Wedding bells for same-sex couples; bye-bye domestic partnerships

[rgh]

I agree. Ever since this law passed everywhere I turn gays keep trying to FORCE their lifestyle on me. I keep telling them I am not gay but they keep saying "Now that gay marriage is legal we won't be happy until everyone is gay and recognized in every church in the state"

I don't know what to do about this. I guess the new law will eventually make me gay too. (and my son since it is only a matter of time before they start teaching the kids to be gay at school) Once that happens I plan to sue the churches so they will ring their bells to honor our gayness.

Well when I put it that way it really does sound kind of ridiculous doesn't it?

[Baltimatt]

First licenses issued today.

With hugs and happy tears warming a normally bureaucratic transaction, gay couples flocked to courthouses to receive marriage licenses Thursday morning, the first day they were available after voters upheld Maryland's law allowing same-sex weddings in November.

"I started tearing up when I saw the marriage license," Alli Harper, 34, said of the document that she and Jennifer Monti, 32, received shortly after the Clarence M. Mitchell Jr. Courthouse opened at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday. "All of a sudden, it's right there in front of you."

A great day for Maryland.

[Marshan Man]

A great day for Maryland.

It's aiight... j/k Matt.

[Baltimatt]

1 My entire debate point is my prediction that the Federal or State lawsuits are on the horizon, based on past behavior from the professional victims in the militant gay agenda movement.

Do you have examples?

2. Muslims kill gays for being gay. not a great comparative object. Also Muslim and Jewish are religions, not sexual prefreences. Just like gay is not a race, gay is not an established religion. your comparison holds no value. It would be like comparing adultery to wet newspapers.

These are small segments of the population holding views that a large majority don't.

3.Unless you are "outing" yourself(pun intended) as one of the militant gay agenda crowd, I never acused YOU of anything.

You've accused me of editing your post and you seem to lump me in with gay militants.

4. you DID miss your mark, see below:

In other breaking news from Sethworld, the sky is blue.

The only lack of substance and nonsensical talking points come from you.

How many years have state-issued marriage licenses been around? How many times have couples gone after churches for refusing to marry them? Maybe BiggSeth knows.

Folks like BiggSeth who fears people will be have a "lifestyle choices" "forced" on them.

Personal attacks from a site moderator in a thread about somethingfor which he seems to carry a great deal of "passion" .....Maybe baltimatt should refrain from contributing to any threads about same-sex unions or "gay rights" in general until he can learn to use some restraint when a fellow poster hits a nerve during debate......

You really think those are personal attacks? Sorry if you took them that way. I was being a little smart-assed.

[musicmd]

Ken--

And of course, we are not trying to look out for each other and our children, but we have a nefarious purpose that Smokey sees through.

Well, Matt some individuals have despicable thoughts.

[musicmd]

Your plan backfired. If you're actively wondering what they want next, then you do care. And posting more than three times as much as bmoreteacher on this thead trying to convince people that you do not isn't convincing anyone, even yourself.

I believe he has a hidden agenda concerning his true feelings.

[musicmd]

I don't really care. I just wish they would be honest about it and admit that they want "marriage" so they can be seen as normal.

How do you know what they want, unless you are one of them

[Smokey 1]

How do you know what they want, unless you are one of them

Oh boy, another stalker.

[octoburn]

How do you know what they want, unless you are one of them

You have to wonder why would anyone really care what they call it in the first place. Allowing gays to commit to a legal relationship that those couples actually want will only bother those who want to be bothered by it. I can't imagine why someone else's happiness should diminish anyone else's concept of what "marriage" should be. It makes far more sense and than living a lie and feeling trapped in a relationship one doesn't really want.

[johnpolitics]

Where is Gene and you know who registered?

[camera 51]

He should just get used to it. For centuries, gays had to hide who they are to protect their lives. Now they can finally be more open about it. That's a good thing.

Smokey - Out of curiosity, do you still consider Rock & Roll to be "the Devil's music"?

This is the most ridiculous post I have ever read on this forum.

[skeemer]

I am filing for divorce on January 2nd as my former happy marriage will now be in shambles due to gay marriage. Thanks, ****!

[Baltimatt]

This is the most ridiculous post I have ever read on this forum.

Really?

[yuca]

Really?

Maybe he hasn't read very many posts in this forum.

[Baltimatt]

Maybe he hasn't read very many posts in this forum.

Indeed!

[Baltimatt]

I am filing for divorce on January 2nd as my former happy marriage will now be in shambles due to gay marriage. Thanks, ****!

Actually, you can file now and postdate it for the first, or something like that.

[pepper]

You have to wonder why would anyone really care what they call it in the first place. Allowing gays to commit to a legal relationship that those couples actually want will only bother those who want to be bothered by it. I can't imagine why someone else's happiness should diminish anyone else's concept of what "marriage" should be. It makes far more sense and than living a lie and feeling trapped in a relationship one doesn't really want.

While I agree for the most part, I'm also aware of the natural resistance from some folks to the radical change in a thousands of years old paradigm, one that obviously works very well for building societies.

The vast majority of Humans (and life on this planet) are hard wired towards the male/female union.

When legalizing gay marriage (almost overnight on a societal change scale) theres bound to be some resistance, and lots of that resistance can't be easily explained by the individual. It just is.

Lots of people with good will, who have no interest in denying people rights, are saddled with Human Nature and instincts they can't really explain. And this is something even more basic than a racial issue, although on it's surface it shares some resemblance to the civil rights movement. But (IMO) it goes way deeper than that, to our basic functions as a species, and the male/female bonds that are the very cornerstone of our existence.

To expect everyone to accept this change without reservation is to deny Human Nature.

personally I'm ok with it, and I really hope we can quickly move this off the page. Considering the small number of gay people, and the even smaller fraction that actually wants to get married, it's just not that big of a deal.

[Baltimatt]

Pepper--

Then there's religion, which helps make change difficult as some things are seen as ordained by God. Slavery, segregation, subjection of women were all see as things supported by the Bible.

[octoburn]

While I agree for the most part, I'm also aware of the natural resistance from some folks to the radical change in a thousands of years old paradigm, one that obviously works very well for building societies.

The vast majority of Humans (and life on this planet) are hard wired towards the male/female union.

When legalizing gay marriage (almost overnight on a societal change scale) theres bound to be some resistance, and lots of that resistance can't be easily explained by the individual. It just is.

Lots of people with good will, who have no interest in denying people rights, are saddled with Human Nature and instincts they can't really explain. And this is something even more basic than a racial issue, although on it's surface it shares some resemblance to the civil rights movement. But (IMO) it goes way deeper than that, to our basic functions as a species, and the male/female bonds that are the very cornerstone of our existence.

To expect everyone to accept this change without reservation is to deny Human Nature.

personally I'm ok with it, and I really hope we can quickly move this off the page. Considering the small number of gay people, and the even smaller fraction that actually wants to get married, it's just not that big of a deal.

I do not expect everyone to accept it. All I am saying is that it affects the institution of marriage and heterosexual marriages and relationships in absolutely no way whatsoever.

I was opposed to it as well and was very tempted to vote against it for several reasons. But in the end ~ I had to put faces on those who wanted to marry and what I saw in those faces were very decent friends, acquaintances, family members, and others whose only difference was that they were gay.

[camera 51]

Indeed!

Actually, I read a lot more on this forum than I post. With that said, it is a ridiculous statement for the mere fact that legalizing gay marriage in no way makes it any different for gays "coming out", I haven't heard of anyone in recent history being arrested and charged with homosexuality, nor will it make it any safer, i.e. it is certainly plausible that it may incite even more hate crimes. My personal feelings are, knock yourself out, I have no problem with gay couples professing their commitment to one another by getting married and then enjoying any benefits that marriage brings to a couple/family, it certainly is within their rights as human beings. This law has absolutely no effect, positive or negative on me; however, my only concern would be, if in the future a religious institution or any other private institution for that matter is forced by a court of law to perform a ceremony that is in direct conflict with their beliefs.