Gay Marriage Debate - Uxbridge, MA

Discuss the national Gay Marriage debate in Uxbridge, MA.

Do you support gay marriage?

Uxbridge opposes

Vote now in Uxbridge:


Douglas, MA

#1 Aug 4, 2010
i am a gay man with a longtime partner and believe we have the same rights as hetero.s do!! and i believe i should not be decriminated against

Rutland, MA

#2 Aug 10, 2010
Marriage is and always will be a union between man and woman. I don't care if your gay or not just stop trying to jam it down everyones throat.

Rutland, MA

#3 Aug 10, 2010
Stop trying to jam the issue down everyones throat. If your gay then that's fine but I don't need to hear about it.

Marriage is a union between man and woman. It is a biblical union under God. Until you can have children together without outside help then your "marriage" means nothing to the majority of people in this country. Ban on gay marriage is not decriminalization and gay marriage is not covered in the constitution.
Stop It

Douglas, MA

#4 Aug 10, 2010
John wrote:
Stop trying to jam the issue down everyones throat. If your gay then that's fine but I don't need to hear about it.
Marriage is a union between man and woman. It is a biblical union under God. Until you can have children together without outside help then your "marriage" means nothing to the majority of people in this country. Ban on gay marriage is not decriminalization and gay marriage is not covered in the constitution.
Dude, climb out from under your rock!!! It's backwards bigots like you that make the average moron look smart. The majority of weddings are facilitated through a JP and not religous, and news flash, you don't need to be married in a church to get knocked up...just look around. Isn't it written all men are created equal?
Stop It

Douglas, MA

#5 Aug 10, 2010
Let them be...

Willingboro, NJ

#6 Aug 16, 2010
My reasons for opposong it are as follows..

1.It would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage. The 50 percent divorce rate has already weakened the definition of marriage. We shouldn't be taking further steps to define what marriage is. A law allowing gay marriage would increase the number of joke or non-serious marriages, such as a couple of friends who want to save on taxes. Marriage is the most sacred institution in this country, and every society considers it the joining of a man and a woman. It makes biological sense since only a man and woman can pro-create.

2.It would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our society. The building blocks of our society and the thing that makes it strong is the traditional family of man, woman, and children. It is what has sustained us through two world wars, a great depression, and numerous other challenges over the centuries. While friends & lovers come and go, your family is always there. The main reason our culture and values have started to crumble is the weakening of families. Introducing another form of "family" would only make the situation worse.

3.It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an object could be next). Gay rights activists claim that these marriages should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone, but it could start a chain reaction that destroys the whole idea of marriage. If someone wants to marry his dog, why shouldn't he be able to? What if someone wants to marry their brother or parent? What if someone wants to marry their blow-up doll or have 10 wives? Unless we develop some firm definition of what a marriage is, the options are endless. If these options sound absurd, remember that all it takes is a few activist judges to use the statute to open the door. It doesn't matter if 95 percent of the population disagrees with the policy, one judge can interpret the case the way he or she wants and use the doctrine of stare decisis to impose a law on everyone. Do you remember how two judges in California recently declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? If the decision hadn't been overturned, it would have prevented millions of children from being able to say the pledge every morning, despite the fact that 95+ percent of Americans disagreed with the decision.

4.The gay lifestyle is not something to be encouraged, as a lot of research shows it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems. Studies show that homosexuals, for a variety of reasons, have life expectancies of approximately 20 years less than the general population. Just like a lifestyle of smoking, drinking, etc., unhealthy lifestyles should be discouraged
Stop It

Douglas, MA

#7 Aug 16, 2010
One of the first claims that seems to come up when gay marriage is discussed is that homosexual relations/relationships are not biologically natural. Same-sex couples cannot naturally produce children through their union.
"Consider this. If there is a necessary link between marriage and procreation, strange consequences would follow. A state could and, to be consistent, should prohibit marriage in which one or both partners are sterile or impotent.
If procreation is the essential goal of marriage, why should postmenopausal women be allowed to marry?
Surely, discrimination against sterile, impotent, or aged couples would be unacceptable to citizens of many different perspectives. The rationale would be that marriage serves functions that are as important as, if not more important than, procreation, including interpersonal commitment, religious or moral expression, sexual satisfaction, and the legal entitlements associated with spousehood.
If elderly, sterile, or impotent couples cannot be denied the right to marry because of a traditional link between marriage and procreation, neither can lesbian or gay couples be denied the right for that type of reason.
Another popular argument is that allowing gays to marry will further degrade the already struggling institution of marriage.
“As conservatives tirelessly and rightly point out, marriage is society’s most fundamental institution. To bar any class of people from marrying as they choose is an extraordinary deprivation. When not so long ago it was illegal in parts of America for blacks to marry whites, no one could claim that this was a trivial disenfranchisement…
To outweigh such a serious claim it is not enough to say that gay marriage might lead to bad things. Bad things happened as a result of legalizing contraception, but that did not make it the wrong thing to do. Besides, it seems doubtful that extending marriage to say, another 3 or 5 percent of the population would have anything like the effects that no-fault divorce has had, to say nothing of contraception.
By now, the “traditional” understanding of marriage has been sullied in all kinds of ways. It is hard to think of a bigger affront to tradition for instance, than allowing married women to own property independently of their husbands or allowing them to charge their husbands with rape. Surely it is unfair to say that marriage may be reformed for the sake of anyone and everyone except homosexuals, who must respect the dictates of tradition.
Appeals to the tradition of marriage are illogical.
The appeal to tradition in denial of gay marriage rights has many inconsistencies. E.J. Graff, author of What is Marriage For? in 1996 points out many of them. He says “Very little about marriage is historically consistent enough to be 'traditional.' That it involves two people? Then forget the patriarch Jacob, whose two wives and two concubines produced the heads of the twelve tribes. That it involves a religious blessing? Not early Christian marriages, before marriage was a sacrament. That it is recognized by law? Forget centuries of European prole “marriages” conducted outside the law, in which no property was involved.
That it’s about love, not money? So much for centuries of negotiation about medieval estates, bride-price, morning gift and dowry (not to mention bride-burnings in today’s India).
Every appeal to tradition in preservation of the present marriage laws falls into the same pit of illogically. Marriage has been different in each society throughout the ages and throughout the history of the United States.
Even some conservatives advocate the inclusion of gays in the marriage institution.
Stop It

Douglas, MA

#8 Aug 16, 2010
Mark Strasser, Professor of Law at Capital University in 1999, along with many self-proclaimed conservative advocates of gay marriage, argues that allowing gays to marry would increase stability in gay relationships and discourage promiscuity in the gay population. He says,“State interests in the recognition and promotion of marriage include the promotion of stability, the limitation of the disorganized breakdown of relations, and the provision of a home for the production and rearing of children.
You can't accuse gays of being promiscuous, if you won't allow them access to an institution that, amoung other things, works to limit promiscuity in society.
Many people, trying to be tolerant, say that gays should have an institution for defining their partnerships legally, but they don't want gays to be included in what they see as the heterosexual-only institution of marriage. They want gay marriage to be called something else, just to define it as different. Here's the problem with the 'civil union' approach:
In Vermont a court recently legalized not marriage for gays, but a “civil union” which affords same-sex couples all the rights and privileges of married couples, but without calling it “marriage.”
While I applaud Vermont’s court system for this step in the right direction, a new institution for gay couples is not the answer. It simply affirms their second-class status in American society. In the Supreme Court case Brown vs. The Board of Education, the policy of “separate but equal” with regard to race was struck down as being unconstitutional, because separate can never be equal. Creating a separate institution for gay couples is just as unequal and unconstitutional as creating separate institutions for blacks and whites.
Stop It

Douglas, MA

#9 Aug 16, 2010
Sorry for the repeat...there was a delay in the post so I didn't think it went through.

Whitinsville, MA

#10 Jan 17, 2012
It used to be that women couldn't wear pants or go to work or vote and that was how it had always been. It used to be that anyone who wasn't white automatically didn't deserve what everyone else had. Now it's that gays aren't allowed the same right to marry. We are supposed to be the land of the free. We're supposed to stand for equality. If we want freedom and equality for all, why are we stopping people that love each other from getting married just because they happen to be the same sex?

Northbridge, MA

#11 Jan 17, 2012
People have the right to love anyone they want. Let people express that love. Is it harming anyone?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Uxbridge Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Police: Mass. school bus driver high while driving (Dec '09) Oct 14 JOCK 12
Cleanup is underway at house of horrors in Blac... Sep '14 Anonymous 7
gia restaurant Sep '14 Maddydep 3
The Grey Barn - depressing (Feb '14) Sep '14 Ken graves 2
new uxbridge blog (Feb '09) Aug '14 woolfy 7
Cock n' Kettle (Jul '08) Aug '14 SandyB 26
Debate: Gay Marriage - Blackstone, MA (Jan '12) Aug '14 Steve 7

Uxbridge Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]