MA court ruling on gay marriage ban...your thoughts?

[Dionysus]

Since we have separation of church and state, I do not see any reason for
banning same-sex marriages. I have not heard of any valid non-religious reasons
why homosexual marriage should be prohibited. This should've been challenged a
long time ago.

[Rudey]

I'm man enough to admit it, I've been in a gay bar. It was literally like the scene in American Wedding and I asked my friend why it was a sausage fest. Up until a guy came up to me and started telling me he was a nurse and gave exams to hot bankers all the time, I was stupid enough not to get it. Afterwards the guys in powder blue shirts and shaved chests all started to make sense.

I don't care what others do as long as I don't have to see it or pay for it or whatever. I don't enjoy seeing straight people pretty much going at it in clubs either. The only thing I'm worried about are the implications and unintended consequences of this.

-Rudey

[mu_agd]

Originally posted by daoine

On a side note, Cambridge (go Cambridge!) already has a proposition to skip the 180 days and start issuing licenses pronto. I think it comes up Monday...

they decided against doing this and waiting for the 180 days to be up. i believe they were advised by many groups to wait.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by Dionysus
Since we have separation of church and state, I do not see any reason for
banning same-sex marriages. I have not heard of any valid non-religious reasons
why homosexual marriage should be prohibited. This should've been challenged a
long time ago.

Technically, there is no seperation of church and state, but there is the exclusion clause which simply means that the government may neither encourage, nor discourage, religion.

The best solution, in my opinion, and as previously stated in this thread, is for unions to be under the province of government, and for all marriages to exist only in the religious sector of society.

[Love_Spell_6]

Originally posted by Dionysus
Since we have separation of church and state, I do not see any reason for
banning same-sex marriages. I have not heard of any valid non-religious reasons
why homosexual marriage should be prohibited. This should've been challenged a
long time ago.

I started this thread on DST ave before I saw that it was posted here...and I list a few reasons that are non-religious for banning homosexual marriage. Ya may not agree with my reasoning...but there are other reasons...

[OUlioness01]

Lovespell, if you don't mind i'm going to respond to your post here so people can see your reasoning. PM me if you would rather it not be posted here and i'll delete this post.

To compare one fallacious argument (how SOME whites felt about interracial marriage) does not make a valid point on the subject of homosexual marriage. And this is not some "white man" argument!

i disagree with this statement. interracial marriages were once very much frowned upon, but now i see them every day. the same is true of homosexual couples, only society as a whole hasn't accepted these couples yet (i'm not saying that every single person in our society has accepted interracial relationships, but it's not looked at the same way as it was even 25 years ago).

A man with 16 wives may raise good children to...but that doesn't mean that is a good situation for children to grow up in.

I have been raised in a family that can very much be considered "nontraditional" in this sense (not in the whole 16 wives thing, but the other). I've stated this before and been flamed for it, but I will not let that stop me from defending my family. It has taught my brothers, my sister, and myself, as well as all our friends, to accept people no matter their race, gender or sexual awareness. Every person I have met who has been raised by two people of hte same gender has been much more tolerant towards people's differences.

And someone mentioned that people are confusing their religious beliefs with their political views. Are you supposed to leave what you believe outside the Courts and Congress? I wonder is that what God wants his people to do...be one way in the church...but another way at work. Secularists pride themselves on passing laws based on how they feel...but its not popular to do when you are "religious."

A judge and/or a politician's job is not to base their decisions on what their religious beliefs are, but rather what is for the good of people. ALL PEOPLE, no matter who they are. I"m not saying that all judges/politicians actually follow this theory, but that is what secularism was designed for.

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. Just because its popular today to be liberal and accepting of everything folx want to do..doesn't mean I'm going to follow the crowd. Its an unpopular viewpoint...but that's just my opinion..

I really respect your opinions. While I disagree with them I think it is a good idea that everyone else has a chance to read them too, and decide for themselves.

[Love_Spell_6]

Originally posted by OUlioness01
Lovespell, if you don't mind i'm going to respond to your post here so people can see your reasoning. PM me if you would rather it not be posted here and i'll delete this post.



i disagree with this statement. interracial marriages were once very much frowned upon, but now i see them every day. the same is true of homosexual couples, only society as a whole hasn't accepted these couples yet (i'm not saying that every single person in our society has accepted interracial relationships, but it's not looked at the same way as it was even 25 years ago).



I have been raised in a family that can very much be considered "nontraditional" in this sense (not in the whole 16 wives thing, but the other). I've stated this before and been flamed for it, but I will not let that stop me from defending my family. It has taught my brothers, my sister, and myself, as well as all our friends, to accept people no matter their race, gender or sexual awareness. Every person I have met who has been raised by two people of hte same gender has been much more tolerant towards people's differences.



A judge and/or a politician's job is not to base their decisions on what their religious beliefs are, but rather what is for the good of people. ALL PEOPLE, no matter who they are. I"m not saying that all judges/politicians actually follow this theory, but that is what secularism was designed for.



I really respect your opinions. While I disagree with them I think it is a good idea that everyone else has a chance to read them too, and decide for themselves.

NO I don't mind that you posted my thoughts here at all...
However, you cut and pasted part of what I was saying to make your point. The point I was making with Interracial vs. Homosexuality is that I can not CHOOSE whether I want to be black or white...but I can CHOOSE if I want to sleep with a woman. You cannot compare how someone is born vs a choice they make. I know some feel that homosexuality is not a choice...but I KNOW otherwise. I know some women that turn to women because they've been dogged by men, were sexually abused etc... but regardless of their reasoning....it was a choice they decided to make.

And while your situation may have turned out great...that still doesn't make it right. There are babies born addicted to crack that make astounding turnarounds...but doesn't mean its ok.

Secularism is the view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education. But for people that are religious, this is not possible. The premise behind secularism is to try to get Christians not to vote their moral or religius conscious...which I ask if that's not what you're going to do...why even proclaim to be a Christian?? BUt hey..if I was an atheist...I'd support secularism too.

We will have to agree to disagree ...but as I have stated before Our moral-less society is the direct reflection of the choices we make...and our children will suffer for our mistakes.

[Lady Pi Phi]

Originally posted by Love_Spell_6
...You cannot compare how someone is born vs a choice they make. I know some feel that homosexuality is not a choice...but I KNOW otherwise. I know some women that turn to women because they've been dogged by men, were sexually abused etc... but regardless of their reasoning....it was a choice they decided to make. ..

But how do you know? Have you spoken with every homosexual male or female. Did they tell you personally that this was a choice? I can't believe a person would consciously make this choice when they are frowned upon/despised/and even hated by some people.

Maybe some people have made the choice, but you DO NOT know that EVERYONE has made the choice.

[Cloud9]

Secularism is the view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education. But for people that are religious, this is not possible. The premise behind secularism is to try to get Christians not to vote their moral or religius conscious...which I ask if that's not what you're going to do...why even proclaim to be a Christian?? BUt hey..if I was an atheist...I'd support secularism too.

Interesting points...but I don't agree, and here's why:

In case you haven't noticed, being religious or nonreligious aside, Christianity is not the only religion in this country. And even within Christianity there are many different faiths.

The point is, you believe what YOU believe and make your decisions. As a Christian, you should know that the big theme is FREE WILL. No where in the Bible does it say(and as far as I know, there is nothing in any other religion), "Ye shall not allow thy neighbor to do...whatever" Yes, there are "shall nots" all over the place, and interpreting those is not really the point. In the end YOU are responsible for YOURself, others are not your concern. "Judge not lest ye be judged." Everyone must make their own choices, it is not for you to be their moral police, you are not God. (Besides the fact that homosexuality is indeed genetic, but we won't get into that)

[Love_Spell_6]

Originally posted by Cloud9
Interesting points...but I don't agree, and here's why:
(Besides the fact that homosexuality is indeed genetic, but we won't get into that)

Yes, lets not get into that...because i'll tell my friend to start an account on Greek chat.. she was homosexual in college and is now married with two beautiful children.. (there were a whole group of them in school...and now they're all strictly .....)

But as I said in the other thread...I'm no one's judge...we all have to answer to a higher power one day...whether you're a secularist, atheist, etc.... and you can explain to him that he must have been trippin when he destroyed Soddom and Gomorrah

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Lady Pi Phi
But how do you know? Have you spoken with every homosexual male or female. Did they tell you personally that this was a choice? I can't believe a person would consciously make this choice when they are frowned upon/despised/and even hated by some people.

Maybe some people have made the choice, but you DO NOT know that EVERYONE has made the choice.

As is often the case, this is not something I've studied in any detail, however I must agree with Lady Pi Phi.

It appears to me that the religious community feels that homosexuality is a choice, but the scientific community disagrees. While I am pretty religious, I have to agree with the scientists on this one -- with the last sentence quoted above in the first paragraph adding to my decision.

Why would anyone choose that kind of treatment?

[Honeykiss1974]

Please explain how secularism is NOT the view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education?

In Love Spell's example, she used Christianity (which is not the only religion that doesn't belives that homosexuality), but even if you take that part out, which is what I did above, how is that state not true?


And for the record, I agree with the poster that our government should eliminate ALL distinctions/classificatiooon of "married" vs. "single". No need to apply for marriage liscenses, or divorce court, married filing jointly tax classification/rates, etc. You also end the insurance issues, etc.

Let those of us who believe in the holiness of marriage continue to do that - and let those who care less "do whatever".

Because if its seperation of church and state, then so be it. Not sseperation of Christianity and state.

[Rudey]

I think that sexuality and race and religion are NOT equals. Not because you choose or don't choose. That is irrelevant. But because in this country you have elevated sexuality to such a level that is astonishing. That is why I don't feel that any insurance company should pay for Viagra.

-Rudey
--But hey I don't need Viagra

[kappaloo]

I have to make a point about homosexuality and choice.

Yes, it is a choice for a few people. But these people are usually bisexual (in my experience) and hence have feeling for both genders.

I also know people for whom being homosexual was NOT a choice. People who were very very very religious and for whom coming out was very painful and sad. Who prayed and prayed for their divine being to make them 'normal' again. Who made the CHOICE to be heterosexual and only found they were lieing to themselves and hurting the people they were dating. To say these people "chose" to be gay is niave and underminds all the anguish these people go through.

Re gay marriage....

I'm for gay marriage. I think that in an age of rampant divorce we should be happy to celebrate the life long vows of a homosexual couple.

However, the United States is not yet ready to grasp this. The idea of a common-law union is probably the best step forward.

However, when I wed in a civil ceremony (I have no desire to marry my husband in a church) I will wed and I will be married. Just because some people do not like me using the term outside of a religious context, it will not stop me. I feel that for homosexuals it will be the same thing. So, a union on paper, a marriage in the heart.

[NinjaPoodle]

Originally posted by kappaloo
So, a union on paper, a marriage in the heart.

Very well said.