Stage set for possible showdown on gay marriage

[KSigkid]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas..._sjc_go_ahead/

There is a joint session of the Massachusetts House and Senate today, so the timing of this ruling could mean a showdown today.

[Kevin]

I can't wait until some of these couples start to visit some red states and assert their rights under the full faith and credit clause. Watching all of our politicians posture will be pure entertainment.

[valkyrie]

Would somebody please provide a compelling argument opposing gay marriage that is not based on religion?

[Drolefille]

I haven't seen one myself. I don't have a problem with my church not marrying gays, but the state shouldn't get involved in a religious fight.

[RU OX Alum]

I don't like the term marriage. In and of itself. I feel like this b/c marriage as a term is one of the sacraments of roman catholic church, and since I was never catholic, what I will have with my future wife will differ from a ceremony blessed by the pope, or his rep. So, just in general, I don't care what people call their releationship, because they're probably wrong about the terminology anyway.

[Drolefille]

The thing is civil marriage has been recognized for years, so it's hard to get upset about the term now. I'd be all for having civil unions and religious marriages... For EVERYONE.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

Would somebody please provide a compelling argument opposing gay marriage that is not based on religion?

[ This space intentionally left blank ]

[shinerbock]

Compelling argument, sure, the rights of states to act as they wish. I think it should be left to the states, but there will be a problem with the FFC clause. Of course, the last time a group of states significantly argued for states rights we saw what happened...

Come on Mitt!
Romney for President, 2008

[Drolefille]

I agree that it should be left to the states, I don't think the FFC clause truly hurts state's rights. The clause is not exactly new.

I'm not sure I like how my state will handle it, but as they fell short of their little petition I'm not complaining, yet.

A constitutional admendment to ban gay marriage is stupid as is one to ban flag burning, but that's a whole other kettle o' fish

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Compelling argument, sure, the rights of states to act as they wish. I think it should be left to the states, but there will be a problem with the FFC clause. Of course, the last time a group of states significantly argued for states rights we saw what happened...

Come on Mitt!
Romney for President, 2008

Provide a compelling argument in support of a state law banning gay marriage that is not based on religion.

[ZetaLuvBunny]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

Would somebody please provide a compelling argument opposing gay marriage that is not based on religion?

I’d like to see that too. Some lady was on a radio show the other day arguing that homosexuality is a mental illness, and that they are disturbed individuals, therefore they are not capable of making adult decisions. What an idiot.

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Being counterproductive for the human race isn't religious, it's fact. Two women or two men can't reproduce. That would scientifically be considered counterproductive. I still don't think it's a good enough reason to ban gay marriage, however, as there will be plenty of other people to reproduce and humans are far from being an endangered species.

Technically, women could survive for a long long time without men, if only all the current men left behind loads of sperm viles. LOL. Men couldn't survive without women, though, unless they come up with an alternative womb that is capable of carrying a human child to term.

[shinerbock]

I'm sure this will make people angry...what about people who molest/are attracted to children. This is viewed as unnatural and somewhat of a mental disorder, and many people view homosexuality as the same. This is not my personal view, but I am curious as to how people would refute it.

[Drolefille]

The thing is, children cannot consent. Therefore we consider this to be a mental disorder. Especially because it harms children and pedophiles act like this doesn't matter.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I'm sure this will make people angry...what about people who molest/are attracted to children. This is viewed as unnatural and somewhat of a mental disorder, and many people view homosexuality as the same. This is not my personal view, but I am curious as to how people would refute it.

What do you mean refute it? Yes, it is a fact that people commit crimes against children.

I'm not sure that I understand what you're wanting here.

[kddani]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I'm sure this will make people angry...what about people who molest/are attracted to children. This is viewed as unnatural and somewhat of a mental disorder, and many people view homosexuality as the same. This is not my personal view, but I am curious as to how people would refute it.

An interesting question.

Children don't have the capacity to consent, by virtue of brain development, maturity, etc. Homosexuals do.
Children have much less of an ability to protect themselves, are more easily influences, and don't even have the mental capacity to know what's going on. Child molesters prey upon this.

In general, I would guess people that consider child molesters to be unnatural/mentally disturbed because they are preying upon individuals that can't defend themselves and that don't understand what's going on.

Homosexuals have the capacity to consent and understand what they are doing. They are not hurting anyone or preying on any victims.