[maxintosh]

Well, Massachusetts is working on being the 36th state to pass a DOMA law restricting marriage. Basically, here's what the legislation will do:

• - Ban future legislation permitting same-sex couples to marry/have civil unions
  - Ban recognition of same-sex couples, even if they are legally registered in other countries or states
  - Prevent same-sex couples from receiving the same financial benefits, medical care, and insurance plans available to opposite-sex couples
  - Prohibit same-sex couples from making urgent medical decisions for the partners; prohibit same-sex couples from visiting their partners in the hospital during nonpublic hours; prohibit same-sex couples from saying their good-byes to their partners on their deathbed; prohibit same-sex couples to make funeral arrangements for their deceased partners
  - Prevent same-sex couples from adopting children; if they actually manage to hide the fact that they're homosexual and adopt a child, the child cannot be registered under both parents�if the legally registered parent dies, the child cannot go to the partner it is emotionally bonded to, it must go back to the orphanage or a foster home
  - Fail to recognize same-sex couples and children as families
  - Legally defining marriage as "the union between one man and one woman"

Well, I for one, am disgusted with the inhumanity of the legislation. It's like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once stated about interracial marriage, "Races don't fall in love with each other. Individuals fall in love with each other." Some states have *just* overturned policies prohibiting interracial marriage. He would have been appalled and outraged by the civil rights being violated by this horrible amendment.

People in support of this amendment love to talk about "traditional family values". Ironically, a woman was recently fired from a New York shelter for abused women and children because she was a lesbian and was violating the shelter's policies of not allowing homosexuals to work there (there are no laws saying that a company may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation). The defense was "this shelter promotes traditional family values." What, the same traditional family values that left all these women and children bruised and beaten??? I just don't get it!!

The people in defense of this amendment are forever (mis)quoting the Bible. I have no problem with religion, and I'm still exploring, but wasn't the church and state supposed to be separated in this country? And what if someone's religion promotes healthy same-sex relationships (I know a Trinitarian minister that is performing same-sex marriages�awesome woman)? Isn't this discrimination on the basis of religion?

It could also be considered discrimination of sex. If a man is allowed to marry a woman, why can't a woman marry a woman? Doesn't this violate gender civil rights?

Furthermore, it violates the pretty fundamental rights supposedly guaranteed to all US citizens�the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Instead, the government is telling people that their love for each other is invalid, immoral, and sick. It's also teaching people that it's all right to discriminate.

I'm sick of being treated like a second-class citizen. It's bad enough they won't pass legislation giving us equal (I don't want special) rights, they actually pass laws forbidding us from having equal rights!!! This is so not in tandem with what this country is about.

I am SO pissed about this legislation. People are so ignorant!!! GRR!

Maxintosh
Caution - Steps may be slippery, especially during monsoons

[finboy]

I disagree with anything that dehumanizes people based on their choice of sexual partner, but I do think that the role of the family (to breed) should be protected and encouraged, economically. Calling a union of two people of the same sex a marriage is OK, except that we have hundreds of years of case law built on "marriage" being between a man and a woman, and we have protected status for that arrangement.

Maybe we should call it "Breeder Protection." Without the traditional family, I think we've got some trouble. Maybe it isn't for everyone, sure, but it still forms the core of our society. Anything we do that moves away from that cheapens it, and so breeding should be protected. Other lifestyles couldn't thrive without active breeding, no matter what the activists like to shout.

So, yeah, let's protect legal unions between same-sex partners, sure. But let's NOT call it marriage -- reserve that term for breeding.

The Mass. situation is a backlash response to special-interest groups who are asking for special protections and special considerations. Without the activists, there wouldn't be this kind of thing. And you can bet your chops it will get worse as time goes on. A backlash is an ugly thing.

[nonhuman]

I agree, this situation is horrible (I would say untinkably so, but it's happening so that would just be denial). I love how the country that was essentially started for the sole purpose of religious freedom (yes there were people here before the pilgrims, but they were the first real settlement that eventually became part of the US) and that has in it's constitution that religion and government should be seperate is still so guided by the religious principles of politicians. Maybe all people who are elected/appointed to federal positions should be required to denounce their religion before taking their post.

Originally posted by maxintosh:
<STRONG>- Ban recognition of same-sex couples, even if they are legally registered in other countries or states</STRONG>

This might not be such a bad thing as it directly violates the Constitution and therefore casts the whole bill into the range of unconstitutionality. I forget where it says it, but the Constitution does state that sates are required to recognize contracts formed in other states.

[xenu]

finboy, same sex couples can "breed", if they want to. The females, anyway.
Males can adopt, if that is what they want.

BTW, marriage is not simply about "breeding". It is primarily about wanting to
be with the person you love, for the rest of your lives (hopefully).

You don't need to be married to have children, and more and more married couples are
choosing not to have children.

May I remind people that we are in the 21st century now.
Times change.

[daimoni]

Originally posted by finboy:
<STRONG>So, yeah, let's protect legal unions between same-sex partners, sure. But let's NOT call it marriage -- reserve that term for breeding.
</STRONG>

I think we're in perfect agreement, except I have a little problem with the above statement.

There are plenty of opposite sex married couples who have no desire (or are unable) to breed. Should we redefine the terminology of their relationship? Do they get to keep their "marriage" certificate if they're willing to adopt from the state? No. And no.

For the record, I happen to be a father of two, married to someone of the opposite sex (their mother). In no way do I feel threatened by my neighbors (who happen to be a same sex couple) desire to get "married", nor to be "parents". I just hope they invite me to the reception and baby shower.

I do feel threatened by governments who feel like it's their moral right to dictate to me who I can and can't marry. In this day and age, the traditional idea of "family" is frequently a joke. Children need to be loved by responsible and loving adults (regardless of their orientation).

[gyc]

The simple solution to all of this is to get the government out of regulating marriage.

[btober]

And yet Massachusetts has been a leader in the past in passing laws which protect homosexuals, such as being the first to recognize discrimination in schools and outlawing it.

[Demonhood]

a few things:

1) Marriage, through the majority of its history on this world, has not been based around true love. It's been a way to bond two families financially. A dowry is exchanged, power is maintained, and a stable environment for future children in the lineage is ensured. This is what marriage has mostly been about. Nowadays, the first two points don't exist. The third is what is important. A marriage needs to be a stable loving environment for their children to grow up in. I would rather a child grow up with two loving homosexual partners than a feuding "traditional" couple.

2) Even if there are no kids in the relationship, all the issues maxintosh brought up regarding hospital visits, insurance, etc.. are very important as well. There is no reason to deny gay couples these rights (other than pure spite for being different).

3) Traditional family values are a myth. People that spout this nonsense want a throwback to the fictional family of the 40's-50's where the mother wore an apron all day, the father was the bread winner, and gays and ethnic people didn't exist. They'll conveniently ignore the fact that women were unhappy, minorities opressed, and that all things change over time, even families.

4) I'm not religious, but even I can see WWJD (What Would Jesus Do) wouldn't equal what those for the amendment are talking about. Jesus wouldn't be so close minded and hateful. Of that I'm sure.

5) I'm betting 95% of those pushing for this amendment (they want one for the US Constitution) don't know any gay couples. Shocking, isn't it.

[maxintosh]

Maybe we should call it "Breeder Protection." Without the traditional family, I think we've got some trouble. Maybe it isn't for everyone, sure, but it still forms the core of our society. Anything we do that moves away from that cheapens it, and so breeding should be protected. Other lifestyles couldn't thrive without active breeding, no matter what the activists like to shout.

It doesn't mean if they allow same-sex couples to marry, suddenly everyone would be gay and nobody would have kids anymore. It also doesn't mean that by not allowing them to marry, they'll just relent, turn straight and start families.

There are so many people out there that just should *not* be parents. So what if they're straight. Besides, the world is overpopulated enough, we could use a few less people copulating!


Maxintosh
Caution - Steps may be slippery, especially during monsoons.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Demonhood:
<STRONG>5) I'm betting 95% of those pushing for this amendment (they want one for the US Constitution) don't know any gay couples. Shocking, isn't it.</STRONG>

Or aren't aware that they know any because the couples feel the need to hide their orientation and status as a couple, which I would say is even worse.

[maxintosh]

I forget where it says it, but the Constitution does state that sates are required to recognize contracts formed in other states.

*sigh* Unfortunatley, 35 other states have already gotten away with it. Sad, isn't it?

Maxintosh
Caution - Steps may be slippery, especially during monsoons.

[BRussell]

I agree with you for the most part, maxintosh. I think these politicians know their constituents' prejudices, and play to them.

However, I do think that ideally, children should have a male and a female parent, or other close family member. I think it provides the best balance. I guess I agree with Dan Quayle in that respect. I believe there is some research showing, for example, that it's important for kids' social development to have fathers. In the past they used to view fathers basically as just sperm donors and bread winners - if the father isn't around, who cares? I think that's wrong-headed. Obviously, we can't have the ideal all the time, but we should encourage it.

The other stuff just ticks me off. One of the arguments the right always makes against gays is their supposed "promiscuous lifestyle." But then they want to discourage gays from having long-term relationships, by preventing anyone from giving them any rights normally accorded to long-term relationships. It's almost as if they're afraid gays will become too normal if they're given equal rights, and then their arguments won't work anymore.

[maxintosh]

However, I do think that ideally, children should have a male and a female parent, or other close family member. I think it provides the best balance. I guess I agree with Dan Quayle in that respect. I believe there is some research showing, for example, that it's important for kids' social development to have fathers. In the past they used to view fathers basically as just sperm donors and bread winners - if the father isn't around, who cares? I think that's wrong-headed. Obviously, we can't have the ideal all the time, but we should encourage it.

Maybe, but few families are that ideal anyway. Considering 50% of people that get married get divorced, and many more are separated, kids rarely get that balance they need.

Besides, to make a huge generalization, a gay man's best friend is usually a woman anyway. It's not like gay men only associate with other gay men, we *love* women, just not in "that" way. Most kids find their role models one way or another.

Besides, the most important thing for a kid to have is love. Straight men and women don't seem to understand eachother too terribly well, and I see so many couples get so caught up in fighting with eachother they forget about the kids. Like Demonhood said, I'd much rather see kids grow up in a loving gay family than in a broken straight family.

Maxintosh
Caution - Steps may be slippery, especially during monsoons.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>The other stuff just ticks me off. One of the arguments the right always makes against gays is their supposed "promiscuous lifestyle." But then they want to discourage gays from having long-term relationships, by preventing anyone from giving them any rights normally accorded to long-term relationships. It's almost as if they're afraid gays will become too normal if they're given equal rights, and then their arguments won't work anymore.</STRONG>

Unfotunately the whole misconception about all gays being promiscuous is not likely to go away anytime soon. I was hired to do some filming and photography at the LGBT Pride Day celebration in San Francisco last summer and I must say that a lot of what I saw there certainly did not do anything to dispel that idea; if anything it was encouraged. I think one of the biggest problems faced by the gay community is that so many people have falled into the "I'm different, accept it ...NOW!" mentality. I have no problem with people being gay, but there are a lot of things that I just don't want to see and don't think should be displayed in public by either gay or straight people. Some people seem to think that forcing diversity onto people will make it accepted, but, as open minded as I may be, I have to say that some of those things I really don't want to see. The "if you don't want to see it don't look" idea unfortunately doesn't work either because some times it's impossible to avoid a giant, several-city-block, festival that�like all other giant festivals that take place in cities�spills over into the rest of the city.

[ort888]

This is one of those things, that in 100 years, will be looked upon with equal disgust as the Jim Crowe laws. Our grandkids will be shocked and amazed at our tales of 100% legal discrimination.

I cannot see how a sane, logical pperson, can come up with any valid reasons to not allow same sex couples equal rights as hetrosexual couples.


Heres my attitude...
Against same sex marraiges? Don't have one.

[ort888]

oops, double post...

[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: ort888 ]

[ort888]

I was hired to do some filming and photography at the LGBT Pride Day celebration in San Francisco last summer and I must say that a lot of what I saw there certainly did not do anything to dispel that idea;

nonhuman check this out...

[mr. natural]

Arrgh! Marriage doesn't need defending.

What's needed is a Defense from Stupid Politicians Amendment. This country sure is loaded with 'em.

But this DOMA has as much chance of passage in Massachusetts as a seeing a cow fly. (We used to have two very popular gay U.S. congressmen, but only one now, since Gerry Studds retired.)

On a side note, I'd rather see the tax credit for children end at two, whereby if you have a third there is no credit, but anymore after that you start getting penalized.

There is such a thing as carrying capacity on this good earth and we are already severly testing it's limit.

Oh, and for anyone not having children get a free trip to Disney World to see how lucky they are

[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: mr. natural ]

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by ort888:
<STRONG>

nonhuman check this out...</STRONG>

Wow, they even have a picture of the guys in black skintight spandex and leather that I was originally going to mention in my post as an example but decided not too.

[juanvaldes]

The type of people who want to pass stupid **** like this make me sick. How can they be so stupid?!? I just don't get it.

[pathogen]

The Defense of Marriage Amendment was passed when there were a whole lot of conservatives in congress in '96. My understanding is that Clinton signed it into law as a concession to get other needed congressional votes. Ugly politics. Something Clinton had a hard time defending to the press at the time. It tries to cement the term "marriage" as being between a man and a woman only.

Granted, a whole lot of people think this way.

But when you notice the really small percentage of couples who are both gay and want the rights of a married couple, you can see that it's no economic drain to grant them equality. It's especially impertinent to withhold legal status for gays when there are some pretty pathetic legal marriages out there already that go to divorce in no time.

What's so special about protecting the union of man and women for child rearing sake? Is there compitition? Are we worried the flood gates will open and women will marry chimpanzees and snakes? Men will take to sheep? Children won't get good parents?

There are enough kids in foster homes and waiting for adoption that it's a shame that eager gay parents can't be legally given rights to make their raising of children easier.

My understanding is that this proposed amendment to solidify the law in Massachesetts won't go ever through. It needs to pass positively through two sessions of legislature, which is doubtful, because already its shaping up to be a bit unpopular. And before then, it's quite likely the DOMA law will be found unconstituional. It's important to remember that no state has tested it yet.

Again, what's so special about a man and woman living together? It's hardly unique and has to be defended. It's been the predominant mating ritual for billions of people for thousands of years. How exactly is gay equality going to threaten that? Will gays raise more perverts or delinquents or something? Nope. We get alot of those as it is.

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: pathogen ]

[maxelson]

I love Massachusetts. I have lived in a lot of other places, but this joint is undeniably home for me. This state also aggravates me like no other. This bill supports FEAR AND IGNORANCE. It is truly backward. It is positively medeival. And I fear it will pass.
I can find absolutely NO practical or rational reason for it's introduction. I am disgusted beyond words. Legally supported bigotry and intolerance. I am glad someone else opened this discussion. I was entirely too angry to do so.

[scaught]

Originally posted by ort888:
<STRONG>

nonhuman check this out...</STRONG>

hahah. i was going to post that link myself. man i love the onion.

[Trash]

The DOMA is just one of those things that exist merely to prove how generally mediocre humanity is. It's unconstitutional in so many ways, it does nothing to help the general state of affairs and it contradicts the basis on which the American government was founded. I cannot think of a single reason that does not invoke religion for why same-sex marriages should be banned. I wish someone would tell me one, so I could regain my previous faith in the intellect of the religious masses.

Still, whoever brought up the GLBT Pride Parades is pretty right. In a sense, the gay community has a tendency to flaunt their sexuality in a way that would not be acceptable even for straight persons. Running about in public half-naked or leather-clad while shoving rods up one's rectum does not make one's lifestyle more acceptable. But going deeper, I believe any sense of ethnic, racial or sexual pride is inherently racist. I am not proud of being gay any more than straight people are proud of being straight. In fact, "pride" promotes one's minority status--while one person is praised for their deep-rooted sense of Black Pride, another is deemed a bigot or a nazi for their "White Pride". So if one shouldn't have White Pride, why should one have Black Pride? Be proud of who you are, not of what label you've been given by society.

I apologize for presenting my ideas in such a jumbled way, but I'm still developing my General Outlook on Life(tm), since I'm only 16.

[Monique]

Conservatives are so insecure that they need to pass stupid amendments in the Constitution.

It is the same thing that the abortion debate, restricting the rights of people who do not think like you.

What happen to sterile couples who can't physically have children are they less of a couple;

I know quite a few couples who do not have or want children and they are still married.

The U.S. and Canada are so retarded when it comes to these issues why can't they follow the example of our European brothers and sisters.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by gyc:
<STRONG>The simple solution to all of this is to get the government out of regulating marriage.</STRONG>

Bravo!

But seriously, I would have to say my opinions on this have changed alot since September 2, 2000.

Now that I have acctually been married almost a year, I can say that there is something special about a union of two people making a more complete team then they were as seperates.

In no way could anyone every call me a Bible thumper or a homophobe, if you knew me you would laugh at the thought. However, I do not think that the institution of marriage is for two people of the same sex.

Maybe their should be legislation saying that same sex partners can get some of the rights of married couples, such as hospital visitation, insurance, etc. But marriage is something different.

The argument used comparing racial civil rights and homosexual civil rights is not a good one, IMHO. After all, even though I believe people are born straight or gay, there is no outward appearance that is "gay." You can walk into a place of business and get a job without people being able to tell your sexuality. There are no lables on drinking fountains for "straight" or "gay." No special bus sections, etc.

I believe something like the "civil union" to be better than a real marriage for gay people.

But how many of the straight people against gay unions of any type are the experts on marriage? 50%+ divorce rates don't speak well of straight marriage.

People who decide to commit to someone need to really commit to someone. It's "until death do us part" not "until you are not as hot in bed as you are now" or "until you don't have any money anymore" or "until I find a better offer."

If straight people can't find SOME way of recognizing the committed relationships of gays, then they can continue to paint a picture of homosexuals as promiscuous, AIDS spreading fags and dykes. And that's not right.

So here it is in a clear statement:
Marriage for gay people = no.
Some recognition of commitment, with similar rights = yes.
People taking commitment more seriously, straight or gay = BIG YES.

[Trash]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
<STRONG>
Bravo!
</STRONG>

Agreed. Marriage is a religious connection, and our government supposedly separates church and state. All marriages, be them gay or straight, should be merely civil unions. Marriage, in the tradicional sense of the word (union of two people under God) should be a church affair.

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
<STRONG>
Now that I have acctually been married almost a year, I can say that there is something special about a union of two people making a more complete team then they were as seperates.

In no way could anyone every call me a Bible thumper or a homophobe, if you knew me you would laugh at the thought. However, I do not think that the institution of marriage is for two people of the same sex.
</STRONG>

Why not? You fail to explain that. Is marriage a union "too special" for gay people? I'm honestly curious about your answer for this.

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
<STRONG>The argument used comparing racial civil rights and homosexual civil rights is not a good one, IMHO. After all, even though I believe people are born straight or gay, there is no outward appearance that is "gay." You can walk into a place of business and get a job without people being able to tell your sexuality. There are no lables on drinking fountains for "straight" or "gay." No special bus sections, etc.
</STRONG>

Ah, but as soon as you tell people you're gay, you might get fired. So while you do get the opportunity to live a lie at work, or in the bus, or when drinking from the drinking fountain (heh), but that doesn't make it better.

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
<STRONG>
I believe something like the "civil union" to be better than a real marriage for gay people.
</STRONG>

Once again, why? What, in your view, is "a real marriage"?

[Scott_H]

I bet the lawyers are all for gay marriages. It would increase the number of divorces by ... 10%? Not to mention the fat fees from those DINC divorce cases. Wait? Maybe having no children will lower the fees they can charge? Either way more money for lawyers!

[-Q-]

To add to the 'breeder' argument, I'll propose that gay and lesbian couples are better parents than some heteros. It is physically impossible for a gay couple to have an 'unwanted' or accidental pregnancy. Which means that they truly have to want to have a child. And that desire and sacrifice gives the child of a gay couple a huge head start in the love and caring department...

Sigh. As soon as I'm supreme ruler of the universe, I'm sending all those paranoid idiots to another planet...

[cheerios]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
<STRONG>
I believe something like the "civil union" to be better than a real marriage for gay people.</STRONG>

But that's just it... REAL marriage. You're offering the consolation prize here, to people who've been struggling for things that shouldn't even be a question!

<STRONG>
So here it is in a clear statement:
Marriage for gay people = no.
Some recognition of commitment, with similar rights = yes.
People taking commitment more seriously, straight or gay = BIG YES.</STRONG>

Why bother to make a whole different setup for an identical union?? What differences would you want between marriage and a civil union? Is one better than another? Is one harder to attain? Or is it just a way to establish a form of second class citizenship?

Bah, all this legislation stinks! I wish I were old enough to vote on the law in CA that passed Damn late birthday... I can't believe that these laws are being passed in places... Someone is going to have to take them to the Supreme Court in order to get them to repeal all these laws as unconstitiutional.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Trash:
<STRONG>Why not? You fail to explain that. Is marriage a union "too special" for gay people? I'm honestly curious about your answer for this.</STRONG>

Absolutely I never said that marriage is "too special" for anyone. However, by allowing the recognition that has been marriage for thousands of years to be diluted, marriage in general is cheapened. I believe there should be some recognition of gay committment, just not "marriage."

Again, my opinion on this changed a bunch in a year since I got married. Living together and being married are similar yet totally different. In a TRUE marriage, you have to work hard to stay married, through tough times (my wife had surgery in November, I lost my job in June, etc.) Neither of us believe in divorce, we are both lucky to have married our best friend and we will make it work. My grandparents (both sets) made it to 50 years of marriage, one to over 60. I want to be like that!

Originally posted by Trash:
<STRONG>
Ah, but as soon as you tell people you're gay, you might get fired. So while you do get the opportunity to live a lie at work, or in the bus, or when drinking from the drinking fountain (heh), but that doesn't make it better.</STRONG>

I don't believe that as soon as someone finds out you are gay you get fired. I have worked with gay and bisexual people and none of them were fired or even treated differently.

Besides, sex has no place in the workplace, ideally. So who cares who is gay/bi/straight man or woman as long as they do the job they are hired to do?[/QB][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Trash:
<STRONG>
Once again, why? What, in your view, is "a real marriage"? </STRONG>

Well, thousands of years of evidence back this up... a real marriage is a union of a man and a woman.

Some people are good at it, others are not. I don't think Clinton or Condit were in a REAL marriage, because a real marriage requires honesty with your spouse. And they are STRAIGHT!

[maxelson]

Originally posted by cheerios:
<STRONG>

Why bother to make a whole different setup for an identical union?? What differences would you want between marriage and a civil union? Is one better than another? Is one harder to attain? Or is it just a way to establish a form of second class citizenship?

Bah, all this legislation stinks! I wish I were old enough to vote on the law in CA that passed Damn late birthday... I can't believe that these laws are being passed in places... Someone is going to have to take them to the Supreme Court in order to get them to repeal all these laws as unconstitiutional.</STRONG>

Cheerios, I think I love you. When are you running for office, because I am voting for you if I have to change states to do it. (the previous statement is made in all sincerity- this lady rocks )

[Trash]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
<STRONG>Again, my opinion on this changed a bunch in a year since I got married. Living together and being married are similar yet totally different. In a TRUE marriage, you have to work hard to stay married, through tough times (my wife had surgery in November, I lost my job in June, etc.) Neither of us believe in divorce, we are both lucky to have married our best friend and we will make it work.</STRONG>

You're saying that gay people, then, cheapen the institution of marriage because we're not as committed to our relationships as straight persons are? I understand that you're not trying to be bigoted here, but your thought patterns are confusing. By separating marriage unions would be to admit that there's a difference between these relationships--that gay love is inferior to heterosexual love, which it isn't.

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
<STRONG>Besides, sex has no place in the workplace, ideally. So who cares who is gay/bi/straight man or woman as long as they do the job they are hired to do?[</STRONG>

Ideally, neither does race. So it shouldn't matter if you were black in the 50's, either. Unfortunately, nothing that starts with "ideally" usually works. I know people who have been discriminated in the workplace for their lifestyles--gay or not.

Originally posted by cheerios:
<STRONG>
Why bother to make a whole different setup for an identical union?? What differences would you want between marriage and a civil union? Is one better than another? Is one harder to attain? Or is it just a way to establish a form of second class citizenship?[</STRONG>

Yay! *prances about faggily* *snort*

[finboy]

OK, let's say that a "traditional" breeder marriage is a cultural thing. Shouldn't we write some laws to preserve the "heritage" of the "traditional" heterosexual two-parent family? Isn't that being culturally sensitive?

For those of you that are arguing (sideways) that gay adoption is as good as two-parent het families, let's see some research on that. I find it hard to believe that a child does better when there is only one gender of adult in the household. It makes no difference that gays & lesbians have "friends" of the other gender -- I think that children need role models of each gender who are emotionally, financially, permanently and temporally attached.

[Demonhood]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
However, by allowing the recognition that has been marriage for thousands of years to be diluted, marriage in general is cheapened. I believe there should be some recognition of gay committment, just not "marriage."

Like I said in a previous post, marriage has been about money and child rearing for thousands of years. It's been about love for a couple hundred. Nothing is cheapened when two people that love one another want to make it official (in the eyes of the government and society) by getting married. Sorry to tell you this, but marriage is cheapened by all the couples that get married early, get divorced in 6 months, and then do it again and again. Worry about them, not gay couples.

I don't believe that as soon as someone finds out you are gay you get fired. I have worked with gay and bisexual people and none of them were fired or even treated differently.

Besides, sex has no place in the workplace, ideally. So who cares who is gay/bi/straight man or woman as long as they do the job they are hired to do?

I've worked with gay/bi people as well, and they were not fired. But that's because I live in a fairly open state and worked at a university. It was definitely not a taste of what most of america feels.
You say sex has no place in the workplace, but conversation does. And when everyone is talking about their spouse, SO, children, etc... and the gay man/woman has to be quiet for fear of offending the oversensitive straights, that's a problem. People should be allowed to be themselves.

Well, thousands of years of evidence back this up... a real marriage is a union of a man and a woman.

Times change. This shall as well.

Originally posted by finboy:
For those of you that are arguing (sideways) that gay adoption is as good as two-parent het families, let's see some research on that. I find it hard to believe that a child does better when there is only one gender of adult in the household. It makes no difference that gays & lesbians have "friends" of the other gender -- I think that children need role models of each gender who are emotionally, financially, permanently and temporally attached.

And how many straight couples can claim to provide this? Not a majority any longer. A growing number of parents are relying on everything from tv, the internet, to their children's friends to raise their child. Having a male and female for comparison/contrast might seem ideal, but seldom is the full potential realized. Like I said above, I would much rather a child have loving gay parents than hostile straight parents. Would you rather they grow up open minded, sensitive to gender issues (you really think a kid with two dads will hate women or something?), and self reliant? Or grow up believing all older men (father figures) are abusive emotionally distant jerks? Extreme examples, I know, but I think it illustrates my point well.

[-Q-]

For those of you that are arguing (sideways) that gay adoption is as good as two-parent het families, let's see some research on that. I find it hard to believe that a child does better when there is only one gender of adult in the household. It makes no difference that gays & lesbians have "friends" of the other gender -- I think that children need role models of each gender who are emotionally, financially, permanently and temporally attached.

To be blunt, b u l l s h i t.

I definitely did better w/out having a father around. My father happened to be an abusive alcoholic who decided that bouncing me off a few walls would be fun one day. After that day, it was just my mother and I. And she did a damn fine job raising me on her own. I had no male "role model" to look up to or follow after and I think I turned out fine. People seem to like me and I'm moderately successful with what I'm doing with my life.

So from personal experience, I find that argument to be lacking in real life application. Love and caring is far more important that having one of each gender in the house when you're growing up...

[Avenir]

Alright, here goes. Someone requested that I reply, so I shall. As a warning, I think my comments will go against much of what has been posted in this largely one-sided discussion. Thus, I run the risk of offending people, starting fights, and possibly losing friends. So be it, these are my opinions.

As for my background, I went to an all-male high school, and I had gay friends. I know gay couples personally, and Hawaii was one of the first states to try and pass the Gay-Marriage legislation (it ultimately failed). So, in short, I don't know facts and statistics, but I know what I've seen and I'm not just basing my whole opinion on "Will & Grace." That being said...

I think gay couples should be allowed to be married in the State. If the Church doesn't want to let them, so be it. But legally, they should be allowed to just like heterosexuals. They should have the same tax/living/visitation benefits of other couple, becuase they are exactly like other couples (well, except for the obvious). I think the legislation that started this topic is a bad idea. So where is my opinion going to piss off those reading this? Probably right here...

I don't think gay couples should be allowed to adopt or raise children. Why? Because, I honestly think that a child should be raised normally. Yes, I said normally. Do I think gay couples are abnormal? Yes. Why? Because physical human anatomy is, quite simply, not meant to work that way. Abnormal is awfuly harsh sounding, I'm sorry. Yes, I know divorce is high right now in marriage. Yes I know that gay couple would truly want to have their children (no unwanted pregnancies, etc.). But all the same, I don't think that gay couples should be allowed to raise children. I'm sorry, I have no statistis or facts or anything other than just my personal opinion in this matter. I just don't think it's right. Yes, I suppose I can sort of expand upon this later if need be...

For the most part with everything else, however, I believe that gay couples should have all the same rights as straight (that always sounds cruel) couples when it comes to legality and other things.

There, I said it... I'm not running and hiding either, so post as you wish...

[Trash]

Originally posted by Avenir:
<STRONG>
I don't think gay couples should be allowed to adopt or raise children. Why? Because, I honestly think that a child should be raised normally. Yes, I said normally. Do I think gay couples are abnormal? Yes. Why? Because physical human anatomy is, quite simply, not meant to work that way. Abnormal is awfuly harsh sounding, I'm sorry. Yes, I know divorce is high right now in marriage. Yes I know that gay couple would truly want to have their children (no unwanted pregnancies, etc.). But all the same, I don't think that gay couples should be allowed to raise children. I'm sorry, I have no statistis or facts or anything other than just my personal opinion in this matter. I just don't think it's right. Yes, I suppose I can sort of expand upon this later if need be...</STRONG>

I tend to agree. I support gay parents who raise chidlren with a gay couple of the opposite sex--two gay men have a child with two gay women and proceed to raise the child together--but I'm not sure it's healthy for a child to grow up in a socially abnormal environment. That, however, will change when homosexuality is no longer socially abnormal.

As for physically abnormal, I dont' see how having a vagina makes one rear a child better. And, honestly, if men were only meant to have sex with women, then why were we given assholes? Think about it

[AlbertWu]

Originally posted by Trash:
<STRONG>

I tend to agree. I support gay parents who raise chidlren with a gay couple of the opposite sex--two gay men have a child with two gay women and proceed to raise the child together--but I'm not sure it's healthy for a child to grow up in a socially abnormal environment. That, however, will change when homosexuality is no longer socially abnormal.

As for physically abnormal, I dont' see how having a vagina makes one rear a child better. And, honestly, if men were only meant to have sex with women, then why were we given assholes? Think about it </STRONG>

The obvious answer (before someone else says it):

To poop.

[cheerios]

Originally posted by Trash:
<STRONG>
As for physically abnormal, I dont' see how having a vagina makes one rear a child better. And, honestly, if men were only meant to have sex with women, then why were we given assholes? Think about it </STRONG>

You know, the possetion of a vagina doesn't make a mother. I should know. I KNOW I'm not up to being a mother, and don't wanna inflict the stuff that's been in my life, on another living thing. It's having the maturity to make the choice that should determine who gets to be a parent, not the ability to have sex with someone of the opposite sex, or of the same sex, for that matter. People need to THINK before they take on something like that, and whether a kid has 2 parents who are both the same sex shouldn't matter at all.

[end rant]

If that didn't make any sense, please disregard...

[cpatubo]

I personally have nothing against homosexual couples raising kids, but the issue does raise some questions. One really has to take into consideration, the KID... in this harsh, cold world today, that seems to reject anything and anyone that is a variant from "the norm", will this kid have a happy childhood or spend a lot of it being ridiculed? If they can overcome it and become a stronger person because of it, good for them, and I'm all for it. But if there is a remote possibility of the kid receiving grief and ridicule for something beyond his control, I would begin to question it. But I am sure many same-sex couples take this into consideration... and there also may be some couples being completely selfish... just like hetero couples can be!

[seanyepez]

That seriously disgusts me.

They are trying to discourage people from being homosexual; unfortunately, those who are gay are going to have their rights infringed upon.

Inbred, closed-minded hicks.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Avenir:
<STRONG>Alright, here goes. Someone requested that I reply, so I shall. As a warning, I think my comments will go against much of what has been posted in this largely one-sided discussion. Thus, I run the risk of offending people, starting fights, and possibly losing friends. So be it, these are my opinions.

As for my background, I went to an all-male high school, and I had gay friends. I know gay couples personally, and Hawaii was one of the first states to try and pass the Gay-Marriage legislation (it ultimately failed). So, in short, I don't know facts and statistics, but I know what I've seen and I'm not just basing my whole opinion on "Will & Grace." That being said...

I think gay couples should be allowed to be married in the State. If the Church doesn't want to let them, so be it. But legally, they should be allowed to just like heterosexuals. They should have the same tax/living/visitation benefits of other couple, becuase they are exactly like other couples (well, except for the obvious). I think the legislation that started this topic is a bad idea. So where is my opinion going to piss off those reading this? Probably right here...

I don't think gay couples should be allowed to adopt or raise children. Why? Because, I honestly think that a child should be raised normally. Yes, I said normally. Do I think gay couples are abnormal? Yes. Why? Because physical human anatomy is, quite simply, not meant to work that way. Abnormal is awfuly harsh sounding, I'm sorry. Yes, I know divorce is high right now in marriage. Yes I know that gay couple would truly want to have their children (no unwanted pregnancies, etc.). But all the same, I don't think that gay couples should be allowed to raise children. I'm sorry, I have no statistis or facts or anything other than just my personal opinion in this matter. I just don't think it's right. Yes, I suppose I can sort of expand upon this later if need be...

For the most part with everything else, however, I believe that gay couples should have all the same rights as straight (that always sounds cruel) couples when it comes to legality and other things.

There, I said it... I'm not running and hiding either, so post as you wish...</STRONG>

Now, why would you think you would be put on the firing line? Your statement was well crafted, very politely put- a simple opinion with no offense attached. So I disagree with you about single sex couples adopting. How could I possible rail you for putting it so diplomatically? I know not everyone has my opinion on the topic. Thanks for posting your thoughts. They are more than worthy of respect.

Now. A word about the usage of the term "fag". Again, just a nit pick, but it is mine. I hate the term. It is a hate word. Not many people in the discussion would use the terms "nigger", "wop", "spic", etc. Please do not use that word. I'd appreciate it. I did some research into the origin of the term. As you know, a faggot is a bundling of dry sticks. The primary usage for the bundle was kindling. During those times where burning at the stake was a popular form of execution, one reserved primarily for blasphemers, heretics and sacriligeous types. As homosexuality was (oh, yah, still is) considered abhorrent in the eyes of God and a heretical practice, homosexuals were burned. In Europe, so many were burned that the fuel for the fire and subject of the execution became synonymous. Nice, huh? Oooo. The comedy.
Whenever a student used that term in the classroom, his (it was always a boy who used the term) homework for the night was to find the derivation of the term and write a one page paper on it.
So, just a simple request. Please don't use the word in this discussion. Thanks.

BTW, this request is not directed at any one poster, just a general observation.

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: maxelson ]

[maxelson]

Originally posted by cpatubo:
<STRONG>I personally have nothing against homosexual couples raising kids, but the issue does raise some questions. One really has to take into consideration, the KID... in this harsh, cold world today, that seems to reject anything and anyone that is a variant from "the norm", will this kid have a happy childhood or spend a lot of it being ridiculed? If they can overcome it and become a stronger person because of it, good for them, and I'm all for it. But if there is a remote possibility of the kid receiving grief and ridicule for something beyond his control, I would begin to question it. But I am sure many same-sex couples take this into consideration... and there also may be some couples being completely selfish... just like hetero couples can be!</STRONG>

You've posed a very legit issue. Kids are cruel. No denying that. There are, however, some issues that kids will NOT make fun of others for. Perhaps we need to do the same with kids in this issue as we have done with smoking. It took some doing, but the effort was there. Smoking is a point of ridicule. Perhaps we need to make cruelty the butt of the joke. Make intolerance the thing that kids are intolerant of. Hey, they are infinitely moldable and hate and bigotry is a learned response. Easy? No. Possible? You better believe it. Use peer pressure for a desirable end.

[AlbertWu]

Kids will find ANY excuse to ridicule another...

There are some people in my chem class (15-16 year olds) making fun of another saying they "brought home beaker tongs."

Now if you don't get the joke, think about what beaker tongs hold (beakers) and what (body part) is shaped like what beaker tongs hold.

Now think about how pathetic that joke is.

The point of the story is that people will take any chance make fun of another, especially something sexual (in hormone-driven teen years) like (in the previous example) masturbation or homosexuality.

[foobars]

Originally posted by AlbertWu:
<STRONG>Kids will find ANY excuse to ridicule another...

There are some people in my chem class (15-16 year olds) making fun of another saying they "brought home beaker tongs."

Now if you don't get the joke, think about what beaker tongs hold (beakers) and what (body part) is shaped like what beaker tongs hold.

Now think about how pathetic that joke is.

The point of the story is that people will take any chance make fun of another, especially something sexual (in hormone-driven teen years) like (in the previous example) masturbation or homosexuality.</STRONG>

Next time someone makes a ****ty joke like that tap them on the shoulder and toss some HCL in thier face- now that's comedy!

[poocat]

who loves the us of a?

(chorus far away in shrub country screaming "idoidoidomememe!")

god.

this place is driving me up the wall.
that legislation, as a million other people have noted, is both completely devoid of any useful purpose and completely unconstitutional. uggg. oh bigotry, how i hate thee.

i'm pretty ashamed that we've let people who believe these things remain in power. how much longer is our country going to be ruled by people who grew up before the 50's? i mean, i don't want to get off on a rant here &lt;rant&gt; but this is absurd. absolutely ridiculous. and it's completely started by those who grew up in another era. it is a real shame that the people growing up in this world today, most of whom are much more tolerant than previous generations, are still ruled by members of the generation that supported the rebirth of the KKK. some things make me ill, and this is one of them. &lt;/rant&gt;

now... the adoption issue is something for discussion, because it involves children, and i'm glad to see the people in this forum discussing it's various implications both on the couple and more importantly on the children at stake. i happen to be all for adoption by gay couples, just like i'm all for adoption by hetero couples.

but the legislation about civil rights and legal rights in the eyes of the state?! that was drafted by sixty-five year olds. at least, please god, because more recent generations have no excuse for such behavior.

luckily i seem to have surrounded myself with intelligent and educated people, because no one has suggested that removing civil liberty from gay people was a good idea. props to you all.

poocat.

[Scott_H]

Originally posted by maxintosh:
<STRONG>Well, Massachusetts is working on being the 36th state to pass a DOMA law restricting marriage. Basically, here's what the legislation will do:

.....

</STRONG>

Not to be picky but this must be a change to the state constitution not a new law. After all you can't pass a law saying you can't pass another law.

[davesimondotcom]

OK, obviously a few people think that if you disagree with the ultra politically correct that you are a bigot, homophobe, etc. If you had any chance to get to know me you wouldn't even think about implying that I am a bigot or homophobe.

I respect Cheerios very much, from all the things that i have read that she has posted, she is a fair minded young lady.

However, I guarantee that, if passed, none of these laws will be ruled unconstitutional. (Please note that I don't believe any of them to be worthy of passing!) The reason I say they will not be unconstitutional is that I don't believe there is any Constitutional right to be gay. I'm not saying that makes these stupid laws RIGHT!

What my entire point has been in everything that I have written here is that there really shouldn't be ANY government sponsered sexuality. The government should not be in the business of regulating marriage.

But just because I think of marriage as a union of one man and one woman doesn't mean I don't like gay/bi people. Just because I believe that every child should have a father and a mother who loves them doesn't mean I don't like gay people raising kids.

My best friends in high school were all raised by their mothers. Their fathers were either gone or worthless. Their mothers were AMAZING people. But there are some things that these guys were unable to enjoy because their fathers weren't around. You can't legislate people taking responsibility for their own actions. But a father IS more than a sperm donor.

I find it ironic that the people fighting for the "Defense of Marriage Act" don't feel it necessary to put anything in it about trying to reduce the amount of divorces or anything else...

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Scott_H:
<STRONG>

Not to be picky but this must be a change to the state constitution not a new law. After all you can't pass a law saying you can't pass another law.</STRONG>

Right you are. The amendment is just that: an amendment to the state constitution. The rational is obviously to remove the possibility of granting equal rights/ privs to this group once and for all. The fact that it is still up for debate- that it has not been laughed out of the Mass. house is deeply disturbing. SO much for the "forward thinking" state of the Transendentalist movement. Obviously the Commonwealth's Puritan roots are overcoming it's liberal tendencies.