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

this is the kind of statement that kills discussion. "if you disagree with my position you must be a racist, homophobe, bigot, idiot, murderer, Nazi, clown...etc...etc...etc."

there are always two sides to an argument, Perrin. and you'll find that those that disagree with you aren't necessarily evil.

 

Well, personally, I think the best solution would be some sort of civil union where they can still get the benefits. That is unfair what is happening to that couple.

My issue is what will happen to the institution of marriage. People say nothing will happen, but how do you know? We are talking about radically redefining traditional marriage for a minority (3% or so) of the population. I don't see how it is compassionate if it results in people not taking marriage as seriously as it traditionally has been taken.

For those who say this is a good thing- do you know if our understanding of marriage will not be weakened? And do you think a court decision is better than a decision by the legislature?

 

To be fair, some people truly believe that gay marriage leads to moral decay, a degradation of society, et cetera. That's hard for me to stomach, because it's so judgmental. But I think it can be different than their own insecurities and fears ... (unless we say that insecurities and fears lead to absolutist morality, but then we would be judgmental).

 

would you require a church...who has pastors/priests/leaders licensed by the state to preside over weddings...to marry same-sex couples or face the threat of discrimination?

 

How do you know? It isn't just about how homosexuals understand marriage or monogamy. It's about changing the definition marriage for everyone. How do you know it won't damage it?

 

Are churches presently "required" to perform inter-racial weddings? I don't know the answer. I'm asking.

 

I'll quote from an artice I read:

"...it detaches marriage from heterosexuality and reproduction, and will therefore bring about a legal structure and a social ethos that presume androgyny...marriage will be transformed from something that seems written in the world into just another contract, as flexible and breakable as any other, and therefore a contract that might easily include numerous partners and an open sexual code."

Basically, we are changing are fundamental understanding of marriage, and it's going to have more consequences than simply having people be more tolerant.

 

To me it isn't so much the homosexuality itself (although many people definitely see it as an evil sin) but the fact that we are going to redefine one of our major institutions.

 

so it appears that the argument against gay marriage comes down to religion as all of Mr.Clutch's arguments have been religious in basis.


and that is sad to me.in the year 2003 we are still oppessing groups of people based on another group's religious beliefs...

 

someone should put a sticky up to this effect in the D&D!

as i read the decision, it gave the legislature 180 days to come up with a solution. the decision said it's unconstitutional to ban gay marriage, but didn't explicity allow it either.

Personally, I think gay men and lesbians should be allowed to marry, adopt children (a lesbian couple we're friends with has adopted a beautiful Vietnamese boy, and they're working on another), and enjoy all the rights of heterosexual couples. I don't see how, if you're pro-family, one can exclude people who are trying to start families. I draw the line at preferences however, for anyone based on any criteria other than economic.

 

Hmmm...I never mentioned religion once!

 

As has been brought up before in other threads, there are other questions that have come into play. One is the effect that changing the definition of marriage has on other types of marriage (polygamy, familial, etc). And let me add my voice to the chorus that has requested that you not arrogantly classify an argument as ignorant/homophobic/stupid just because you don't see it the same way. Did you read Clutch's sticky?

 

People of the Christian faith have every right to be outraged at this news.

 

why? gay christians don't have to marry if they don't want to. seriously, though, why should christians be threatened?

 

As a Christian I am not threatened by it although I do not agree with it.

 

Aren't you the guy who browses men's personals on the internet? You may want to settle down one day...

 

I have a question, especially to those who are pro-homosexual marriages, do you think it would it be unconstitutional to ban marrying two people instead of one (whichever sex)? E.g., the sharing health benefits argument could apply here as well...