Gay Marriage Debate - Tyngsboro, MA

Discuss the national Gay Marriage debate in Tyngsboro, MA.

Do you support gay marriage?

Tyngsboro opposes
Oppose
 
35
Support
 
16

Vote now in Tyngsboro:

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#42 Dec 4, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Gays are not infertile.
2. I don't know of any states that don't.
3. They can marry in this state. That said, I think a child is best served with both a mother and a father.
4. States regulate marriage. The rules vary from state to state but in each state the qualifications and regulations apply to the entire citizenry, all candidates.
"1. Gays are not infertile.:"
Doesnt matter. Your point was that "Straight married couples produce the next generation, gay couples can't" (#32). Well infertile couples can't. Couples who have been "fixed" can't, and post menopausal women can't... So you can't allow one group to fall under one law while excluding the othe group who meet the same criteria as the first. Read up on the 5 and 14th amendment.

2. I don't know of any states that don't.
Huh?
Again you try to play both sides of the fence. Your comment was "There is a strong government interest in seeing children created and raised by their biological parents". So tell me how a ssc who produce a child via artificial insemination OR surrogate, differs from a combined family unit. Where the divorced mom with two kids remarries. In both cases there is only ONE biological parent in the household. So IF your statement is true, then divorced people with custody of their children should not be allowed to marry do to what you say is a states interest.

3. They can marry in this state. That said, I think a child is best served with both a mother and a father"

Great they can marry in Mass... however that is a little more useful that tits on a bull. The Mass marriage license is like getting a state license which is valid only in Mass. You can not go on any federal highway as it is not regognized. You can not drive in another state as the license in not recognized. So the fact that several states live in the present and rightfully allow for ssm.... doe not make it any less discriminatory. Until ssm is treated with across the board equal status as osm... discrimination is rampant.

"4. States regulate marriage. The rules vary from state to state but in each state the qualifications and regulations apply to the entire citizenry, all candidate"

Well to a point... you are correct. However when a state's marriage laws go askew of the constiutional provisions of equal protection.. then their laws are invaid. Prime example Loving v. Virginia. Virginia tried to regulate who could marry. The courts said they could not.
Ashley

Dracut, MA

#43 Dec 5, 2012
Why shouldn't there be equality, its 2012.. almost 2013.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#44 Dec 10, 2012
Ashley wrote:
Why shouldn't there be equality, its 2012.. almost 2013.
Why souldn't we allow polygamy, it's 2012.. almost 2013.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to marry my sister, it's 2012.. almost 2013.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to marry my mother, it's 2012.. almost 2013.
Why shouldn't I be able to marry my 14 year old girlfriend, it's 2012.. almost 2013.

What does the date have to do with it?
Each state has a set of laws governing these things and they apply EQUALLY to everyone in the state.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#45 Dec 10, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Why souldn't we allow polygamy, it's 2012.. almost 2013.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to marry my sister, it's 2012.. almost 2013.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to marry my mother, it's 2012.. almost 2013.
Why shouldn't I be able to marry my 14 year old girlfriend, it's 2012.. almost 2013.
What does the date have to do with it?
Each state has a set of laws governing these things and they apply EQUALLY to everyone in the state.
"Why souldn't we allow polygamy, it's 2012.. almost 2013.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to marry my sister, it's 2012.. almost 2013.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to marry my mother, it's 2012.. almost 2013.
Why shouldn't I be able to marry my 14 year old girlfriend, it's 2012.. almost 2013."

In all your farcical questions posted, harm or potential harm can be shown. Such harm is sufficent enough for the state to show states interest in denying these groups to marry.

Now what harm could the state show to deny the rights of a ssc to enter into the same civil contract as an osc?.... Both sets are legal consenting adults. No harm or potential harm would come to anyone or any offspring of the union. No legal liabities as far as division of property. So tell me what the overwhelming interest would be.

"Each state has a set of laws governing these things and they apply EQUALLY to everyone in the state."

Before loving v virginia.. that argument was used to defend anti interracial marriage laws. The state has laws governing these things and they apply EQUALLY to everone in the state. Seems SCOTUS had an issue with the fact that two citizens were not able to enter into the same civil contract as two other citizens. Seems SCOTUS found no overwhelming government interest in denying this. So again I ask what is the overwhelming government interest in denying ssm?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#46 Dec 10, 2012
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
"Why souldn't we allow polygamy, it's 2012.. almost 2013.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to marry my sister, it's 2012.. almost 2013.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to marry my mother, it's 2012.. almost 2013.
Why shouldn't I be able to marry my 14 year old girlfriend, it's 2012.. almost 2013."
In all your farcical questions posted, harm or potential harm can be shown. Such harm is sufficent enough for the state to show states interest in denying these groups to marry.
Now what harm could the state show to deny the rights of a ssc to enter into the same civil contract as an osc?.... Both sets are legal consenting adults. No harm or potential harm would come to anyone or any offspring of the union. No legal liabities as far as division of property. So tell me what the overwhelming interest would be.
"Each state has a set of laws governing these things and they apply EQUALLY to everyone in the state."
Before loving v virginia.. that argument was used to defend anti interracial marriage laws. The state has laws governing these things and they apply EQUALLY to everone in the state. Seems SCOTUS had an issue with the fact that two citizens were not able to enter into the same civil contract as two other citizens. Seems SCOTUS found no overwhelming government interest in denying this. So again I ask what is the overwhelming government interest in denying ssm?
Loving v VA dealt with a marriage involving a man and a woman.
Each state has a set of laws governing these things and they apply EQUALLY to everyone in the state. While there is a government interest in straight marriage, there is none in gay marriage.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#47 Dec 10, 2012
come on now wrote:
The Mass marriage license is like getting a state license which is valid only in Mass. You can not go on any federal highway as it is not regognized. You can not drive in another state as the license in not recognized.
I think you need a reality check. You can drive anywhere in the country.
ronone

Pittsburgh, PA

#48 Dec 10, 2012
youtube.com/watch... Legalize it,Gay amarriage is already being legalized in the USA
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#49 Dec 10, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Loving v VA dealt with a marriage involving a man and a woman.
Each state has a set of laws governing these things and they apply EQUALLY to everyone in the state. While there is a government interest in straight marriage, there is none in gay marriage.
"Loving v VA dealt with a marriage involving a man and a woman"
Yes, but the larger issue was if a state could dictate which two individuals could enter into the civil contract of marriage. Back then yes it was about race... however the encompasing reasoning is that the state must show overwhelming interest in denying the right of marriage to one group of citizens, which it can not in the case of ssm.

"Each state has a set of laws governing these things and they apply EQUALLY to everyone in the state"

But again they don't. The laws that govern loving v. govern ssm. Basically, if you allow a set of citizens to enter into a civil contract, you must show overwhelming reason not to allow another set to enter into the same contract. In the case of loving, the state could not show overwhelmin reason to deny a black to marry a white person. What overwheming interest to the state is there to deny a m/f from marrying a m/f?. That is the yardstick which must be used. That is the yardstick the government can not measure up to.

" While there is a government interest in straight marriage, there is none in gay marriage"
Umm you may want to read up a bit. The litmus test per SCOTUS is not if there is a government interest in something, but if there was an overwhelming interest in denying something. What is the overwhelming states interest in denying the right for two of its citizens, a ssc, to enter into the same civil contract, marriage, that it allows its other citizens, osc, to enter into.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#50 Dec 10, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you need a reality check. You can drive anywhere in the country.
I think you need a class in analogies. My example of drivers licenses was an analgy to ssm license in Mass. In this analogy the Mass drivers license equated to the ssm license in Mass. Yes it was good in Mass. However, if you went outside of Mass, your license was null (meaning your mariage license was null in another state.) If you drove on a federal highway your Mass. drivers license (marriage license) is invalid as the federal governement does not recognize ssm/drivers license from Mass.

To make it easier for you... The Mass. ssm license is only good in Mass. If you move to another state it does not have to be recognized like a osc marriage licenses is. If you have a osc marriage license the federal government recognizes it and gives you full govenment benefits both legal and monetary. If you have a Mass. marriage license and are a ssc, the government does not recognize your marriage and you will be denied your rightful marital government benefits.

I am sorry I guess I figured I did not need to dumb things down for you... I guess I was mistaken.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#51 Dec 10, 2012
come on now wrote:
What is the overwhelming states interest in denying the right for two of its citizens, a ssc, to enter into the same civil contract, marriage, that it allows its other citizens, osc, to enter into.
The state sets the rules, we follow them. No minds are going to be changed here. Allowing gay marriage would have the state legitimizing/normalizing homosexuality. It would encourage the teaching of gay subject matter to other people's children in our elementary schools, it's already happend in Lexington and other schools all over the country. The attempts to teach this are usually short lived but they are there just the same. California has made teaching homosexual subjects mandatory and very selective.
They can only portray homosexuals in "a positive light." You can't start the school day with a prayer anymore and that's fine but giving 5 year old kids books like "Daddy'd Roommate" and "King & King" isn't fine with me.

Dad dumps the kid's Mom so he can be with his boyfriend.
http://books.google.com/books/about/Daddy_s_R...

Gay prince rejects women, marries another gay prince.
http://books.google.com/books...

Books like these belong in the homes of gay parents, not the public schools.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#52 Dec 10, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
The state sets the rules, we follow them. No minds are going to be changed here. Allowing gay marriage would have the state legitimizing/normalizing homosexuality. It would encourage the teaching of gay subject matter to other people's children in our elementary schools, it's already happend in Lexington and other schools all over the country. The attempts to teach this are usually short lived but they are there just the same. California has made teaching homosexual subjects mandatory and very selective.
They can only portray homosexuals in "a positive light." You can't start the school day with a prayer anymore and that's fine but giving 5 year old kids books like "Daddy'd Roommate" and "King & King" isn't fine with me.
Dad dumps the kid's Mom so he can be with his boyfriend.
http://books.google.com/books/about/Daddy_s_R...
Gay prince rejects women, marries another gay prince.
http://books.google.com/books...
Books like these belong in the homes of gay parents, not the public schools.
"The state sets the rules, we follow them."
Rules can not be arbitrary... which is what they are w marriage laws. It permits only certain individuals to get married, when other individuals who are not. To do this the state must give overwhelming reason why they are denying the right. Again I ask what would that reason be?

"Allowing gay marriage would have the state legitimizing/normalizing homosexuality."

A) it would not legitimize anything other than the fact that they are citizens and as such deserve the same privledges offered other citizens.
B) Welcome to 2012... homosexuality is normal... accepted except by bigoted people.

" It would encourage the teaching of gay subject matter to other people's children in our elementary schools, it's already happend in Lexington and other schools all over the country"

A) Nice try at a slippery sloap argument. We are talking same sex marriage here. Has nothing to do with what is taught in school. The fact that homosexual awareness and tolerance is being taught in school will not change rather ssm is passed (which it will be) or not.

B) You mean children would learn tollerance? and that homosexuals are people to. That they have families... that they do fall in love with each other..... well we can't have our children be taught that. They must be taught to be intollerant like their parents.
Hint dont like what is being taught... there is alway parochial schools.

"They can only portray homosexuals in "a positive light." You can't start the school day with a prayer anymore and that's fine but giving 5 year old kids books like "Daddy'd Roommate" and "King & King" isn't fine with me."

So you would rather the teachers tell them that homosexuals are bad.. an abominations... people who are not deserving of all rights given to a u.s. citizen.....

Again goes back to don't like the teaching private school is available.

"Books like these belong in the homes of gay parents, not the public schools"
Can I ask you what educational credentials you have... are you a teacher, an administrator?... yet you should choose what books should be taught.... Tell you what... why dont we just go to those schools and have ourselves a good ol fashioned book burning.

Face it ssm will not "Legitimize" anything. All it will do is allow for two u.s. citizens to get the same rights as two other citizens... nothing more nothing less
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#53 Dec 10, 2012
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
1. "The state sets the rules, we follow them."
Rules can not be arbitrary... which is what they are w marriage laws.
2. It permits only certain individuals to get married, when other individuals who are not.
3. "Allowing gay marriage would have the state legitimizing/normalizing homosexuality."
A) it would not legitimize anything other than the fact that they are citizens and as such deserve the same privledges offered other citizens.
4. B) Welcome to 2012... homosexuality is normal... accepted except by bigoted people.
" It would encourage the teaching of gay subject matter to other people's children in our elementary schools, it's already happend in Lexington and other schools all over the country"
5. A) Nice try at a slippery sloap argument. We are talking same sex marriage here. Has nothing to do with what is taught in school. The fact that homosexual awareness and tolerance is being taught in school will not change rather ssm is passed (which it will be) or not.
6. B) You mean children would learn tollerance? and that homosexuals are people to. That they have families... that they do fall in love with each other..... well we can't have our children be taught that. They must be taught to be intollerant like their parents.
7. Hint dont like what is being taught... there is alway parochial schools.
8. "They can only portray homosexuals in "a positive light." You can't start the school day with a prayer anymore and that's fine but giving 5 year old kids books like "Daddy'd Roommate" and "King & King" isn't fine with me."
So you would rather the teachers tell them that homosexuals are bad.. an abominations... people who are not deserving of all rights given to a u.s. citizen.....
9. Again goes back to don't like the teaching private school is available.
"Books like these belong in the homes of gay parents, not the public schools"
Can I ask you what educational credentials you have... are you a teacher, an administrator?... yet you should choose what books should be taught.... Tell you what... why dont we just go to those schools and have ourselves a good ol fashioned book burning.
Face it ssm will not "Legitimize" anything. All it will do is allow for two u.s. citizens to get the same rights as two other citizens... nothing more nothing less
1. Actually, they're very specific.
2. Well, duh!
3. They get the same privledges. Marry an unrelated opposite sex partner, remain single or move to a state that allows it. Plenty of choice.
4. If you're gay it's normal, if your not it's not. Less than 1/3 of eligible voters at the APA voted to have it removed and not for medical reasons.
5. I'm in favor of tolerance and anti-bullying programs. I'm against programs that focus on specific groups unless they focus on every group and every religion. There would be no time for the 3 R's.
6. This is the typical gay response. It has nothing to do with tolerance and everything to do with teaching kids that homosexuality is normal so you will feel accepted.
7. I'd rather vote out the school committee.
8. Another typical gay response. I would rather they didn't bring it up at all. Elementary school is not the place to discuss gay relationships.
9. Until they issue vouchers I'd rather fire the school committee.
10. See #3.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#54 Dec 10, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Actually, they're very specific.
2. Well, duh!
3. They get the same privledges. Marry an unrelated opposite sex partner, remain single or move to a state that allows it. Plenty of choice.
4. If you're gay it's normal, if your not it's not. Less than 1/3 of eligible voters at the APA voted to have it removed and not for medical reasons.
5. I'm in favor of tolerance and anti-bullying programs. I'm against programs that focus on specific groups unless they focus on every group and every religion. There would be no time for the 3 R's.
6. This is the typical gay response. It has nothing to do with tolerance and everything to do with teaching kids that homosexuality is normal so you will feel accepted.
7. I'd rather vote out the school committee.
8. Another typical gay response. I would rather they didn't bring it up at all. Elementary school is not the place to discuss gay relationships.
9. Until they issue vouchers I'd rather fire the school committee.
10. See #3.
1) Actually then are arbitrary in that they the state says who is allowed to marry. Giving no overwhelming reason for denying that to another group of citizens
2) You miss the point (not surprisingly)... point is the state can not deny rights given to one group to another group unless they can show an overwhelming states interest in denying them. In other words the state must show reason why it is denying the rights. So far no state has shown overwhelming reason to deny ssm.
3) No a hetero gets to marry whom they are attracted to... a homosexual does not... HARDLY the same. As far as moving to a different state... a you are forcing them to move to get equal rights.. unconstitutional, and Even If they moved and got married in that state, the marriage would not be equal to a osc marriage.
4)huh?
5)So you are for toleance and anti bullying... just not for teaching of tolerance.... got you.
6)Ummm teaching tolerance IS to teach that something is normal and acceptable.
7) got you and how will you make sure the person replacing them is as narrowminded as you?
8)So where would you teach it?... Like it or not children of ssc are among the kindegarten children and above. So where do you want to tell the kids that johnies has two mothers and that is not a bad thing?.... After the kid is being picked on?
9)see #7
10)see #3
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#55 Dec 10, 2012
come on now wrote:
1. point is the state can not deny rights given to one group to another group unless they can show an overwhelming states interest in denying them.
2. So you are for toleance and anti bullying... just not for teaching of tolerance.... got you.
1. There are only two groups, males and females.
2. Schools put out a student handbook. Rules should be in the book along with punishments. They should be enforced. Rules agaisnt bullying should be strict and punishments should be harsh and carried out. I'm not for teaching, read brainwashing, little kids that homosexuality is normal. And no, I'm not for teaching them it's bad or evil either. It shouldn't be brought up.

You and I have very different points of view. Some things are better left to guardians and parents. They public schools are not and should not be a soapbox for the gay agenda.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#56 Dec 10, 2012
come on now wrote:
So where do you want to tell the kids that johnies has two mothers and that is not a bad thing?.... After the kid is being picked on?
Alemeda County in California attempted to implement a "Lesson 9" that focused on kids with gay parents. No one else, just kids with gay parents and young children that might be gay. The need for such a lesson was urgent, they claimed. An investigation took place and it was found that there were no incidents of children with gay parents being bullied, not one. The truth is that most kids that are bullied are straight and most classrooms have no gay children or children with gay parents in them. There is nothing wrong with these people living up to their responsibilities as parents and guardians at home. They should do their jobs and let the schools teach what will benefit kids and prepare them for grades to come.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Tyngsboro Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Do you remember???? (Jun '08) Sat Wondering 17,898
News Police Briefs (Dec '08) Aug 26 Aaron 6
The homeless and the Chelmsford Hotels Aug 25 Kevinhillsborough... 1
Billerica crim,e 70s 80s 90s (Jul '08) Aug 23 Kim 352
News Female student charged with punching Tewksbury ... (Nov '08) Aug 22 Anonymous 146
News Chelmsford asphalt plant feels heat over air-qu... (Aug '08) Aug 18 anon 8
High on Crack Street (Aug '08) Aug 16 Boo boo VIP 157
Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]