Finally! Some common sense from our courts.

[QC]

Re: Finally! Some common sense from our courts.

JB,

I am the product of a single mother with a PHD. I have noted this before. I have the utmost of respect of her and what she accomplished. What I have posted takes nothing away from her achievements. I meant them literally as I have noted before. No underlying message, no unstated objective. My point is that the ideal should be recognized. That is it. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[JB]

Re: Finally! Some common sense from our courts.

We don't disagree that much, QC. I agree that we should seek the ideal but recognise that the less than ideal has its place in our civilization.

Illegitimate children, children raised, at least part of the time, by single parents, step parents or foster parents as you and I were do grow up to be productive members of society.

Even children raised by same gender couples have a good chance in life.. . as good as any of the above. Homosexuality has nothing to do with parenting skills or lack of them.

But all that is a peripheral issue. It really has little or nothing to do with whether homosexual families are entitled to the same legal protections and freedoms as so-called "traditional" unions.

Biblically based "morality" has been claimed as a basis for denying civil rights many times before. Most often that morality comes from the mind of men rather than the Bible.

Yes, I am very sensitive to this issue and to the larger issue of how same gender families are treated in our society. I have a daughter who has been in a partnership for 27 years. As she and her partner age they are faced with daily blocks to comforts and protections that are taken for granted by traditional couples. When her mother and I are gone critical decisions about her life and property are up in the air. Her life partner has no legal standing to act on her behalf, or she on her partner's behalf except by seperately executed documents addressing anticipated situations.

Suppose there was an accident which made her partner incapable of making care decisions. . . even temporarily. Her family are all dead. My daughter cannot make any decisions on her behalf, cannot visit her in ICU, cannot conduct any business for her and could not claim her as a dependent should she need permanent care.

Suppose you were denied those rights concerning your life partner.

 

[Bob_VT]

Re: Finally! Some common sense from our courts.

Common sense from our courts? That translates IMO to a decision that you agree with. Any state that puts the decision into the hands of the voters will vot against it. That has to happen just due to population numbers. It has to be a State legistlature decision.

Vermont !! We have Civil Unions. I have nothing against them nor even using the term (just a language thing) marraige.

It has NOT had any ill effect on Vermont. I see "couples" "partners" and Civil Unioned people all the time, there is no differance in how they act.

People should set aside their fears and think "outside the box" for a moment. I too have a younger sister who in the eyes of society is not involved in a "proper" relationship. Dang she is happy healthy and wise.

If people want a "union" or a "marraige" I say go for it. It enhances the way we operate as a society. Anyone can come to VT and become "unioned" and if/when it goes bad then the courts treat it as a divorce. The lawyers seem to be the winners - again.

QC just a question? How can you tell what type of homelife a child has? Sadly, there are countless children who's parents are cheaters, alcoholics and no religious direction now. You can not tell from seeing the child.

 

[QC]

Re: Finally! Some common sense from our courts.

JB,

I know of your daughter and I have said on numerous occasions that I hope for her happiness etc. I mean my wishes for her sincerely and I hold no animosity towards her or other decent human beings (again, I use decent to describe how people treat one another, not to define anyones lifestyle). I also mentioned that medical care decisions should be legally recognized for same sex couples.

Bob,

I never said that you could tell who or how people were being raised. I also never said that same sex couples could not make great parents. What I said was that a home comprised of a loving mother and a loving father is the ideal and should be recognised as such.

One of the core differences between liberals and conservatives IMHO is the denial by liberals of anything better, best, superior, right or wrong. Most conservatives believe in standards, of a definition of right and wrong and that it is OK (in fact required) to note what is "best" or "better" or even superior.

Some liberals believe that there is no difference between Israel defending themselves and desperate Palestinians blowing themselves up in a crowded marketplace. I know I am speaking of apples and oranges, but the concept is the same. Some things are the ideal. Blurring that line is dangerous for our Children's futures regardless of the topic. For those that want to infer that I fear gays, or want to equate a same sex relationship to Palestinian terror, please reread my comments. I simply believe that the slope is one that leads to no right, no wrong, no better, no worse, no ideals, no principles, no shape, no up, no down. This IMHO is what "liberals" believe in, and is exactly what Lennon's "Imagine" is about which many hold as their mantra. I see it as extremely dangerous.

 

[JB]

Re: Finally! Some common sense from our courts.

QC, you know me well enough to know that I am no liberal. Nor am I an anarchist who believes that everyone should be free to do what they please without regard to how it affects others.

I am probably a Libertarian, though I reject labels. Much of the social change that removed discriminatory laws and practices in my lifetime has been accompanied by dire predictions of all sorts of terrible consequences. . . consequences that did not occur or were painless.

The whole idea of Liberty and Freedom for all is itself the top of a slippery slope, one we have been navigating for the last 230 years pretty well.

The time for the adult WASP male to rule based on what is good and desirable for the adult WASP male to the exclusion of others is long past.

 

[QC]

Re: Finally! Some common sense from our courts.

The time for the adult WASP male to rule based on what is good and desirable for the adult WASP male to the exclusion of others is long past.

Remember who raised me Some things are good for us all though. Good honest discussion.

 

[Bob_VT]

Re: Finally! Some common sense from our courts.

QC- I guess my point was not explained clearly. I agree with you on Mom and Dad (loving parents). My point is it is very sad that some of the children being raised today are in "troubled" homes. If a unioned couple wants to raise a child would you agree that the two at home parent network is better than a troubled one.

I just think outside the box.

There are far worse troubles in our USA than civil unions and I believe the "civil union" is used as a political pawn to demonstrate that courts and leaders are working.

 

[mrbscott19]

Re: Finally! Some common sense from our courts.

I don't recall this discussion being about adoption. I agree, I'd rather a kid without a home be with two loving males, joined in a gay union, than an abusive hetero home . . . This does not change my opinion of gay marriage.

Edit: your question also assumes that there are kids that are not being adopted due to a lack of hetero applicants . . . I don't know that to be true, I don't know that it isn't either . . .

Your reason for not allowing gay marriage was all about them raising kids. Well since nature doesn't allow gays to procreate, adoption is really the only answer. That is why I brought it up. Gay couples can't raise kids they don't have. And I would be willing to bet that there are LOADS more kids that need adopted than there are parents to adopt them. Otherwise there wouldn't be foster homes, right?

Here's a fair question. Do you think gay marriage would be ok if they couldn't raise kids?

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Finally! Some common sense from our courts.

The term of Gay and Marraige are as compatible as oil and water. Doesn't matter whether kids are an issue or not. Homosexuality is an aberration of nature and does not deserve the same status as the union of a man and a women.

Your facts are also skewed MrB, in that there is absolutely no surplus of white babies available for adoption. There are babies of minorities (a class that is perpetuated by your own philosophical/political bent) and of older children of all colors and creed. It is not those children that your much hallowed homosexual couples want to adopt any more than they are for the heterosexual couples.

If this society bends to the level of Rome, regarding this issue, we are bound to go out the same way.

 

[--GQ--]

Re: Finally! Some common sense from our courts.

Common sense? Hogwash. Irrational fear and prejudice is more like it.

Marriage is primarily for persons to contract to become a single legal entity. . . next of kin. The ability to procreate has been around for a lot longer than bluenosed bigots who condemn anything they don't want to do themselves.

The myth that children are born into and raised primarily by married heterogender couples with both parents present is as dead as the laws against unlawful cohabitation in the 21st century.

More than half of the children in this country. . .
were born out of wedlock and/or live with only one or neither of their biological parents.

Single gender couples had/have nothing to do with that and to deny them the legal right to contract for life and to have the rights of next of kin has no moral basis at all.

Nobody, not even POTUS, has offered any evidence at all that allowing same gender couples the same human and civil rights as other citizens would harm anyone. . . .ANYONE.

Fear and prejudice.

Well said, uncle JB d .

Furthermore, I believe a person lifestyle is "NATURE" not "NURTURE". A child raised by gay couples is at no more a risk than a child raised by straight couples of becoming gay or straight. It has never been proven otherwise. Myth busted.

In addition, Gays/lesbians, as a group tend to be very successful. They contribute more to this society than us "normal" people in the form of Tax dollars. When was the last time a Lesbian couples robbed a bank? When was the last time a gay couples hijacked a car and shot the owner in the head? Judge people for their kindness to society not what they do behind close door. Fear of the unknown will rot you from within !

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Finally! Some common sense from our courts.

Judge people for their kindness to society not what they do behind close door. Fear of the unknown will rot you from within !

That is probably the same thing they said in defense of polygamy.

No fear, no judgement, no paranoia, no phobia GQ. Am glad to judge them for their 'kindness to society' and all other personal attributes that have nothing to do with their choice of sexual preference. All that still does not qualify them to be members of an institution that was ordained to be between a man and a women and neither does the fact that one happens to know or be related to, highly respect or value the individuals that choose that lifestyle.

I say if they weren't born with complementary hardware then I will fight with all that is in me to keep them from having the same status as the ones who brought them into this world in the first place!!!!!!

Other creatures in the pantheon of life, that would have a penchant for members of the same sex, would have or soon would be extinct. Why should I support and elevate the upholding of a behavior that cannot long exist anywhere else in nature AND risk having it taught to my children as a normal course of events? Hey, Try it, You may like it. Yeah, right on Bro!

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Finally! Some common sense from our courts.

I agree Boom.

 

[tomatolord]

Re: Finally! Some common sense from our courts.

When I was younger I thought mom and dad are the best way to raise a kid, then I had kids and I met other "parents" and I really changed my mind to think gay parents can not be any WORSE then some of the parents (mom and dad) that I have met.

I think there are a few camps.

1 - gays need legal protection to pass assets on and provide for their offspring and provide for their partners. YES I agree 100%

2- where does it end - can I marry a 12 year old? Can I marry a cat? can i marry 2 wives (although why someone would want another wife I dont know is another thread

I think the big thing to remember is that the "supreme courts" of the land are supposed to "interpret" the laws that are written, NOT create new laws.

Tlord.

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Finally! Some common sense from our courts.

1 - gays need legal protection to pass assets on and provide for their offspring and provide for their partners. YES I agree 100%

TL
a) They already have legal protection. It is called a will!

b) Homosexuals, by nature, can have no offspring from a same sex relationship

c)They already have the ability to provide for their 'partner'. It is called a will.

Lets leave it at 'partners'. Homosexual partners deserve no more protection, under the law, than any INDIVIDUAL.

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Finally! Some common sense from our courts.

It is your religion that motivates your stance......
It became clear when you used the word "ordained".....
You make it sound as if it were a treatable disease.....
Call it what you will, but you are a homophobe.....
Religious zealotry is the bane of humanity & always has been a detriment to society, then & now......
That is why church & state need to be separated,
but I digress.........JK

 

[12Footer]

Re: Finally! Some common sense from our courts.

.

It is your religion that motivates your stance......
It became clear when you used the word "ordained".....
You make it sound as if it were a treatable disease.....
Call it what you will, but you are a homophobe.....
Religious zealotry is the bane of humanity & always has been a detriment to society, then & now......
That is why church & state need to be separated,
but I digress.........JK

Absurd.
His "religious zealotry" has beheaded NO ONE!

The word, "ordained", as defined in Merriam's dictionary;

Main Entryrdain
Pronunciation:*r-*d*n
Function:verb
Etymology:Middle English ordeinen, from Old French ordener, from Late Latin ordinare, from Latin, to put in order, appoint, from ordin-, ordo order
Date:14th century

transitive senses
1 : to invest officially (as by the laying on of hands) with ministerial or priestly authority
2 a : to establish or order by appointment, decree, or law : ENACT b : DESTINE, FOREORDAIN
intransitive senses : to issue an order
–ordainer noun
–ordainment \-*d*n-m*nt\ noun

Therefore, it can be used in two ways ,can it not?
I guess it would be easy to misinterpret in order to make a totally off-point point, but it just fuels the fire, Haut.
And it's uncalled for , provided you know better.
And i think you did know better, but just have a hatered of organised religion that can't be sated, so you must justify your hate somehow.
.


You need to learn that religion without faith is irrelevant.
You also need to learn that faith is stronger than persecution,and always will be.





.
------------------------------------------------From SW Florida, A proud member of iboats since March 25,2001
The old me

 

[gafteci]

Re: Finally! Some common sense from our courts.

boomyal wrote:

No fear, no judgement, no paranoia, no phobia GQ. Am glad to judge them for their 'kindness to society' and all other personal attributes that have nothing to do with their choice of sexual preference. All that still does not qualify them to be members of an institution that was ordained to be between a man and a women and neither does the fact that one happens to know or be related to, highly respect or value the individuals that choose that lifestyle.

I say if they weren't born with complementary hardware then I will fight with all that is in me to keep them from having the same status as the ones who brought them into this world in the first place!!!!!!

Other creatures in the pantheon of life, that would have a penchant for members of the same sex, would have or soon would be extinct. Why should I support and elevate the upholding of a behavior that cannot long exist anywhere else in nature AND risk having it taught to my children as a normal course of events? Hey, Try it, You may like it. Yeah, right on Bro!

A couple things.

1. It's very plain (from the bold part) that you are against same sex couples because you are a homophob. You would not want a gay person to live in your neighborhood even if that person lived alone and was not raising a child.

2. There are hundreds of examples of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. I'm not talking about one animal mounting another just to show dominance. So, for you to say it is not natural, is just plain wrong.
See this: http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc97/1_4_97/bob1.htm
and this: http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html
and this: http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/homosexuality/animal-homosexuality/

There are plenty more articles about animal homosexuality if you want to look for it. But, I know homophobs won't want to. They just stick their heads in the sand and continue to say that it's not natural.

YOUR WRONG, GET OVER IT!!!!!

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Finally! Some common sense from our courts.

Yes Haut, the marraige of a man and a women was ordained by the same Creator (the Lord God Jehovah) who gave us the basis of much of our Constitution and whose principals have stood as a lampost to guide this country along the way. It was not ordained by the Church of England or a Church of the USA or any other 'church'.

And yes, my support of the Marraige of a man and a women comes from a higher authority unlike you and your ilk that just make up ideas out of whole cloth, then try to give them legitimacy by pulling the civil rights and fairness cards. You have no basis for your believe, whatsover, other than what your liberal mind set wants it to be.

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Finally! Some common sense from our courts.

YOUR WRONG, GET OVER IT!!!!!

I may not be and I might not have to gafteci.

If the homosexuals and their liberal allies are no longer able to get the ear of the courts to legislate and legitimize their behaviour and demands, at least to the extent that it warrants joining a tried and true mellinia old hallowed institution, then It might just be you who has to get over it.

 

[chugger]

Re: Finally! Some common sense from our courts.

Common sense? Hogwash. Irrational fear and prejudice is more like it.

Marriage is primarily for persons to contract to become a single legal entity. . . next of kin. The ability to procreate has been around for a lot longer than bluenosed bigots who condemn anything they don't want to do themselves.

The myth that children are born into and raised primarily by married heterogender couples with both parents present is as dead as the laws against unlawful cohabitation in the 21st century.

More than half of the children in this country. . .
were born out of wedlock and/or live with only one or neither of their biological parents.

Single gender couples had/have nothing to do with that and to deny them the legal right to contract for life and to have the rights of next of kin has no moral basis at all.

Nobody, not even POTUS, has offered any evidence at all that allowing same gender couples the same human and civil rights as other citizens would harm anyone. . . .ANYONE.

Fear and prejudice.

You say that more than half of the children are born out of wedlock. I say that number has increased (and is still on the rise) since oh lets say the 1940's. I also submit that our society has been going down hill at a rate equall to kids raised by single parents.
This Billy has to mommy's crap that the queer enablers are pushing is pure bovine excrement. And if homos want equal rights, I want (and reserve the right, by the way) to be able to discriminate against them. Yeah I am a bigot, so what? Theres no law against feelings.(yet)

The hatred you spread has consequences you can't control. It may hurt someone who's never done you any harm. It might even come back to hurt someone who'd helped you in a time of need.