Massachusetts high court: Same-sex couples entitled to marry

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: 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.

No you can't and to get those certain benifits that can be gained through contractual means has very high costs attached. Also, A civil union in Vermont is not recognized anywhere else or on a federal level. Sorry it is not anywhere near equal.

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

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: 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".

Not all Christians agree or give those bible verse any merit. Its not fair to lump all Christians together under the banner of what you and/or you church beleive. Of course you can always proclaim those who disregard the bibles strong perceptually hateful-language (yes- calling for the death of a person is perceptually hate speech) towards gays as not true to the faith, but that still doesn't make it true. Also, claiming a particular bible interpretation is innaccurate is quite the many-way street.

Durn it. I do hope this thread doesn't get locked becasue of religious discussion, but certain claims respectfully deserve a rebuttal.

BTW- sorry for all the replies spread out over all these posts, I kept getting struck by thoughts after I finished another. I will stop spamming now. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

edit- clarfied that the alleged hate speech is perceptual.

[ 03-01-2004, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Yorick]

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.

I covered this at length in this thread. If you could please read and address this rather than introduce a covered point as though it was never raised that would be appreciated.

Yes I did choose my sexuality. I was not born lusting after women, getting hard ons or allowing myself to be aroused by females. These were behaviours I learned, allowed to develop and even now CHOOSE to entertain.

I also chose to resrict my desires once I got married.

Mind over matter.

If you honestly believe you did not choose your sexuality, you are either unaware of the power and control of the concious mind (and therefore may be unable to commit in any relationship that tests your decisions over desire); mentally deficient in terms of being a slave to your desires, or simply lying to make a point.

In short the "nature" argument doesn't wash.

Read my posts. [img]smile.gif[/img] I await your reply.

Oh p.s. It's similar to the "male caught in a female" body.

Heads up - gender is a PHYSICAL delineation. Unless people who believe that are suggesting their is a SOUL and it has a GENDER.

We start the same sex in the womb.
We develop our sexuality through an intricate series of choices.

At least I did.

[Jerr Conner]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...notoppose.html

Try that article. Very interesting.

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

As far as interpretations from an old language go, are you saying that you know Hebrew better than a theologist who has studied it, probably most of his life?

Secondly, most of those verses 'mentioning' homosexuality don't actually mention it. They can be interpeted differently.

Thirdly, the Bible probably started off as an oral tradition until they discovered paper. I doubt it's original message was kept intact.

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.

I also can honestly say I can control my actions. However, the fact still remains I am attracted to men and not women.

Why am I attracted to men? Anyways, my question wasn't can you control your desires, it was did you choose them.

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.).

I never said you said that marriage was one-man, one-woman. I just pointed that out for anyone else who would make the claim.

Just to clear up something so you won't inadvertantly offend someome, bisexuality is when someone is attracted to both genders, not when they're in love with two people. If someone was in love with two people, that's Polyamorous.

And besides, I don't think more than one person marrying is immoral. Of course, I doon't think I could marry more than one person.

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}.

Some traditions should be changed. Love is a good enough reason, if not then we've all been lied to our whole lives.

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.

And some people can't afford that option. So what're they to do?

[johnny]

originally posted by Yorick Yes I did choose my sexuality. I was not born lusting after women, getting hard ons or allowing myself to be aroused by females. These were behaviours I learned, allowed to develop and even now CHOOSE to entertain.

Really ? How do you do that ? Do you give it commands, like "stay put" and "now rise" ? Wow, i never knew people could do that. I always thought it was a spontaneous reaction, something that can happen anytime and anywhere.

Do you also really think that someone who's starting to develop feelings for the same sex can simply ban these thoughts from his/her mind, by mind over manner ? If that was really true, then i don't think there were any gay people in this world, because i can't imagine anyone being happy once they find out that they're gay.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: 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. [/QUOTE]The concept of a gay marriage was equally "unthinkable" just a few short decades ago. In the late 1970's, the TV sitcom Soap was considered extremely controversial because it had one gay character on it.

There are several sitcoms today that have gay characters (some of whom are the title characters) and they aren't considered controversial at all.

And marriage to multiple partners is NOT that different. We've had polygamy before and this would be the perfect precedence to argue for it's return. Some religions allow polygamy, and their followers could claim that the restriction of one partner violates their religious freedom. As Yorick stated long ago, once you change the definition of marriage to accomodate any group that is currently excluded, you set a legal precedence for all other excluded groups to petition for marriage to be changed to include them.

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Jerr Conner: Some traditions should be changed. Love is a good enough reason, if not then we've all been lied to our whole lives.

No it is not, and yes you have.

[Jerr Conner]

I covered this at length in this thread. If you could please read and address this rather than introduce a covered point as though it was never raised that would be appreciated.

Sorry, haven't read the full post. Over 11 pages so far.

Yes I did choose my sexuality. I was not born lusting after women, getting hard ons or allowing myself to be aroused by females. These were behaviours I learned, allowed to develop and even now CHOOSE to entertain.

Hmm, funny, when I was six years old I found myself attracted to one of my friends, yet tried to not entertain it and even went as far as to start 'liking' (Liking meaning I picked a girl on purpose and proclaimed I liked her in a crush sort of way when I didn't) a girl, yet I still had a crush on this boy.

As far as erections go, something similiar happened when I saw a grown naked man in the military barracks at the same age, yet I didn't choose that biological reaction.

I also chose to resrict my desires once I got married.

Actually, you chose to have your desires for the person you love, comendable.

Mind over matter.

Ok then, float in the air. If it's so simple as mind over matter, you'll float in the air.

If you honestly believe you did not choose your sexuality, you are either unaware of the power and control of the concious mind (and therefore may be unable to commit in any relationship that tests your decisions over desire); mentally deficient in terms of being a slave to your desires, or simply lying to make a point.

None of the above. I can give you many, many, instances where I chose to like a girl on purpose throughout my life so I could be 'normal'. And yet, I never felt any attraction to them, physically or emotionally.

If anything, why would I choose this when I could get killed over it? People would gladly beat the life out of me if they were allowed to.

Why would I choose this when everyday I hear my dad use words like faggot and faggy? Or my mom's utter hatred of most gay people? I've grown up with these attitudes all of my life.

Read my posts. I await your reply.

Ok, I'll look for them.

[Larry_OHF]

There are complaints that this thread is getting heavy on religious views.

Please try to focus on the other possible aspects for this discussion.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Jerr Conner: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...notoppose.html Try that article. Very interesting.

That article was very interesting indeed. Christians are often accused of "mental gymnastics" in their attempt to explain certain aspects of the Bible, but that article could have been written by Kurt Thomas himself for all the "mental gymnastics" it went through. Saying that the Bible doesn't frown on homosexuals per se, just homosexual acts. I don't see much difference there. Heterosexuals aren't going to commit homosexual acts. Also, the underlying argument relies heavily on the fact that the term "homosexual" isn't specifically mentioned in any of the specific verses, therefore these verses are "open to interpretation". OK...then tell how you "interpret" a man lying with a man and a woman lying with a woman?

The argument trying to debunk the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah are the most feeble. The claim that the Bible wasn't referring to sexual attraction when the men of Sodom wanted to "know" the angels sent by the Lord is an absolute farce. The phrase "to know" IS the Biblical terminology for sexual intercourse. Look in Numbers, Kings, and other chapters that chronicle family lines. When it says that a man "knew" his wife or mistress, it meant that he "lay" with her - or in other words - they had sexual intercourse. To try to suddenly change the meaning of that terminology in the most vivid example of God's disdain for homosexuality is grasping at the thinnest of straws.

The entire article keeps trying to say that - although the Bible does condemn homosexual acts - that doesn't really mean they condemn it for those that are born homosexual, or that it only means it for the Israelites, or they weren't really talking about sex at all. The problem is that the article has to change it's argument with every different example, because one explanation is debunked by other examples they present.

If the Bible truly did NOT condemn homosexuality, then one explanation would suffice for every example given. Yet the Bible does condemn homosexuality (or homosexual acts). It refers to homosexuality as "an abomination". That doesn't leave much of a grey area.

Originally posted by Jerr Conner: As far as interpretations from an old language go, are you saying that you know Hebrew better than a theologist who has studied it, probably most of his life?

I don't have to know Hebrew better than the theologist who you presume has studied it "most of his life". You said that the Rabbi claimed the Bible only mentioned homosexuality one time in one line. As I said before - and as your own article linked proved - it is mentioned many more times than just a single line in Leviticus.

Originally posted by Jerr Conner: Secondly, most of those verses 'mentioning' homosexuality don't actually mention it. They can be interpeted differently. Thirdly, the Bible probably started off as an oral tradition until they discovered paper. I doubt it's original message was kept intact.

I already addressed the first point. As for the allegation that the Bible has obviously been altered due to many translations, you are welcome to believe that if you wish. I - on the other hand - believe it is the literal and innerrant Word of God and God is capable of keeping His Word from being mis-translated or "changed in the telling". That is my personal belief and you are welcome to accept or reject it as you see fit.

Originally posted by Jerr Conner: I also can honestly say I can control my actions. However, the fact still remains I am attracted to men and not women. Why am I attracted to men? Anyways, my question wasn't can you control your desires, it was did you choose them.

My apologies. I did kinda "sidestep" your question. Do I believe you can "choose" your desires? The answer yes and no both. I believe we are all created by God. I believe God considers homosexuality a sin. So I do not believe He would create someone with a natural affection for the same gender. However, I do agree that we don't necessarily "choose" our desires - at least not on a conscious level. As I said, I believe in the "nurture" side of the argument. I believe our desires are shaped from our very earliest years, before we are mentally aware of the outside influences affecting them. It is a poor illustration, but my wife likes certain foods that I simply cannot stand. Why? Because that's what her mother fed her while she was growing up and I didn't eat the same food. Her "like" for a certain food is not a conscious choice, it is a result of her upbringing. I don't believe most homosexuals just wake up one morning and say "I think I've decided I like men better than women" (or vice versa)...but I do believe these "desires" were shaped from our days as an infant by influences we may not even be aware of.

Again, this is my personal opinion only - and is open for acceptance, rejection, or challenge as any see fit. I don't expect my argument to change your beliefs, just as yours won't change mine. I'm just explaining why I believe as I do.

Originally posted by Jerr Conner: I never said you said that marriage was one-man, one-woman. I just pointed that out for anyone else who would make the claim. Just to clear up something so you won't inadvertantly offend someome, bisexuality is when someone is attracted to both genders, not when they're in love with two people. If someone was in love with two people, that's Polyamorous. And besides, I don't think more than one person marrying is immoral. Of course, I doon't think I could marry more than one person.

My apologies again for the misinterpretation of your original post. I thought you were directing the Biblical allowance of polygamy as a rebuttal to my point of marriage being defined as one man and one woman.

I also didn't realize I was mis-using the term "bisexual". I stand corrected on that point also.

As for your last statement, that actually proves the point I'm trying to make to others about the "next logical step" in re-defining marriage. If we lift the restriction of gender, then the next logical step is to remove the restriction of the number of participants.

Originally posted by Jerr Conner: Some traditions should be changed. Love is a good enough reason, if not then we've all been lied to our whole lives.

I don't agree completely. It certainly sounds good, but you have to keep in mind the Law of Unintended Consequences. There are many people with a definiton of "love" that is currently socially acceptable. While we believe it would be impossible for some of these definitions to ever becomen acceptable, the same school of though applies to homosexual behavior in the not too distant past.

Originally posted by Jerr Conner: And some people can't afford that option. So what're they to do?

At the risk of sounding trite, I never said the option was "fair"...just that it was available.

NOTE TO MODERATORS: I feel the first part of this post is a pretty clear violation of the current moratorium on religious discussion and I apologize for that. I felt it was necessary to include the arguments I did to better explain my views and beliefs and I will accept any consequences necessary for my actions. However, I DO ask that the thread not be LOCKED because of my posts. The discussion is going very well and if any actions need to be taken for bringing religion this prominently into the discussion, then I ask that the repurcussions be confined to me so that the other members may continue discussing the issue without interference.