Mass. Court: Gay Civil Unions Not Enough

[jlabsher]

I agree with Pete, let them do what they want, just keep the kids out of it. People may argue that gay/lez couples can be better parents than some hetero couples, sure. I just don't like the idea of a kid (whose life is complicated enough) trying to figure out why he has 2 daddys and Susie doesn't.

Gay couples not being able to adopt kind of goes along the same lines as public nudity/profanity laws. The law is there to protect the helpless. Adults can decide if they want to see Janets mammaries and if they want to enter into a homosexual relationship. Kids are supposed to be innocent and unable to make informed decisions so should be protected by the law. We all agree that kids shouldn't drink, even though most of us did. It is the same rule, kids haven't lived or seen enough to be able to decide what is right/wrong.

The whole gay marriage issue is a states rights issue and should be protected by the consitution that W wants to change to reflect the religious right's viewpoints.

[Tonio]

Originally posted by jlabsher
Gay couples not being able to adopt kind of goes along the same lines as public nudity/profanity laws. The law is there to protect the helpless. Adults can decide if they want to see Janets mammaries and if they want to enter into a homosexual relationship.

I understand your concern about protecting children. But I can't agree that homosexual behavior makes someone gay. Otherwise, you'd have to classify many prisoners as gay.

My definition of gayness or straightness is based on having the romantic and sexual impulses, not on the actions stemming from those impulses. A person could remain celibate for a lifetime, such as in the priesthood or stranded on a desert island, and still be straight or gay. There are probably plenty of single mothers and fathers who are gay but not in relationships. Should their children be taken away and placed in foster care? I hardly think so.

[Pete (Premo)]

Originally posted by jlabsher
I agree with Pete, let them do what they want, just keep the kids out of it. People may argue that gay/lez couples can be better parents than some hetero couples, sure. I just don't like the idea of a kid (whose life is complicated enough) trying to figure out why he has 2 daddys and Susie doesn't.

Gay couples not being able to adopt kind of goes along the same lines as public nudity/profanity laws. The law is there to protect the helpless. Adults can decide if they want to see Janets mammaries and if they want to enter into a homosexual relationship. Kids are supposed to be innocent and unable to make informed decisions so should be protected by the law. We all agree that kids shouldn't drink, even though most of us did. It is the same rule, kids haven't lived or seen enough to be able to decide what is right/wrong.

The whole gay marriage issue is a states rights issue and should be protected by the consitution that W wants to change to reflect the religious right's viewpoints.

I do not think that the constitutional ammendment is to nudge the constitution to the religious right. I think it is a way to prevent the flood gate of situations that will occur if states allow same sex mariage.

[SurfaceTension]

Originally posted by IM4Change
I agree Surface that the government does have too much power now. I think you make a good point, but say one person works in Maryland and Maryland doesn't recognize same sex marriage, so therefore the Maryland employer refuses to give that person the ability to put their same sex partner on their heath insurance? Then what happens?

They accept it, move, or lobby MD and/or their employer to offer such benefits.

Just as some states/employers have "better" (strictly point of view) health care options, tax policies, whatever. In a free country, you get to choose. Unless, of course, an omnipotent fed dictates everything.

Have we become such a narcisistic country that we can not figure out how to look out for ourselves/need the Fed to rule every detail of our life? Please consider this when you ask them to take over yet more of your life: health care, retirement, etc. Just as they can define marriage, it soon can define/redefine such terms as "life" "health" "adequate care" "security", etc. depending on the political expediency of the time. And if the Fed does it, there is no taking refuge in another state. Why give them that power over your life?

[Pete (Premo)]

Originally posted by SurfaceTension
They accept it, move, or lobby MD and/or their employer to offer such benefits.

Just as some states/employers have "better" (strictly point of view) health care options, tax policies, whatever. In a free country, you get to choose. Unless, of course, an omnipotent fed dictates everything.

Have we become such a narcisistic country that we can not figure out how to look out for ourselves/need the Fed to rule every detail of our life? Please consider this when you ask them to take over yet more of your life: health care, retirement, etc. Just as they can define marriage, it soon can define/redefine such terms as "life" "health" "adequate care" "security", etc. depending on the political expediency of the time. And if the Fed does it, there is no taking refuge in another state. Why give them that power over your life?

amazed once again....well done.

[Ken King (Premo)]

Originally posted by Tonio
Good point. I believe public nudity laws exist because that causes a disturbance, not because nudity offends some people. Ken might know where to find that information.

I would say in Maryland that because nudity (indecent exposure) is offensive to some that is why it is against the law, they list it under the heading of Indecency and Obscenity.

[Tonio]

Originally posted by Ken King
I would say in Maryland that because nudity (indecent exposure) is offensive to some that is why it is against the law, they list it under the heading of Indecency and Obscenity.

I can't agree with Maryland's reasoning. Banning things simply because people are offended by them is the tactic of the "political correctness" forces. Remember this story? http://www.cnn.com/US/9609/06/fishy.name/

I think there should be a much tougher standard than that. My justification for laws against, say, pedophilia is not that it's repugnant, but that it causes harm to children because they aren't capable of consenting to sexual relations.

[willie]

Originally posted by Tonio
I can't agree with Maryland's reasoning. Banning things simply because people are offended by them is the tactic of the "political correctness" forces. Remember this story? http://www.cnn.com/US/9609/06/fishy.name/

I think there should be a much tougher standard than that. My justification for laws against, say, pedophilia is not that it's repugnant, but that it causes harm to children because they aren't capable of consenting to sexual relations.

If you stole $1000 from Bill Gates and he was unaware, what's the harm? He isn't offended and it sure doesn't hurt him to lose it. The harm is that it is wrong, morally wrong if you like but still wrong.

[Tonio]

Originally posted by willie
If you stole $1000 from Bill Gates and he was unaware, what's the harm? He isn't offended and it sure doesn't hurt him to lose it. The harm is that it is wrong, morally wrong if you like but still wrong.

Any kind of theft is presumed to cause harm. You can't really compare stealing to consensual gay sex, or even to consensual anal sex between a man and a woman. You're assuming that homosexuality is morally wrong by an objective standard. There are plenty of people who would disagree with you. Sure, plenty of people are simply offended by homosexuality, and I can appreciate that opinion. But as I said earlier, it's dangerous to pass laws banning things just become some people are offended by those things.

Here's how I see the difference: Clinton faced impeachment not because of his dalliances with Monica, but because he lied about them under oath. The first is not the business of government, but the second definitely is. I consider adultery to be wrong not necessarily because the Bible says so, but because it, and the deceptions involved, causes an enormous amount of heartache to a person's loved ones. (Who wanted to see Hillary punch Bill in the gonads in public during Monicagate?)

[willie]

Originally posted by Tonio
Any kind of theft is presumed to cause harm. You can't really compare stealing to consensual gay sex, or even to consensual anal sex between a man and a woman. You're assuming that homosexuality is morally wrong by an objective standard.

You are assuming wrong. I do not care what anyone does in privacy. Do you consider a public marriage and openly living as a married couple as being private? It's taking a screwup of Nature and attempting to make it look natural.