Jump to content

Excuse Me For Not Understanding, But.....


Guest Deuces Wild

Recommended Posts

Guest Deuces Wild

....I always thought that a marriage was the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of love and procreation.

 

I guess the Massachusetts courts see it differently:

 

http://www.msnbc.com/news/995032.asp?0cv=CA01&cp1=1

 

Criticizing Tuesday’s ruling opening the door for gay marriages in Massachusetts, Gov. Mitt Romney told NBC News on Wednesday that he’ll move to craft a state constitutional amendment to “preserve the institution” of marriage between a man and a woman while still offering benefits for same-sex couples.  

 

In its 4-3 decision, Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court on Tuesday gave the Legislature 180 days to rewrite the state’s marriage laws for the benefit of gay couples.

 

“We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution,” Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/nov03/186151.asp

 

Massachusetts became the first state to smash the legal barriers to gay marriage when its highest court ruled Tuesday that such prohibitions are "incompatible" with the principles of personal freedom and equality found in the state's constitution.

 

The Massachusetts ruling stopped short of ordering that marriage licenses be granted to the seven gay couples who brought the case. But that's a mere formality: The opinion's strong language made clear that the state's constitution provides no basis for denying marriage licenses to gays.

 

Written by Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, the 4-3 decision redefines marriage in Massachusetts to mean "the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others." Marshall concluded that the state had no rational reason to exclude same-sex couples from that definition.

 

So what is next? Legalizing the marriage of a man to a sheep? :woot:

 

What is sad is that even the web definition sites are moving to the PC side. For example:

 

Marriage Definition

marriage – marriage is the legal union of a man and woman as a husband and wife, though the definition might be evolving.

 

http://www.legal-definitions.com/M,%20N,%2...0P/marriage.htm

 

What is this world coming to? :mrsgreen:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

:huh: only a yankee coulda passed that law

 

if it was meant to be that way, the God would have made men be able to have children, nowhere in the bible does it say anything about 2 guys hooking up, getting married, in the most religious way, and adopting a prostitutes child.

 

men are not meant to marry men, women are not meant to marry women, it is wrong in every since of the word, and it's theses types of laws that is going to make the world go to hell :soapbox:

Link to post
Share on other sites

the theory behind legalizing gay marriages is similar to why the palimony cases got so much press years ago. there needs to a way to resolve property issues among others.

 

another thing...making a statement that marriage is for the purpose of procreation is rather bold and perhaps might be reconsidered. or should couples that marry and for whatever reason do not have children relinquish their marriage license?

Link to post
Share on other sites

:huh: only a yankee coulda passed that law

 

if it was meant to be that way, the God would have made men be able to have children, nowhere in the bible does it say anything about 2 guys hooking up, getting married, in the most religious way, and adopting a prostitutes child.

 

men are not meant to marry men, women are not meant to marry women, it is wrong in every since of the word, and it's theses types of laws that is going to make the world go to hell :soapbox:

 

since when should the Bible dictate marriage laws?

 

religion can be worse than discussing politics.....this thread is dangerous

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets not look at this from a religious prespective. If same sex marraige is such a good thing, how about the whole world start doing it and lets see what happens to humanity. man + woman= child man + man = nothing woman + woman= nothing

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that marriage between same-sex couples should not be recognized by the government. Neither should opposite-sex marriage. The only thing that should be recognized by our secular government is contractual agreements such as prenuptuals. People who live together under certain circumstances should be assumed to be living under an implied contract, such as if they share assets or have children. (This is referred to as common-law marriage in some states.)

 

Churches, of course, are free to create any special things they want through religious ceremonies. Our government doesn't recognize baptism or confirmation either but that hasn't caused much trouble.

 

I know it's not romantic but government isn't supposed to be about romantic. It should be about fairness. I don't think it's fair that my wife and I pay more taxes because we are married than we would if we were single but living together, for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Massachusetts courts made a decision based on equal rights for all citizens regardless of gender.

 

Denying one person or a group of people the same basic rights as all others people based on their gender or sexual preference is nothing less then outright discrimination. Discrimination of any kind is unacceptable, intollerable, unjust, and hypocrytical.

 

Equal rights means just that EQUAL. Not selective rights!

 

It is not right to deny an American citizen EQUAL RIGHTS because some people just can't come to grips with the reality that not everyone was born or thinks the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

Lets not look at this from a religious prespective. If same sex marraige is such a good thing, how about the whole world start doing it and lets see what happens to humanity. man + woman= child man + man = nothing woman + woman= nothing

Yep!

 

As far as equal rights, you can give gays/lesbians equal rights without changing the definition of "marriage".

 

The court was absolutely wrong and has opened the flood gate for approval of other "alternative lifestyle" marriages. My example of a man and a sheep was extreme but could be considered an "alternative lifestyle" marriage.

;)

 

I am not a homophobe. I just don't recognize (legally or morally) the *marriage* between 2 gays or lesbians.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our country had passed a law this previous year making same sex marriages recognized. But in the province I live in, Alberta, the Premier is steadfast that this will not happen and so far he has held true and same sex marriages are not recognized where I live and that is the only place in Canada that does not recognize them.

 

I am not religous nor do I always believe in government, but this is a very touchy issue and in my mind as long as we live in a democracy the people should choose and here an overwhelming majority is against them so the people have chosen and they should not be recognized.

 

I personally find it repulsive that two people would wish to do this. I do believe in equality but equality is only fair for those who are equal and those who are homosexual have chosen to be different and therefore should face the penalties. A marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman and that has Biblical, Historical and sedimental meanings and to change it now would be ludicrous. They want their cake and to eat it to and I think they should chose one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets not look at this from a religious prespective. If same sex marraige is such a good thing, how about the whole world start doing it and lets see what happens to humanity. man + woman= child man + man = nothing woman + woman= nothing

DarkWave ~

 

it isn't as though folks are going to all of a sudden enter into same sex relationships simply because same sex marriages are now legal. those relationships exist and those involved should rightfully be afforded the same protection as those in heterosexual relationships.

 

discrimination based on sex, religion, race and on down the line is abhorrent.

 

Humanity will not come to an end.... ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

People say "Let them do what they want, its their life". Ok, fair enough, do what you want I see no problem with that. But you see when you give them the definition of marraige they tend to adopt kids. Now tell me, whats the biggest influence in a childs life? I dont know about you, but I would say its the parents. If a child sees his mom and mom, or dad and dad, they would tend to think that it is the right thing. So in essence its not a matter of "Let them do what they want". Soryy, I may sound bad here, but its my opinion.

 

edit: Just saw your post

 

Humanity will not come to an end....

Why would it not?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

discrimination based on sex, religion, race and on down the line is abhorrent.

 

Humanity will not come to an end....  

It certainly would if all we had was same sex marriages. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get it?

 

What does the end of humanity have to do with this? LMAO

 

Do you think this means from now on everyone will be gay and no children will ever be born again. :woot:

 

Sorry I just find that idea hillarious, ludicrus and one of the funniest things I have heard in a long time. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, whatever the reason for homosexuality, it's pretty clear that it isn't passed on by genetics. :erm:

 

I say let them lead their lives and leave them alone. There was a thread recently about love. I have known some gay couples who stayed together seemed more in love than many straight ones. Why does the government treat them differently? Because they can't have children? Okay, in that case let's treat childless hetero marriages like gay marriages. :shifty:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, whatever the reason for homosexuality, it's pretty clear that it isn't passed on by genetics. :erm:

 

I say let them lead their lives and leave them alone. There was a thread recently about love. I have known some gay couples who stayed together seemed more in love than many straight ones. Why does the government treat them differently? Because they can't have children? Okay, in that case let's treat childless hetero marriages like gay marriages. :shifty:

Yep from now on, sterile men and women will not be allowed to be married. :mrwinky: men and women who never intend to have children will not be allowed to be married. :rolleyes:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gays are a minority group, there's no danger of the human race dying out. ;)

 

Marriage is a contract, it should be available to anyone over the age of consent. What harm can it do to allow gays to marry?

Link to post
Share on other sites

People say "Let them do what they want, its their life". Ok, fair enough, do what you want I see no problem with that. But you see when you give them the definition of marraige they tend to adopt kids. Now tell me, whats the biggest influence in a childs life? I dont know about you, but I would say its the parents. If a child sees his mom and mom, or dad and dad, they would tend to think that it is the right thing. So in essence its not a matter of "Let them do what they want". Soryy, I may sound bad here, but its my opinion.

 

edit: Just saw your post

 

 

 

Why would it not?

 

because heterosexual relationships will continue to exist...that's why..... ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

It isn't?

Nope. It isn't.

 

Leave the kids out of same sex marriages.

 

Leave the courts out of same sex marriages.

 

Again, I have no problem with gay/lesbian relationships. I do have a problem though when they get the same legal consideration as a marriage between a woman and a man. I also have a problem with them being able to adopt children. There are (hundred of?) thousands of legally married men/women who are unable to have a baby waiting in the adoption line in the US.

Link to post
Share on other sites

equality

 

If I stop paying my bills can I claim that the banks are discriminating against me?

If I had tons of money could I claim that the welfare office is discriminating against me?

Can I claim the NAACP discriminates against me?

Scholarship rules?

sexual harassment laws?

Do the police discriminate against the unlawful?

Society discriminate against the homeless?

 

No such thing as equality. Shouldn't even ask for it. Best we can hope for is to be given the same oppotunities. They had the opportunity to get married. But instead they're gay.

 

 

edit: Seems harsh. I don't mean to deny them anything they haven't consciously given up. But many people still hold marraige as sacred. This would be sacrilege.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It isn't?

Nope. It isn't.

 

Leave the kids out of same sex marriages.

 

Leave the courts out of same sex marriages.

 

Again, I have no problem with gay/lesbian relationships. I do have a problem though when they get legal consideration as a marriage between a woman and a man. I also have a problem with them being able to adopt children. There are (hundred of?) thousands of legally married men/women who are unable to have a baby waiting in the adoption line in the US.

In that case don't be a homosexual, and none of it affects you.

 

BTW is this law going to affect you or in any way remove your rights?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...