Massachusetts high court: Same-sex couples entitled to marry

[Yorick]

What is marriage anyway? For me it is a purely "religious" union. If I were not spiritual I would never have gotten married. It is only my faith which makes it important.

[SpiritWarrior]

Hey also, I just thought of immigration rights. In effect a gay person cannot fall in love with someone from another country as citizenship can't be passed on as it can for straight couples. So they are once again restricted here and love is once again restricted since countries like america are very difficult for many to gain citizenship in the 'hard' way (application for greencard etc.).

[Timber Loftis]

That's a good point SpiritWarrior. And, unless things change nationally, states like VT and MA which are enacting civil unions or marriages to give gays rights under the law will NOT be able to fix this problem. Why? The Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") defines marriage as between a man and a woman. So, for all things where U.S. federal (rather than state) law controls, such as immigration, a state's laws will not be able to pass the rights along.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Originally posted by Yorick: Love is love Ilumina. I make no distinction. What you call "romantic love" I call "infatuation" or as the Greeks called it "Eros" and you can choose that, foster that, and feel it for numerous people you never cohabit with, have relationship with or have sex with. Romantic love is simply an aspect of love itself, and may or may not be present in long term cohabitational relationships, whether platonic or not. As such, I made the distinction between love that is expressed sexually, and love that is not, for whether sexual or not, all love is valid.

But friends don't get married. Lovers do. Well, opposite-gender lovers. It should be an option for everyone, regardless of what gender your lover is.
And here the argument is more about demanding equality and equal recognition from the state than the nature of love in general, though I'm sure it would be a fascinating topic to discuss.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by SpiritWarrior: Hey also, I just thought of immigration rights. In effect a gay person cannot fall in love with someone from another country as citizenship can't be passed on as it can for straight couples. So they are once again restricted here and love is once again restricted since countries like america are very difficult for many to gain citizenship in the 'hard' way (application for greencard etc.).

That's a good point. Makes an extra loophole to be abused as well, but that is a good point.

They can of course "fall in love", it just makes it harder to be together.

Even so , Green Cards are still a nightmare, even for hetero couples.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: But friends don't get married. Lovers do. Well, opposite-gender lovers. It should be an option for everyone, regardless of what gender your lover is. And here the argument is more about demanding equality and equal recognition from the state than the nature of love in general, though I'm sure it would be a fascinating topic to discuss.

What people "do" and "what is done" is precisely what is being discussed.

What I am saying, is why discriminate against nonsexual unions by making sex the only difference between people.

Especially if a gay man can get his lover into America via greencard, but a straight man can't get his lifelong best friend in for example. It elevates sexual expression of love.

Don't platonic friends have a right to be together? Many friendships last longer than many marriages.

Besides which, the system becomes open to abuse. Are a greencard applying pair going to be spied on to make sure they really ARE having sex?

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

That makes absolutely no sense at all.
I had to reread it several times and I'm still not sure what analogy you're trying to draw...
Discriminate against nonsexual unions?! I don't understand it. All I'm saying is that gay people should have the same right to be married as straight people!

[Chewbacca]

This picture is worth more than a thousand words

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: That makes absolutely no sense at all. I had to reread it several times and I'm still not sure what analogy you're trying to draw... Discriminate against nonsexual unions?! I don't understand it. All I'm saying is that gay people should have the same right to be married as straight people!

You're acting like there is a difference between gays and straights. There isn't. They are both human. Both get attracted to people of either gender in myriad ways.

If you are going to accord two people of the same gender certain rights, why not ALL people of that gender? Why mark out the sexual union of two of the same sex?

See the photo of the old birds in the post below yours? Say they were life buddies who didn't express their affection and love in a sexual manner, and thus were not considered lesbians. Why should they be accorded any less rights than the couple that chose sexual relations?

You say "romantic love" I say that is an element of love, that is not present in every marriage all the time mind you

I speak about love. I get the feeling you simply don't or won't understand how strong love between two heterosexual people of the same gender can be.

It's wierd to me that you've elevated the sexual union. Perhaps you haven't experienced what I'm speaking about... I don't know.

In any case, this is why I clarified my ideas re. child birthing families. It means no friendship, sexual union, partnership or coupling is favoured or disadvantaged more than the next one, until a third life is created.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Yorick: Did it ever occur to you that I may not have an opinion yet as to gay marriage? That would be a reason for discussion wouldn't it?

That is fair enough. Your original comments implied you did not feel they should marry, but you said that interpretation was wrong. So all I was attempting was to get a definitive answer regarding where you stood on the issue of gay marriage. It is perfectly valid to say you have no opinion one way or the other on a given issue.

Originally posted by Yorick: I have however, stated quite clearly what I DO believe, and what I believe SHOULD be encouraged in society. I am quite clear on those areas. I am not of the opinion that legal marriage supports child rearing couples enough. I am worried that gay marriage may further erode support for families and create further problematic mental health issues in children raised in an even smaller "village". By stating what I DO believe, I have been expoloring the issue. Examining the core elemensts. Examining the fundamental purpose of society.

Yes, you've stated quite clearly what you believe should be encouraged in society and I have agreed those were important topics. However, most of those topics do not answer the inherent question of this thread...whether gays should be allowed to become legally married. Rather than stating a "Yes or No" opinion, you have just discussed other issues that - at times - seemed completely irrelevant to the topic. So it appeared you were just avoiding the question. Now that you have stated you don't have a clear opinion for or against gay marriages, that explains your previous posts in a clearer light.

Originally posted by Yorick: Cerek, of late you have been on a type of crusade against me. As in other threads, this post of yours is attack my communique, my style of writing, rather than the topic at hand. You are taking issue again and again with me - as I am now doing with you if you'll note. I have moved from the topic to debating your arguments. Debating the person, not the point.

I have not been on a "crusade" against you, Yorick, I just disagree with you on certain topics. To the best of my recollection, I have only replied to your posts in this thread and the Filesharing thread. In the latter, I waited until Page 5 before making any comment. I DID take issue with your "style of writing" in that thread because you basically kept saying those who disagree with you didn't have a valid opinion since they weren't musicians. When presented with opinions from established musicians that disagree with yours, you discounted those opinions also. So, yes, I took issue with that..because it seemed as if you were saying the only ones whose voice "counted" were those that agreed with you.

And "debating the argument" is NOT the same as "debating the person". It is a well accepted practice in debates to highlight in "holes" or "flaws" in your opponents argument. That is what I - and several others have done in this thread. Yet I am the only one accused of being on a crusade against you. You are welcome to "debate my arguments" all you want. I have no problem with that. Many others have done it and some have even convinced me my arguments were wrong. But don't confuse that with "debating the person".

Originally posted by Yorick: I would appreciate it therefore if you could refrain from the character assassinations in future and return to debating the issue, rather than highlighting the problems you have with me as an individual.

The only character assassination I have done was in the thread where you demanded the Mods suspend or ban a member because you didn't like what their sig said. That was the second time you had made such a demand based solely on your personal dislike of the comments chosen by the member to represent their view on a subject. I did give a very harsh analogy of how that made you sound, so that post could be considered character assassination.

All of my responses here have been "On Topic", until this one. But I felt I had to address the comments you directed at me.

I have no problems with you as an individual . In fact, I had considered you a friend beginning shortly after my first venture into the General Discussion forum. However, I have since been informed that I am not a "true friend" because of my disagreement with you on filesharing. If that is your feeling on the subject, that is fair enough. I will do my best to avoid responding to you at all, since any response I give will apparantly be viewed as a personal attack.

I do agree that any further discussion on our personal differences should be taken to PM so that this thread is not derailed any further. My Inbox is open.