MERGED (yet again): All Gay Marriage Discussion Here Please

[Dreadsox]

Melon,

I am in search of the ruling online. Have you found a copy. I heard parts read on the radio today on page 10 from the ruling that pretty much leave me concerned about a few things.

I believe that we need to have some definition as to what marriage IS going to be. There were some vague wordings which would leave me to believe IE....polygamy, marriage within families, and I have concerns about what this might mean about rules for marriage as far as age of consent.

I am not saying the court is wrong for ruling the way it did. I did like the article deep posted, and it pretty much fit the way I feel on the topic. The State should be in the business of Civil Unions and the Church should be in the business of marriages. If there is a church that theologically feels that it is acceptable within their doctrine to perform that marriage so be it. It does not affect me.

I just did not like what I heard read on the radio. I feel that there is a vagueness in the wording that leads me to believe the court is saying that they may very well be open to other rulings on the topic as well. I am continueing to look for the ruling tonight.

What am I getting at.....I want a definition. I want there to be some kind of rules that are not going to be reinterpreted. I do not believe that Government has the right to tell a Church that has found it theologically acceptable to marry two consenting adults that they cannot be married. However, I am nervous that there are now going to be challenges involving other issues. Sorry about the rant.

 

[Liesje]

The State should be in the business of Civil Unions and the Church should be in the business of marriages.

Yes, exactly. The Church has no right to try and persuade the government to rule against civil unions between ANYONE, and the government likewise has no business what should be accepted in church.

 

[melon]

I do not believe that Government has the right to tell a Church that has found it theologically acceptable to marry two consenting adults that they cannot be married.

And I think that this fear is completely unfounded. This has never been about telling religions what they want to accept or not. Roman Catholicism has freely refused to recognize Protestant marriages for centuries. Now, as long as the U.S. Government doesn't practice such discrimination, I don't think anyone really cares. After all, if you don't like what Roman Catholicism does, you can leave the religion and that's that. When the government discriminates against you, though, the only choice you have is either to suffer or to leave your home.

That's where the problem lies, and I think in all the religious rhetoric, people have completely lost sight of common sense!

Melon

 

[Dreadsox]

And I think that this fear is completely unfounded.

I think you misunderstood me....I am referring to trying to pass laws and Amendments.

The institution of Marriage to me is not a State sponsored institution.....it is a Religious institution......

Therefore....by my logic....what right does the state have to say you cannot marry...

I think you were looking at what I said from a different angle....I am very familiar with the Catholic rules.....I had to confess that I sinned to a pedofile priest to get my marriage blessed. After the confession my parrish priest had my wife and I living as "brother and sister" for six weeks since we were not "married" and could not be married until my wife converted. My stomach is turning as I am typing this.....

 

[melon]

I think, since our politicians lack the courage and insight, we may have to have insight for them and propose an amendment that would...

1) Give marriage back to religions and have the government issue civil unions only, where only civil unions confer all the property and legal rights, and marriage is solely a religious institution that each religion is free to define as they please.
2) Limit the aforementioned civil unions to two consenting, unrelated adults, regardless of gender, thus banning any fear of incest, pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy, or whatever ridiculous argument that social conservatives throw.

3) Reserve the age of consent back to the states, whereas whatever age of consent that they legislate must be uniformily applied to both gay and straight unions (i.e., no different ages for heterosexuals and homosexuals).

Melon

 

[martha]

I'm impressed with the civility and intelligence of these newer posts. (I say newer because I didn't go back to read the older posts in this thread.)

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Here are links for the opinions..

Majority

http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/sjc_020404/

Dissenting

http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/sjc_020404_dissenting/

 

[bonosloveslave]

No, what this absolutely irrational concern obscures is a deep-seated hatred for homosexuals on the basis of perceived Biblical precepts.

I do not hate anyone. End of story. Period.

I really am curious for someone to give me an honest opinion on my original question. I'll start another thread so as not to derail this one.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Polygamy is an action some people engage in--there is a choice involved. Being gay or straight are states of being. You have no choice in the matter and therefore the civil rights for gays and straights should be completely equal. I know that 'alternative lifestyle' has been a popular term for gay relationships but I feel it is one that will disappear in time as people come to accept that it isn't a lifestyle one actually chooses.

explain bisexuals...
explain people who are gay and then all of a sudden become straight...
explain people who are straight all their lives and then all of a sudden become gay...
explain anne heche...

while there are many scientific studies that support your theory that one is born gay, there are many that say just the opposite... that it is indeed a life choice... nurture as opposed to nature. i happen to agree with you... i think you're born with your sexuality, and the rest is just sexual confusion and experimentation. but there is no concrete scientific proof to support that theory. there's been plenty of studies to say it's likely... but none that say it is.

and who's to say that some wacko won't come around and say that he was born attracted to donkeys? yeah i know... it's completely outrageous... but without the 100% lock solid proof that there is infact a "gay gene," who's to say that the borro boy is wrong in his thinking?

 

[joyfulgirl]

explain bisexuals...
explain people who are gay and then all of a sudden become straight...
explain people who are straight all their lives and then all of a sudden become gay...
explain anne heche...

Do YOU need a scientific study to prove to you that you're straight?

I am straight but I am not turned off by the thought of having sex with a woman. I could choose to experiment with that. Hence, bisexuality.

My brother-in-law 'became straight.' This means that up until marrying my sister, he only had relationships with men. Suddenly he decides he's in love with my sister and marries her. They have slept in separate rooms for 15 years and have not had sex since their child was born 12 years ago. That's what it means to 'become straight.'

 

[joyfulgirl]

Oh, and as for people who "suddenly become gay" -- it's usually called coming out.

There are a lot of gray areas in between--many people are open to experiementing sexually. I personally know just about every variety out there, including transexuals. But the gays I know who have never been interested in experimenting with the opposite sex know to the depths of their being, without question, that they were born gay just as you know you were born straight. They would be as repulsed to have sex with the opposite sex just as you might be to have sex with someone of the same sex.

 

[melon]

how can some of the same people who support gay marriage in turn put down polygamy?

Because it isn't the same thing. Polygamy is banned equally amongst people, regardless of their sexuality. The ban on gay marriage would only be acceptable if there was also a ban on straight marriage. As it stands, that is clearly not the case.

Melon

 

[melon]

explain bisexuals...
explain people who are gay and then all of a sudden become straight...
explain people who are straight all their lives and then all of a sudden become gay...
explain anne heche...

while there are many scientific studies that support your theory that one is born gay, there are many that say just the opposite... that it is indeed a life choice... nurture as opposed to nature. i happen to agree with you... i think you're born with your sexuality, and the rest is just sexual confusion and experimentation. but there is no concrete scientific proof to support that theory. there's been plenty of studies to say it's likely... but none that say it is.

and who's to say that some wacko won't come around and say that he was born attracted to donkeys? yeah i know... it's completely outrageous... but without the 100% lock solid proof that there is infact a "gay gene," who's to say that the borro boy is wrong in his thinking?

Give me a break. A preposterous statement by another angry straight male.

I'm gay. I haven't made it a secret here, but I also don't feel that I have to make my life an after-school special and announce it to the world here every time I enter the forum. So let me tell you, since I probably know more gay people than you would ever care to know: it's not a choice. When you are young and you enter puberty, I'm guessing that you knew you liked girls. You didn't wake up one day and say, "Shall I like boys or girls today?" Gay people grow up the same way. As they grow older, they realize that they are sexually attracted to people of the same sex, and, most of the time, they don't have a word for what they feel. Most of the time, it takes years to discover a word for what they feel: homosexuality.

Explain bisexuals? Anthropology believes that bisexuality is actually the norm, but, thanks to cultural constructs, most people hide it. Ancient Rome and Greece clearly didn't have a problem with being bisexual. That's probably how God made us.

"People who are gay and suddenly straight." Bisexuals.

Question #3 is stupid, probably as a result of that individual being closeted for several years and suddenly coming out. It is very much the norm, and everyone I know has the same story: they spent years lying about being straight to try and fit in with people like you.

Anne Heche always said she was bisexual. Always. The media, however, omitted that detail to be sensational. Research also suggests that most women are the most inherently bisexual. Men, however, generally say that they either are 100% straight or 100% gay.

As for "donkey-lovers," generate proof. Aside from fearmongering gossip, there are no groups of animal fuckers out there. None. At all. There is no "borro boy." Try again.

Melon

 

[melon]

You're on a roll today Headache

Until I entered the building and rained on both of your parades.

Melon

 

[beli]

(attempts to lighten mood with stupid comment....)

i think you're born with your sexuality, and the rest is just sexual confusion and experimentation

I think we are born confused and the rest is experimentation.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

(attempts to lighten mood with stupid comment....)



I think we are born confused and the rest is experimentation.

well said

 

[bonosloveslave]

Can we agree that homosexuality is NOT a choice?

To ACT on your sexual urges, whatever they may be, is ALWAYS a choice.

 

[melon]

To ACT on your sexual urges, whatever they may be, is ALWAYS a choice.

But it's not sex we're talking about. It's marriage.

Gay people are free to have sex all they want and there's nothing you can do about it. We're talking about love, not sex. And that's the irony: homosexuals can have sex, but it's somehow abhorrent for them to love.

Melon

 

[Dreadsox]

To ACT on your sexual urges, whatever they may be, is ALWAYS a choice.

OK....and the state has the right to say this particular urge is wrong why?

 

[melon]

I'm taking back this statement.

Even if others feel that they can make blanket statements about people, I cannot. I often do it out of "comeuppance," rather than sincerity. Jesus taught His followers to reject "an eye for an eye," and, instead, "to turn the other cheek."

And now I must take a breather, and start living up to this statement. I know that what I feel is right. I've grappled with the issues of morality, God, and conscience for years now, and I have built what I believe on a cornerstone that is certainly no better or worse than anyone else's beliefs. For those who make blanket statements against homosexuals or same-sex marriage, I pray that, before you start pointing fingers at your fellow man, that you first look at the shortcomings within yourself. No one is perfect, and if there is one basic feeling that unites us all, it is love.

Not everyone sees this, but I believe that, in time, the Holy Spirit shall reveal it to those whose hearts are not hardened by tradition; by fear of change. Change, after all, is the only constant. And change, because it was created by God, is good.

And that's all I really have to say to this thread. Argue amongst yourselves.

Melon

 

[Dreadsox]

But it's not sex we're talking about. It's marriage.

Gay people are free to have sex all they want and there's nothing you can do about it. We're talking about love, not sex. And that's the irony: homosexuals can have sex, but it's somehow abhorrent for them to love.

Melon

And that is the truth in all of this.....

behind closed doors...we all can do what we want.....We can have one partner...we can have multiple partners, lovers, threesomes, foursome, moresomes.....We can be straight, we can be gay...sexual BEHAVIOR is not exclusive to one group or another.

The state has NOTHING to say about it. A marriage license is NOT going to stop any of that. However, when and if two people who have shared a lifetime together part ways through dying, or are lying in a hospital....they deserve the rights that my wife and I have.

The freaking marriage license is NOT going to stop what any church or group perceicves as sin.

 

[beli]

I may be getting waaaayy of topic here. But doesnt the state have something to say about sexual activity? eg straight sex is okay from 16 onwards but gay sex is only okay after 18 or 21 or not at all, depending where you live?

Feel free to ignore if I have meandered off the path. (again)

 

[bonosloveslave]

OK....and the state has the right to say this particular urge is wrong why?

I'm not saying the urge per se is 'wrong' - we don't have control over the origination of most of our feelings - what we do *in response* to those feelings though, is our responsibility to control. Most recovering addicts don't ever completely lose those cravings for alcohol or another hit, but as long as they don't act on it, they stay out of trouble.

Most of you think I don't have a valid argument if I try to bring God into the discussion. I don't have a way to remove Him from my thinking and discernment. He told us that we would be tempted (ie, have urges), and for those urges that would lead to sin if acted upon, He will give us the strength to resist if we ask. I know Melon probably has his own arguments for this, but there are enough references in the Bible that God hates the ACTS of homosexuality. He can't condemn anyone for being tempted, because He didn't put that temptation there. It is up to you as to how you will respond to it. THAT is where I am coming from, and if you can see no validity to my point of view, then it is your prerogative to tune me out.

*edit for beli:
To my knowledge, gay sex has only recently become legal, in Texas. Still illegal in most other states, but if challenged, with this new precedent, the law would be struck down.

 

[beli]

I know Melon probably has his own arguments for this, but there are enough references in the Bible that God hates the ACTS of homosexuality.

Im not into the bible at all but I would be highly suprised if any God HATED anything. Kinda defeats the purpose of having a caring sharing smarter power.

*edit for beli:
To my knowledge, gay sex has only recently become legal, in Texas. Still illegal in most other states, but if challenged, with this new precedent, the law would be struck down. [/B]

Sorry, why would the law be struck down? Im not up on US law at all.

 

[Dreadsox]

I am not saying you cannot bring God into it. I think I have more than defended people who come from different religious backgrounds in here for you to agree with that.

My point is, religion is religion, a marriage license is NOT going to prevent the act that the BIBLE has said is sin from happeneing. A Marriage License will give two people who love each other equal rights and protection under the law in MA that a married straight couple has. The Civil Union does not.

 

[beli]

.....the BIBLE has said is sin....

Shows what I know about the bible ie diddly squat. I will depart from this argument. Take care.

 

[bonosloveslave]

Ok, I'm wrong, it was the U.S. Supreme Court, not the Texas State Supreme Court, that said the law was unconstitutional. So I guess it is legal everywhere, I assume over age 18.

 

[bonosloveslave]

How the heck are the "similar threads" similar?

 

[bonosloveslave]

Do the American people even have a real voice in this marriage issue, ie, do we ever get to vote on it? Or is this something that will be decided by the higher ups?

 

[U2Bama]

bonosloveslave:

To your credit, I think it was a U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding a Texas sodomy law.

~U2Alabama