Gay Marriage in Mass.

Izumi Koushirou · Post by **Izumi Koushirou** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 9:19 pm

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/

Macc · Post by **Macc** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 3:13 pm

Oh and this is for all the people who think ALL our founding fathers were religious fanatics. Here's some quotes I came across. Enjoy.

Thomas Jefferson-"In every country and
every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance
with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached
to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore
the safer engine for their purpose."
- to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814

-"Millions of innocent
men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been
burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards
uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make
one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support
roguery and error all over the earth." - "Notes on Virginia"

-"Shake off all the fears
of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched.
Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every
opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because,
if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of
blindfolded fear. - letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787

-"Gouverneur Morris had
often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity)
than did he himself-in his private journal, Feb. 1800

Benjamin Franklin-"I wish it (Christianity)
were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day
keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries
and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing
the Deity."

- Works, Vol. VII, p. 75

-"Lighthouses are more
helpful than churches."

-"The way to see by faith
is to shut the eye of reason."

-in Poor Richard's Almanac

-"In the affairs of the
world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it."

John Adams-"As I understand the Christian
religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that
millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and
Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever
existed?"

-letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816 -."I almost shudder at the
thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which
the history of mankind has preserved-- the Cross. Consider what calamities
that engine of grief has produced!"

-letter to Thomas Jefferson
-"The divinity of Jesus
is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do
we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads
of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity."

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:24 pm

otseng wrote:I believe the question really would be, "Is homosexuality a sin?" If it is not, then homosexuals should be allowed to marry. If it is, then homosexual marriages should not be recognized.

I believe that governments should not make rules and laws based solely on religious teachings. Since the only objection to homosexuality is that it offends certain religious teachings, it should be hands off.

Otseng, who's definition of sin would you have the government use? Would you bar unrepentant adulterers (those divorced for the wrong reasons according to Jesus) from marrying? What if a particular church accepted homosexuality, does it then cease to be a sin? If the Anglican community cannot agree on this issue, how can you expect a government to?

I live in a country where same sex marriages are constitutionally protected. My own (heterosexual) marriage has not be threatened by this. Men and women are still getting married. The sky has not fallen. The Gay community has not gone on a nation-wide recruitment drive. Churches are still allowed to discriminate on whatever basis they deem appropriate.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:49 pm

I will point out that in the almost 5 years since Gay marriage has been allowed in the state of Mass, life is exactly how it was before, and the only difference is who is allowed to get married.

tlong · Post by **tlong** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 11:37 am

Come on! Sounds good to me! We should herd up all the homosexuals and send them to Mass. Good riddance.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:33 pm

tlong wrote:Come on! Sounds good to me! We should herd up all the homosexuals and send them to Mass. Good riddance.

How is what you're saying any different from the response of the racists when the anti-miscegenation laws (laws that removed the ban on inter-racial marriage) were passed? You want to marry a white girl, you better not do it in our neighborhood! What you are saying goes against the intent and the spirit of human rights principles. The point that was being made was that in Massachusetts as in Canada, the fact that same-sex couples are now allowed to marry has not had a detrimental to the rest of us. Your objections sound unreasonable and bigoted.

tlong · Post by **tlong** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:49 pm

McCulloch wrote:
tlong wrote:Come on! Sounds good to me! We should herd up all the homosexuals and send them to Mass. Good riddance.
How is what you're saying any different from the response of the racists when the anti-miscegenation laws (laws that removed the ban on inter-racial marriage) were passed? You want to marry a white girl, you better not do it in our neighborhood! What you are saying goes against the intent and the spirit of human rights principles. The point that was being made was that in Massachusetts as in Canada, the fact that same-sex couples are now allowed to marry has not had a detrimental to the rest of us. Your objections sound unreasonable and bigoted.

If my opinion makes me a bigot, then That is what I am. To compare gay marriage with anti-miscegenation laws, I'll have to trust you on the meaning, is a reach on your part. There is a big difference between being born one color or another to having sexual relations with your same sex. Your argument is ridiculous. I do not want my children or grandchildren thinking that it is OK to be gay. It goes against God and human biology.

Homicidal_Cherry53 · Post by **Homicidal_Cherry53** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:32 pm

tlong wrote:
McCulloch wrote:
tlong wrote:Come on! Sounds good to me! We should herd up all the homosexuals and send them to Mass. Good riddance.
How is what you're saying any different from the response of the racists when the anti-miscegenation laws (laws that removed the ban on inter-racial marriage) were passed? You want to marry a white girl, you better not do it in our neighborhood! What you are saying goes against the intent and the spirit of human rights principles. The point that was being made was that in Massachusetts as in Canada, the fact that same-sex couples are now allowed to marry has not had a detrimental to the rest of us. Your objections sound unreasonable and bigoted.

If my opinion makes me a bigot, then That is what I am. To compare gay marriage with anti-miscegenation laws, I'll have to trust you on the meaning, is a reach on your part. There is a big difference between being born one color or another to having sexual relations with your same sex. Your argument is ridiculous. I do not want my children or grandchildren thinking that it is OK to be gay. It goes against God and human biology.

You are simultaneously pointing out the "huge difference" between inter-racial and same-sex marriage, while using the exact same argument people used decades ago to deny inter-racial couples the right to marry.

tlong · Post by **tlong** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 6:11 pm

IT AIN'T NATURAL! Do you chose your race? NO! Do you chose to have sexual relations with the same sex? YES! The same argument cannot be used for inter racial marriage and same sex marriage. Gays are not a minority they are a group of confused people that need some serious help and some Good Orderly Direction.

Homicidal_Cherry53 · Post by **Homicidal_Cherry53** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 6:24 pm

tlong wrote:IT AIN'T NATURAL! Do you chose your race? NO! Do you chose to have sexual relations with the same sex? YES! The same argument cannot be used for inter racial marriage and same sex marriage. Gays are not a minority they are a group of confused people that need some serious help and some Good Orderly Direction.

You choose to have sex with someone of a different race in the same way that you choose to have sex with someone of the same sex. They are both choices which are considered taboo because of inherent characteristics of the people involved (in the case of inter-racial relationships, the person's race, in the case of same-sex marriages, the person's sex). It really is quite impossible not to notice the countless parallels.

Really, the only big difference between the two is that one is accepted by our current society and the other isn't.

tlong · Post by **tlong** » Tue Mar 03, 2009 6:43 pm

No, the big difference is that one goes against the human anatomy and the other is just a skin color. Man, leave the boys alone. There is no justification for it. Only excuses.

Debating Christianity and Religion

Gay Marriage in Mass.

Do you believe gay marriage should be allowed?

Gay Marriage in Mass.