be made.

[ 02-23-2004, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Let me ask this also - If you have no belief in God, and no desire to raise children, what are the reasons for lifelong monogamy? I believe in God and desire children, and these are the only two reasons I would invest such commitment in a lifelong relationship again (speaking as a divorced man). I cannot "get out of my head" so I'd love to know why you'd supress all those "natural desires" to be exclusively with one person as per the marriage vow.

Because many of them believe in honoring thier chosen partner with a lifelong commitment (or at least an exclusive commitment for the length of the relationship) just like those of us with a religious belief.

The only difference is they see no reason to go through the religious ceremony of marriage, but some of them may choose to become legally married.

I know an example of each. My r/l atheist friend has been with his current g/f for about 8 yrs (as well as I can remember). I see no signs of either of them leaving the relationship, but neither of them see any reason to be married in the eyes of God or the state.

On the other hand, I know an atheist member on a forum I visit that DID decide to get married despite his lack of belief in God. Whether his wife had any influence on the decision or not, I don't know. Just providing an illustrative example for each scenario. [/QUOTE]Cerek, thanks for replying. However, you're speculating outside your experience, as you have kids and are Christian.

Also, I may be mistaken, but I'm yet to read a definitive description of what you hold marriage to be. I'll have a look at the other thread.

As to that, why did so few post what they believe marriage to be? So many use such a loose term without clarifying what it is.

Surely, if people are going to champion something (gay marriage) they should dissect the very thing they are seeking to gain or allow.

What is marriage?
What benefit does it bring?
Can you have all these benefits without a society elevating your union?

It's frustrating to say the least. I have very clear ideas of what my marriage was, and what it would be in the future. What it is. These are person ideas however, and very much dependent on my view of God, his intention for my life, my reason for existence, and procreation.

I simply wish people would be less defensive and more willing to break down what a word actually means and examine what they are really discussing.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Yorick: There is no need for defensivenes, or feeling slighted, insulted or demeaned. I have no understanding of what it is to approach life monogamy without those two elements underpinning such a commitment, so would be interested in understanding why such an undertaking would be made.

Well, I'm not defensive, I'm just concerned I'm going to start posting on the topic only to suffer a Choc-Down somewhere down the line for meandering into a religious discussion.

Aetheism does not preclude morality nor love. I love my wife for all our life and into the nothingness of nonexistence. We're both still deciding as to whether or not we want munchkins, so that doesn't affect my feelings too much. On a theoretical level, cheating (being with other women) is not required for me to enjoy life -- IMHO one beautiful woman is enough (and sometimes too much ). Besides, I'm allowed to "window shop" all I like. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

On the selfish/greed level, by agreeing to be faithful, I also secure her agreement to do the same. I make the choice to give up my philandering in exchange for the same sacrifice from her. This helps my insecurities.

Seriously, though, I want her as my life partner and marriage is the social construct by which we proudly declare our decision to each other and to the rest of the world.

Note: we were married by a Justice of the Peace under Nature's blue skies and did not have a religious ceremony. Nay, the open bar I insisted on was a much more spiritual experience for me.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Yorick: Cerek, thanks for replying. However, you're speculating outside your experience, as you have kids and are Christian.

I'm not speculating at all. He is a r/l friend and we have discussed the issue of marriage many times. I am not "speculating" on his feelings or motives, because he has told me his sentiments personally. All I'm doing is relaying the information and knowledge I have received from him first-hand.

Originally posted by Yorick: Also, I may be mistaken, but I'm yet to read a definitive description of what you hold marriage to be. I'll have a look at the other thread.

No, I have not posted in that thread, nor do I plan to. There are more than enough responses with various perspectives on the definition of marriage there already. There is nothing for me to add to what has already been said.

[Chewbacca]

President Bush has now openly called for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages.

Link

What is next? A constitutional amendment to ban divorce? Inter-racial marriage? Inter-faith marriage? Once the line is crossed and prejudice and discrimination is once again codified, when will it stop?

[Djinn Raffo]

What Bush did say was an amendment to ban gay marriages.

Not to ban gay civil unions however. All that amendment is, is to reserve the word marriage for a union between man and woman.

[Djinn Raffo]

That NYT article has a pretty large slant on it. Heres another which might clarify some issues:

reuters

[Chewbacca]

So segregation as well as discrimination will be codified. Giving gays a seperate defintion of marriage is no different than giving blacks a seperate water fountain. Except one of these may be codified in the freakin U.S. Constitution.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

I have a few choice words to say about that, but, as this is a family board, all I will allow to slip through is "Ignorant cowboy doesn't know what he's playing with."

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: So segregation as well as discrimination will be codified. Giving gays a seperate defintion of marriage is no different than giving blacks a seperate water fountain. Except one of these may be codified in the freakin U.S. Constitution.

That may be so.. but i felt it did require a distinction from your original post. As it does still leave a door open for many of the points brought up in this thread including all the benefits that current marriages receive under law, such as states having civil unions, hospital visitations and insurance benefits etc.

As far as i know most gay marriage advocates (i am pro) have stated that they want their unions to be recognized by the state.. and could give a damn if God recognized it.

This would answer that.