Outstanding News-Mass. High Ct. Rules Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

I definitely understand what you're saying. I'm not even disagreeing with you. It's just that gay marriage opponents liken it to polygamy, when they're two different issues.

I get the whole "slippery slope" angle, but that doesn't address gay marriage. This isn't about letting a cow marry a mermaid or a donkey marrying Ross Perot: those are different arguments for a different time. The only relevent point is whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another.

Personally, if Lisa Marie Presley can marry Michael Jackson, all bets are off. Open the flood-gates and let everybody in, because "integrity" and "sanctity" are obviously not what people are fighting for.

Churches can do whatever they please in their chapels. They don't have to marry anybody they don't want to, nor should they have to. But applying those same rules to the courtroom is wrong.

 

As much as I respect the law of America, my faith is first and foremost in my life. Homosexuality to me is flat-out wrong.

I tend to cringe whenever someone says that "people will eventually get used to it and it won't be such a big deal." Or "Why can't these two people who love each other so much live the same lives heterosexual couples do?" That's called desensitization.

People may call me a fanatic or a Bible-thumper. But I always feel the need in my life to put everything I have in God's hands and trust Him completely. I spend time in His Word every day, and with everything that's happened in my life, it's pretty much the only thing I can trust.

Jesus never "tolerated" or "accepted" sin. Jesus didn't "p***y foot" around, fearful He may "offend" someone or worried He may appear "hate-filled," "intolerant" or "bigoted." No, Jesus called it like it was: sin is sin is sin. Many times He openly exhibited a holy, righteous anger and zeal for "His Father's business."

People may hate me for what I believe in. Me? I pray for them.

 

i get that you don't think it's pertinent...but it is. it just is. we can't interpret the constitution one way on one day and then a different way on another. the courts have been using very, very broad language to define rights under the 14th amendment for quite some time...that's why you're seeing all this speculation about where it will lead...because we've already seen it lead this far, to a redefinition of the word marriage in our society. or at least in the society of the commonwealth of massachusetts.

 

Dude, you sound like a man of wonderful faith. Rock on.

I have absolutely no problem with churches not allowing gay marriage in their churches. Their house, their rules. I totally respect that, and would not want to force my religious beliefs on anyone.

But marriage as a legal institution (not a religious one -- big difference) should not disciminate against anyone, regardless of sexual orientation. That's discimination, and that's unlawful.

 

I said that because the law allows marriage to one other person. It should never gone further to impose a religion-based restriction.

The laws do NOT allow marriage to multiple partners for ANYONE. Therefore, polygamy it is not an equal-rights issue, whereas marriage for gays IS.

The difference is quite clear. Why are you having difficulty with it?

 

Cohen, the laws did NOT allow marriage between same sex partners for ANYONE. And the courts ignored that. Why is the difference clear? Couldn't judges easily rule that you have the right to marry multiple times?

 

Why don't you pray for forgiveness of your own sins rather than those of your neighbor?

If homosexuality is such a big deal then why didn't JC say anything about it?

You're welcome to believe whatever you want, just don't go imposing it on others. We do not live in a theocracy.

 

Isn't polygamy expressly prohibited for EVERYONE, whether straight or gay?

Marriage should be allowed for EVERYONE, whether straight or gay. What if the law did not allow a specifc ethnicity or religion to marry under the law? It's unfair treatment under the law.

 

I'm glad you have faith. But always remember that it's yours. Just like you don't want anyone to impose upon your faith, or impose their faith upon you, don't do so to others.

Homosexuality may be wrong to you. Judging others and a lack of acceptance may be against my religion, but I won't hold it against you.

 

Actually, that is flat out wrong, my friend. I was a ministrant when I was a kid (catholic) and I did do a lot of bible studies (I look at things differently now, but that is an entirely different matter).

Now, I cannot quote the exact source, but I know this much, that Jesus actually taught a lesson to those who tried to distance themselves from the so-called "sinners" - especially prostitutes and toll-keepers (?) - those people everyone else ignored.

Actually, if you want sources from the bible, read this:

http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/LifeJ/SinnersJesus.htm

Disclaimer: I have no idea about that university, I just found this link on Google, but I know the "stories" are in the bible.

 

Another question, why does it intuitively bother me to see two guys together, but it does not really bother me to see two girls together...is it because I think, if I was a girl, I would be a lesbian (or play with myself all day)?

 

finalsbound, to quote a more neutral source and a very famous quote by Jesus (as it is reported in the bible, at least):

http://www.bartleby.com/59/1/lethimwhoisw.html

According to the Gospel of John, the Pharisees, in an attempt to discredit Jesus, brought a woman charged with adultery before him. Then they reminded Jesus that adultery was punishable by stoning under Mosaic law and challenged him to judge the woman so that they might then accuse him of disobeying the law. Jesus thought for a moment and then replied, “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.” The people crowded around him were so touched by their own consciences that they departed. When Jesus found himself alone with the woman, he asked her who were her accusers. She replied, “No man, lord.” Jesus then said, “Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more.”

Basically, if you say Jesus never "tolerated" or "accepted" sin, you just prove that you have no idea of even the basics of what is in the bible. As it is reported in the bible, Jesus was all about forgiveness, even for so-called "sinners".

All of this is to be read with a disclaimer, as I do not claim that anything contained in the bible is true or historically accurate. All I am saying is that finalsbound is wrong even by what he himself seems to believe in (if he quotes Jesus, I assume he must be a Christian).

 

And if you think "forgiveness" of sin is the same as "acceptance" or "toleration" of sin to Jesus, you must not really know Him. In that situation, "forgiveness" amounted to Him dying in her place later on because she was repentant. The sin and the person can be separated through Jesus. Jesus accepted the person.

Back on-topic, I think I stated my view in a number of threads with this same subject already. Here are two ways I fear these marriages could harm me and my family directly (I have no proof of these, so I won't defend them):

1) Increased costs for our healthcare and insurance.

2) No trust in protections put forth in a document based on morality that is not based on a firm, unchanging foundation. (loss of security)

 

Well, I'll respectfully bow out of this discussion.

 

Is it fair that my healthcare insurance is increased because of straight people who have a spouse and 4 or 5 kids under their plan?

 

I admittedly haven't read the whole thread, so I don't know if this has already been mentioned.

I'm having a hard time with the 'equal rights' issue. As far as I know, any man can marry any woman. Where is the discrimination? Even though you're gay, you still have the same rights as a straight person - there is nothing preventing you from marrying a woman if you're a guy, other than you not liking girls. I'm trying to be serious here but probably not getting the wording down.

Cohen, you said "The laws do NOT allow marriage to multiple partners for ANYONE" - why can't that just be revised to say "The laws do NOT allow marriage to members of the same sex for ANYONE"? It seems to me that everyone is being treated equally under the law here.

 

I am a very liberal person... but I don't and won't support same-sex marriage. Our natural rights include what we are naturally are, as a species. Humans aren't supposed to be homosexual. We are, from a biological standpoint alone, supposed to reproduce. When one is gay, reproduction is impossible. Thus, being gay isn't a natural right. If the person is "gay" by birth, get the sex change operation so you can live like your DNA is structured.

 

Fine, if you want to get that technical it's gender discrimination then, Jennifer Aniston is legally able to marry Brad Pitt because she's a woman but I cannot because I'm a man. Therefore the law is unequal and gender-biased.

 

When a woman is past menopause reproduction is impossible.
When a man has a low sperm count reproduction is impossible.
When a woman has had a hysterectomy reproduction is impossible.
When a man has had a vasectomy reproduction is impossible.
When a woman becomes a quadraplegic reproduction is impossible.
When a man has had his balls cut off reproduction is impossible.

Does any of the above preclude people from getting married?

 

You can't marry Brad Pitt but neither can I or any other guy. That's why I don't get this whole discrimination claim. It's not like some guys can marry Brad Pitt while others can't.