Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Gay Marriage Safe In Massachusetts  
User currently offlineJohnboy From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2587 posts, RR: 7
Posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3420 times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...614.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

So gay marriage continues in Massachusetts.

Woohoo!

"We have a situation here where the politicians have spoken but the people have not," Mineau said. "We have a highly energized base in this state of aroused citizens who, time and time again, have tried to vote on this crucial issue of the definition of marriage, and they have been denied."

Wow, "aroused" citizens, add that to the always humorous "ramming it down our throats" argument -- if I didn't know better, I'd swear these 'phobes had some strange psychosexual issues swirling around in those tiny little minds.

In any case, get over it.

Congratulations, Massachusetts!

172 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20562 posts, RR: 62
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3415 times:

Quoting Johnboy (Thread starter):
Congratulations, Massachusetts!

And guess what, since gay marriage was legalized in MA, the sky didn't fall, Armageddon didn't materialize, and from the latest available figures, the divorce rate in MA is still the lowest in the nation.

Hallelujah, Amen, and all that.  champagne 



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinePLANAR From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3406 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):
And guess what, since gay marriage was legalized in MA, the sky didn't fall, Armageddon didn't materialize...

Amen to that!
Congratulations MA....



Flim-Flam Balderdash...
User currently offlineMBMBOS From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2597 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3346 times:

Woo-hoo! I am really proud to say that I'm a citizen of Massachusetts.

I'm also glad this process is over.


User currently offlineMt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6582 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3340 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):
And guess what, since gay marriage was legalized in MA, the sky didn't fall, Armageddon didn't materialize, and from the latest available figures, the divorce rate in MA is still the lowest in the nation.

I wonder if the sky has fallen or Armageddon ensued in any other countries where this has happened..



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineTSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 3068 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3334 times:

Hmmm...these Bee Gees lyrics seem eerily appropriate:

Feel I'm goin back to Massachusetts,
Somethings telling me I must go home.
And the lights all went out in Massachusetts
The day I left her standing on her own.

Tried to hitch a ride to San Francisco,
Gotta do the things I wanna do.
And the lights all went out in Massachusetts
They brought me back to see my way with you.

Talk about the life in Massachusetts,
Speak about the people I have seen,
And the lights all went out in Massachusetts
And massachusetts is one place I have seen.

I will remember Massachusetts...


Congratulations Massachusetts!



Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
User currently offlineDtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3323 times:

Now if we could do the same in Michibama! I believe that our Prop 2 (2004) will be overturned and we won't be seen as the new Segregationist State that we've become.


Btw...since the MA gay marriage issue has gone into effect, how many plural marriages, marriages between men and goats, etc as the far right warned have actually taken place?


User currently offlineCastleIsland From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3317 times:

Here's the NY Times version of the story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/15/us...15gay.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

I'll make a couple of points:

1. I am very pleased with the outcome
2. It seems that the local "family" group is up in arms because they had some 170,000 signatures to repeal the right to gay marriage.
3. Many of the politicians who were previously against gay marriage changed their mind after meeting with a number of couples.
4. While I am pleased with the result, it seems that this could be construed as another example of politicians doing what THEY think best despite what many of their constituents want.
5. I may agree with the political majority vote on this, but are fully happy when politicians do what they want and not what their constituents want just because we agree with the outcome?

Those of you who know me, know that I support gay rights. I'm just trying to ask some tough questions.


User currently offlineMBMBOS From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2597 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3305 times:

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 6):
...how many plural marriages, marriages between men and goats, etc as the far right warned have actually taken place?

I can't find the quote but I think I read in the Boston Globe that there have been about 8500 gay marriages since legalization.

Quoting CastleIsland (Reply 7):
2. It seems that the local "family" group is up in arms because they had some 170,000 signatures to repeal the right to gay marriage.

It should be noted that about 40,000 of those signatures were thrown out because they were fraudulently obtained (a common ruse was to invite grocery shoppers to sign a petition allowing liquor to be sold in grocery stores but they were actually signing the anti-gay marriage amendment petition).

Also, another little anecdote that I find interesting. Yesterday, my partner was walking near the state house during his lunch hour. He saw a woman carrying a sign stating "Gay Marriage Hurts Children" and he couldn't resist. He turned and asked her what she meant by that. She explained that she didn't speak english. He asked her if she knew what her sign said. She shrugged.

Not sure what that was about but my best guess is that she was hired to carry a sign and be an anti-gay marriage protester. If so, that's pretty weak and pathetic.

Quoting CastleIsland (Reply 7):
4. While I am pleased with the result, it seems that this could be construed as another example of politicians doing what THEY think best despite what many of their constituents want.

Less than 25% of the legislators voted for the anti-gay marriage amendment. Perhaps so few voted for it because they have to consider their constituents and how they will vote in the next election.

I will also point out that polls in the state have indicated that while a hefty minority of citizens feel uncomfortable about gay marriage (the majority in this state are pro gay marriage), they do not want to institute a constitutional amendment that would take away rights from gay people. And even more adamantly they do not want to revoke gay marriages that have already occurred.

So, bearing that in mind, the legislators are reflecting the will of the people and saving us from a very expensive general ballot election on the issue.

Also, with most state constitutions and indeed, the U.S. constitution, the bar is set very high for adding or changing amendments. The spirit behind this is to prevent short-term political trends from undoing/redoing the fundamental architecture of governance.

And frankly, is getting a 25% vote from legislators in order to put an amendment on the ballot a terribly high bar?


User currently offlineCastleIsland From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3281 times:

Thanks for the responses and information, MBMBOS.

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 8):
It should be noted that about 40,000 of those signatures were thrown out because they were fraudulently obtained (a common ruse was to invite grocery shoppers to sign a petition allowing liquor to be sold in grocery stores but they were actually signing the anti-gay marriage amendment petition).

As reprehensible as that is, it also smacks of the stupidity of the general public not to read what they were signing, or, to sign something that did not explicitly state its purpose. You know someone is going to ask for a link to confirm that, so I'll save them the trouble. Any source?

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 8):
Also, another little anecdote that I find interesting. Yesterday, my partner was walking near the state house during his lunch hour. He saw a woman carrying a sign stating "Gay Marriage Hurts Children" and he couldn't resist. He turned and asked her what she meant by that. She explained that she didn't speak english. He asked her if she knew what her sign said. She shrugged.

Not sure what that was about but my best guess is that she was hired to carry a sign and be an anti-gay marriage protester. If so, that's pretty weak and pathetic.

 checkmark  checkmark  checkmark 

Keep in mind that I am indeed happy about the outcome; it's often hard to tell how many of the people really want what some special interest group tells us or the media what they allegedly want, or how many of them there truly are. Given all that uncertainty, it's clear that the MA legislature did not only the right thing, but some genuine good for a load of people. And they also did no one else any harm, despite what many might say...


User currently offlineSTLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9345 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3275 times:

This should be good. The next time a big hurricane blows away Galveston, New Orleans, or wherevertheputz, you know that Massachusetts will be blamed by some nutjob minister.


if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3258 times:

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 6):
Now if we could do the same in Michibama! I believe that our Prop 2 (2004) will be overturned and we won't be seen as the new Segregationist State that we've become.

All it shows me is that gays are afraid of the ballot box. If you truly believed that the general population believed in gay marriage you would demand the vote to prove your right and your detractors are wrong.

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 6):
Btw...since the MA gay marriage issue has gone into effect, how many plural marriages, marriages between men and goats, etc as the far right warned have actually taken place?

Give it time, it's already happened overseas, only a matter of time before it happens here.

BTW, I guess the people of Michigan are not entitled to their opinion by your post.


User currently offlineMax999 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1040 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3256 times:

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 11):
All it shows me is that gays are afraid of the ballot box. If you truly believed that the general population believed in gay marriage you would demand the vote to prove your right and your detractors are wrong.

You're alluding to an interesting point there...liberals have for a long time relied on the Judiciary to make changes in society. Maybe it's time to diversify the tactics that are used.

And also, recent polls have shown that the younger the age, the more likely they are to support gay marriage. So it's only a matter of time before the majority of Americans are fine with the issue. I'm not discounting the fact there will be opposition to gay marriage in the future, but they will be in the minority. Just like opposition today to interracial marriage is in the minority.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 11):

Give it time, it's already happened overseas, only a matter of time before it happens here.

Thanks for letting us know that you see myself and millions of other gays/lesbians around the world on the same level as goats.



All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening.
User currently offlineSTLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9345 posts, RR: 26
Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3248 times:

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 11):
All it shows me is that gays are afraid of the ballot box. If you truly believed that the general population believed in gay marriage you would demand the vote to prove your right and your detractors are wrong.



Quoting Max999 (Reply 12):
You're alluding to an interesting point there...liberals have for a long time relied on the Judiciary to make changes in society. Maybe it's time to diversify the tactics that are used.

Hey that sounds like a great new concept that I'm all about ...

"Voting in favor of keeping principles of the Constitution in tact"

And what better place to start than a combination of the 1st and 14th Amendments?



if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20562 posts, RR: 62
Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3241 times:

Quoting CastleIsland (Reply 7):
4. While I am pleased with the result, it seems that this could be construed as another example of politicians doing what THEY think best despite what many of their constituents want.



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 11):
If you truly believed that the general population believed in gay marriage you would demand the vote to prove your right and your detractors are wrong.

Both these responses address the basic fundamentals of why we have a government. We individually cannot build our own roads, police our own communities, safeguard the food supply, etc., while we're putting food on our table and a roof over our heads. That's why we collect ourselves as societies to appoint others to take care of these tasks for us. We don't have to vote on every issue, we've elected others to do that for us--and not just for what we may want individually, but what is best for us as a whole, while doing no harm in the process.

When those we've elected to handle the mechanisms of society don't act in accordance with that brief, we have the ballot box to turn to.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineQueenofDaSkies From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 99 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3237 times:

Fabulous.....looks like I'm transferring to BOS.

Now I just gotta find a husband.......  Silly



It's time to FLY!
User currently offlineMax999 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1040 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3232 times:

Quoting STLGph (Reply 13):
Hey that sounds like a great new concept that I'm all about ...

"Voting in favor of keeping principles of the Constitution in tact"

And what better place to start than a combination of the 1st and 14th Amendments?

The beauty of the American government is that reform can happen through a variety of means. There is nothing wrong with writing a law that clarifies the unalienable rights of the Constitution if rights are being violated.

All I'm saying is that there is more than one way of achieving gay marriage in this country.



All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening.
User currently offlineYanksn4 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1404 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3230 times:

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 11):
All it shows me is that gays are afraid of the ballot box. If you truly believed that the general population believed in gay marriage you would demand the vote to prove your right and your detractors are wrong.

 checkmark 

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 14):
Both these responses address the basic fundamentals of why we have a government. We individually cannot build our own roads, police our own communities, safeguard the food supply, etc., while we're putting food on our table and a roof over our heads. That's why we collect ourselves as societies to appoint others to take care of these tasks for us. We don't have to vote on every issue, we've elected others to do that for us--and not just for what we may want individually, but what is best for us as a whole, while doing no harm in the process.

When those we've elected to handle the mechanisms of society don't act in accordance with that brief, we have the ballot box to turn to.

Marriage is a issue for society, not government. When something like marriage is regulated, it should be decided upon by the people at large, not a hundred or so legislators. While I do in a way support gay marriage, I think the only way it and the homosexual community can come to be fully accepted is if they work with the people and try to convince them on their merits, not going through courts and by passing the public at large.

signed,
Matthew



2013 Airports: EWR, JFK, LGA, LIS, AGP, DEN, GIG, RGN, BKK, LHR, FRA, LAX, SYD, PER, MEL, MCO, MIA, PEK, IAH
User currently onlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20562 posts, RR: 62
Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3222 times:

Quoting Yanksn4 (Reply 17):
Marriage is a issue for society, not government.

Actually, the only legal marriages in the U.S. are those recognized and regulated by the government. If it was purely a societal issue, there would be no need for a marriage license, the refusal of which in a number of jurisdictions is what caused gay marriage to be brought to the forefront in recent years.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineZrs70 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 3166 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3222 times:

There are some truths that should be self evident. If society voted on every single aspect of law, I would fear.


14 year airliners.net vet! 2000-2013
User currently offlineCastleIsland From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3222 times:

Quoting Yanksn4 (Reply 17):
Marriage is a issue for society, not government.

Then why is it legally binding?


User currently offlineCsavel From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1362 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3222 times:

Kudos to Massachusetts. Too bad so-called "liberal" New York is being held hostage by the worst political hackage that both parties have ever perpetrated upon a state or we'd have true marriage freedom here too.

I find it ironic that some conservatives, mostly so-called "social conservatives" who profess to be anti big government, act like morality SOCIALISTS when it comes to Gay Marriage or any other hot-button issue. Then they love Big Government more than Bella Abzug, Hillary Clinton, and John Lindsey combined ever did.

"Gays marry, quick let's have the govt tell us who we can and can't marry!"

"A little titty on the TV? Quick let's have the government tell the WHOLE COUNTRY what is too dirty for them to watch!" As adults they obviously can't be counted on to do it themselves.
But it is for the children, because we freedom-loving conservatives can't trust adults to parent their kids.

And so it goes, do social conservatives have *any* credibility now?

PS I can't wait for James Dobson to be caught in bed with an underaged male goat.



I may be ugly. I may be an American. But don't call me an ugly American.
User currently offlineSTLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9345 posts, RR: 26
Reply 22, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3218 times:

Quoting Max999 (Reply 16):
There is nothing wrong with writing a law that clarifies the unalienable rights of the Constitution if rights are being violated.

You missed the part about the 14th amendment I take it...



if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
User currently offlineFrequentflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 736 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3202 times:

Am happy about the results. Shame on the attempts from some to have false signatures on petitions, that is a disgrace.

However...

I am conflicted about the process. I would prefer the public opinion to be consulted. On the other hand, should the equal rights of a minority be subject to a majority's suffrage?

My political side is happy, however my legalistic side sees this as a somewhat pyrrhic victory.

Anyways, at this point, Congratulations MA!



Take off and live
User currently offlineMax999 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1040 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3202 times:

Quoting STLGph (Reply 22):

You missed the part about the 14th amendment I take it...

I think we're both not getting our points out clearly. I'll send you an private message instead.



All the things I really like to do are either immoral, illegal, or fattening.
25 MBMBOS : I don't have a source but it has been widely covered and verified (Yesterday's Globe mentioned the number of petitioners who were removed; websites p
26 CastleIsland : Fair enough. All in the name of "morality," huh? I hope thay find their cells to be comfortable. What's the sentence for this type of fraud?
27 N1120A : Actually, they aren't in this case. The Constitution is the Supreme Law and the 14th Amendment is very clear.
28 Greasespot : Where? If they put everything to a vote interracial marriage would still be illegal....The arguments that were trotted out when interacial marriage w
29 Post contains images AeroWesty : So I've looked up the issue of man/beast marriages. There was one case in the Cayman Islands, where the man claimed his first wife was a cow, his sec
30 Mt99 : Is Britney Spears capable of any of these?
31 Tsaord : Why in this day and age should the "people" decide who can marry? I do not fully understand that.
32 Post contains images CastleIsland : Think of the money you could save on dairy products.
33 Post contains images AeroWesty : Wait, wait, was this why President Bush was reading "My Pet Goat" to the class on 9/11? First creationism, now goats?!? (Oooh, I'd better leave for t
34 Tsaord : Why is it so hard for people who do not believe in Gay Marriage because of their religion to leave it there? Their religious beliefs can't govern a na
35 AeroWesty : Because it defies the "sanctity" of the marriage vows for the religious. Gay marriage to them isn't "holy". I say fine, if you don't believe in gay m
36 Bwest : Maybe you should rephrase that as "openly non believers". Btw, some posters argued here that it's up to the people to decide, not to the politicians.
37 ConcordeBoy : Example please? Other way around.
38 Post contains images LH423 : I was listening to talk radio at work while this was happening yesterday. Even the right-wingers on Boston talk radio were pleased with the results. T
39 N1120A : Which would likely get them in big, big trouble, as happened to a few other states that tried to leave before.
40 Post contains links RJdxer : If you are going to redefine marriage for one group you have to be willing to redefine it for all groups otherwise you are asking for "gasp" special
41 AeroWesty : The Constitutional amendment at issue in Massachusetts was to *ban* gay marriages, not for allowing them. The legislature decided there was no useful
42 Zrs70 : Well, who defines marriage? The bible? In the bible, men had multiple marriages, and women were acquired as property.
43 Mariner : Yeh, I've having a little problem with that - most of the patriarchs were polygamists. I think the situation in Massachusetts is great - for those wh
44 N1120A : I already have. Equal protection. The right of a government sanctioned marriage isn't guaranteed, but if the government sanctions it for one group, i
45 BananaBoY : I've always wondered why it seems so important to call it "marriage?" I don't have religious beliefs, but can respect those that do. If the Christians
46 Mariner : Yes, I understand that, and I wonder if it might have happened more swiftly with civil union than with marriage. Within my experience in the US, it w
47 N1120A : Here is the problem. All the laws are written to call it marriage and many states still grant the Tenancy in Common, a right that is only enjoyed by
48 Doona : There was the guy in the Sudan who was caught... um... "getting jiggy" with his goat, and he was sentenced to marry the goat by the local court. Afte
49 LH526 : Sadest point is that this is still newsworthy! Mario LH526
50 Scorpio : " target=_blank>http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/ukfs_news/...2.stm Wow. That is your defense? Articles completely unrelated to gay marriage? You really must
51 Post contains images Mt99 : Yea i agree!.. how about some links that show that "traditional marriage" can also be f-ed up.. therefore also illegal?
52 Post contains links Johnboy : Excellent editorial in the Boston Globe which lays it all out about the legislative process this past week in Massachusetts. '...Madison, writing 220
53 RJdxer : No quite, they decided not to let the people vote on it. The same thing has been going on in Tennessee with gambling for years. The people seem to wa
54 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : Good question, now answer it. Yeah, y'know... that minor little issue with only a passing effect on couples' lives ...for which you yourself just gav
55 AeroWesty : Oh yes indeed it would. In the Proclamation of Statehood for Utah it is written: "... polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited." If Utah
56 RJdxer : I already have, several times. Which can be remedied to the benefit of all wthout redefining marriage. Then it is just as discriminatory to avowed si
57 AeroWesty : Yes, I'm aware of Prohibition. It was repealed. The conditions for Utah's entrance into the Union have not been repealed, and are not a constitutiona
58 RJdxer : Then you understand the concept.
59 AeroWesty : Of course. It still doesn't change the fact that if Utah were to allow polygamy tomorrow morning, that they wouldn't be in jeopardy of being tossed o
60 PacificWest : *wipes forehead*... Thank god Could you imagine if gay people weren't allowed to marry in Massachusetts? Their whole lives would be different, they wo
61 RJdxer : I'm sorry, but exactly who brought it up? And then brought it up again? Your position is that they will lose their statehood. I have shown that it is
62 Post contains links and images Allstarflyer : If the goal in Massachusetts is to further plunge into moral depravity, then I would agree. Not now, and hopefully not ever. I agree. But you're not
63 AeroWesty : Oh please, go get help for OCD or something. You brought up polygamy. In a thread on gay marriage in Massachusetts. Now drop it. It's done. Over.
64 RJdxer : I did? Whenever you're ready to admit you brought it up go ahead.
65 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : Where In what way? ...a case that could successfully be argued ...make medical decisions for each other ...file taxes jointly ...adopt jointly ...att
66 Allstarflyer : That would be subjective. Hopefully, my posts (past and present) reflect the position of an objective Source - the Word of God. -R
67 RJdxer : A complete overhaul of the tax code which is long overdue. Brilliant.
68 AeroWesty : Well let's see, you quoted DTWClipper as bringing it up, and are claiming I did. Great detective work there, sport. Get some help now. Don't wait. Th
69 RJdxer : I never mentioned plural marriages or polygamy just like I never mentioned beastiality. You brought up the matter of the State of Utah. My only respo
70 Post contains links AeroWesty : Go back to Reply 11, with your prediction of what will proliferate in the U.S. as a result of gay marriage in Massachusetts. When you're done with th
71 Post contains images N1120A : 18 year olds are considered adults for certain purposes, not all No, it is neither. It is a legal, contractual relationship between two people that i
72 Mariner : Your knowledge of the laws in the US is most certainly greater than my own. However, I was mildly involved, as an observer, in one of the furores att
73 N1120A : The problem is two-fold. First, a large number of states won't approve civil unions either. Second, by not granting the exact same sanction by the st
74 Post contains images BananaBoY : Not that I am against marriage, but doesn't the first quote above show how much of society actually values the sanctity you care so much about. Where
75 Mariner : I think I said that. It is equal to me. Here. But then I regard marriage as what it claims to be - an institution ordained by God. Since I don't ackn
76 N1120A : I don't see why. It is about equality. Honestly, I don't think many gay people would oppose calling it a civil union if it meant absolutely and compl
77 Mariner : Of course, it is about equality - when have I ever suggested anything else? But the word "marriage" has profound religious connotations, whether you
78 N1120A : It doesn't matter what religious connotations the word has, the law says marriage and recognizes marriage as a legal relationship. That is what I am
79 Post contains images Doona : Wow. I'm sure you would be brought up on charges if you said something like that in this country. How can people still harbour these attitudes? Shit,
80 PacificWest : Isn't that what Civil Unions do....
81 RJdxer : DTW reflected on what had not happened. I only responded that it would take time. Whereas you jumped feet first into the situation in Utah. In respon
82 Allstarflyer : Sure He does, as naturally would be. You read correctly. Your reasoning is reaching at best, and dead wrong in reality. What you are talking about is
83 Doona : So women are less suitable as providers for a family? Religion, in this case Christianity, seems to have trouble making that distinction. I don't rea
84 Mariner : Dodging the issue, eh? Whatever marriage does or does not mean to me, if two people want to marry I fail to see how that can contribute - in any way
85 SRQCrosscheck : DOMA... which is questionably constitutional on Equal Protection, Full Faith and Credit, and even Commerce Clause grounds. The Supreme Court has refu
86 N1120A : No, because we have separation of church and state in this country No, because you don't make contractual agreements involving the drinking of alcoho
87 Post contains links and images RJdxer : In this case it was the people of Massachusetts being denied the right to vote on a Constitutional amendment for their state. It does not matter what
88 PacificWest : I feel bad that I can't support gay marriage, because I have a couple gay friends and I think they are good people for the most part... but I think th
89 RJdxer : My sister and I inherited my parents house after they passed away. We owned the house 50-50. We could have continued to own the house had we chosen t
90 Post contains images Allstarflyer : Care to quote where you found that nibblet? Religion is all about works, working one's way to heaven - Christ is all about His work for us (Acts 4:12
91 Mariner : No, sir, it is the oldest debating trick in the book - answering a question by turning it back, as a question, on the questioner. What I think is it
92 Itsnotfinals : JUst like Slavery was not something people wanted to get rid of, this argument is shallow in that the role of the government is to protect the life a
93 Allstarflyer : In John 14:6, Jesus said bluntly that He is the truth, and my morality is based upon Him and who He is. If I have the wrong viewpoint about Him, then
94 AeroWesty : I wouldn't be so sure of that.
95 Mariner : Faith is, by defintion, subjective - at least, to a realist. Different education systems, perhaps. "I am bewildered to understand ..." is an invation
96 Post contains images Pilotsmoe : Yeah, thats what you thinkl
97 AeroWesty : I would add that as marriage is a civil matter in the United States, and the discussion in this thread is regarding the affirmation of the legality o
98 Pilotsmoe : If we had to vote on everything, we would probably still have slavery That's your belief, not mine. There is separation of church and state
99 Allstarflyer : Yeah, that is an invitation to get blasted in some way or other, at some point. The Bible defines it as "the substance of things hoped for, the evide
100 Pilotsmoe : By who, You?
101 Mariner : But that does not answer my original (implicit) question. It does not even support your original statement that has provoked this. Yes, the remark wa
102 Post contains images Allstarflyer : No, and excuse me, it's an invitation for me to get blasted. I know that society in the US has more than its share of faults. I'll remember for next
103 Mariner : If you - or Saint Paul - believe the action be be depraved, then it makes no matter whether the action is performed inside or outside of marriage. It
104 Scorpio : No, it still is subjective because it still requires you to BELIEVE that this portrayal is accurate, and that Christ actually WAS the son of God. Sin
105 Doona : In post 63 you wrote about the man's strength and provision and the caring and nurturing of the woman. Thus your ideal image of a marriage is one of
106 Zrs70 : Follks, gay marriage is actually a very conservative value. Look at it this way: Gays already have the right to have as much sex as we want. But what
107 RJdxer : Because you are not legally married in the United States. We had to pay for our will and now trust. 2500 bucks is nothing compared to those two. A wi
108 AeroWesty : Not everyone needs to go about things to the satisfaction of RJdxer.
109 Johnboy : Somehow I really, really doubt that. It's quite disgusting to see how those who believe god is on their side always seem to blindly believe they are
110 Itsnotfinals : Apparently you didn't read the bible. Jesus preferred to hang out with prostitutes and lepers instead of pontificating religious types. Also, Levitic
111 LH423 : Excellent post Mariner! I may not always agree with people and their views on the world and society but I don't make judgements based on their views.
112 RJdxer : I would challange you to go back through my posts, in this or any other thread dealing with gay marriage, and find a single post where I attributed r
113 N1120A : No it isn't. Depending on how your parent's conveyed title, you held either in joint tenancy or tenancy in common. Tenancy by the entirety exists onl
114 Post contains links and images Allstarflyer : That much is true. And it's not so much that I believe or he believed it, but that it's the Word of God - as it says in 2 Tim. 3 says that "all Scrip
115 Airbus3801 : Because we all know that this greater permissiveness would ruin our lives.... of course! Lady Catherine De Bourgh would pitch in now..."Are the shade
116 Allstarflyer : When the word "permissiveness" is readily linked to words such as "indulgent", "lax" and "susceptible", than perhaps it should raise an eyebrow. Havi
117 RJdxer : Then I guess I will have to tell my friends that according you there is now way they could have jointly owned the homes that they have for several ye
118 AeroWesty : Could you give some examples of an increase of "moral depravity" in Canada, the UK or Massachusetts since gay marriage was legalized? Or examples, pe
119 Allstarflyer : Based on Scriptural application, simply going legitimizing same-sex relations is, of itself, an increase in moral depravity. Even if there are no pol
120 AeroWesty : Marriage is a civil act in the U.S., not a religious act, even though it may take place in a church, synagogue or mosque. Totally irrelevant. You mad
121 Post contains images Allstarflyer : Just the ideal painted by the Scriptures. Good to know I wouldn't be charged there. Well, the Bible doesn't return void (Isaiah 55:11). -R
122 Mariner : That assumes that this permissiveness is wrong. Me. Us. Here. Several times. By the statement, quoted from your book, that homosexuality is morally d
123 Post contains images JpetekYXMD80 : Now i've seen it all!! I find it absolutely sick how you'll hide behind the bible and use it to justify you're beliefs, and more importantly how your
124 Allstarflyer : It's plainly obvious in Scripture (2 Peter 2:1-2, for example), that those who adhere to immoral standards lead others with them. Opinion. When it co
125 Post contains images AeroWesty : Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah! If you can't answer the question, just be honest about it. Or, you could provide examples of how moral depr
126 Post contains images Allstarflyer : You know, I don't get some of you people, and from the looks of it, I hope I never do. If this life is all on which you have to cling, then, of course
127 AeroWesty : So you're giving us more bible stories? If there's all this history to draw from, as you claim, it should be very easy for you to give examples. From
128 Post contains images Allstarflyer : By the way, Westy, since you're so willing (yet unable ) to pin me down, this is the text you quoted . . . . . . which doesn't show any specific claim
129 AeroWesty : Looks like a pretty specific claim to me. Let's decipher it: Gay marriage. There exists a general moral depravity in society that gay marriage would
130 Allstarflyer : Here's some reasons: -It's defiance against Scriptural principle (always needs to be laid down 1st). -It promotes, at best, confusion - marriage is n
131 BNE : What is wrong with two people who love each other wanting to get married. Doesn't it benefit society if people have someone to look after and be love
132 AeroWesty : Doesn't apply to your claim. There's no concrete evidence that having two loving fathers or two loving mothers is worse for a child than having a sin
133 Johnboy : ...it was shot down because it didn't have enough votes in the legislature. I guess one can piss and moan about the people not having a vote in the m
134 Doona : And yet, you believe that your religious opinion should be law! If laws are based on religion, how is it not a democracy? As a soceity, we should res
135 Mt99 : Historical data from Sodom! Wow. That must have been quite a discovery! Can you please tellme where i can find this? Id like to express my desire to
136 N1120A : The Joint Tenancy is a different thing. A precedent of discrimination is not valid Sort of like the traditional subordination of minorities, eh? How
137 Post contains images LH423 : Wow! Obviously there is no middle ground here so I think we all should really stop arguing this with you. You're free to have your beliefs. It's your
138 ConcordeBoy : ...nope, not many of the above.
139 Zrs70 : As an expert in Scripture, I have yet to find where in the Bible gay unions are forbidden. As for marriage, according to scriptural principal, men we
140 Itsnotfinals : You are correct it is not forbidden expressly.
141 Mt99 : Still sleeping? Hope you havent forgetten about us!
142 Post contains images Allstarflyer : I'm not your judge or anyone elses, and I know that I have to continue to remember that, and even be called out for it when I am being judgemental. B
143 Doona : Wow. Nobel Peace Prize, anyone? So the Old Testament is not as valid as the New Testament? Is the Old testament not also the "Word of God"? Yes, our
144 Post contains links Mt99 : You did. See your own response (130) See above. If you believe that divorce, adultery, and fornication are as immoral (or lessen the worth of traditi
145 Post contains images Allstarflyer : And I thought you might have brought something constructive to the conversation. Based on your lack of self-control here, you don't do your homework
146 AeroWesty : There's a lot of other things in your post I'd respond to, but I get the gist of where you're going, and that you're not open to other options, so we
147 Allstarflyer : Then we completely disagree as to who's responsible for burden of proof - but it's the proponents of same-sex marriage that seek to gain acceptance/l
148 Doona : Hey, I just want you to get the recognition you deserve... I disagree. Of course every relationship is expressed through behaviour, but being gay is
149 Zrs70 : Point well taken. But I generally don't like to quote scripture out of context. As we all know, anything in a vacuum can lead to corruption. But sinc
150 Zrs70 : Why are we talking about the rights anyway? Gays have all the rights we want to love someone. We should be talking about the responsibilities of marri
151 Mt99 : Will you have the same words (and stance) on Divorce as you have on Gay Marriage? I you promise you will start a new thread if you promise a to post
152 Allstarflyer : I'll use the same words about divorce and same-sex marriage that I used previously - they both malign the institution of marriage, but they do so dif
153 Zrs70 : Being gay is about what your soul is, who you are at your core, not about what you do. Are you left-handed or right-handed? Is it a choice or is it p
154 Mt99 : See the problem is that people like Allstar find this statement completly absurb. Just like you and I can find a random Bible qoute completly absurd.
155 Doona : Totally missed my point... What does that have to do with anything? It's nobody's business, anyway. Cheers Mats
156 N1120A : It is discrimination based on a biological trait. People By your principles. By your religious principles. By the principles specifically prohibited
157 Post contains images N229NW : The dictionary? Seriously, junior high school students cite the dictionary as a source, not adults. The dictionary reflects contemporary usage. It do
158 Itsnotfinals : To add to N1120A's excellent point. It also flies in the face of natural order to use fertlitiy drugs and in vitro fertilization as this is not "Natu
159 Johnboy : You know, as much as people cite specious religious quotations.....all it takes is for folks to see two people in love, happy to share their lives wit
160 RJdxer : What does your fifty year old dictionary say about marriage? Find a one hundred year old dictionary and what does it say? What was the definition of
161 N1120A : Merriam-Webster includes same-sex marriage in their definition of marriage.
162 Doona : Ooh, I smell a lawsuit coming! Cheers Mats
163 Jamincan : At least in the English language, almost all vocabulary has come about organically - ie. the definitions evolved over time to their present use. It i
164 Post contains images Allstarflyer : Back to the 14th amendment again? Where did you see that, counselor? Who says I have a problem with couples who normally would otherwise be able to h
165 Allstarflyer : By the way, out of curiousity - do you think morality has absolutes, or is morality a relative thing? And if morality does have absolutes, then what
166 Allstarflyer : Just so this is understood, people's personal lives should still be free from intrusion, even if they press their lifestyle on society - it's just th
167 Doona : Hey, I get straightness rammed down my throat every day. I have to see it on the street, tv, etc. And you know what? I don't care. The straight lifes
168 Frequentflyer : The natural order of things... what a pitiful and most stupid expression. For those who still haven't understood that Gay people are not from extrater
169 RJdxer : That would be male homosexuals themselves. The word did not add that definition to its meaning all by itself. And it was basically forced on us by th
170 Allstarflyer : It all intertwines with social mores, and that gets into what is acceptable and what is not. That then goes further by asking . . . Referenced . . .
171 Mt99 : How does it concern society? How is society affected?. Again you can't prove a negative point - so we can't prove it does not affect society. So i in
172 Post contains images Frequentflyer : Acceptance should not depend only on a majority rule. Minorities at times have to be protected against majorities. Good job How about intrusions on p
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Highest Court In New York Tanks Gay Marriage posted Thu Jul 6 2006 15:59:09 by Dougloid
First Gay Marriage (That We Know Of) In Pakistan posted Wed Oct 5 2005 22:12:31 by TWFirst
Huge Rally In Spain Against Gay Marriage posted Sun Jun 19 2005 02:20:22 by SFOMEX
Gay Marriage & Adoption In Spain Soon! posted Wed Jul 21 2004 21:57:00 by Wolkenridder
Massachusetts Supremes: Gay Marriage Legal posted Wed Feb 4 2004 20:20:32 by Aaron747
Three Killed In Massachusetts Strip Club Shooting posted Tue Dec 12 2006 18:47:49 by Jetjack74
Gay Marriage -- What's So Wrong About That? posted Wed Nov 15 2006 15:13:17 by Boeing757/767
AZ First State Not To Pass Gay Marriage Ammendment posted Wed Nov 8 2006 20:28:58 by Bridogger6
Gay Marriage, The GOP And Dircksen's Speech On CR. posted Wed Jul 19 2006 08:20:13 by SFOMEX
Help With Input On Gay Marriage Please posted Fri Mar 24 2006 17:53:53 by KaiGywer