Gay Marriage in Mass.

[Izumi Koushirou]

I will first state that my opinion will have some bias in it, as I am of the homosexual orientation.

In my opinion, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling is that has all the legal backing in it. Nowhere in the constitution of Massachusetts or in the constitution of the United States does it specfically say that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Secondly, since when is marriage a religious institution? From what I gather, marriage has existed for far longer than western religions.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/06/gay.m ... index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/gay.marriage/
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/conlaw ... 20304.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/06/findl ... ss.ruling/

[Barbie]

Marriage was instituted by God to be between one man and one woman.

Today the focus is not on God or truth it is on ME !!! Individualism has replaced corporate responsibility and participation. The mindset is focused only on how it will affect me, how it will offend me, how it will benefit me, etc...me, me, me. We are a very self-centered, self-serving society!

Every civilization that has turned it back on God has fallen into ruin. We are following what has been proven by history.

Gay marriage? Why not! We have thrown every other Godly principle out, why should this be any different.

You WILL reap what you sow...that is one truth that you can't redesign, redefine, or change!

[Corvus]

Marriage was instituted by God to be between one man and one woman.

No, not really. Plenty of other cultures other than the hebrews had the equivalent of marriage. Some marriages have been historically polygamous (for thousands of years, and still haven't incurred the wrath of God) and others have even been between gay couples. If marriage was really a religious component then the government should not recognise any benefits to heterosexual couples or gay couples. But marriage is currently defined by the state, and the state should not give preferential treatment to its citizens.

Today the focus is not on God or truth it is on ME !!! Individualism has replaced corporate responsibility and participation. The mindset is focused only on how it will affect me, how it will offend me, how it will benefit me, etc...me, me, me. We are a very self-centered, self-serving society!

This has always been the case, and will always be the case. People act out of self-love. 300 years ago, La Rochefoucauld said exactly the same thing. It has never been any different.

Every civilization that has turned it back on God has fallen into ruin. We are following what has been proven by history.

Which ones? I've seen plenty civilisations that have thrived with ancient customs up until the present. In fact, there is one particular tribe in New Guinea where the rite of passage for the boys is to be raped by the men. They are of the belief that semen is something that encourages strength in one's body. So far, they have yet to be struck down, even though one carrier of the AIDS virus could easily decimate the whole tribe.

Gay marriage? Why not! We have thrown every other Godly principle out, why should this be any different.

Ah, now you're seeing the light!

You WILL reap what you sow...that is one truth that you can't redesign, redefine, or change!

Then you are looking forward to experiencing inequality?

[Barbie]

If marriage was really a religious component then the government should not recognise any benefits to heterosexual couples or gay couples. But marriage is currently defined by the state, and the state should not give preferential treatment to its citizens.

Marriage is from God (Genesis 2:18-24)

In fact most of our laws, if not all, are based on Biblical principles. Without standards there can be no law. The standards set up by our founding fathers were based on the Godly principles they recognized. So why shouldn't the government recognize marriage?

Marriage defined by the state? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Trace our laws back and see the basis for them. The basis is not the state, or the federal, or man's changing views. The basis is Biblical.

Preferential treatment? Because marriage between men and women is recognized? Let's go a little further with this. I guess then those in jail for crimes should be given preferential treatment too. Afterall stealing, murder, rape, or whatever they are in for...might be perceived by them to be ok.

Some marriages have been historically polygamous (for thousands of years, and still haven't incurred the wrath of God) and others have even been between gay couples.

Again back to free choice. What man may choose to do does not change what is true. Thousands of years?

Which ones? I've seen plenty civilisations that have thrived with ancient customs up until the present. In fact, there is one particular tribe in New Guinea where the rite of passage for the boys is to be raped by the men. They are of the belief that semen is something that encourages strength in one's body. So far, they have yet to be struck down, even though one carrier of the AIDS virus could easily decimate the whole tribe.

I guess we need to define ruin! When a society no longer adheres to standards of right and wrong, or when those standards are left to man's devises, society pays the cost. As America falls into moral decline we see an increase in the depravity of man. We see an increase in violence. We see chaos.

Why does God allow sinful behavior to flourish in some cases? I don't know. I can't assume to know the mind of God. But the Bible records, time and time again, where the Lord destroys societies that are in total rebellion. We are permitted, by the grace of God, to be what we are, to do what we do....and for no other reason.

Ah, now you're seeing the light!

Then you are looking forward to experiencing inequality?

Lost me here!! Would love to respond if I understood your question!!

[Corvus]

If marriage was really a religious component then the government should not recognise any benefits to heterosexual couples or gay couples. But marriage is currently defined by the state, and the state should not give preferential treatment to its citizens.

Marriage is from God (Genesis 2:18-24)

In fact most of our laws, if not all, are based on Biblical principles. Without standards there can be no law. The standards set up by our founding fathers were based on the Godly principles they recognized. So why shouldn't the government recognize marriage?

Your founding fathers may have believed that, but definitely not mine.

Both our laws most certainly are not based on biblical principles. Our law revolves around the idea that government is in power through a social contract, and this social contract gives government the power to protect our citizens. This is why we no longer stone people for adultery, but the government is obliged (not biblically forced to) provide us with education, hospitals, protection, whatever.

Marriage defined by the state? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Trace our laws back and see the basis for them. The basis is not the state, or the federal, or man's changing views. The basis is Biblical.

It has always been the state that has defined marriage. Until recently, the role of women in marriage was a minor one. Quite simply, they were regarded as property, and all property of the woman was the property of the husband. Interracial marriage was forbidden by law. The state has changed these things.

Preferential treatment? Because marriage between men and women is recognized? Let's go a little further with this.

I do not believe any marriage should be recognised whatsoever. If you wish, you can look back through this topic and you will find a post by me that lists the various benefits granted by the state to married couples and married couples alone. If marriage was purely a religious rite, those benefits should not be recognised.

Some marriages have been historically polygamous (for thousands of years, and still haven't incurred the wrath of God) and others have even been between gay couples.

Again back to free choice. What man may choose to do does not change what is true. Thousands of years?

Why the question? There are other cultures besides our Christianity-influenced western one. A certain Tibetan tribe, for example, has all the male siblings of a family marry to a single woman, and is a strongly matriarchal society.

Which ones? I've seen plenty civilisations that have thrived with ancient customs up until the present. In fact, there is one particular tribe in New Guinea where the rite of passage for the boys is to be raped by the men. They are of the belief that semen is something that encourages strength in one's body. So far, they have yet to be struck down, even though one carrier of the AIDS virus could easily decimate the whole tribe.

I guess we need to define ruin! When a society no longer adheres to standards of right and wrong, or when those standards are left to man's devises, society pays the cost. As America falls into moral decline we see an increase in the depravity of man. We see an increase in violence. We see chaos.

No, I'm afraid you see an increase in the depravity of man. I see a fairly steady rate in the depravity of man, and a fairly old claim. If there is one thing I have learnt from reading old books is that every new generation is accused of being more depraved than the last, and the truth is, things really don't change all that much.

You mean despite that in the past few centuries we've given women the right to vote, given black men the right to vote, allowed interracial marriage, stopped segregation, bannedslavery, and still we're the ones heading into moral depravity? News to me.

Why does God allow sinful behavior to flourish in some cases? I don't know. I can't assume to know the mind of God. But the Bible records, time and time again, where the Lord destroys societies that are in total rebellion. We are permitted, by the grace of God, to be what we are, to do what we do....and for no other reason.

Records? If it was a record there'd be some sort of proof to the claim.

Then you are looking forward to experiencing inequality?

Lost me here!! Would love to respond if I understood your question!!

Quite simply, you support one class of citizens having those benefits listed previously, yet you think it's immoral that another class of citizens should also?

[Insomniac]

***

Right and wrong...how is that defined? For me, there is not set rules for "right and wrong", it's whatever an individual decides it is. Though someone may feel high and mighty and create a list of what they believe is right, that doesn't make the list true. Everyone will always have their own opinion. We can't define "right or wrong", there may be limits and laws, but aside from that, it's up to the individual.

Why not allow gay marriage? Marriage is defined and upheld by humans, the Christian 'law' of marriage was written by a human hand; therefore, marriage is subject to change by humans. We hold that power. Why force a certain minority of people to live their lives confined by the rules of an organized religion (thought not all believe in the same religious creed).

Why is the marriage of homosexuals so wrong? I have not heard ONE good argument against this aside from those starting with "Well, the Bible says this...". Are there none who rightfully oppose gay marriage with their own thoughts and opinions? Can noone back their argument with anything other than quotations from a man-created book?

To me, it seem inhuman and unfair to stop the marrying of two homosexuals. To say "Heterosexuals can marry but homosexuals can't" is downright arrogant and selfish. Think about that. Put yourself in the position of a homosexual couple. Imagine being told that the love you feel is wrong and sinful. Imagine you can't marry the person you love due to the writing of a religion that isn't even proven to be completely realistic. Just look through their eyes for one second, and tell me what you see.

[TQWcS]

It would sound silly for me to say it's immoral to build a house without a building permit.

You are skipping a step with your logic. If you stated I'm going to make a law that won't allow people to build something that could harm another person. You are making the law based on morality. Then if you didn't get the permit and built a safe structure, that is ethics.

[Gaunt]

You are making the law based on morality

Laws are not based only on morality, however. They require sound reasoning for them to be enacted as well to show why it is appropriate to limit the rights and freedoms of the populace in some manner.

[Corvus]

You are making the law based on morality

Laws are not based only on morality, however. They require sound reasoning for them to be enacted as well to show why it is appropriate to limit the rights and freedoms of the populace in some manner.

Quite right. Which is why society has slowly been dropping laws based only on religious morality and sticking with a more values-neutral system of "what to protect against and what not to protect against".

Since we're on the topic of marriage, Wikipedia has an article demonstrating just how marriage has been redefined throughout the history of the US. Some of this is quite surprising, and appalling:

• 1830 Right of married woman to own property in her own name (instead of all property being owned exclusively by the husband) in Mississippi.
• 1848 Right of married women to own property in her own name in New York.
• 1873 Supreme Court rules that a state has the right to exclude a married woman from practicing law.
• 1900 All states now grant married women the right to own property in their own name.
• 1907 All women acquired their husband's nationality upon any marriage occurring after that date.
• 1920 Right of women to vote.
• 1933 Married women granted right to citizenship independent of their husbands.
• 1965 Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting married couples from using contraception.
• 1967 Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting interracial couples from marrying (Loving v. Virginia).
• 1971 Supreme Court upholds an Alabama law that automatically changed a woman's legal surname to that of her husband upon marriage.
• 1972 Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting unmarried couples from purchasing contraception.
• 1975 Married women allowed to have credit in their own name.
• 1976 Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting abortions for married women without the consent of the husband.

The longevity of the interracial and contraception laws really shocked me.

[Dilettante]

Many people who posted on this thread seem to think that marriage did not exist prior to the Bible. But it did. It existed in earlier civilizations, and it existed in places where they had never heard of the Bible, such as China. The reality is that marriage predates both state and church.

Others confuse legality with morality. Ethics, legality and morality may generally overlap, but may be in direct conflict also. They're different things. What was legal in 1930s Germany was hardly ethical, for example.
The government has no business legislating morality. Not all sins must be punished, but only the gravest ones, said Aquinas, if I don't remember wrong.

Corvus has done a good job of debunking those myths, I think.

If it could be demonstrated that same sex marriages harm society then that would be a valid reason for not legalizing them. But I don't see how that can be done. Besides, homosexuals are a small minority, so the impact would never be a big one.

If our reason for not allowing gays to marry is that they can't have children, why do we allow infertile couples or women over a certain age to marry?

Finally, let's not forget that marriage is a cultural institution, not a natural one. Animals don't get married.

[a.elhusseini]

if one takes a look back at the big picture, then the whole "homosexuality" issue doesnt make sense, at least for me... biologically speaking men cant get pregnant therefore gays cant contribute to the multiplication of human population. both christianity and islam condemn homosexualtiy when they tell us what god did to the people of prophet Lot. one other interesting fact is that if homosexuality is a normal thing then who determines if person is to be gay or not. Are we by default born straight? From all the cases i have seen and heard of, a guy turns gay after experiencing some tragic event that made him question everything including sexual orientation ! what do you guys think? if homosexuality is not properly dealt with then out ethics will definitely clash with bizarre thinking: humans can later develop sexuality towards plants and a boy could then be allowed to marry his mother..