However, you appeared to have presented it as a topic for discussion.
And you used the court rulings in Massachusetts (spelling?) as a logical segue into the gloom and doom "inevitability" that we will be forced to accept "legalized pedophilia".
We have common ground on this issue, at minimum, in concern about children being exploited.
However, you don't make any logical sense in connecting the point, and I can't see any relationship between the issues.
So, we agree we don't want children exploited.
We don't agree that what the MASS. court ruled will lead to that happening.
Further, while I can't deal with imagining the notion of two guys having sex, I cope by not imagining it.
I'm not convinced, however, that allowing consenting adults privacy in their homes will be harmful to society.
But even if it is, I am strongly against amending Constitutions for religious purposes.
The thing that is really aggrevating to me is that the STATE court is defining a new RIGHT where a right did not exist. That right may well have to be honored by other states.
Think about it a bit. Those of us that are married had to get a marriage license from the state prior to entering into that contract. A license implies a priviledge, not a right. You have to get a license to perform a number of other actions: to drive, to operate a radio station, to operate a restaurant, and so on. Those are all priviledges, not rights. Up until now, the ability to enter into a marriage contract has been a priviledge granted to a couple by the state.
If this is successful, then that will set a horrible precedent that will have repercussions far beyond the homosexual marriage issue.
The worst part of this is that, once again, you have a court defining acceptable and officially sanctioned behavior, despite what the will of the elected representatives of the people determine to be such behavior.
Rocky:
quote:I'm not convinced, however, that allowing consenting adults privacy in their homes will be harmful to society.
I agree. But, that's not good enough for some. They want to get IN MY FACE with their beliefs. If I don't agree with them, they say I am ***phobic. I don't care for Baptists, JWs, Wiccans, or Democrats ;)--> getting in my face with their beliefs. Why should I want some other interest group get in my face with their beliefs.
[This message was edited by Mark on February 09, 2004 at 21:57.]
I'm no fan of homosexuality myself, and I certainly don't want to see it. However, I do think that people have rights to do as they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with others.
Johnny's opinion is valid, but it's a problem with laws of underage marriage rather than something to do with homosexuality. If the problem is pedophilia, I think it's best to fight pedophilia itself whether it's gay or straight people engaging in it with children.
I can understand why gay people are wanting this. They can't be a "family" which shares in all the benefits of a married couple. They're not making the law so that gay people can go to your church and demand to be married, but that they can be able to claim a legal representation of their union together. I imagine gay couples want to get married for exactly the same reason straight couples do. We're all human beings.
As to the causes or problems associated with homosexuality, there is a lot of controversy. Gay people have a higher percentage of mental illnesses than the straight population. However, is that due to a brain defect causing them to be gay also, is it due to their choosing to be gay, or is it due to society at large condemning them and treating them like garbage? We confuse the symptoms and causes too easily, and nobody really knows much about it.
I'll admit that the sight of two men hugging and kissing makes me ill. However, I don't think that it's a good thing, any more than getting ill from seeing a black man and a white woman. I'd never be gay, but at the same time I can be comfortable knowing that people can deal with their own life on their own terms. If two consenting adults want to do it, then that's their choice. Besides, if they get married it would probably cut down the amount of STDs among homosexuals that spread as a result of multiple partners. I would think that gay people would be at least as committed as heterosexual couples are (which doesn't seem to be much these days.)
quote:Think about it a bit. Those of us that are married had to get a marriage _license_ from the state prior to entering into that contract. A license implies a _priviledge_, not a right. You have to get a license to perform a number of other actions: to drive, to operate a radio station, to operate a restaurant, and so on. Those are all priviledges, not rights. Up until now, the ability to enter into a marriage contract has been a priviledge granted to a couple by the state.
The legal aspect of marriage (as opposed to the religious aspect) has always been governed by the state since it is the state that protects and enforces the legal aspects of such a contract. If you've ever gotten divorced you know what I mean.
But there is more to this than divorce. There is wealth and inheritance. When you die and your spouse inherits your money (or when you transfer money between you while alive) there are tax and other legal consequences that differ if it's your spouse than if it's your live-in significant other.
If you are on life-support and they need next of kin to make a decision - a spouse is legally the next of kin. Not a person you may have been in a loving supportive relationship with for 20 years but never married.
There is also the matter of employee benefits like health insurance, retirment etc. that accrues to a spouse but not a non-married lover.
These are legal relationships hence the state's legal authority to define marriage.
Aside from the moral issue that I don't think I (or anyone else) should dictate who gets to love another person - except the people involved, I think there is a societal benefit to encouraging long term loving relationships and the legal benefits that go with them.
I think this benefit to society surpasses the fact that some may not like that a married couple is interracial. Interracial marriaged used to be illegal.
I think this benefit to society surpasses the fact that some may not like that a married couple is of two different faiths. Inter-faith marriage may not be sanctioned by certain churches and that's their priviledge but it doesn't affect the legal aspect of such a union.
I think this benefit to society surpasses the fact that some may not like that a married couple is of the same sex. The state is being very courageous in taking this stand as were states in the past to legalize interracial marriage, and non-religious marriage.
Zshot, what you said about courts should enforce laws, not make them. is this a really bad thing ? and does it happen a lot ?
Also, in this case they didn't make a law, they simply gave their interpretation of a vague part of the Massachusets state constitution. Courts are supposed to interpret the law, and supreme courts can overrule laws that don't fit in with the rest of the law. Legislating from the bench is a bad thing, but in this case all they did was provide a clearer interpretation of an already existing law. Whether that interpretation was right or wrong will be up for debate for quite some time.
I looked it up. I had added an extra s in there. You had it right-Massachusetts-
But you mentioned, and I quote:
quote:I am not convinced, however, that allowing consenting adults privacy in their own homes will be harmful to society
I think you may have misunderstood me when I mentioned something similar, but I think I didn't carry my thought through when I wrote it. Let me clarify.
The gay community has often said, "What difference does it make what a man or woman does in the privacy of their own home?"
I guess what I wanted to say was, even though I disagree with the whole homosexual scene, I agree that they should have the right to do whatever it is they do with each other in the privacy of their own homes. And maybe that won't have a negative effect on society.
My concern is not about unmarried gay couples, but rather, if the marriage right is granted to gay couples, I feel that there is a possibility that the marriage of an underaged gay person to a much older gay person-with parental-consent could logically follow suit, which , I think, would be way weird and would open the doors to what I refer to as legalized homosexual pedophilia.
Here is a possible scenario, that I don't really think is too far fetched:
Adam and Frank get married, and with it comes the full legal rights that heteros have. Since it is biologically impossible for them to have children, they adopt a cute little baby boy. This baby boy grows up around the gay scene, and learns from his "parents" (sorry, I have a hard time saying "parents" in this case) that "gay is ok". And as could very well happen, the little boy, at fourteen, discovers that he too is in fact gay. (I am not saying that all kids in this parental situation will end up gay, but they very well could end up gay.) Now, once this young kid discovers that he is now gay, and has had a few gay relationships, at sixteen, he finally meets a much older man who really understands him, has a gay relationship with him, and they want to get married and settle down. And so, even though Adam and Frank put their foot down and say "No Frankie no! He's much too old for you! Can't you see that he's just an a** bandit?", they finally relent and give young Frankie their blessing.
Like I said before, At that point, why should we deny thirty eight year old "Robert" and sixteen year old little Frankie the same legal right which is presently afforded to thirty eight year old "Robert" and sixteen year old "Allison", if the young girl's parents have given consent?
It is this marriage aspect of gay people that I think could lead to the opening of certain doors that I think could be harmful to our society. Not just "gay people doing things in the privacy of their own home". Sorry I wasn't clear on that Rocky. Thanks for the heads up. I was wondering if anybody else had ever considered this possibility, or, now that I have presented this possibility, does any one else consider it a concern?
[This message was edited by Jonny Lingo on February 05, 2004 at 11:20.]
That was an interesting article Zixar. I have to agree with the authors point of view, provided that his description of the functions of the branches of government are correct. But to the best of my recollection of how our government is supposed to work, I think he is right...
I was concerned with my spelling of the name of the state in question, not yours. I don't criticize spelling here.
But I still don't see the connection between your concern and the issue at hand in the discussion of gay marriage.
Even IF such a scenario could reasonably be expected (which may be possible, I'm not challenging you on it), there are NOW laws related to underage marriage and sex. Granted some states allow a 16 year old to marry with consent, and maybe 14, but there are still, and currently, even limits to that.
AND, there are laws (though difficult to enforce) related to FORCING children to get married. THIS is not an issue of gay marriage, but IS an issue related to closed societies as offshoot to the mormon church in southern Utah/Northern Arizona.
Officials in both states for about 50 years "winked" at, or allowed, knowingly but not officially endorsing, polygamy in a very closed culture around Colorado City, which is on the border of Arizona and Utah.
But as, in the last couple of years, more horror stories of young girls being forced into plural marriages at ages as young as 13, efforts have stepped up to try to get the problems dealt with.
That community is run by religious zealots, politically and commercially. They have intimidated state law enforcement and witnesses with impunity, for years.
Such a thing would take a heck of a lot of intense effort to set up with same sex underage marriage. I just don't see the connection you make as being a reasonable fear.
by all means, lets make sure children cannot be subject to such situations, however.
I see the whole gay marriage deal as akin to girls wanting to join the Boy Scouts. There's no real advantage to it other than to stir up controversy.
I do support the notion that an adult should be able to name a singular other person as his automatic beneficiary, medical decision-maker, and recipient of group health benefits, regardless of the actual relationship. This would cover everybody with the current privileges of marriage without making a sham of the institution. Singles, gays, roommates, best friends, a person should be able to choose someone for their mutual benefit regardless of whether or not they are engaging in any type of sexual activity.
Society has a duty to self-perpetuate, sometimes at the cost of certain individual freedoms. The same arguments made for gay "marriage" can be extended to polygamy, incest, and pedophilia as well, but at best there is no net gain to society by allowing any of them. Society cannot self-perpetuate without placing women and children ahead of other marital variations. Incest and pedophilia are directly damaging to children, and polygamy oppresses women, relegating most to nothing more than baby-factories, or worse, objects of gratification.
Here's a litmus test. Please fill in the blank in the following sentence to make it true:
"Society would lose ___________ if everyone were heterosexual, so homosexuality does serve a vital function."
Tom: What would society lose if there were no such thing as homosexuality? I'm not talking about eliminating homosexual individuals, I'm talking about what would we really lose if all homosexuals were heterosexual instead.
How about, I wouldn't have had the fifty year old queer who tried to seduce me in his mobile home down in Louisiana when I was sixteen, and I had to commit assault to get away from him. If there were no homosexuals, that wouldn't have happened...
So the answer would be:
Society would lose "homosexual assaults on young boys if there were no homosexuals.
Tom: The point is that if there is no positive net effect on society, why should society recognize homosexuality as requiring legal steps to protect and advance it?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
69
130
71
Popular Days
Feb 6
106
Feb 5
68
Feb 7
68
Feb 16
51
Top Posters In This Topic
mj412 61 posts
LG 69 posts
Trefor Heywood 130 posts
J0nny Ling0 71 posts
Popular Days
Feb 6 2004
106 posts
Feb 5 2004
68 posts
Feb 7 2004
68 posts
Feb 16 2004
51 posts
Popular Posts
Trefor Heywood
Mark: Federalism has met problems before and had to deal with them. The original framers could not cross every i nor dot every t nor foresee how things would develop in the future. It created prob
Zixar
Here's a link to an article by Card on the problem with courts legislating by decision: Cool New Rights Are Fine, But What About Democracy?
J0nny Ling0
Ok. Apparently Massachusetts is poised to move on with same sex marriage. First of all, and it may not surprise some of you, I am opposed to this. Since I don't live in Mass, however, it doesn't real
dmiller
Same sex marriage???????
That to me
--> is the ultimate oxy-moron 
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
A quote from John Lynn, from many years ago --------
God did not create ADAM AND FRANK.
Still applies today
--> 
-->
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
A quote from John Lynn, many years ago --------
God did not create ADAM AND FRANK.
Still applies today
--> 
:rolleys:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Jonny,
Granted you are entitled to your opinion.
However, you appeared to have presented it as a topic for discussion.
And you used the court rulings in Massachusetts (spelling?) as a logical segue into the gloom and doom "inevitability" that we will be forced to accept "legalized pedophilia".
We have common ground on this issue, at minimum, in concern about children being exploited.
However, you don't make any logical sense in connecting the point, and I can't see any relationship between the issues.
So, we agree we don't want children exploited.
We don't agree that what the MASS. court ruled will lead to that happening.
Further, while I can't deal with imagining the notion of two guys having sex, I cope by not imagining it.
I'm not convinced, however, that allowing consenting adults privacy in their homes will be harmful to society.
But even if it is, I am strongly against amending Constitutions for religious purposes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
The thing that is really aggrevating to me is that the STATE court is defining a new RIGHT where a right did not exist. That right may well have to be honored by other states.
Think about it a bit. Those of us that are married had to get a marriage license from the state prior to entering into that contract. A license implies a priviledge, not a right. You have to get a license to perform a number of other actions: to drive, to operate a radio station, to operate a restaurant, and so on. Those are all priviledges, not rights. Up until now, the ability to enter into a marriage contract has been a priviledge granted to a couple by the state.
If this is successful, then that will set a horrible precedent that will have repercussions far beyond the homosexual marriage issue.
The worst part of this is that, once again, you have a court defining acceptable and officially sanctioned behavior, despite what the will of the elected representatives of the people determine to be such behavior.
Rocky:
I agree. But, that's not good enough for some. They want to get IN MY FACE with their beliefs. If I don't agree with them, they say I am ***phobic. I don't care for Baptists, JWs, Wiccans, or Democrats
;)--> getting in my face with their beliefs. Why should I want some other interest group get in my face with their beliefs.
[This message was edited by Mark on February 09, 2004 at 21:57.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zshot
One of my concerns is...
IMO, Law's and leglislation should be done in congress (either at the state or federal level) instead on the court room.
Courts are to inforce exsisting law not to make new laws.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I'm no fan of homosexuality myself, and I certainly don't want to see it. However, I do think that people have rights to do as they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with others.
Johnny's opinion is valid, but it's a problem with laws of underage marriage rather than something to do with homosexuality. If the problem is pedophilia, I think it's best to fight pedophilia itself whether it's gay or straight people engaging in it with children.
I can understand why gay people are wanting this. They can't be a "family" which shares in all the benefits of a married couple. They're not making the law so that gay people can go to your church and demand to be married, but that they can be able to claim a legal representation of their union together. I imagine gay couples want to get married for exactly the same reason straight couples do. We're all human beings.
As to the causes or problems associated with homosexuality, there is a lot of controversy. Gay people have a higher percentage of mental illnesses than the straight population. However, is that due to a brain defect causing them to be gay also, is it due to their choosing to be gay, or is it due to society at large condemning them and treating them like garbage? We confuse the symptoms and causes too easily, and nobody really knows much about it.
I'll admit that the sight of two men hugging and kissing makes me ill. However, I don't think that it's a good thing, any more than getting ill from seeing a black man and a white woman. I'd never be gay, but at the same time I can be comfortable knowing that people can deal with their own life on their own terms. If two consenting adults want to do it, then that's their choice. Besides, if they get married it would probably cut down the amount of STDs among homosexuals that spread as a result of multiple partners. I would think that gay people would be at least as committed as heterosexual couples are (which doesn't seem to be much these days.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
My3Cents
The legal aspect of marriage (as opposed to the religious aspect) has always been governed by the state since it is the state that protects and enforces the legal aspects of such a contract. If you've ever gotten divorced you know what I mean.
But there is more to this than divorce. There is wealth and inheritance. When you die and your spouse inherits your money (or when you transfer money between you while alive) there are tax and other legal consequences that differ if it's your spouse than if it's your live-in significant other.
If you are on life-support and they need next of kin to make a decision - a spouse is legally the next of kin. Not a person you may have been in a loving supportive relationship with for 20 years but never married.
There is also the matter of employee benefits like health insurance, retirment etc. that accrues to a spouse but not a non-married lover.
These are legal relationships hence the state's legal authority to define marriage.
Aside from the moral issue that I don't think I (or anyone else) should dictate who gets to love another person - except the people involved, I think there is a societal benefit to encouraging long term loving relationships and the legal benefits that go with them.
I think this benefit to society surpasses the fact that some may not like that a married couple is interracial. Interracial marriaged used to be illegal.
I think this benefit to society surpasses the fact that some may not like that a married couple is of two different faiths. Inter-faith marriage may not be sanctioned by certain churches and that's their priviledge but it doesn't affect the legal aspect of such a union.
I think this benefit to society surpasses the fact that some may not like that a married couple is of the same sex. The state is being very courageous in taking this stand as were states in the past to legalize interracial marriage, and non-religious marriage.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
thanks my3cents
and all
Zshot, what you said about courts should enforce laws, not make them. is this a really bad thing ? and does it happen a lot ?
?
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
Also, in this case they didn't make a law, they simply gave their interpretation of a vague part of the Massachusets state constitution. Courts are supposed to interpret the law, and supreme courts can overrule laws that don't fit in with the rest of the law. Legislating from the bench is a bad thing, but in this case all they did was provide a clearer interpretation of an already existing law. Whether that interpretation was right or wrong will be up for debate for quite some time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
thanks, mpm
?
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
well... why shouldn't they have to go through all the crap straight folks do if they divorce!
they've been getting away with skating free for too long!
...and MasterP brings up a valid point, it's a question of pedophilia, gay or straight, not sexual orientation... at least that's what I'm thinking...
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Rocky-
I looked it up. I had added an extra s in there. You had it right-Massachusetts-
But you mentioned, and I quote:
I think you may have misunderstood me when I mentioned something similar, but I think I didn't carry my thought through when I wrote it. Let me clarify.
The gay community has often said, "What difference does it make what a man or woman does in the privacy of their own home?"
I guess what I wanted to say was, even though I disagree with the whole homosexual scene, I agree that they should have the right to do whatever it is they do with each other in the privacy of their own homes. And maybe that won't have a negative effect on society.
My concern is not about unmarried gay couples, but rather, if the marriage right is granted to gay couples, I feel that there is a possibility that the marriage of an underaged gay person to a much older gay person-with parental-consent could logically follow suit, which , I think, would be way weird and would open the doors to what I refer to as legalized homosexual pedophilia.
Here is a possible scenario, that I don't really think is too far fetched:
Adam and Frank get married, and with it comes the full legal rights that heteros have. Since it is biologically impossible for them to have children, they adopt a cute little baby boy. This baby boy grows up around the gay scene, and learns from his "parents" (sorry, I have a hard time saying "parents" in this case) that "gay is ok". And as could very well happen, the little boy, at fourteen, discovers that he too is in fact gay. (I am not saying that all kids in this parental situation will end up gay, but they very well could end up gay.) Now, once this young kid discovers that he is now gay, and has had a few gay relationships, at sixteen, he finally meets a much older man who really understands him, has a gay relationship with him, and they want to get married and settle down. And so, even though Adam and Frank put their foot down and say "No Frankie no! He's much too old for you! Can't you see that he's just an a** bandit?", they finally relent and give young Frankie their blessing.
Like I said before, At that point, why should we deny thirty eight year old "Robert" and sixteen year old little Frankie the same legal right which is presently afforded to thirty eight year old "Robert" and sixteen year old "Allison", if the young girl's parents have given consent?
It is this marriage aspect of gay people that I think could lead to the opening of certain doors that I think could be harmful to our society. Not just "gay people doing things in the privacy of their own home". Sorry I wasn't clear on that Rocky. Thanks for the heads up. I was wondering if anybody else had ever considered this possibility, or, now that I have presented this possibility, does any one else consider it a concern?
[This message was edited by Jonny Lingo on February 05, 2004 at 11:20.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Here's a link to an article by Card on the problem with courts legislating by decision: Cool New Rights Are Fine, But What About Democracy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
That was an interesting article Zixar. I have to agree with the authors point of view, provided that his description of the functions of the branches of government are correct. But to the best of my recollection of how our government is supposed to work, I think he is right...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Jonny,
I was concerned with my spelling of the name of the state in question, not yours. I don't criticize spelling here.
But I still don't see the connection between your concern and the issue at hand in the discussion of gay marriage.
Even IF such a scenario could reasonably be expected (which may be possible, I'm not challenging you on it), there are NOW laws related to underage marriage and sex. Granted some states allow a 16 year old to marry with consent, and maybe 14, but there are still, and currently, even limits to that.
AND, there are laws (though difficult to enforce) related to FORCING children to get married. THIS is not an issue of gay marriage, but IS an issue related to closed societies as offshoot to the mormon church in southern Utah/Northern Arizona.
Officials in both states for about 50 years "winked" at, or allowed, knowingly but not officially endorsing, polygamy in a very closed culture around Colorado City, which is on the border of Arizona and Utah.
But as, in the last couple of years, more horror stories of young girls being forced into plural marriages at ages as young as 13, efforts have stepped up to try to get the problems dealt with.
That community is run by religious zealots, politically and commercially. They have intimidated state law enforcement and witnesses with impunity, for years.
Such a thing would take a heck of a lot of intense effort to set up with same sex underage marriage. I just don't see the connection you make as being a reasonable fear.
by all means, lets make sure children cannot be subject to such situations, however.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
I see the whole gay marriage deal as akin to girls wanting to join the Boy Scouts. There's no real advantage to it other than to stir up controversy.
I do support the notion that an adult should be able to name a singular other person as his automatic beneficiary, medical decision-maker, and recipient of group health benefits, regardless of the actual relationship. This would cover everybody with the current privileges of marriage without making a sham of the institution. Singles, gays, roommates, best friends, a person should be able to choose someone for their mutual benefit regardless of whether or not they are engaging in any type of sexual activity.
Society has a duty to self-perpetuate, sometimes at the cost of certain individual freedoms. The same arguments made for gay "marriage" can be extended to polygamy, incest, and pedophilia as well, but at best there is no net gain to society by allowing any of them. Society cannot self-perpetuate without placing women and children ahead of other marital variations. Incest and pedophilia are directly damaging to children, and polygamy oppresses women, relegating most to nothing more than baby-factories, or worse, objects of gratification.
Here's a litmus test. Please fill in the blank in the following sentence to make it true:
"Society would lose ___________ if everyone were heterosexual, so homosexuality does serve a vital function."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
6er... I really don't get the direction of that question... what's it a litmus test of again?
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Tom: What would society lose if there were no such thing as homosexuality? I'm not talking about eliminating homosexual individuals, I'm talking about what would we really lose if all homosexuals were heterosexual instead.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DATWAY
AIDS and ugly cross dressers?
WAYWho?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
No, because AIDS is now transmitted primarily between heterosexuals in Africa, and a large percentage of transvestites are heterosexual.
Any other answers?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
yeah Datway... pretty callous...
6er, I guess I just don't follow the logic, I kinda thought that's what you meant, but aside from the reproductive aspects, what's the difference?
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
How about, I wouldn't have had the fifty year old queer who tried to seduce me in his mobile home down in Louisiana when I was sixteen, and I had to commit assault to get away from him. If there were no homosexuals, that wouldn't have happened...
So the answer would be:
Society would lose "homosexual assaults on young boys if there were no homosexuals.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Tom: The point is that if there is no positive net effect on society, why should society recognize homosexuality as requiring legal steps to protect and advance it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.