Massachusetts court: Ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

[Vince]

So basically if someone engages in a heterosexual relationship when they're capable of reproducing, but then engage in homosexual relationships once they can no longer produce, it's fine by you?

And by this fact, if I go out, have a child in a heterosexual relationship, then go back to my relationship with my bf, I'm all fine and dandy? Or do I have to procreate in a heterosexual relationship for as long as I can to be ok in your book?

If someone is in a heterosexual relationship, is it their duty to procreate every single year possible in order to fulfill their biological responsibilities to the species?

this is fun.

Granted this is to Joe, but I just answered this and I like him, so... If you look to Evolutionary Biologists, they will show that throughout the history of replicators evolution on Earth, the trend has been towards finding a maximizing strategy wrt reproduction.

For example, as you move up the biological ladder in terms of neural development you'll find that reproduction tends to become less frequent and adopts a strategy that maximizes the survivability of a singular offspring due to it's inherient need for years of learning and nurturing. It's just not feasible to conduct the "shotgunning" approach of lower organisms.

With humans, as the most advanced species (as ranked neurally), we're expected to have evolutionary advantages and new strategies for replication to maximize survivability. Condom use is just one of these that will ultimatly help to keep offspring born at the most optimal time in the most optimal conditions.

Perhaps if you had even a rudimentery education in these matters and we're a ranging liberal you'd stop with the useless chatter. You won't beat me untill you can show that replication isn't fundimantal to life - which will be hard to do considering the fact that the biotech and research communities are racing to produce RNA or proteins which are self-replicators as the precursor to life.

So, the sooner you befriend Jesus again - the sooner you'll atleast have a consistent view. And you'll allways have something to talk about, being born of immaculate conception and all...

 

[Natoma]

But anyways, that's not denying rights to gay couples per se.

Do other homosexuals feel the same way about adopting children? This is preferential treatment for hetersexual couples.

I said that preferential treatment exists for people looking to adopt. If you have a baby that is asian and you have a white heterosexual couple and an asian homosexual couple, and the homosexual couple is more financially sound, would you still give it to the white heterosexual couple?

If that's the case, then I would certainly protest. But if they were both asian couples, and the difference came down between heterosexuality/finances, I'd choose the finances. Of course I know you'd probably go the opposite way just to be argumentative.

It's a fudge to be sure, but what I'd like to know is, are there any rights that you would flat out deny to gay couples?

When it comes to financial and logistical things like tax treatment, visitation rights, death (beneficiary) benefits, etc., I don't have a problem. When it comes more "directly" to family oriented issues (like adoption), I would favor hetero.

Well my example was if two couples came up for adoption at the same time. I said that I could see your stance, but I certainly don't agree with it. However, what about an adoption agency that flat out bars gays from adoption? Such as the case in Florida where Rosie O'Donnell hid her sexuality so she could get her kids? If she had come out, that adoption agency would have denied her outright.

That is what I mean by flat out denying. What you're discussing is a fudge.

So as I said before, it's a matter of semantics, not the rights.

I don't see it that way.

I would favor a law that said "All else being equal, heterosexual married couples get preferneital treatment as opposed to all other "unions" when it comes to adoption."

That is certainly a difference in rights.

Well if you're going to be that specific, as I said earlier, I disagree with the language.

 

[Vince]

Well I meant first on this board. But anyways, in some circles there are people that say that black people are genetically inferior to whites and the laws should reflect that, and that women should be at home making babies and cooking and should not be allowed to work or vote, backed up by biological darwinian evolutionary logic.

We call those people backwards.

Is this a joke? Is that it? Playing the race card again? Is that your default strategy or what? I'm not racist; I love everyone, even you race card playing homosexuals. Lets grow up and argue like adults instead of invoking this racist bullshit that was spoken by ignorant white men who deserved to die.

I'm offended in fact by your parallel, I'd appreciate an apology or factual and objective explination of how my view parallels those of men.

PS. Hey Joe, your better at making an ass out of people for being stupid... can you help me out?

 

[Natoma]

So basically if someone engages in a heterosexual relationship when they're capable of reproducing, but then engage in homosexual relationships once they can no longer produce, it's fine by you?

And by this fact, if I go out, have a child in a heterosexual relationship, then go back to my relationship with my bf, I'm all fine and dandy? Or do I have to procreate in a heterosexual relationship for as long as I can to be ok in your book?

If someone is in a heterosexual relationship, is it their duty to procreate every single year possible in order to fulfill their biological responsibilities to the species?

this is fun.

Granted this is to Joe, but I just answered this and I like him, so... If you look to Evolutionary Biologists, they will show that throughout the history of replicators evolution on Earth, the trend has been towards finding a maximizing strategy wrt reproduction.

For example, as you move up the biological ladder in terms of neural development you'll find that reproduction tends to become less frequent and adopts a strategy that maximizes the survivability of a singular offspring due to it's inherient need for years of learning and nurturing. It's just not feasible to conduct the "shotgunning" approach of lower organisms.

With humans, as the most advanced species (as ranked neurally), we're expected to have evolutionary advantages and new strategies for replication to maximize survivability. Condom use is just one of these that will ultimatly help to keep offspring born at the most optimal time in the most optimal conditions.

Well duh. What do you think the was for. One just can't get sarcasm across very well in this medium can you.......

Perhaps if you had even a rudimentery education in these matters and we're a ranging liberal you'd stop with the useless chatter. You won't beat me untill you can show that replication isn't fundimantal to life - which will be hard to do considering the fact that the biotech and research communities are racing to produce RNA or proteins which are self-replicators as the precursor to life.

Heh. I'm not trying to beat you. Frankly I find you more comical than anything else. Almost like a pet rock I suppose.

So, the sooner you befriend Jesus again - the sooner you'll atleast have a consistent view. And you'll allways have something to talk about, being born of immaculate conception and all...

Naw I figure the day I become a bible thumping conservative is the day all you conservatives become gay rights spouting liberals. Just to maintain the air of argumentation that pervades these boards.

 

[Natoma]

Well I meant first on this board. But anyways, in some circles there are people that say that black people are genetically inferior to whites and the laws should reflect that, and that women should be at home making babies and cooking and should not be allowed to work or vote, backed up by biological darwinian evolutionary logic.

We call those people backwards.

Is this a joke? Is that it? Playing the race card again? Is that your default strategy or what? I'm not racist; I love everyone, even you race card playing homosexuals. Lets grow up and argue like adults instead of invoking this racist bullshit that was spoken by ignorant white men who deserved to die.

I'm offended infact by your parallel, I'd appreciate an apology or factual and objective explination of how my view parallels those of men.

PS. Hey Joe, your better at making an ass out of people for being stupid... can you help me out?

Actually I played the race and the gender card.

 

[arjan de lumens]

Hmm .. evolutionary biology? Kinda raises a few random questions:

Is rape a valid strategy for reproducing?

Would homosexual relationships be OK if they found a way to reproduce (even if highly artificial/hypotheticall)?

Is it OK for, say, lesbian couples to gather gene material from outside (sperm donor) and then raise the resulting children within the context of the lesbian relationship?

 

[Vince]

Hmm .. evolutionary biology? Kinda raises a few random questions:

Is rape a valid strategy for reproducing?

Would homosexual relationships be OK if they found a way to reproduce (even if highly artificial/hypotheticall)?

Is it OK for, say, lesbian couples to gather gene material from outside (sperm donor) and then raise the resulting children within the context of the lesbian relationship?

Of course they are good questions. They're just not relevant to this discussion. Start another thread and I'll participate.

 

[Natoma]

Anyways this has been fun for the usual indignation, spite, holier than thou guffaws, and self-righteous biology speak that normally pops up in these threads, admittedly from both sides. The topic has gone pretty far off the original topic of this thread and frankly I have a shitload of work to do so I'll finally finish it before my day ends.

What it comes down to is this. Society is changing to give gays our complete and undeniable rights. The Supreme Court of this country ruled the Sodomy laws unconstitutional. Massachusetts ruled the bans on civil gay marriage unconstitutional. As did Vermont and Hawaii. New Jersey is probably going to follow soon. Eventually it will probably make it's way up to the highest Supreme Court in the land, and hopefully the same result will follow.

What it comes down to is that we're winning, and conservatives are losing. And that is what I care about. Have fun.

 

[Vince]

What it comes down to is that we're winning, and conservatives are losing. And that is what I care about. Have fun.

I <3 you Natoma! Although, I must confess I'm disapointed by your utter lack of responce when I stop playing the stereotypical asshole that I am and actually respond.

Untill the next time, take it easy, take it slow.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

So basically if someone engages in a heterosexual relationship when they're capable of reproducing, but then engage in homosexual relationships once they can no longer produce, it's fine by you?

However did you reach that conclusion?

Natoma, I know you understand what I'm saying.

If someone is in a heterosexual relationship, is it their duty to procreate every single year possible in order to fulfill their biological responsibilities to the species?

Why, does my position on the biological difference between homo and hetero sex say anything actual procreation?

this is fun.

Yes, it must be a fun exercise to get your brain to continually defy logic.

There is a biological difference. I've never disagreed that there isn't one. But there is also a biological difference between you and a couple that is post menopausal.

Oh no...
Now you're going to rehash the menopause thing... after you needed to be educated on the physical nature of menopause, female egg production, etc. the last time? No thanks. Please dig up the old thread.

Yes. That is a personal decision between the two parties and is none of your business. What happened to that republican "each person for themselves" mantra I always hear?

It's also a personal decision that can directly impacts children. What happened to the liberal "do it for the children" mantra that I always hear?

The conservative mantra, btw, is mostly "take responsibility for yourself and your own dependents." Which implies not ducking out at the first sign of trouble.

Um, No. I'm simply saying that it's DEBATABLE that societal "structure" has improved or worsened over time.

Indeed it is debatable. But as I've shown, there have been severe societal problems in every age.

Which no one disagrees with and is irrelevant.

Some have more than others. The only trend that I see is that as time progresses, we as a species, overall, improve. We evolve ourselves socially, biologically, and technologically. Progress cannot be denied.

SOCIAL progress can certainly be denied. We have changed socially, which doesn't mean for the better.

Dual Income homes have as many pros and cons as single income homes. That's the point.

Yes, there are pros and cons. MY point is, most of the PROS argued typically have to do with economics, and most of the CONS argued typically have to do with social structure.

Whoever said mixing economy and social structure was a no no?

You misunderstand. The liberal no-no is relating economic success with social success. To the liberal, economics shouldn't have any impact / bearing on anything...except of course who to unfairly tax more.

Of course there is a limit to what can be done. Whoever said there wasn't? You made a blanket statement that dual income homes are one of the "problems" today when that is just wrong.

Um, what blanket statement? That the typical argument against dual income families is a decrease in social structure / stability? I'm not making a blanket assertion that this is fact, but the point is, that's the common argument.

Hmmm. Many families are able to get along just fine in dual income structures. Many are not. Many families are able to get along just fine in single income structures. Many are not. Hell there are many single parent homes that are better than dual parent homes.

Of course.

And many child abusers were abused themselves as children, and many child abusers were not abused.

Understand my point?

The argument is, it is more difficult to have a stable family structure with both parents out of the house, not impossible. It's more difficult for someone abused as a child to grow up and not be an abuser himself, not impossible.

Does your wife work or do you work? If you work and she doesn't, would it be a problem with you if she wanted to enter the workforce for herself?

We both work, roughly 40 hours a week. We have both also decided that we don't want to persue more "demanding" (higher paying with less time flexibility) careers because we think we are at the limit of how much time we are not raising our kids "first hand."

Marriage is a key to society in that it helps keep our societal bonds together.

Agreed.

Further, it's also the most localized construct of educating and raising our young to further our speicies. And IMO, one man and one woman is the best way to do this.

Economically was dual income. Socially was the ability to marry the person you please, and if you're not happy with it, divorce.

So, if you have kids, it's always best to just get divorced at any sign of marital trouble, unhappiness?

Everyone knew Iraq was a problem. However, I thought that many people said "Let the inspectors do their work... and if anything comes up, then we'll raze that country to the ground."

Wrong.

It was more like "let the inspections continue, status quo, like they have in the past. If anything comes up in the future, then likely, we'll maintain the status quo again...just like always....do nothing, slap him on the wrist, kick us out, demand more time..."

Status Quo.

What resolution was that? 141? (Don't remember the exact number). The "coalition" and the "others" couldn't agree on what action would be taken, therefore the infamous "severe consequences" phrase was introduced.

 

[Legion]

Hmm .. evolutionary biology? Kinda raises a few random questions:

Is rape a valid strategy for reproducing?

Would homosexual relationships be OK if they found a way to reproduce (even if highly artificial/hypotheticall)?

Is it OK for, say, lesbian couples to gather gene material from outside (sperm donor) and then raise the resulting children within the context of the lesbian relationship?

if evolutionary psychology best described human behavior would this debate even be relevant?

 

[epicstruggle]

just got up from sleep and 6 pages worth of back and forth exchanges. Tried to read most of the posts so might post might have redundant info.

here is how if feel:
-MARRIAGE should only apply to one man and one women.
-old people and infertily couples should be able to get married.
-inter-racial couples should be able to marry.
( is a shout out to natoma.)
To the best of my knowledge inter-racial marriage was not condemend in the bible. Please enlighten me if im wrong.

Should people of the same sex be able to share some of the rights enjoyed by hetereosexual couples? YES. They should be able to:
-Share property
-make life decisions for each other
-share in tax benefits (or burdens)
-adopt (more later)
-benefits from work or otherwise

However I do not, and never will be able to support using the word marriage. If you wish to call it civil union do so. On a side note the definition of civil union should include the union of:
-man and women. (some dont like the idea of marriage)
-homosexual couples
-polygamists(sp?)
-incestuous couples
-couples were any age is an issue
If we plan on opening the door for gay couples, we might as well tear that door down and let everyone else in too. So we dont have to go through this later.

I feel compelled to clarify my views on adoption. I do believe that homosexuals should be able to adopt. However I believe that preference should be given to heterosexual couples. Just as I feel that a child of race X should be given to a couple of race X before a couple of race Y.

I think it is a big mistake (for those supporting gay marriage) to continue to insist on using the word marriage. If you truly wanted those benefits and nothing else, you would try you best to convince everyone that all you want are the benefits and not the word. Many of those who have gone on tv to comment on this, continue to insist that they want marriage, the word, the benefits and all it carries. Big mistake in my opinion.

i might add more later,
epic

 

[Vince]

To the best of my knowledge inter-racial marriage was not condemend in the bible. Please enlighten me if im wrong.

Good question, did you read this part?. But, when your a biblical scholar such as myself, you'll find that there are some really odd parts of the bible, such as this part here.

PS. Good post BTW.

 

[epicstruggle]

Oh and to those who are truly ignorant about govermnent/politics. We (the USA) live in a Republic, always have, always will. We have never been a democracy. Its a sad testament of how bad schools are being run that this simple fact cant be understood.

(a very simplyfied explanation)
In a democracy the majority rules. They make the law. What ever the majority feels should be the law, will become the law.
In a republic the law rules. Your rights cannot be taken away by a majority.

later,
epic

 

[TheMightyPuck]

Out of curiousity, what are Christ's teachings about homosexuality? I remember the proscription in Leviticus but it seems that most Christians (I think) don't believe that those laws are applicable today. The rationale I've heard (and I'm no preacher or scholar so bear that in mind) is that Christ's sacrifice created a new covenant between man and God that replaced (to some extend) the old covenant that required strict adherance to old Jewish law. Anyway, I'm just curious because I haven't read the New Testament for a long time and don't recall what Christ had to say.

As far as the slippery slope argument, there is no real answer so the argument will never end. That is why many conservative scholars--Robert Bork for instance--want a strict construction of the constitution. The way constitutional law has developed has been more interpretive, however, and has expanded rights outside the scope of the original document. In Lawrence v Texas, Kennedy said "As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom." Liberals applaud such a reading and point to how our society is better today because of such invocations: Roe v Wade; Brown v. BOE. Conservatives shudder and point to the aforementioned slippery slope.

The method by which Conservatives have been made to shudder is the so called rational basis test. The test asks whether a law has a rational basis to a legitimate state interest. With few exceptions, the courts have traditionally been very deferential to the state in applying such a test (such that a conceivable rather than actual interest would be enough to make the law valid). However, once you agree upon the test, the outcome is just counting the moral attitudes of the judges. In Lawrence v Texas, there were 5 who said no rational basis and 4 who said rational basis. Likewise (using analagous state jurisprudence) the MA court decided that a law prohibiting gay marriage could have no rational basis to a legitimate state interest. Arguing about it is as useful as arguing about the existence of God.

As for democracy, as we all know from the last Presidential election that we are not a pure democracy but rather a democratic republic.

And just to get on the record, I applaud the decision and I applaud Lawrence and any other decisions that protect people's rights to pursue happiness as they please where such pursuit does not affect others rights to do the same.

 

[Althornin]

ah, yet another amazaing example of how otherwise intelligent people believe in the least logical things.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

ah, yet another amazaing example of how otherwise intelligent people believe in the least logical things.

Such as morality being perffectly logical?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I said that preferential treatment exists for people looking to adopt. If you have a baby that is asian and you have a white heterosexual couple and an asian homosexual couple, and the homosexual couple is more financially sound, would you still give it to the white heterosexual couple?

There's more to it than that. I would actually have to interview both couples, actually. Finances, race, etc. are not simple differentiators. There are degrees. It may be couple of ethnically Asian people, who are so far removed from their culture that they are really just "American." Are we talking mutli-millionaires, vs. minimum wage living pay-check to pay-check financial difference, or one tax bracket?

Well my example was if two couples came up for adoption at the same time. I said that I could see your stance, but I certainly don't agree with it. However, what about an adoption agency that flat out bars gays from adoption?

As I said, I don't agree with that stance...but I can understand it.

That is what I mean by flat out denying. What you're discussing is a fudge.

It's no more of a "fudge" than I believe MY rights would be infringed by giving preferntial treatment to minorities for college admissions. I see that as real infringement, not a "fudge" just because I am not totally denied a chance.

 

[Humus]

Out of curiousity, what are Christ's teachings about homosexuality?

Jesus never condemned homosexuality, Paul did.

 

[StefanS]

So if I believe that bringing homosexuals into marriage lessens the sanctity of marriage itself, you can at least understand why I would be against it. Right?

It's not the conclusion that's wrong, it the precursor (If the world was flat, you can understand why I am afraid to fall off the edge). It really fits this

I really like to know who is hurt by homosexual marriage.

Heterosexual couples? Their marriage stays the same
Society? Nothing changes, if your neighbours are now a happily married gay couple or if they just happened to be 2 men or women living together

The only thing that changes is: gay people are equally in face of the law