YAY!!!!!!!!! For Massachusetts...

[_dmp_]

BOSTON — The Massachusetts Legislature adopted a new version of a state constitutional amendment Monday that would ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions, eliminating consideration of any other proposed changes.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115474,00.html

 

[NewGuy]

My viewpoint on the issue notwithstanding, is this really allowed under our original Constitution?

Our Constitution would seem through a few statements of "all men are created equal" and our freedom of religion, and others would indicate government favoritism to any marriage or union would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

If this is the case, then giving tax breaks or any real benefit outside of just a "Hi, how ya doin Mrs. Smith" would be favoritism and against singles.

I would think this victory would be a slippery slope that will see a problem in this regard at warp speed.

-Or maybe I have taken to many hallucinogens.

 

[OCA]

Just coming to post this very thing myself, EXCELLENT NEWS! No it is not unconstitutional as it is a simple choice between right and wrong and the good of society.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4624659/

 

[_dmp_]

where are tax breaks for married people???? Why haven't I gotten any simply for being married?

Ever heard of the "Marriage Penalty" when it comes to taxes?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by dmp
where are tax breaks for married people???? Why haven't I gotten any simply for being married?

Ever heard of the "Marriage Penalty" when it comes to taxes?

I knew I should have put that in quotes....:

 

[jimnyc]

ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions

I have no problem with this and hope many other states follow suit. I think this looks out for all parties involved.

 

[badfish]

... I hate that this issue is in politics at all...

We now have the government telling the Church who they can and can not Marry... I love Dubya to death but this does not seem right. It should be the congregation's choice to marry or not marry whomever they want.

This is a pointless limitation that benefits no one. It offends the Christian Right?! F that. I'm Christian, I'm Republican... I'm not offended by a couple gals that want to marry each other. All good people have the right to live free no matter what they believe, look like, or act. That is fundamental! This is a civil rights issue.

Their personal actions well be dealt with when they die... You can't force a church not to marry someone just like you can't force them TO marry someone.

BAH I say! BAH!

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by badfish
... I hate that this issue is in politics at all...

We now have the government telling the Church who they can and can not Marry... I love Dubya to death but this does not seem right. It should be the congregation's choice to marry or not marry whomever they want.

This is a pointless limitation that benefits no one. It offends the Christian Right?! F that. I'm Christian, I'm Republican... I'm not offended by a couple gals that want to marry each other. All good people have the right to live free no matter what they believe, look like, or act. That is fundamental! This is a civil rights issue.

Their personal actions well be dealt with when they die... You can't force a church not to marry someone just like you can't force them TO marry someone.

BAH I say! BAH!

Marriage is NOT just a religous union...and one can't be Christian and support homosexuality, as the two are not compatable. But this goes beyond religion...homosexuality is destructive.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by dmp
Marriage is NOT just a religous union...and one can't be Christian and support homosexuality, as the two are not compatable. But this goes beyond religion...homosexuality is destructive.

destructive to what?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by dmp
Marriage is NOT just a religous union...and one can't be Christian and support homosexuality, as the two are not compatable. But this goes beyond religion...homosexuality is destructive.

I always love to point out the logical conclusion of homosexuality.

If it is ok or "right", then what happens if everyone does it for 150 years?

POOF!

No more people.



Somehow, it makes the whole argument rather senseless.

 

[jon_forward]

Originally posted by badfish
... I hate that this issue is in politics at all...

We now have the government telling the Church who they can and can not Marry... I love Dubya to death but this does not seem right. It should be the congregation's choice to marry or not marry whomever they want.

I must have missed something. I didnt know that G.W. ran Massachusetts. Howw in the world did teddy k let this happen?
as for the results...I am with jim on this one...they have what they want, the ability to get all the bennys of a civil union, and we the NORMAL folk get to keep what we have had all along, the santuary of marriage between a man and woman!
:happy2:

 

[Johnney]

Originally posted by badfish
... I hate that this issue is in politics at all...

We now have the government telling the Church who they can and can not Marry... I love Dubya to death but this does not seem right. It should be the congregation's choice to marry or not marry whomever they want.
(snip)
Their personal actions well be dealt with when they die... You can't force a church not to marry someone just like you can't force them TO marry someone.

BAH I say! BAH!

they arent telling the church who they cant marry, they are jsut saying that it isnt going to be legally recognized by the state. so why waste the time in the church.

 

[badfish]

Originally posted by dmp
Marriage is NOT just a religous union...and one can't be Christian and support homosexuality, as the two are not compatable. But this goes beyond religion...homosexuality is destructive.

I don't support homosexuality but I think it's wrong to outcast someone for it. It's not very Christian like to treat people as 2nd class citizens because of who they are. Your statement about supporting homosexuality and being Christian is false. Is a Christian family who has a gay son or daughter doomed to hell unless they disown them and cast them out? No.

Magdeleine was a hooker, Matthew was "ew" a Tax Collector. They were forgiven and loved by Jesus. Now I know it is different in that Magdeleine stopped her whorin and Matthew stopped his shaddy dealings while homosexuals aren't about to convert their feelings so quickly if ever.

Anyway, it paints a clear sign that they aren't welcome in Church and that isn't how it should be. If they are given the governmental benefits associated with a marriage via civil union then a Church (of any faith) that wishes to marry them, should have that right. Maybe by attending a church and learning what it has to teach, a gay couple could at least see the other side... Learn stronger family values and struggle with their own morality.

I just don't think it's right.

EDIT :

I must have missed something. I didnt know that G.W. ran Massachusetts. Howw in the world did teddy k let this happen?

:

 

[Palestinian Jew]

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by badfish
I don't support homosexuality but I think it's wrong to outcast someone for it. It's not very Christian like to treat people as 2nd class citizens because of who they are. Your statement about supporting homosexuality and being Christian is false. Is a Christian family who has a gay son or daughter doomed to hell unless they disown them and cast them out? No.

Magdeleine was a hooker, Matthew was "ew" a Tax Collector. They were forgiven and loved by Jesus. Now I know it is different in that Magdeleine stopped her whorin and Matthew stopped his shaddy dealings while homosexuals aren't about to convert their feelings so quickly if ever.

Anyway, it paints a clear sign that they aren't welcome in Church and that isn't how it should be. If they are given the governmental benefits associated with a marriage via civil union then a Church (of any faith) that wishes to marry them, should have that right. Maybe by attending a church and learning what it has to teach, a gay couple could at least see the other side... Learn stronger family values and struggle with their own morality.

I just don't think it's right.

EDIT :

:

If it weren't this way, there would be no great "falling away" and we wouldn't be on the doorstep of the next flight outta town.

 

[Johnney]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew

that smilie dancing like that is kind of in time with the song im listening to at the moment!

 

[jon_forward]

where does it say they cant go to church? they can worship if they want, where-ever they want, if they did get "married" in a church it wouldnt be valid as the state wouldnt recognized it as legally binding. something the gays want badly! The Gays do have the same rights as Hetro's do when it comes to marriage. they can marry the opposite sex just as all us NORMAL folk do.

 

[badfish]

Originally posted by jon_forward
where does it say they cant go to church? they can worship if they want, where-ever they want, if they did get "married" in a church it wouldnt be valid as the state wouldnt recognized it as legally binding. something the gays want badly! The Gays do have the same rights as Hetro's do when it comes to marriage. they can marry the opposite sex just as all us NORMAL folk do.

nevermind. Such is the life of a moderate... guff from both sides.

 

[jon_forward]

Originally posted by badfish


nevermind. Such is the life of a moderate... guff from both sides.

badfish... we can agree to dis-agree

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by badfish
I don't support homosexuality but I think it's wrong to outcast someone for it. It's not very Christian like to treat people as 2nd class citizens because of who they are. Your statement about supporting homosexuality and being Christian is false. Is a Christian family who has a gay son or daughter doomed to hell unless they disown them and cast them out? No.

Magdeleine was a hooker, Matthew was "ew" a Tax Collector. They were forgiven and loved by Jesus. Now I know it is different in that Magdeleine stopped her whorin and Matthew stopped his shaddy dealings while homosexuals aren't about to convert their feelings so quickly if ever.

Anyway, it paints a clear sign that they aren't welcome in Church and that isn't how it should be. If they are given the governmental benefits associated with a marriage via civil union then a Church (of any faith) that wishes to marry them, should have that right. Maybe by attending a church and learning what it has to teach, a gay couple could at least see the other side... Learn stronger family values and struggle with their own morality.

I just don't think it's right.

EDIT :

:

Who is 2nd class? Wha?? Nobody is treating blatant Homos as 2nd class citizens - Straight people are bound to the SAME rules governing marriage as homos are.

Is a Christian family who has a gay son or daughter doomed to hell unless they disown them and cast them out? No

We are called to LOVE - that is the greatest commandment. NO family is held responsible, eternally for the family members..we don't find Christ as a family. We find Him individually. I have a brother who is Crazy. Legally Crazy. I love him and pray for him inspite of his behaviour. Would be the same if he liked Cock. I'd still love him, and pray for him, and talk to him. Nobody is sin-free. Homos want their sin to be ACCEPTED AS OKAY with the Church..that's where the problems arise.

Homosexuality is a sin - just like many other sins. It's impossible to be a willing, unrepentant homosexual and claim Christ. Would be as if I were a habitual liar, and claimed Christ...or a murderer...or a Democrat (Cheap shot! )...or any lead any OTHER lifestyle which is expressly forbidden in the Bible.

Homosexuals and Other sinners (Myself included) SHOULD be the driving force behind ANY church...Homosexuals only claim they aren't welcome when they are confronted and convicted of their behaviour. Would be the same if I were a lust-addict. I couldn't very well go to church, and participate if I'm not willing to subscribe to what Christ has to say on the issues of lust. As long as one is striving to live to Christ's guidance, they should be welcome...