Massachusetts court: Ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

[PeterAce]

How very myopic your opinion really is.

Hmm, at least it isn't a utopist opinion based on egalitarian principles. The subject is broad and been discussed time and time again here. I see the matter as it is quite clearly thanks. The bias for homosexual marriage is the culmination of a long historical bias against the traditional family. For what it is worth though I see your opinion as blurred and short sited.(myopic if you like.) I will post a theory that is fairly well constructed as to help you see things a little more clearly from my perspective. (One I posted before, there are some here who really don't like it though, sorry if it slightly off topic.)

*snip* long opinion post.

I've read your very long post. Here is my review:

You mix distorted facts with your opinions to strengthen them.

The amount of hasty generalisations and straw dollys in that post was amazingly high.

To sum it up : You wrote a lot and said very little.

The reality is that same-sex marriage won't be the downfall of society. The term "marriage" will change and so will "family" and (in my opinion) for the better not worse.

Being loving, caring, honest, moral, supportive and ethical parents is the prerequisite for childcare - not your myopic view of the so-called "traditional family" (marrage + only opposite-sex couples).

 

[Florin]

The reality is that same-sex marriage won't be the downfall of society. The term "marriage" will change and so will "family" and (in my opinion) for the better not worse.

Being loving, caring, honest, moral, supportive and ethical parents is the prerequisite for childcare - not your myopic view of the so-called "traditional family" (marrage + only opposite-sex couples).

Well said !

 

[jvd]

NOt that I'm espousing this as fact, or dispositive, but I did hear a piece on NPR today that discussed Scandinavia, gay unions, and its affect on society.

The editorialist posited that Scandinavia (who knows which country) has allowed gay unions for for ~10 years and the net affect was to distance the idea of parenthood from marriage (because gay unions don't exist to have kids). As such, more and more couples were having kids and not getting married. Couples with kids who are not married are 2-3 more likely to split up, creating single parent families, hence bad for children.

The weak link, to me, is causative link that gay union lesson the symbolic link between parenthood and marriage, but otherwise is a cogent argument.

Well that article had certainly drawn some conclusions of it's own

Marriages today don't last... let's blame the gay 'unions' for that!
That's heavily underestimating people's intelligence, the reasons for people going separate are always more personal and deeper than that nonsence.

Do they think people get divorced as soon as they think 'Oh well, it's socially accepted to marry, get children and get divorced, why don't we do so also'
Not that often it is better for the child if the parents get divorced, an unhappy marriage is not a good environment for the kid either.

I'd see the increasing number of divorcements more as a result of people not believing in the 'christian values' and 'religious institution' as much, not because 'the gays have diluted the ideal of marriage'
Absurd.

Marriages don't last because devorcements are so easy to get . If you need a very good reason and a divorce was hard to get you'd see alot more people working to keep marriages together.
Thats the problem with life right now. Everything is to easy. Your 14 ? want to have sex ? You get pregnat ? sure lets just kill the baby . Easy out there .

Anyway all these problems come from women.

 

[Sabastian]

How very myopic your opinion really is.

Hmm, at least it isn't a utopist opinion based on egalitarian principles. The subject is broad and been discussed time and time again here. I see the matter as it is quite clearly thanks. The bias for homosexual marriage is the culmination of a long historical bias against the traditional family. For what it is worth though I see your opinion as blurred and short sited.(myopic if you like.) I will post a theory that is fairly well constructed as to help you see things a little more clearly from my perspective. (One I posted before, there are some here who really don't like it though, sorry if it slightly off topic.)

*snip* long opinion post.

I've read your very long post. Here is my review:

You mix distorted facts with your opinions to strengthen them.

The amount of hasty generalisations and straw dollys in that post was amazingly high.

To sum it up : You wrote a lot and said very little.

The reality is that same-sex marriage won't be the downfall of society. The term "marriage" will change and so will "family" and (in my opinion) for the better not worse.

Being loving, caring, honest, moral, supportive and ethical parents is the prerequisite for childcare - not your myopic view of the so-called "traditional family" (marrage + only opposite-sex couples).

No you missed the whole argument. In reality the bias for same sex couples does not come from genuine concern for their cause. Rather it is the political struggle for the model that creates the cause. I believe it is you who can not see things for what they are. Everyone comes from the natural family .. meaning everyone has a mom and a dad. It is you who cannot see things for what they are. I might simply relegate you to the "useful idiot" (RE:Lenin) category if you keep this line of argumentation up. I didn't imply that homosexual marriages in themselves would invoke the political model, it is the political model that is creating the case. I don't disagree that this particular model is some sort of downfall however.

 

[Sabastian]

The reality is that same-sex marriage won't be the downfall of society. The term "marriage" will change and so will "family" and (in my opinion) for the better not worse.

Being loving, caring, honest, moral, supportive and ethical parents is the prerequisite for childcare - not your myopic view of the so-called "traditional family" (marrage + only opposite-sex couples).

Well said !

How so? Mostly his rebuttal is based on ignorance. Didn't even rebut the overall argument at all. Instead he reverts to mushy lovey-dovy bullshit. My original position was that homosexual marriage is inevitable in the face of the reality of the political situation but because I don't see it as a positive change for the better and said as much he is somehow more eloquent in his position? Sounds like crap to me.

 

[PeterAce]

No you missed the whole argument.

No I didn't, I just disagree with your view of the situation.

In reality the bias for same sex couples does not come from genuine concern for their cause. Rather it is the political struggle for the model that creates the cause.

Again disagree - I'm not a product of some out-of-date babble you ranted on about.

My cause is personal and at the same time beneficial to others (gay and straight a like).

Gay couples who bring up children (through adoption) are beneficial to society (just like straight couples) - they are performing one of the most essential and importanat jobs there is; parenting.

I believe it is you who can not see things for what they are. Everyone comes from the natural family .. meaning everyone has a mom and a dad. It is you who cannot see things for what they are. I might simply relegate you to the "useful idiot" (RE:Lenin) category if you keep this line of argumentation up.

You seem very quick to judge me without evidance/experance of myself or my views.

I didn't imply that homosexual marriages in themselves would invoke the political model, it is the political model that is creating the case. I don't disagree that this particular model is some sort of downfall however.

Your long opinion post fitted in the category "moral panic".

Any basic sociology student could write a paper discredeting your opinion post.

 

[Fred]

Ive said it before, so i'll repeat the stance.

I find the whole argument logically flawed, from all sides.

On one hand, you already have an institutionalized discrimination. Namely the actually act of marriage. Non married couples do not benefit from marriage incentives (and it is an overal positive incentive, despite a few negatives). Why is that just to begin with?

So assume thats ok for now.

On the other hand you have gays using arguments that should logically apply to ANY coupling, whether polygamous, incestual, fill in the blank.

I could equally as well ask for their freedom as well.

So it boils down to this IMO. Either you do away with incentives for marriage altogother, or you just make it open for everyone and anything.

If both those are not acceptable, then it strikes me that the only rational alternative is the will of the majority.. Which doesn't tread on slippery slopes (why gays but not polygamy?). At least its an illogical solution that is democratically sponsored.

 

[Sabastian]

No you missed the whole argument.

No I didn't, I just disagree with your view of the situation.

Yes you did. Then you went into crap about homosexual love.

In reality the bias for same sex couples does not come from genuine concern for their cause. Rather it is the political struggle for the model that creates the cause.

Again disagree - I'm not a product of some out-of-date babble you ranted on about.

My cause is personal and at the same time beneficial to others (gay and straight a like).

Gay couples who bring up children (through adoption) are beneficial to society (just like straight couples) - they are performing one of the most essential and importanat jobs there is; parenting.

Yes you are a product. Your opinion is slanted in that you are up to date and mine is somehow "out-of-date". You don't think about the cause for the forcing of the case for homosexual marriage on society. This is no ground swell of support suddenly out of the blue you know. It was not more then 10 years ago the suggestion that gays be allowed into the institution of marriage an absolutely preposterous suggestion. Further it was an even greater foolhardy suggestion to say that they should be allowed to adopt children. Children need a mother figure and a father figure optimally.

I believe it is you who can not see things for what they are. Everyone comes from the natural family .. meaning everyone has a mom and a dad. It is you who cannot see things for what they are. I might simply relegate you to the "useful idiot" (RE:Lenin) category if you keep this line of argumentation up.

You seem very quick to judge me without evidance/experance of myself or my views.

I do make judgments, just like you do by suggesting that children should be allowed to be reared without a mother figure or in the case of lesbians that they be allowed to grow up without a father figure. Even though in reality they do have one of both.

I didn't imply that homosexual marriages in themselves would invoke the political model, it is the political model that is creating the case. I don't disagree that this particular model is some sort of downfall however.

Your long opinion post fitted in the category "moral panic".

Any basic sociology student could write a paper discredeting your opinion post.

Go ahead. Pick at it. There are not too many qualified and legitimate scholars who would suggest that indeed the lineage of thought did not come from the republic at all. Only a moron would deny the likelihood absolutely. I took the arts, by the way, and lived with a social constructionist ethno methodologist for years. The correlation is most significant. Never mind all on the list studied classical philosophy that Plato embodies. Go ahead, pick at the theory all you want it won’t change the reality of things at all. The moral panic that is being portrayed in the rulings of the judiciary and the left wing egalitarians? Or that there are no morals to panic about? You dupe.

 

[Sabastian]

Ive said it before, so i'll repeat the stance.

I find the whole argument logically flawed, from all sides.

On one hand, you already have an institutionalized discrimination. Namely the actually act of marriage. Non married couples do not benefit from marriage incentives (and it is an overal positive incentive, despite a few negatives). Why is that just to begin with?

So assume thats ok for now.

On the other hand you have gays using arguments that should logically apply to ANY coupling, whether polygamous, incestual, fill in the blank.

I could equally as well ask for their freedom as well.

So it boils down to this IMO. Either you do away with incentives for marriage altogother, or you just make it open for everyone and anything.

If both those are not acceptable, then it strikes me that the only rational alternative is the will of the majority.. Which doesn't tread on slippery slopes (why gays but not polygamy?). At least its an illogical solution that is democratically sponsored.

Taking all moral bias away then, yes, you should go with the majority rule in a real democracy. This is not to say that populous mentality is always right though. Mostly I agree with the things you say Fred, in this case however there is something more fundamental at stake in my opinion. Human values, in two words. But it is more then simply the allowance for homosexual marriage. It is about accepting absolute equality, on a collective level, despite individual choice/actions. This is where it gets pushed from being a social more to an enforced law on an unwilling electorate. I know you are not absolutist and that is fine but simply because there are exceptions to the rule in most every case what ever the matter does that mean that there should be no rules? These things are quite subjective in my opinion. My argument is that these precedents over social norms create an overly totalitarian rule in general. I look for reasons to uphold liberty on both the individual and collective levels. In such a case with individual and social mores being thrown out the window in favor of welfare state egalitarian principles goes a tad too far. Never mind the ethical implications beyond that point alone, but don't deny the possibility that indeed there is no causality in the matter, absolutely. I guess what I am trying to say rather sloppily is that I agree with you but ..... we don't know the consequences over the long term to a positive precedent set in favor of homosexual adoptions with regards to other instances where we can make little correlation with causality ether because of deprived measurement or will to distinguish it. These issues are far more complex, I believe, then they appear on the surface.

 

[PeterAce]

Yes you are a product. Your opinion is slanted in that you are up to date and mine is somehow "out-of-date". You don't think about the cause for the forcing of the case for homosexual marriage on society. This is no ground swell of support suddenly out of the blue you know.

Let me say again : Your so-called "traditional family" is a "out-of-date" view now.

Children need a mother figure and a father figure optimally.

Again your myopic view.

Others disagree :

The idea of a father, a mother, and their children, as being the only legitimate type of family is not only unrealistic in our society, but is demeaning to the millions of American families that do not meet this narrow definition. Single parent families, step families, adoptive families, extended families, and gay and lesbian families are all valid family units and deserve to be recognized as such. Traditional American values such as love, compassion, responsibility, honesty, integrity, self-reliance, accountability, and respect are values most parents wish to instill in their children, regardless of sexual orientation.

The American Home Economics Association and the American Association of Family and Consumer Science define the family unit as:

"two or more persons who share resources, share responsibility for decisions, share values and goals, and have commitment to one another over time. The family is that climate that one "comes home to" and it is this network of sharing and commitments that most accurately describes the family unit, regardless of blood, legal ties, adoption, or marriage."

(bold mine)

also

Can lesbians and gay men be good parents?

Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, popularity with friends, development of social sex role identity or development of sexual orientation.

I do make judgments, just like you do by suggesting that children should be allowed to be reared without a mother figure or in the case of lesbians that they be allowed to grow up without a father figure. Even though in reality they do have one of both.

Again your sterotyping - gender behaviours based on phyical sex!

Why can't a man offer a mother figure, and a woman offer a father figure?

Go ahead. Pick at it. There are not too many qualified and legitimate scholars who would suggest that indeed the lineage of thought did not come from the republic at all. Only a moron would deny the likelihood absolutely. I took the arts, by the way, and lived with a social constructionist ethno methodologist for years. The correlation is most significant. Never mind all on the list studied classical philosophy that Plato embodies. Go ahead, pick at the theory all you want it won’t change the reality of things at all. The moral panic that is being portrayed in the rulings of the judiciary and the left wing egalitarians? Or that there are no morals to panic about? You dupe.

You do make lots of incorrect assumptions.

I meant this 'moral panic' :

According to Goode & Ben-Yehuda (1994) " A moral panic is characterised by a feeling held by a substantial number of a members of a given society, that evil-doers pose a threat to society and to the moral order as a consequence of their behaviour and, therefore, "something should be done about them and their behaviour".

Your 'moral panic' point was: radical feminism and homsexuality - are major contributors to the downfall of the "traditional family model" and therefore society. - a slippery slope indeed.

 

[epicstruggle]

Children need a mother figure and a father figure optimally.

Again your myopic view.

Peter, did you read the whole sentence or did you just catch the "Children need a mother figure and a father" and stop reading the sentence and just go ballistic. He did not say that a mother and father combination was the best, only optimal. All else being equal a mother-father should always get adoption dibs over a same sex couple, or a single father or a single mother.

later,
epic

 

[ByteMe]

I would like to think that even if I do NOT want the lifestyle of being gay I would not mind if others were if that was their choice. Then I thought about, what if I was a USA solider and was fighting for the freedom of the country, would I fight for the fags? HELL NO!

There is NO WAY I would put my ass on the line so some guy would have the "right" to stick his dork in another guys ass. If they want to fight for this then go ahead, but I am not going to fight for them.

Now of course if this was for beautiful gay women then I'd fight.

 

[CosmoKramer]

In his own twisted way ByteME is hilarious...

 

[PeterAce]

Children need a mother figure and a father figure optimally.

Again your myopic view.

Peter, did you read the whole sentence or did you just catch the "Children need a mother figure and a father" and stop reading the sentence and just go ballistic.

Erm, where did I go ballistic? I've just been posting my views vs his.

He did not say that a mother and father combination was the best, only optimal. All else being equal a mother-father should always get adoption dibs over a same sex couple, or a single father or a single mother.

later,
epic

Why should a opposite-sex couple have preferential treatment over a same-sex couple, when the is overwhelimg evidance that shows - it makes no difference in the childs upbringing?

 

[epicstruggle]

He did not say that a mother and father combination was the best, only optimal. All else being equal a mother-father should always get adoption dibs over a same sex couple, or a single father or a single mother.

later,
epic

Why should a opposite-sex couple have preferential treatment over a same-sex couple, when the is overwhelimg evidance that shows - it makes no difference in the childs upbringing?

Where you home schooled?
Because in the real world, people pick on the most silly things to make fun of you. And if you have 2 mom's, youll sure be made fun off, or beat up or any of the things kids do to hurt each other. So in this sense a traditional family is better.

Im curious if you had a black baby for adoption and you had a black couple and a white couple who wanted to adopt. Who would you give that baby too? Considering that they are identical except race, and considering that this is the last baby for adoption.

later,
epic

 

[London Geezer]

He did not say that a mother and father combination was the best, only optimal. All else being equal a mother-father should always get adoption dibs over a same sex couple, or a single father or a single mother.

later,
epic

Why should a opposite-sex couple have preferential treatment over a same-sex couple, when the is overwhelimg evidance that shows - it makes no difference in the childs upbringing?

Where you home schooled?
Because in the real world, people pick on the most silly things to make fun of you. And if you have 2 mom's, youll sure be made fun off, or beat up or any of the things kids do to hurt each other. So in this sense a traditional family is better.

Im curious if you had a black baby for adoption and you had a black couple and a white couple who wanted to adopt. Who would you give that baby too? Considering that they are identical except race, and considering that this is the last baby for adoption.

later,
epic

Yes, i fully agree with u Epic. That is why, funny enough, i do not think Gay couples (and lesbian couples too of course) should be allowed to adopt any children.
99% of those children would be bullied at school, and personally i would never ever do that to my child. Ignoring that fact is very naive from the parents. And as "superior" or whatever they act, it doesn't change the fact that they're gonna get it hard at school for a long time. Children can be so horrible at times, and the parents should be very aware of the implications bullying can have on a child.

 

[notAFanB]

Yes, i fully agree with u Epic. That is why, funny enough, i do not think Gay couples (and lesbian couples too of course) should be allowed to adopt any children.

well things do change, it is enevitable, so I don't see any major barriers to this.

 

[London Geezer]

well things do change, it is enevitable, so I don't see any major barriers to this.

well, i just gave my biews why it shouldnt. Lesbian couples can already adopt children (quite easily). I guess one day Gay couples will be allowed too, but personally i don't think it's right for the child, one of the reasons i explained above.

 

[RussSchultz]

Meh. Kids are just vanity objects, anyways.

 

[PeterAce]

Yes, i fully agree with u Epic. That is why, funny enough, i do not think Gay couples (and lesbian couples too of course) should be allowed to adopt any children.
99% of those children would be bullied at school, and personally i would never ever do that to my child. Ignoring that fact is very naive from the parents. And as "superior" or whatever they act, it doesn't change the fact that they're gonna get it hard at school for a long time. Children can be so horrible at times, and the parents should be very aware of the implications bullying can have on a child.

That is such a weak argument.

Children will bully others for every reason under the sun : hair colour, shape of nose, plus a million other reasons.

The solution is to stamp out bullying as much possible.