Massachusetts high court: Same-sex couples entitled to marry

[Cerek the Barbaric]

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.

That's an interesting choice of words, Chewbacca. As a Christian, I disagree with homosexual behavior and gay marriages because I also believe in a higher law than those made by man. God's law is very specific regarding homosexuality and that is why I disagree with it.

As Yorick pointed out, a "higher law" is subjective to the individual. And while my disagreement to homosexuality is based on a subjective "higher law", it is a disagreement that the majority of Americans happen to agree with. Comparing the issue of gay marriage to the Civil Rights movement is an improper analogy for several reasons. First of all, the discrimination was not universally accepted in all the states...it was primarily centered in the South and much of the rest of the country disagreed with it. Also, blacks cannot choose their skin color. And at least some homosexuals do make a conscious choice to embrace the lifestyle.

Also, you are arguing for "equality" based on sexual desires and behavior. Given that argument, then the point made by Yorick at the beginning of the argument does become relevant as it is the logical extension of that logic. If we decide that we can't "discriminate" against a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman, then we also cannot say it is wrong for 3 people to marry each other. If it is wrong to restrict the definition of "marriage" to being between a man and a woman only. Then the next step is to say it is also wrong to restrict marriage to just two consenting adults.

The same goes for "equality" based on sexual desires and behavior. If we say it is wrong to make homosexuality "socially unacceptable", then we also cannot say that any other form of sexual deviance (defined as deviating from a man loving a woman) is unacceptable...because any individual or group that practices a different form of sexual deviance can then step up and say that THEY are also being discriminated against and should be granted the same "equality" as heterosexuals and homosexuals.

As my pastor said, if we make no moral discriminations in society, then no behavior can be labeled as perverse. So a certain amount of "moral discrimination" is necessary for a society to function.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: 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.

That's an interesting choice of words, Chewbacca. As a Christian, I disagree with homosexual behavior and gay marriages because I also believe in a higher law than those made by man. God's law is very specific regarding homosexuality and that is why I disagree with it.
[/QUOTE]At the risk of having a religious discussion-Jesus said nothing about homosexuality and not all Christians disagree with it or accept that is God's law to discriminate against them.

Also note I paraphrase a certain famous Christian with my above choice of words.

As Yorick pointed out, a "higher law" is subjective to the individual. And while my disagreement to homosexuality is based on a subjective "higher law", it is a disagreement that the majority of Americans happen to agree with. Comparing the issue of gay marriage to the Civil Rights movement is an improper analogy for several reasons. First of all, the discrimination was not universally accepted in all the states...it was primarily centered in the South and much of the rest of the country disagreed with it. Also, blacks cannot choose their skin color. And at least some homosexuals do make a conscious choice to embrace the lifestyle.

So...religion is choice. Lets remove the protected status of religion.
Good bye tax-benifits and other entitlements. Just kidding, but since 99.x% of all gays who think they chose it and try to "fix it", fail ( see one of the earlier links on reparitive therapy) the 'they chose it and can change' theory has very little or no water.

Also, you are arguing for "equality" based on sexual desires and behavior. Given that argument, then the point made by Yorick at the beginning of the argument does become relevant as it is the logical extension of that logic. If we decide that we can't "discriminate" against a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman, then we also cannot say it is wrong for 3 people to marry each other. If it is wrong to restrict the definition of "marriage" to being between a man and a woman only. Then the next step is to say it is also wrong to restrict marriage to just two consenting adults. The same goes for "equality" based on sexual desires and behavior. If we say it is wrong to make homosexuality "socially unacceptable", then we also cannot say that any other form of sexual deviance (defined as deviating from a man loving a woman) is unacceptable...because any individual or group that practices a different form of sexual deviance can then step up and say that THEY are also being discriminated against and should be granted the same "equality" as heterosexuals and homosexuals. As my pastor said, if we make no moral discriminations in society, then no behavior can be labeled as perverse. So a certain amount of "moral discrimination" is necessary for a society to function.

Its not just about sexual desire, its about the lifetime commitment and benifits of marriage. It's also about what is best of the human character in providing equality and liberty in society.

[Jerr Conner]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: As someone who is very familiar with this issue, and who supports civil unions, I think they went to far. It's a "adjustment time" thing. I think the "separate but equal" civil union is a good way for gay couples to have the legal rights they need while making the whole thing palatable to conservatives who have a huge to-may-to/to-mah-to issue. After some time under a civil union system, renaming the thing as "marriage" would be less controversial. Catering to the masses? Well, yes, in some sense. Since substantive rights are the real key, nomenclature only has an "ego" factor really. And, pushing too hard too fast never bears fruit. In this instance, what will likely happen is that the constitutional convention in Mass will decide to make marriage only for 1 man and 1 woman. A court won't be able to overturn that. As for the gays that get married between now and 2006, their marriages will simply become null and void, the same as if they were brother/sister or any other pairing not recognized under the law. So, by being too active, the court has done Massachusetts gays no favor. What's really odd is that the legal case decided by the same court indicated the civil union may be enough and focused on substantive rights. I'll have to read the new opinion to see where they changed their minds.

I pretty much agree we should only have Civil Unions for now, because it will take some getting used to. I mean, look at some of the backlash...

[Jerr Conner]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: That's an interesting choice of words, Chewbacca. As a Christian, I disagree with homosexual behavior and gay marriages because I also believe in a higher law than those made by man. God's law is very specific regarding homosexuality and that is why I disagree with it.

If I still had the article, I'd point out the link to you of where a Rabbi points out that the whole Leviticus line was mistranslated, and the real translation which is close to the Hebrew word for Man meant "Boy".

Anyway, other than that one line there's not really much evidence that God disapproves of gayness or not.

Secondly, I can't remember the verse but it says that we're to obey Man's Law as if it's God's own laws, and one of man's laws in the USA says Church and State should be seperated.

As Yorick pointed out, a "higher law" is subjective to the individual. And while my disagreement to homosexuality is based on a subjective "higher law", it is a disagreement that the majority of Americans happen to agree with. Comparing the issue of gay marriage to the Civil Rights movement is an improper analogy for several reasons. First of all, the discrimination was not universally accepted in all the states...it was primarily centered in the South and much of the rest of the country disagreed with it. Also, blacks cannot choose their skin color. And at least some homosexuals do make a conscious choice to embrace the lifestyle.

Ah, but I still didn't choose to be attracted to men. Can you honestly say that you chose to be attracted to the opposite sex? I know a lot of straight people who can honestly say they didn't choose the attraction.

Plus, a lifestyle costs money, being gay doesn't cost me money

Also, you are arguing for "equality" based on sexual desires and behavior. Given that argument, then the point made by Yorick at the beginning of the argument does become relevant as it is the logical extension of that logic. If we decide that we can't "discriminate" against a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman, then we also cannot say it is wrong for 3 people to marry each other. If it is wrong to restrict the definition of "marriage" to being between a man and a woman only. Then the next step is to say it is also wrong to restrict marriage to just two consenting adults.

Actually, according to the Bible, men CAN marry more than one wife. I can find the verses for you later. Besides, do not Straight people have sexual desires for the opposite sex? Just cause I'm gay doesn't mean I can't fall in love. I've been in love before.

The same goes for "equality" based on sexual desires and behavior. If we say it is wrong to make homosexuality "socially unacceptable", then we also cannot say that any other form of sexual deviance (defined as deviating from a man loving a woman) is unacceptable...because any individual or group that practices a different form of sexual deviance can then step up and say that THEY are also being discriminated against and should be granted the same "equality" as heterosexuals and homosexuals.

We have reasons for why some sexual practices are socially unacceptable, because of consent.

A child can't legally give consent to sex, so pedophilia is unacceptable. Besides that, it can be traumatic.

The same goes for an animal, though we wouldn't be able to tell if they were traumatized as well as we can children.

Same for Rape, no consent, and traumatizing again.

But when I want the option to marry someday, it's not for sex. I can still have all the sex I want and not get married. It's about love, and having the same benifits a straight married couple can have.

As my pastor said, if we make no moral discriminations in society, then no behavior can be labeled as perverse. So a certain amount of "moral discrimination" is necessary for a society to function.

Morals are something one should only have on themselves. Laws are not morals.

[Timber Loftis]

Morals are something one should only have on themselves. Laws are not morals.

Thou shalt not kill.

[johnny]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Morals are something one should only have on themselves. Laws are not morals.

Thou shalt not kill. [/QUOTE]Hm... then what are we doing in Iraq ?

[Night Stalker]

Liberating!

[wellard]

That people 'emotionally' from both sides of the debate are still comfortable in joining in the discussion after 10 pages (225 posts) is a credit to everyone. I am both learning from and enjoying this debate [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Carry on

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Jerr Conner: If I still had the article, I'd point out the link to you of where a Rabbi points out that the whole Leviticus line was mistranslated, and the real translation which is close to the Hebrew word for Man meant "Boy". Anyway, other than that one line there's not really much evidence that God disapproves of gayness or not.

That is totally and completely wrong. The Bible speaks many times on the issue of homosexuality, and it references women sleeping with women as well as men with men, so the rabbi's individual translation of a single line is not only inaccurate, but also irrelevant in comparison to the number of times the Bible calls homosexuality "unnatural" and an "abomination". I can't really go into this aspect of the discussion any further, as I've already crossed the line on the religious moratorium. So here is a link that mentions just a few of the verses in the Bible dealing with homosexuality - What does the Bible say about same-sex marriages

Originally posted by Jerr Conner: Ah, but I still didn't choose to be attracted to men. Can you honestly say that you chose to be attracted to the opposite sex? I know a lot of straight people who can honestly say they didn't choose the attraction. Plus, a lifestyle costs money, being gay doesn't cost me money

I can honostly say that I have the ability to control my desires. I also have the ability to choose whether or not I act on my desires. Just because I am attracted to women instead of men doesn't mean I am "morally pure". I find many women attractive, but I've made a commitment to only act on my desires with one woman in particular. I work in an environment that where the vast majority of the workforce are women. I'm sure that - if I chose too - I could pursue sexual relations with one or more of my coworkers, despite being married. While I firmly believe in the "nurture" side of the argument instead of the "nature" side, it doesn't matter which one is correct. We ALL have different desires and emotions that could be considered "wrong" or "unnacceptable" under certain circumstances. We all also have the ability to choose NOT to act on those desires if they are percieved as unacceptable. The link I provided above also addresses the issue of actions being justified on the basis of strong or deep emotions and illustrates why homosexuality is Biblically wrong far better than I can.

Originally posted by Jerr Conner: Actually, according to the Bible, men CAN marry more than one wife. I can find the verses for you later. Besides, do not Straight people have sexual desires for the opposite sex? Just cause I'm gay doesn't mean I can't fall in love. I've been in love before.

I never said the Bible prohibits a man from marrying more than one wife. The Old Testament is full of men that had many wives AND mistresses...not the least of which was Abraham himself. I was talking about the current "Law of Man" that defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. The issue of gay marriage seeks to change this definition and to RE-define marriage to include same gender couples. My point is that if we do re-define marriage to accomodate gay couples, then the next logical step will be to re-define it again to accomodate bisexuals who don't want to choose between two mutually consenting partners. They would be the next group to claim they are the victims of discrimination, and they will have a stronger case since the "traditional" definition of marriage has already been changed to accomodate a minority group (statistically speaking, gays ARE a minority of the overall population, at least in the U.S.).

As for your ability to fall in love, I have never denied that. I've seen gay couples and know a few personally. There is no denying the depth of the feelings they have for each other. But is that depth of emotion a justifiable reason to change a long-standing tradition of all major societies throughout history. There have been many societies that may have condoned homosexuality at one time or another, but I do not know of any that condoned homosexual marriages. {Note-I'm not saying there haven't been societies in history that condoned gay marriages, just saying I don't know of any myself}.

Is the label of "marriage" SO important, that our society should completely change the definition of the word, even though the majority of our citizens clearly do not wish for this change? The only REAL issue are the denial of certain legal benefits, as illustrated by Timber throughout this thread and others on the issue. However, as he also pointed out, these rights CAN be attained through "civil unions" or through the aid of an attorney. Yes, the latter option is expensive, but it is an available option.

Originally posted by Jerr Conner: We have reasons for why some sexual practices are socially unacceptable, because of consent. A child can't legally give consent to sex, so pedophilia is unacceptable. Besides that, it can be traumatic. The same goes for an animal, though we wouldn't be able to tell if they were traumatized as well as we can children. Same for Rape, no consent, and traumatizing again.

What about statutory rape? It is illegal even though it can easily be argued tat a teenager is mentally mature enough to give consent. This is an example of a law that could be challenged and it is perfectly acceptable in certain societies for girls to marry at the age of 13 or more. I personally know someone who is facing charges of statutory rape because he allegedly had sex with a 15yr old girl. The fact is that if he DID have sex with her, then he is guilty and will spend time in jail regardless of whether it was consentual or not. If we say that it is not the place of our courts to decide what is or is not acceptable behavior between consenting adults, then it is a very short step to say that it is not the place of the courts to decide what is or is not acceptable behavior between two consenting persons, regardless of age - as long as both partners are mentally mature enough to fully understand their actions.

Originally posted by Jerr Conner: But when I want the option to marry someday, it's not for sex. I can still have all the sex I want and not get married. It's about love, and having the same benifits a straight married couple can have.

You can recieve the same benefits as a straight married couple. Vermont has allowed these rights to be granted through "civil unions" to gay couples. But even without that, it is possible to gain these same benefits by having the proper documents drawn up by an attorney.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: My point is that if we do re-define marriage to accomodate gay couples, then the next logical step will be to re-define it again to accomodate bisexuals who don't want to choose between two mutually consenting partners.

Is this really such a logical next step? I think not. Marriage between two people is quite different on many levels than marriage between three or more.

[ 03-01-2004, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]