Massachusetts high court: Same-sex couples entitled to marry

[Yorick]

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 ]

[Chewbacca]

Plenty of children in orphanges that gay couples can adopt and give a stable home, creating an unorthodox yet viable family.

And if it is blood-connections that is what counts, then my hetro-parent family is a sham in the eyes of someone who believes this. This is of course Poppycock to the highest order and degree.
A smoke screen.

The gay guy on Bill Maher the other night said it best, Gays are damned if they do and damned if they don't. It would be convenient for gay's opponents if gays just didnt exist. No marriage or other equal rights to fuss about.

I have yet to hear an argument against gay marriage/parenting that wasn't rooted in prejudice, no matter how well justified or explainified.

[ 02-11-2004, 02:27 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

Ok. Great. Ignore what I have to say and instead wrap yourself in the right to your own beliefs... which I vehemently support, by the way.
I just find it immensely frustrating to attempt to converse with someone who seems to be equipped with blinders. I would have hoped that, even with conflicting beliefs, we could have an intelligent discussion... Apparently not. It saddens me, because you do have a few good ideas. But enough is enough, and I do not wish to continue this. You sidestep the things I say, and this is not the first time you have done that. Ah well...
To quote dear Timber, see you all next thread.

Edited for tone.

[ 02-11-2004, 02:30 AM: Message edited by: Illumina Drathiran'ar ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: [QB] Plenty of children in orphanges that gay couples can adopt and give a stable home, creating an unorthodox yet viable family.

My sources indicate it is quite difficult to adopt. Abortions have reduced available children.

And if it is blood-connections that is what counts, then my hetro-parent family is a sham in the eyes of someone who believes this. This is of course Poppycock to the highest order and degree. A smoke screen.

Adoptions mimic the natural biological family growth, and are the result of abberations. Most humans in history have not be adopted.

I will note, that in ancient Roman society, adoption was considered a stronger and more irrevocable tie, because the parent CHOSE the child.

The gay guy on Bill Maher the other night said it best, Gays are damned if they do and damned if they don't. It would be convenient for gay's opponents if gays just didnt exist. No marriage or other equal rights to fuss about.

Lets get the record straight.

1 Theology .
As a fundamentalist christian, I do NOT believe gays are all going to hell, do NOT believe they have to become straight to be christian, and do NOT believe they are any less loved by my God than I am.

2. Socially
I believe gays should be accorded the freedom to practice their sexuality, and should be able to live a life without harrassment, violence, job loss, or ridicule. Violence toward homosexuals is disgusting to the extreme.

3. Personally
I enjoy the company of my homosexual friends and regard them highly. Even when they hit on me.

This is about what support and encouragement is given to biologically life united families. I do not appreciate the inference I am "antihomosexual" simply because I want to encourage certain people in life.

I have yet to hear an argument against gay marriage/parenting that wasn't rooted in prejudice, no matter how well justified or explainified.

I do believe you are misusing the word prejudice.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: [QB] Ok. Great. Ignore what I have to say and instead wrap yourself in the right to your own beliefs... which I vehemently support, by the way.

Then why are you leaving the discussion?

I just find it immensely frustrating to attempt to converse with someone who seems to be equipped with blinders. I would have hoped that, even with conflicting beliefs, we could have an intelligent discussion...

Oh come on now. I have to read your posts to refute them. I am aware of the counter opinions. I simply disagree with them. Very strongly. That is not "blinders". If you'll note, I changed my position as a result of the discussion. Something said to be a myth in internet discussions.
I assure you, thought goes into my writing. I'm sorry if it falls below you expectation of "intelligence". I'm doing the best I can.

I simply write strongly. Were we in a room having a drink, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Apparently not. It saddens me, because you do have a few good ideas. But enough is enough, and I do not wish to continue this. You sidestep the things I say, and this is not the first time you have done that. Ah well... To quote dear Timber, see you all next thread. Edited for tone.

I "sidestep" because I spend too much time here as is, and cannot address every point fired my way. The more pressure on my time, the terser and more direct my replys. I really shouldn't be writing this at all. So I will sto

[Yorick]

Is social support a right or a privilege? That seems to be at the heart of this misunderstanding. You guys are equating positive encouragement as equating negative and detrimental discrimination to those not positively encouraged.

If there were two people on the planet and they co-habited, that would be status quo. No benefits, no assistance. No social recognition, no assistance getting food.

Positive encouragement is helping that couple get food. Minding the child for free, giving the couple food and water, helping the mother get well after birthing for example.

Negative and detrimental discrimination would be preventing the couple from eating, hampering them from finding food and water. Making their survival more difficult.

Why is this not apparent? Live and let live. If gays want to cohabit for life, that's no business of mine. I would hope they have wonderful and commited relationships together, and should they raise a child, hope they become a wonderful unit of love.

However, with my limited time, energy and resources, I would direct any spare encouragement towards a hetrosexual couple.

I am not hampering the homosexual couple, simply benefitting the hetro couple based on my assesment of things. They will increase in number. The investment goes beyond just those two individuals.

It is my life, and I can do with it what I want. No one has the right to force me to encourage anyone.


No... hopefully the simplification makes some sense. Simply amplify the individual into a collection of individuals and you have a society.

I am not suggesting detriment in one direction, but encouragement in the other. Leave the status quo as is.

Are we any clearer?

[Yorick]

The other thing you guys have failed to realise is I am unhappy with the encouragement procreating couple are receiving.

All along, I have argued for increased social assistance. So a parent can stay home without immense financial pressures.

How has this been missed. I am not arguing for preventing anyone from doing anything, but that society NOW is broken down, failing and rotting at the seams, and should be investing in strengthening blood families wherever possible if it is to survive.

[Faceman]

I haven't followed the whole discussion, but a quick note on adoption here:

It is quite difficult to adopt a new-born, or a very young child, but the orphanages are full of elementary school kids, because (and forgive this metaphor) most people prefer a puppy to a grown dog.
Adoption in ancient Rome mostly happened with even older "kids". It was a political instrument and many Romans were adopted in their teens or even as grown men.

[Chewbacca]

Link -edit oops forgot link!


************************
Why The M Word Matters To Me
Only marriage can bring a gay person home
By ANDREW SULLIVAN

As a child, I had no idea what homosexuality was. I grew up in a traditional home — Catholic, conservative, middle class. Life was relatively simple: education, work, family. I was raised to aim high in life, even though my parents hadn't gone to college. But one thing was instilled in me. What mattered was not how far you went in life, how much money you earned, how big a name you made for yourself. What really mattered was family and the love you had for one another. The most important day of your life was not graduation from college or your first day at work or a raise or even your first house. The most important day of your life was when you got married. It was on that day that all your friends and all your family got together to celebrate the most important thing in life: your happiness — your ability to make a new home, to form a new but connected family, to find love that put everything else into perspective.

But as I grew older, I found that this was somehow not available to me. I didn't feel the things for girls that my peers did. All the emotions and social rituals and bonding of teenage heterosexual life eluded me. I didn't know why. No one explained it. My emotional bonds to other boys were one-sided; each time I felt myself falling in love, they sensed it, pushed it away. I didn't and couldn't blame them. I got along fine with my buds in a nonemotional context, but something was awry, something not right. I came to know almost instinctively that I would never be a part of my family the way my siblings might one day be. The love I had inside me was unmentionable, anathema. I remember writing in my teenage journal one day, "I'm a professional human being. But what do I do in my private life?"

I never discussed my real life. I couldn't date girls and so immersed myself in schoolwork, the debate team, school plays, anything to give me an excuse not to confront reality. When I looked toward the years ahead, I couldn't see a future. There was just a void. Was I going to be alone my whole life? Would I ever have a most important day in my life? It seemed impossible, a negation, an undoing. To be a full part of my family, I had to somehow not be me. So, like many other gay teens, I withdrew, became neurotic, depressed, at times close to suicidal. I shut myself in my room with my books night after night while my peers developed the skills needed to form real relationships and loves. In wounded pride, I even voiced a rejection of family and marriage. It was the only way I could explain my isolation.

It took years for me to realize that I was gay, years more to tell others and more time yet to form any kind of stable emotional bond with another man. Because my sexuality had emerged in solitude — and without any link to the idea of an actual relationship — it was hard later to reconnect sex to love and self-esteem. It still is. But I persevered, each relationship slowly growing longer than the last, learning in my 20s and 30s what my straight friends had found out in their teens. But even then my parents and friends never asked the question they would have asked automatically if I were straight: So, when are you going to get married? When will we be able to celebrate it and affirm it and support it? In fact, no one — no one — has yet asked me that question.

When people talk about gay marriage, they miss the point. This isn't about gay marriage. It's about marriage. It's about family. It's about love. It isn't about religion. It's about civil marriage licenses. Churches can and should have the right to say no to marriage for gays in their congregations, just as Catholics say no to divorce, but divorce is still a civil option. These family values are not options for a happy and stable life. They are necessities. Putting gay relationships in some other category — civil unions, domestic partnerships, whatever — may alleviate real human needs, but by their very euphemism, by their very separateness, they actually build a wall between gay people and their families. They put back the barrier many of us have spent a lifetime trying to erase.

It's too late for me to undo my past. But I want above everything else to remember a young kid out there who may even be reading this now. I want to let him know that he doesn't have to choose between himself and his family anymore. I want him to know that his love has dignity, that he does indeed have a future as a full and equal part of the human race. Only marriage will do that. Only marriage can bring him home.

[ 02-11-2004, 03:54 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Chewbacca]

Time to play the word game!

prej·u·dice ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prj-ds)
n.

1. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.

2. A preconceived preference or idea.
The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.

3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.

4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.