I wouldn’t think so, Teri. My guess is that gays in the U.S. are optimistic that eventually the right to marry will be granted nationwide here and they would have no reason to leave the country.
Susan
You’re probably right, although I would guess that many will go to Canada to get married there, then return to the US to push for the right to marry here (or at least have their Canadian marriage recognized as legal by the US).
(OT to Teri’s question: I applaud Canada for legalizing same-sex marriage, and I hope the US will eventually do the same. And I don’t have to explain why I feel that way. 
)
I certainly did not mean to imply that Mr. Walden is not entitled to his opinion, and I would encourage him to express it. Unfortunately, many of our christian friends cannot leave it at that, and instead insist on meddling in other peoples private affairs and forcing all of us to adhere to their own interpretation of morality. I would hope that neither Mr. Walden nor any of the rest of us would be so inclined, but it nonetheless strikes me as strange that some folks would be so troubled when a group of people who have historically been disenfranchised finally acquires a significant advance in civil liberties.
Please do not assume that those who have serious reservations about/problems with gay marriage are only Christians or any other faith or that religion is what prompts their feelings.
Susan
Uh, if I assume religion, I’m being charitable. The only other motive I can think of is bigotry or hatred. Is that what you’re talking about?
No.
A bigoted assumption of itself.
I wonder what will happen now if same-sex couples are discriminated against, like disfellowship from a church, private college, or other private membership related organizations.
Related map: http://www.newsbatch.com/sex-globalgayleg.html 
Not at all; because while sceptical, I am willing to be educated.
What moral, philosophical or ethical grounds do you have for disapproving of equal marriage?
I’ve followed this debate for a long, and I’ve yet to hear a coherent argument against equal marriage which didn’t consist of religiously inspired intolerence, general intolerance, or I suppose fear of change.
If there’s another objection, what is it?
You are wording your questions in a baiting manner.
I will not argue it out with you, as it is drifting the thread from its topic in a way that the topic starter has expressed disapproval of, and, frankly, because the matter has been argued out enough, elsewhere. I will make the following statement, simply because you are demanding to hear my side, though I stand in complete agreement with Susan that I have no obligation to give my side on the matter.
It is almost universally agreed that one may not marry whomever one pleases, by right. One cannot marry someone who is underage. One cannot marry someone who is an unwilling party. One cannot marry a member of another species. These, it may be admitted, are objectionable, in part, because they are marriages which lack a due level of consent.
One also cannot marry close kin, even if both parties are consenting. Family consists of kin and of married couples. Marriage is for the procreation, nurturing, support, and comfort of kin. To marry kin would be contrary to that, because it is contrary to familial roles to have a wife-mother, a brother-uncle, etc., by blood. It is also detrimental to society because of the increased incidence of genetic illnesses and deformity.
The attraction, affection, and intimacy of consumation are given, by Nature, for the purpose of being some of the factors in the binding together of a man and a woman, for life, that the family may have not only the progeny but the needed social structure and support.
The attraction, affection, and intimacy of consumation are given, by Nature, for the purpose of being some of the factors in the binding together of a man and a woman, for life, that the family may have not only the progeny but the needed social structure and support.
How can you presume to judge the purposes of nature?
Do you suppose that Nature has made homosexuals for no purpose?
I find this to be a very interesting topic in many ways. It saddens me that so much controversy and anger can be so quickly stirred by such discussions, but nevertheless, I’m going to throw my own opinion into the mix.
I consider myself to be a conservative Christian. I attend a conservative non denominational church that definitely tends towards the political stereotypes associated with my religion. And yet, honestly, I’ve thought and thought and thought over how I feel about gay marriage. I at least attempt to gain my moral paradigm from the Bible, and I believe it to be the complete and whole truth. Why I do is for another discussion. Anyway, taking that into account, it tells me that homosexuality is wrong. And yet so is lying, and cheating, and stealing, and doing something you know you shouldn’t, dishonoring your parents, etc etc etc. And I don’t know about the others out there, but while I haven’t murdered or anything, I’ve certainly been guilty of disrespecting my parents and lying and a good deal other things. My point is that I am EXTERMELY disturbed by a popular Christian tendency in society to condemn homosexuals as anathemas. I understand that many people don’t believe homosexuality is wrong, and I have no desire to sway anyone otherwise. In fact, I think that it is God’s place to do any moral swaying because otherwise it’s my word against someone else’s–and why should that mean anything? I do ask, though, that when you find yourself disagreeing with someone, in this case those disagreeing with gay marriage, remember how hard it is to hold up the unpopular opinions. It’s not “cool” to disagree with homosexual marriage, so I just ask that people remember to respect those that disagree with them–it’s hard to stand up against the flow. I, for one, envy their ability to voice such opinions so openly and unabashedly. And I’m starting to lose myself in a tangent.
Okay. So I think homosexuality is wrong, but I don’t think that means gay people are evil, heartless, or completely immoral people. In fact, I’m somewhat radical in the fact that I believe–gasp–gays can actually be Christians themselves. I don’t believe homosexuality is a good thing, but I do think that the freedom on which this country was founded is. I don’t want to be a Christian because my government told me that’s what I had to be. I don’t want my government telling anyone what religion they should or should not follow. I cherish the ability to make choices for myself and the freedom this country offers allows me to do that. And by not making gay marriage legal, it seems to me that we would be doing the equivalent of imposing religion on someone. This isn’t a case for controversy where, for instance with abortion, the debate on line is not just over morals, but killing human life. Say I am right about homosexuality being wrong, I don’t think they’re hurting anyone else in the process.
Soooooo, to wrap this up, I want to say I’m a weirdo Christian conservative that actually doesn’t think gay marriage should be illegal. However, as a side note, I can’t see anything inherently bad coming from gay marriage that would hurt anyone outside of a religious standpoint. If something is ever presented to me, I would consider changing my views. I am not ashamed to be ignorant–if I remain teachable.
Interesting. If you believe that Nature ‘made’ homosexuals, which implies you believe that there’s a “homosexual gene”, then you must also accept that if Nature did in fact ‘make’ homosexuals it was for the express purpose of putting an end to that particular genetic line.
[quote="Walden (heavily edited excerpt) Marriage is for the procreation, nurturing, support, and comfort of kin. ..The attraction, affection, and intimacy of consumation are given, by Nature, for the purpose of being some of the factors in the binding together of a man and a woman, for life, that the family may have not only the progeny but the needed social structure and support.[/quote]
Procreation is a choice, and many heterosexual couples choose to remain childless for reasons of their own.
Marriage of two men or two women would also bind them for life and provide that social structure and support!
I’m one of those who believes that homosexual marriage would actually STRENGTHEN the institution of marriage, since it would make it available to all citizens.
Someone else mentioned the Biblical injunctions against homosexuality. That is based on only about 2 (3?) very short passages which in the original Hebrew are fairly ambiguous. The Bible contains much wonderful guidance, but it also contains and condones things that today we are horrified to even consider. Slavery springs to mind. Or stoning disrespectful children to death… My Rabbi is fond of saying that we should take the Torah (or Bible) SERIOUSLY, but not necessarily LITERALLY. Be guided by it, but aware that concepts contained therein are subject to historical change.
(Not arguing, Walden, just voicing my own thoughts)
Teri:
I think that would depend on the asylum rules in the 4 countries. There seems to be an emerging concensus that Mass will not ban gay marriage. The various constitutional amendments etc to resore the ban will not succeed. There also seems to be a growing awareness that it really isn’t a big deal. I think the biggest threats to current Mass law would be US Constiutional Amendment. I also imagine the question of whether other states must recognize legal Mass gay marriages will go to the Supreme Court. I think it would be a commerce clause arguement.
Karine:
Fine post. We don’t agree and that’s perfectly okay. I think it’s entirely appropriate for any religious group to decide their own rules on which marriages they will or won’t bless. I think one thing that makes this issue so difficult is that the social institution of marriage has significant civil and religious meaning. In the past we’ve all been comfortable letting the civil and religious issues associated with marrige blur together. Now our society has arrived at a time when it’s important to recognize and distinguish between civil and religious issues aoround marriage. This won’t be easy.
Diddle. That’s like saying Nature has any purpose, which of course, it doesn’t. It is what it is. If we were to expect Nature to have a purpose, then what is the purpose of cancer, or MS, or genetic disorders, or any number of other horrible conditions? The sexual drive is for procreation. It is more drive than is necessary for continuing life, but that is only because it hasn’t been bred out of us to behave differently. As far as I’m aware, no-one has found a homosexuality gene, so I can’t help but feel this behaviour is a mental aberration. Its not what we are designed for. While I don’t feel the need to hurt or punish such few individuals who behave this way, I do not see any benefit to promote or openly condone such behaviour, either.
djm
I don’t believe sex is solely for procreation. There are far too many factors involved in the sex drive to reduce it to that level. Of course without any data to support that I’ll admit that’s my opinion.
However, I do think that if sex wasn’t pleasurable there’d be a lot less of it, because it would indeed become nothing but a deed for procreation.
There would also be a lot less spam around.
Right. If sex was soley for procreation, there’d be a lot fewer people with hairy palms… 