Massachusetts court: Ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

[Legion]

it was i who mentioned teachers unions and criminal legislations.

Then enlighten me.

enlighten you as to what?


hate crime legislation is superfluous. many crimes of violence/passion can be described as crimes of hate.

I view teachers unions and parents to be at the core of failing innercity school districts.

 

[Natoma]

Btw Joe, I noticed you didn't respond to this question I asked you earlier. I don't know if you're responding to my last post, so instead of editing it, I'll just repost it.

Ok let's simplify this then. Do you agree, yes or no, that equally-committed-as-their-heterosexual-counterpart gay and lesbian couples should be able to enjoy the same legal benefits in the eyes of the law?

I believe you stated yes to this question in a prior thread, but I'd like you to say it once more for the record.

If the answer is yes, then we're talking semantics. If the word Marriage is so special, you can have it. I don't want millions of religious people who think they're religious church beliefs are being tread upon in their faith (much how many feel the election of that gay bishop treads upon their faith within their faith. notice how government has stayed out of it). If a church decides to perform a religious ceremony for Marriage, then that is their decision and you nor I have any right to interfere in that church's decision. But when it comes to matters of government, the government does have a right to uphold the freedoms of its constituents when it does not fit constitutional law, as two court cases have proven this year so far, with a possible third coming soon, i.e. the NJ supreme court is covering basically the same case and should be rendering a decision soon.

 

[Legion]

No actually all i need to worry is that the tube could be down tomorrow because of security threats following Bush's visit here....

perhaps if the hell bent radicals of your society would calm down you wouldn't have problem.

oh and tea.

and council tax raising....

And where by chance did you acquire this notion americans live in fear of racism other than your euro media?

 

[Natoma]

it was i who mentioned teachers unions and criminal legislations.

Then enlighten me.

enlighten you as to what?


hate crime legislation is superfluous. many crimes of violence/passion can be described as crimes of hate.

I view teachers unions and parents to be at the core of failing innercity school districts.

That doesn't really tell me much though. I understand what hate crimes are supposed to do in theory, and I've never had an issue with that. I just don't understand why you do.

As for failing school districts (it's not just innercity schools that are failing), there are myriad reasons for that. Blaming teachers union and the parents seems a little strange to me.

 

[Legion]

That doesn't really tell me much though. I understand what hate crimes are supposed to do in theory, and I've never had an issue with that. I just don't understand why you do.

because it is unjust and superfluous. Minorities don't deserve special rights any more than the majority does.

As for failing school districts (it's not just innercity schools that are failing), there are myriad reasons for that. Blaming teachers union and the parents seems a little strange to me.

oh? And blaming political issues seems more reasonable? I can't see why.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The onus is on you to defend the ridiculous notion that if you can't procreate you shouldn't marry.

Of course, that's not my position, so I need not defend it.

You said homosexuals can't have kids like heterosexual couples do. I said that infertile couples and the elderly can't procreate as well and they're allowed to marry.

I said (simplifying a bit for clarity) that by biological design, homosexuals (even ones that are physically capable of reproduction) cannot reproduce as a couple.

So if you don't want to discuss your notions, don't bring them up.

So please, if you want to discuss my notion, bring it up correctly.

You think allowing gays to marry would bring down society and the marriage structure.

I think it would "lessen" society, yes.

Those racists believed that allowing interracial couples to marry would bring down society and the marriage structure.

FOR COMPLETELY DIFFERENT REASONS.

And as I've shown, history has proven you to be wrong wrt your chicken little fears about gays marrying.

You have not shown anything at all, Natoma.

First of all, you'd actually have to argue that as a society, we are in fact better off (or no worse off) since "interracial" marriages were "accepted."

Do you think there's unanimous (or even significant) agreement that our "societal strutcure" is better today than it was back then? (All this crime we have, kids being "disrespectful", record numbers of broken homes...multiple dual income families...etc.)

Now, to avoid anyone taking this out of context, I DO NOT BELIEVE that interracial marriage has contributed to any real or perceived falling of society. My point, again, is that you haven't shown squat.

All you've shown is some poeple have a completely different view point than I do.

It wasn't different to those judges and legislators in the past. They believed in their cause, just as strongly as you believe in yours,

And I believe their cause was wrong...just as strongly as you do. Glad we got that off our chest.

And in that case it wasn't. In this case, it won't.

Again, you are making no sense. You already AGREED that if the sanctity of marriage IS impacted, that it can have a negative impact on society.

By your logic, ANY TIME that someone says "X will impact the sanctity of marriage", your response is "no it won't! interracial didn't, therefore neither will X!"

Who cares if X has no relationship to interracial.

Let me put it this way.

I think "no fault divorce" had a big negative impact on marriage and therefore society. Therefore, it's logical to conclude that homosexual marriage will do the same!

Please tell me that you do find that illogical.

Am I not allowed to change my mind? Are my opinions on subjects static for all time??

Um, yes, you are allowed to change your mind. You are not, however, allowed to accuse me not reading what you've written, when it's right there in black and white. Particularly when I don't recall you ever saying (until just now) you've changed your mind on the subject, nor was there any evidence in this post that you've changed your mind.

Because I had not thought of a solution to the problem at that time.

Don't be too hard on yourself...common trait with liberals.

However, I have come up with one now, and that is that I believe AA should be amended to cover class only, for the reasons I stipulated above. Legacy, Race AA, and rural/urban geographic preferences should be nulled.

I don't really want to open up yet another can of worms, but I do disagree with this. Economic class is just another "non ability" metric. I DO believe in giving some forms of economic assistance based on class. I do not believe that class should impact admissions policies.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

In his own words, gay marriage will take society down, gay people shouldnt have children, gay people shouldnt have any kind of rights.

Who's words would those be? Certainly not mine.

I'm done trying understanding him

Obviously, you haven't even tried.

 

[Legion]

I don't really want to open up yet another can of worms, but I do disagree with this. Economic class is just another "non ability" metric. I DO believe in giving some forms of economic assistance based on class. I do not believe that class should impact admissions policies.

I agree. Giving special rights to certain races is deliberately devisive. Such policies as quotas, which are derived from similiar social engineering philosophies, are harmful.

 

[London Geezer]

In his own words, gay marriage will take society down, gay people shouldnt have children, gay people shouldnt have any kind of rights.

Who's words would those be? Certainly not mine.

I'm done trying understanding him

Obviously, you haven't even tried.

Please dont make me go around quoting u.... I really hate it, it's time consuming and i'm tired and u'd still be wearing your bigot-googles so it wouldn't serve any purpose.


Oh, and Legion,

How did we get into the whole USvsBritain thing again???
Just because I said I'm glad I don't live there?? Jesus a bit defensive hey...

 

[Joe DeFuria]

It is not politically correct to say gay people shouldn't exist therefore you won't go as far as explicitly say/write it.

No, I wouldn't go as fasr to say/write it, because that is not my belief.

However all your reasoning stems from the fact that you think this planet would be a better place without gay people.

I think this planet would be a better place if it was completely devoid of sinners.

Don't you agree?

(If you don't like the word "sin", then replace that with "devoid of anyone who broke the law).

This does NOT mean I want sinners dead, removed, etc.

You will go around saying how you do not support gay marriage because at present time it is politically correct to say it.

No, I say that because that is my belief.

The fact that i think marriage is useless doesn't have anything to do with me criticizing your way of thinking, which is pathetic.

Rather, the fact that you have a habit of making irresponsible and unfounded accusations makes your way of thinking, well, not thinking at all, but "feeling."

Thank god i don't live in the USA.

Wow! We agree on something!

 

[Legion]

Oh, and Legion,

How did we get into the whole USvsBritain thing again???

You made an rather dickish comment about not wanting to live in america while implying bigotry is a major problem here. So, i challenged you as europe (including England) has one of the longest histories of bigotry of any groups of nations in the world.

Just because I said I'm glad I don't live there?? Jesus a bit defensive hey...

No not at all. Are you going to answer my questions?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Please dont make me go around quoting u.... I really hate it, it's time consuming and i'm tired and u'd still be wearing your bigot-googles so it wouldn't serve any purpose.

Please, do go around guoting me. That's better than just making sh*t up out of the clear blue. Just try and do it in full context, OK?

 

[London Geezer]

I think this planet would be a better place if it was completely devoid of sinners.

Don't you agree?

(If you don't like the word "sin", then replace that with "devoid of anyone who broke the law).

This does NOT mean I want sinners dead, removed, etc.

and remind me again...... gay people are sinners right, biblical kind of oh so bad sinners...

Wow! We agree on something!

r u sure? u could go to hell u know, god forbid u agree with one of my race.... j/k

 

[London Geezer]

Oh, and Legion,

How did we get into the whole USvsBritain thing again???

You made an rather dickish comment about not wanting to live in america while implying bigotry is a major problem here. So, i challenged you as europe (including England) has one of the longest histories of bigotry of any groups of nations in the world.

Just because I said I'm glad I don't live there?? Jesus a bit defensive hey...

No not at all. Are you going to answer my questions?

what questions?

the quota-thon will have to wait, i'm out of here (for real this time!)

chat later

 

[Joe DeFuria]

and remind me again...... gay people are sinners right, biblical kind of oh so bad sinners...

To be fairly precise, I think homosexul relationships are sinful.

By the way, are you ever going to answer any of my questions, or do I just keep on answering yours?

For example, do you think the world would be a better place everonye on this planet obeyed the law?

If so, does that mean you think all law-breakers should have no rights, should be killed, executed, exiled...etc?

 

[Legion]

what questions?

the quota-thon will have to wait, i'm out of here (for real this time!)

chat later

1.

And where by chance did you acquire this notion americans live in fear of racism other than your euro media?

2. why deal you feel that Joe is somehow bigotted against gays?

 

[Natoma]

The onus is on you to defend the ridiculous notion that if you can't procreate you shouldn't marry.

Of course, that's not my position, so I need not defend it.

I know exactly how you're going to try and get out of this one. Same way you tried, and failed, in the first thread you brought this up.

You said homosexuals can't have kids like heterosexual couples do. I said that infertile couples and the elderly can't procreate as well and they're allowed to marry.

I said (simplifying a bit for clarity) that by biological design, homosexuals (even ones that are physically capable of reproduction) cannot reproduce as a couple.

By biological design, senior citizens cannot reproduce as a couple. Put two penises together, and there will not be reproduction, EVER. Put two vaginas together, and there will not be reproduction, EVER. Put a senior male and a senior female together, and there will not be reproduction, EVER.

So yea, how was that defense again?

So if you don't want to discuss your notions, don't bring them up.

So please, if you want to discuss my notion, bring it up correctly.

You can't even defend your positions correctly, if at all. I only bring them up in the way you do.

You think allowing gays to marry would bring down society and the marriage structure.

I think it would "lessen" society, yes.

Anymore than the quote of that judge stating that it was impact, i.e. lessen, degrade, degenerate racial purity for interracial coupling to be allowed?

Those racists believed that allowing interracial couples to marry would bring down society and the marriage structure.

FOR COMPLETELY DIFFERENT REASONS.

Yes. You believe that gay people marrying would "lessen" society. They believe interracial people marrying would "lessen" society. They're both short sighted and close minded ways of thinking.

And as I've shown, history has proven you to be wrong wrt your chicken little fears about gays marrying.

You have not shown anything at all, Natoma.

First of all, you'd actually have to argue that as a society, we are in fact better off (or no worse off) since "interracial" marriages were "accepted."

Do you think there's unanimous (or even significant) agreement that our "societal strutcure" is better today than it was back then? (All this crime we have, kids being "disrespectful", record numbers of broken homes...multiple dual income families...etc.)

Now, to avoid anyone staking this out of context, I DO NOT BELIEVE that interracial marriage has contributed to any real or perceived falling of society. My point, again, is that you haven't shown squat.

All you've shown is some poeple have a completely different view point than I do.

Hmm. Crime, kids being "disrespectful", and broken homes have existed for millenia in the human race. Why? Because these problems are part of who we are as a species. People glorify the "good old days" of the first half of this century. What'd we have?

Many unhappy marriages where men and women were forced to stay in them solely because it was socially looked down upon. The divorce rate is sky high now and would have been sky high then too given the same societal circumstances. Katherine Hepburn stated in sealed reports not to be released until after her death that her husband Tracy beat her and drank mercilessly. Do you not think that she would have divorced him in today's age? How many women don't leave their abusive husbands today because they feel they can't? How many unhappy women DIDN'T leave their relationships back then, because they didn't feel they could? Governmentally institutionalized second class citizenship status based on race. Second class citizens based on gender.

You act as if there are so many problems today and there weren't any back then. Every parent always tells their kids "Oh it was better in my day". It's called revisionist history.

And dual income homes are a bad thing? How would you explain the fact that our economy has been able to grow by leaps and bounds over the past few decades? In large part because nearly 100% of the population has been engaged in the work force, as opposed to 50%

Please Joe, every age has it's problems and ills. If you go back 50 years, it was interracial marriages that would destroy society. If you go back 100 years, it was the wave of immigrants. If you go back 150 years, it was freeing the blacks.

If you go back 500 years, Luther was going to destroy society.

It will absolutely, positively, never end. Unless someone starts a nuclear war, society will continue as usual. Better as the years go by.

I'm beginning to realize that that is probably the key difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives think that any change in the status quo will destroy society, hence the reason why they are called "conservative". Liberals believe that society must change and become more free to survive, and that change and freedom are inherently good, hence the reason they are called "liberals."

That is not a condemnation of conservatives or liberals, merely what I see as the key difference. You do realize that 50 years ago, you would be seen as a far left liberal? Hell 50 years from now I could probably end up as a conservative. That's why I think as people age, they move from liberal to conservative on the political scope. Everyone sees changes around them in their youth and they accept them. But once you're settled in with your family and friends, you get used to how things are. When things start changing again due to the new wave of youth, the older people in society probably become abhorred and "conservative" about how things should be.

It wasn't different to those judges and legislators in the past. They believed in their cause, just as strongly as you believe in yours,

And I believe their cause was wrong...just as strongly as you do. Glad we got that off our chest.

They didn't think their cause was wrong. In fact they felt just as strongly as you do that society would end, or be "lessened", if marriage was tampered with.

And in that case it wasn't. In this case, it won't.

Again, you are making no sense. You already AGREED that if the sanctity of marriage IS impacted, that it can have a negative impact on society.

By your logic, ANY TIME that someone says "X will impact the sanctity of marriage", your response is "no it won't! interracial didn't, therefore neither will X!"

Who cares if X has no relationship to interracial.

Let me put it this way.

I think "no fault divorce" had a big negative impact on marriage and therefore society. Therefore, it's logical to conclude that homosexual marriage will do the same!

Please tell me that you do find that illogical.

You have no proof whatsoever that society is any better or worse today than it was 50 years ago. I've shown that society is certainly no worse today than it was 50 years ago. Every age has its problems and issues to deal with.

You have no proof whatsoever that no fault divorce had a negative impact do you?

Am I not allowed to change my mind? Are my opinions on subjects static for all time??

Um, yes, you are allowed to change your mind. You are not, however, allowed to accuse me not reading what you've written, when it's right there in black and white. Particularly when I don't recall you ever saying (until just now) you've changed your mind on the subject, nor was there any evidence in this post that you've changed your mind.

You DIDN'T read my post, in this thread, as I stated you should have. This is not the first time that I stated my opinion on class based AA. There have been at least two other threads in which I said that. I don't know if you were in those threads or read those threads or not, but that is rather moot. If I'm talking to you now, and I'm telling you now that this is my position on a matter, and you continue to tell me that that is not my position on this matter and something I wrote months ago is, then yes, I am allowed to accuse you of not reading what I've written.

I asked you a question earlier in this thread, and I repasted it as well. I remembered you answering that question in an earlier thread, but I wanted you to restate your opinion on the subject for a matter of record. Why? Because I didn't know if your opinion had changed. Duh.

Because I had not thought of a solution to the problem at that time.

Don't be too hard on yourself...common trait with liberals.

No. My thought process was, leave it in place now until we can think of a solution to the overarching problem. Conservative thought process? Damn it all to hell and deal with the problems later. See Iraq as prime example #1.

However, I have come up with one now, and that is that I believe AA should be amended to cover class only, for the reasons I stipulated above. Legacy, Race AA, and rural/urban geographic preferences should be nulled.

I don't really want to open up yet another can of worms, but I do disagree with this. Economic class is just another "non ability" metric. I DO believe in giving some forms of economic assistance based on class. I do not believe that class should impact admissions policies.

The only way that I can think of at this time to even the field for everyone in this nation is to take into account economic status. That policy would cover everyone. If you can think of a better one, by all means.

 

[Natoma]

I don't really want to open up yet another can of worms, but I do disagree with this. Economic class is just another "non ability" metric. I DO believe in giving some forms of economic assistance based on class. I do not believe that class should impact admissions policies.

I agree. Giving special rights to certain races is deliberately devisive. Such policies as quotas, which are derived from similiar social engineering philosophies, are harmful.

How is economic class giving special rights to certain races? Or are you merely commenting on the current status of AA and not what I proposed?

 

[Natoma]

However all your reasoning stems from the fact that you think this planet would be a better place without gay people.

I think this planet would be a better place if it was completely devoid of sinners.

Don't you agree?

(If you don't like the word "sin", then replace that with "devoid of anyone who broke the law).

This does NOT mean I want sinners dead, removed, etc.

Then I suppose you should start with yourself and your family. Clean your own house first before telling others to clean theirs. Isn't that the christian way?

Btw, It's not illegal in Massachusetts for gays and lesbians to get married now. It's not illegal in NY for us to cohabitate with one another. It's not illegal for anyone in the US to engage in any sex that is not vaginal.

[EDIT]Though I just realized that that statement will probably be construed to say pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia, and other forms of outlawed sex are not vaginal, so why are they not outlawed?

Obviously I mean anal and oral sex with members of the human species who are not dead and are legal adults. [/EDIT]

Hmm. Does that mean my bf and I are not sinners then since we haven't broken the law anywhere? I suppose we were sinners before the Supreme Court issued it's ruling on Sodomy Laws in this country. But now, definitely not.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Just saw this:

Btw Joe, I noticed you didn't respond to this question I asked you earlier. I don't know if you're responding to my last post, so instead of editing it, I'll just repost it.

Ok let's simplify this then. Do you agree, yes or no, that equally-committed-as-their-heterosexual-counterpart gay and lesbian couples should be able to enjoy the same legal benefits in the eyes of the law?

Actually, I can't answer a simple "yes or no", because, personally, I think they should be entitled to some of the same benefits married couples receive, but not necessarily all.

For example, adopting children is one such area, and admitedly, a very difficult one to come to grips with. All things being equal, I don't think homosexual couples should have the same rights / access as heterosexual couples. IMO, Hetersoexual couples should be given preferential treatment. To be clear, I don't think homosexual couples should be barred from adopting, but I do think for example (again, all else being equal), legal adoption preferences should be

1) Heterosexual married couple
2) Homosexual "union" couple
3) Any single parent.

I believe you stated yes to this question in a prior thread, but I'd like you to say it once more for the record.

I don't think I stated yes to everything, but I could be wrong. If I did, then I changed my mind.

However, what I'm sure I did say, is that I have no problem with states deciding for themselves what rights they wish to grant or not grant to same sex couples. And I'm sure I said that such legal rights should be granted through civil unions, not "marriages." That is, marriage is one type of civil union, but all civil unions are not marriages.