gay marriage

Quote:

---

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040205/D80GRHNO0.html

Massachusetts high court declared Wednesday that gays are entitled to nothing less than marriage and that Vermont-style civil unions will not suffice

---

“I now pronounce you husband and wife” will not be appropriate so I guess other titles will have to be used. So why not just call the union something other than marriage? As long as its as legally binding and supplies all the protection and benefits of the law why the insistance on using a term that’s used to describe a union between a man and a woman. Why do people get married in the first place. Is it to insure that they can go to the bedside of their loved one in the hospital. I mean that’s nice and all but a union of another name could handle this along with benefits, inheritance etc, just as well. insurance has already been taken care of. I thought people got married to raise a family.

This is a forum where we can voice our opinions. Mine…I don’t want to see this happen! If you feel differently I respect that. Thats why we have a (some what) democracy.

From my understanding people get married because :

-- they have fallen in love
-- there ready to settle down and begin a mature and committed relationship
-- it's part of cultures [ even though diff. religions and races celebrated in a vast variety of ways.]
-- like tedob1 has said already to start their own family.

As for gay marriages I dont approve of it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Agent_Steal
As for gay marriages I dont approve of it.

---

Personally, I could care less. Marriage dosen't mean the same today as when I was a kid, and sure dosen't mean the same as when my parents were kids.
I do think that they should have some sort of legal union for those that want such and that marriage could be the religeous version of this.

When I lived in Italy, I had a friend that got married. First there was a civil ceremony at the "town hall", followed by a Catholic Church wedding.

The civil ceremony was the legal wedding.

The church wedding was the "accepted" wedding ( Italy was 98% Roman Catholic at the time).

With the separation of church and state in the US, I'm surprised we haven't arrived at the legal and religious weddings situation yet. This issue may cause it.

With celebs like Brittney and their 24 hour weddings (if that) how more screwed up can the institution of marriage get. If 2 people are deeply and truly committed to each other and want to commit their lives to each other, more power to them.

That's cause Marriage is just being demoralized just like everything else is. Children everywhere are being exposed to demoralizing things everyday. [ Kinda like when Britney was flattered to hear that some considered here to be a role model for all the young girls out there?? Really ?? ]

But some people will try and tell you that a gay marriage will not affect a child. I always did wonder how they came to that conclusion ? If you really look a marriage like that it would have a very hard impact on the child. Just imagine the emotional effects that it would have on the child. But I guess that people who are advocating it are too busy thinking about their selfish needs to even worry about it.

I'm not an advocate, but I have nothing against it. If they want to get married, let them. I do not have any religious obligations, or moral ones for that matter preventing me from saying this as I suspect some of you might. I do believe however that there are strict rules for gay couples adopting children since the child has little choice in the matter, or is easily persuaded, sort of like religion.

They just want to cash in on their partners' health insurance
benefits. Before long, businesses will no longer offer spousal
coverage, and that will be the end of that little scam.
:cool:

I have a couple of questions/remarks...

Quote:

---

From the article posted by Tedob
The much-anticipated opinion came a week before next Wednesday's Constitutional Convention, where the Legislature will consider an amendment backed by Republican Gov. Mitt Romney that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

---

This means afaik that there is no law (apart from state laws) yet that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman (if there was, nobody would have to propose an amendment).

Quote:

---

"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," Bush said. "If activist judges insist on redefining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."

---

As there is no law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, those judges are not "redefining marriage"... the only ones redefining marriage will be the ones voting the amendment. Those judges are simply following the law.

"A sacred institution"... "the sanctity of marriage"... those are religious terms, and I don't see those couples asking to be married for church. As fourdc pointed out, there is a separation between church and state in the US (or at least, there should be). Church has its own laws, and state has its own laws. A "religious law" should imo never interfere with a state law, though.

Couples get a civil marriage, and depending on their beliefs, a "church" wedding. A civil wedding follows civil law (and there is no law prohibiting gay marriages), and a religious wedding follows church-laws (and most churches have laws in place to prohibit gay marriages... there's nothing wrong with that, imo... all clubs have their rules).

It's interesting to see that this seems to be an issue in almost all countries now. First, the Dutch legalized gay marriages, then came most other European countries, now there's the US...

I don't see anything wrong with gay couples getting the same rights as hetero couples. It's a state affair, and should remain a state affair. Adoption by gay couples is something else, though (I don't see that discussed in the article, btw). Most countries (if not all) that have legalized gay marriage, are strongly against gay adoption.

If you are against gay marriages, then don't have one!

It isn't for you or I to decide really if you want my opinion. (us straight folks shouldn't have any say) While they have been allowed civil unions for a while now. (if my sources of info are correct) They are now going to be allowed marriage rights also. Good luck finding a church to house such a ceremony.

I also feel the same about abortion. If you are against it then don't do it. If you spent as much time worrying about you own damn family as you did every other persons family the world would have alot less to talk about.

If you are against gay marriages, then simply don't have one.



/edit fixed typ0"z

Quote:

---

If you are against gay marriages, then simply don't have one.

---

I own slaves (and beat them mercilessly). If you don't approve of slavery,
no one is forcing you to own any.

We live in a society. Everyone's actions affect the whole. If the gov't can
tell me I can't own slaves, I guess people can plausibly argue that the mere
existence of gay marriage affects everyone, especially if you
own stock in a health insurance company suddenly mandated to provide coverage
for gay partners.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.
:cool: