Same Sex Marriage in Massachusetts

Do you think these will be overturned?
What impact do you think this will have on the forthcoming marriage amendment?


Nation's first same-sex marriages fuel debate (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-05-17-gaymarriages-cover_x.htm)
USA Today

Despite Uncertainties, Out-of-Staters Line Up to Marry (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/18/national/18gay.html?ex=1085457600&en=3ea7bd2795779ca9&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE)
New York Times

Gay marriages meet frosty silence (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3723519.stm)
BBC News

Altared State in Mass . Town (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34644-2004May17.html)
Washington Post

They should change the definition of marriage.

Allow anyone to marry anyone else or mutliple people. Heck, if someone wants to marry a sheep, then by all means.

Make it a one year contract that has to be renewed. That way, there are no divorces. People just go their seperate ways and kids become the wards of the state.

All government forms should be altered to have an open ended number of spouses.

New terms should be created for people as well. Keep the originals and add BB (butt buddy) CL (crack licker) and ILI (indeterminate love intrest)



:disappoin


My only objection is to adoption. I could give two shits where someone wants to stick their tongue or other appendages but I do care where children end up. I think the people who are giving up the child should dictate the type of home environment it ends up in.

Gee I don't think that in a gay mariage religion should be involved because that's what fuels the debate more and more. If same sex marriages are allowed, I propose that they have it legally and not do the whole religious thing with the priest and bible thing (sorry not married yet and not a christian/catholic either so don't know exactly what goes on). Also I believe that sexual orientation is a choice, and that chioce should not be forced upon the world, and as they have a choice to chose their partner, I also have a choice to find it humorous.

The very fact that there are people making an issue about this saddens me, and just goes to show how much power religious fanatics and homophobes in general have in the US today.

The very fact that there are people making an issue about this saddens me, and just goes to show how much power religious fanatics and homophobes in general have in the US today.

How many countries allow same sex marriages? Only a few. In fact, most continents don't have a single country that does. Several allow for civil unions (which, I know, amount to the same thing).

I don't see China in this list and they recognize no religion. I guess that means Chinese must be homophobic :rolleyes: The same can be said for North Korea and Japan.

Belgium: Legalized gay marriage in 2002.

Britain: Plans to introduce legislation soon authorizing civil unions giving gay couples legal recognition with most of the rights enjoyed by married partners.

Canada: Considering legislation to legalize gay marriage.

Denmark: The first country to legalize same-sex unions in 1989, later giving couples adoption rights. Other Nordic countries followed in the 1990s.

France: Allows civil unions since 2000.

Germany: Introduced civil unions in 2001.

The Netherlands: Became the first country to legalize gay marriages outright in 2001.

Portugal: Lesbian and gay couples who live together acquire the same rights as heterosexuals in common-law marriages.

Spain: Like most Roman Catholic countries, Spain does not recognize gay unions. But some northern regions, such as Navarra and the Basque country, recognize gay common-law couples and accord them rights of spouses.

South Africa: Recognized gay rights in its constitution after apartheid ended in 1994. Activists are preparing litigation to have the common law definition of marriage extended to include same-sex couples.

Switzerland: Its largest city, Zurich, started recognizing registered gay couples last July. Geneva also recognizes same-sex couples, although grants them fewer rights. Swiss authorities are considering whether to introduce a national law to harmonize treatment throughout the country.



Like I said, I could are less who wants to marry what and stick whatever into whichever orrifice they want. Its just sad how often anyone who disagrees with you is a religious fanatic, homophobe or whatever other derogatory synonym you can come up with.

My only objection is to adoption. I could give two shits where someone wants to stick their tongue or other appendages but I do care where children end up. I think the people who are giving up the child should dictate the type of home environment it ends up in.
That's my biggest problem with it too. They think kids are going to get teased b/c they fail a grade, these kids are going to get harrassed beyond the point of no return.

I don't really care about the gay marriage. The only thing I care about is that they make such a fuss about it. They are human and deserve as much rights as anyone does. Besides the Constitution says that all peaople are created equal.

My only objection is to adoption. I could give two shits where someone wants to stick their tongue or other appendages but I do care where children end up. I think the people who are giving up the child should dictate the type of home environment it ends up in.
I don't fully understand the impact of this on adoption. Is it that now that these couples are married, they will be more likely to be approved and allowed to adopt children than single people or unmarried couples would? Do you mean that the home environment of a same-sex couple is necessarilly significantly different from that of a heterosexual couple, or for that matter, that of a single adoptive parent?

Regarding the second part, who's place is it to say what adoptive parent(s) are best for a child when the biological parent has no preference, or even no contact whatsoever with the system, such as the case here in California where a newborn can be dropped off anonymously at a hospital?

ugggh, they need to ban gay marriage......its just starting to become a huge mess, plus i'm totally against it. amend the constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and leave it at that :disappoin

How many countries allow same sex marriages? Only a few. In fact, most continents don't have a single country that does. Several allow for civil unions (which, I know, amount to the same thing).

I don't see China in this list and they recognize no religion. I guess that means Chinese must be homophobic :rolleyes: The same can be said for North Korea and Japan.

Belgium: Legalized gay marriage in 2002.

Britain: Plans to introduce legislation soon authorizing civil unions giving gay couples legal recognition with most of the rights enjoyed by married partners.

Canada: Considering legislation to legalize gay marriage.

Denmark: The first country to legalize same-sex unions in 1989, later giving couples adoption rights. Other Nordic countries followed in the 1990s.

France: Allows civil unions since 2000.

Germany: Introduced civil unions in 2001.

The Netherlands: Became the first country to legalize gay marriages outright in 2001.

Portugal: Lesbian and gay couples who live together acquire the same rights as heterosexuals in common-law marriages.

Spain: Like most Roman Catholic countries, Spain does not recognize gay unions. But some northern regions, such as Navarra and the Basque country, recognize gay common-law couples and accord them rights of spouses.

South Africa: Recognized gay rights in its constitution after apartheid ended in 1994. Activists are preparing litigation to have the common law definition of marriage extended to include same-sex couples.

Switzerland: Its largest city, Zurich, started recognizing registered gay couples last July. Geneva also recognizes same-sex couples, although grants them fewer rights. Swiss authorities are considering whether to introduce a national law to harmonize treatment throughout the country.


I see you have a who's who list, of countries with a good record of embracing social change in the 20th century. Well, with the exception of South Africa during the Apartheid years...

Oh, and by the way, Canada has had same sex commonlaw laws since 1999, and in my province as well as Ontario, same sex marriage is legal. :)



Its just sad how often anyone who disagrees with you is a religious fanatic, homophobe or whatever other derogatory synonym you can come up with.

Why don't you provide me with some instances of my comments like that? I'll debate them point by point, if you'd like. :iceslolan

Case in point is this thread. :rolleyes:

Case in point is this thread. :rolleyes:

Alright, in this particular instance, what are the reasons that people do not want same sex marriage legalized?

Religion, and homophobia.

I hear the argument from the Christians "it detracts from the sanctity of marriage, which is between a man and a woman, under the law of god!". They rant on incessantly about how it's sinful, and how the bible says they're all going to hell, and the politicians are anti-christian, etc. They're willing to bitch, protest, and make a huge fuss over something that is none of their business at all, simply because of their religious beliefs. I call that fanaticism.

I hear the argument from others that they don't think same sex couples should be together at all, let alone be allowed to live in matrimony. They are disturbed by the very notion of a man having sexual relations with another man, let alone be in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together. I call that homophobia, they don't understand gays, they're afraid of them, quite possibly in doubt of their own sexuality, and that is the way they respond.

Got any other instances of me labeling those who disagree with me?

Alright, in this particular instance, what are the reasons that people do not want same sex marriage legalized?

Religion, and homophobia.

I hear the argument from the Christians "it detracts from the sanctity of marriage, which is between a man and a woman, under the law of god!". They rant on incessantly about how it's sinful, and how the bible says they're all going to hell, and the politicians are anti-christian, etc. They're willing to bitch, protest, and make a huge fuss over something that is none of their business at all, simply because of their religious beliefs. I call that fanaticism.

I hear the argument from others that they don't think same sex couples should be together at all, let alone be allowed to live in matrimony. They are disturbed by the very notion of a man having sexual relations with another man, let alone be in love and want to spend the rest of their lives together. I call that homophobia, they don't understand gays, they're afraid of them, quite possibly in doubt of their own sexuality, and that is the way they respond.

Got any other instances of me labeling those who disagree with me?
That is very true which is why I stated earlier that most of the debate against same sex marriage or recognition is religion. Which is why they should come up with a way for same sex partners to be legally married and have a legal status of a couple, but leave religion out of it.

The only problem with leaving religion out of it, is that religion is at the center of it.
For (most) everyone opposing same-sex marriage, it is based on religious convictions. Christians (like myself) are so opposed to it because the basis of our beliefs (the Bible) speaks so adamently against it.
While I agree with Cbass on the fact that there are some fanatics, and we all know there are. people bombing abortion clinics to stop the killing of the fetus.....very hypocritical (i know its a different topic and i don't mean to bring it up except to us it as an example). Christians, since the beginning, were instructed to "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations." This is why we feel so compelled to speak out about our concerns for where this country, and the world, is headed.
There is a right way, and a very wrong way to do this. The people who are yelling and screaming and causing riots are doing it the wrong way, yes. But as with anything, it is hard to judge a huge group of people by the actions of a few. Unfortunatly, these few people who make these huge scenes are good at putting all Christians into a class of near-fanatics.

-Jason

The thing I don't understand is why they need the word marriage. That seems to be a bit of a sticking point from what I have been hearing. What's wrong with civil union or just make up another word. I find that a little odd.

Why who need the word marriage? (im assuming you mean the homosexual couples?)

Yep

The thing I don't understand is why they need the word marriage. That seems to be a bit of a sticking point from what I have been hearing. What's wrong with civil union or just make up another word. I find that a little odd.

That sounds quite a bit like "separate but equal."

I might respectfully suggest you review the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html), the case of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) (http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/post-civilwar/plessy.html), and the case of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) (http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/early-civilrights/brown.html).

Or, in summary:
The Salt Lake Tribune: 'Separate but equal' now part of gay marriage debate (http://www.sltrib.com/2004/May/05092004/commenta/164381.asp)

Ah hell.....let's just have a free-for-all, everything goes, politically- correct society where forwards is backwards and right is left. Wouldn't that be great for mankind?




Seriously, this country is going down the hell-hole. Luckily, most people still care to fight for what is right, not for immoral rights.

OH MY GOD! people can do what they want! THIS IS HORRIBLE! how can we let this happen? Why don't we form a new government based on the Bible, where nobody has any rights! I can't stand it that there are people out there who don't share my values, or believe in my beliefs! The moral fibers of American are ruined!!!
Can you believe that I like apples, while others prefer oranges? I say screw their right to choose, outlaw oranges! Oranges are immoral!
And wearing hats backwards, or humming in public should also be done away with - it's disgusting and vile.

Well, niether the left nor right can take my sarcasm away. :)

That sounds quite a bit like "separate but equal."

I might respectfully suggest you review the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html), the case of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) (http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/post-civilwar/plessy.html), and the case of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) (http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/early-civilrights/brown.html).

Or, in summary:
The Salt Lake Tribune: 'Separate but equal' now part of gay marriage debate (http://www.sltrib.com/2004/May/05092004/commenta/164381.asp)

Seperate in word but not in deed. Mr. Mrs. Ms. Is this also an example of seperate but equal?

All rights would be the same but the word is different. If unequal is based on words then we should get rid of any word that describes people as a group, sex, religion, race.....etc.

Given the same rights but not the same support or treatment might be a case but different names does not seperate hetrosexuals from homosexuals. Attitudes seperate us.

Well, niether the left nor right can take my sarcasm away. :)

The ban stick can though :lol: Just kidding, don't take it seriously :smile:

Marriage was originally a religious rite, but has long since become a social rite as well, and instead in some cases. You do not need a priest to be married, and in fact there are many marriages where there is no religion involved at all. Mine certainly won't.

I agree with 2strokebloke. It's absolutely absurd that christians should make a big stink about this based on their own beliefs, and try to force those beliefs on everyone else. If you're so offended by it, don't pay attention to it. If you think that the very morals of America are under attack by this, that's great! Express your opinion at the polls.

Christians make a big stink? My you really are focused on what Christianity thinks. I guess we should look to the countries with Muslim majorities and see their take on the topic. Well would you look at that - they don't allow it either. Perhaps we should look at some secular societies like China or North Korea. Son of a gun - not there either.

I'm tired of hearing that Christians shouldn't make a big stink based on their beliefs. Thats absurd. Of course people are going to argue based on their beliefs regardless of their faith or lack of one. :rolleyes:

I don't really care who's against freedom, I think the whole situation is somewhat rediculous. Why would people of the same sex want to get married anyway? Marriage is simply living together, and weddings are old fashioned, and somewhat useless.
I honestly don't see what the big problem is. I wonder what would happen if they started painting School Busses green? I'm sure our moral fibers would really be split then! It's a good analogy, what would be the point in painting schoolbusses green? What would be the point in making it illegal to paint busses green?
Obviously, people just like to complain.

well not only am i againts it b/c im a Christian, its also b/c of nature! I mean we arn't meant to be with the same sex! They can't reproduce they can get diseases from trying to have sex, i mean its just common sense.

We aren't meant to use condoms, nobody seems to have a problem with them - they're even more unnatural than same sex relationships, when you think about it, because 10,000 years ago, a man and a man, or a woman and a women could have done something with eachother, but they'd never have found a condom anywhere!
While were on the subject of nature, Humans weren't meant to fly, but we do it and don't object to it, we weren't meant to driver cars, but we do it all the same. You can use the "well nature never intended" argument to discredit about 1000 different things we as people do everyday, if God had intended us to use flush toilets, he would have provided us with naturally occuring flush toilets. :) So the whole "it's not natural" argument becomes really silly, and useless.

lol :lol2: nice come back, but you sure dont get diseases from flying or flushing toilets do you?! You can live and be successful without flushing a toilet, but lets put all the gays on an island(with or without toilets, but everything else they would need) and see how they fare after a couple of years.

Well, airplanes to crash (usually with all on board dead, or missing), and I'm sure you could injure yourself with a toilet somehow.
Of course, just being homosexual dosn't get you diseases - that's a dangerous myth, because it makes alot of straight people think that they're far less likely to acquire any STDs because they are straight, in fact because so many are poorly educated on the subject, somebody told me that the instances of STDs among straight people have gone up.

somebody told me that the instances of STDs among straight people have gone up.


well that is prolly b/c of drug use, b/c of sharing needles.

Yes drug use too - but mainly unsafe sex.
The myth is that being gay gets you diseases, the truth is that unsafe sex gets you disease. Disease does not care one wit, what sex, race, or religion you are - and it most certainly doesn't care about your preferences, somebody who prefers the color red to blue isn't more likely to catch cholera you know!

Living can get you diseases. You don't "catch" cancer. You don't "deserve" hepatitis because you eat fast food, and you happen to go to the Taco Bell that didn't make that one guy in the kitchen wash his hands well with soap and warm water.

But I don't see how that's relevant to this thread.

This is the Politics, (something) & Current Affairs forum, not the Philosophy forum. We're not discussing if it's "right or wrong," but rather it is happening, and what does that mean to our society?

Few posters in this thread have actually addressed the questions I posed at the start:

Do you think these [weddings] will be overturned?

What impact do you think this will have on the forthcoming marriage amendment?

There's just no pleasing you Jay, is there? :)

I've already stated how silly I think the whole thing is. Whether or not they get overturned, I don't really care - though I'd rather have people have an extra freedom, than have it taken away for no good reason.

Christians make a big stink? My you really are focused on what Christianity thinks. I guess we should look to the countries with Muslim majorities and see their take on the topic. Well would you look at that - they don't allow it either. Perhaps we should look at some secular societies like China or North Korea. Son of a gun - not there either.


We're not talking about same sex marriage in muslim countries or asia, we're talking about same sex marriage in Massachussets, where it is the christians who are making the biggest stink about it.


I'm tired of hearing that Christians shouldn't make a big stink based on their beliefs. Thats absurd. Of course people are going to argue based on their beliefs regardless of their faith or lack of one. :rolleyes:

Let them believe what they want, but they should not force their beliefs on others, in my opinion.