Gay Marriage Fails In Maine

[ThePickledPunk]

I'm just telling you what the incest laws are based on. It's so that society frowns upon them being together at all, in its' best attempt, because the children they'd create sexually by mistake or on-purpose would be malformed. That's child-abuse and should be frowned upon by society in any way.

The laws proscribing incestuous marriages and polygamous marriages are based on exactly the same reasoning as those that proscribe gay marriages

Which is....?

that there are relationships more deserving of legal recognition than others.

 

[Immanuel]

polygamy is the opposite of monogamy- does not necessarily refer to marriage- although that is generally how it is understood.

Might want to check your definitions:

Monogamy = One sexual partner for life

Bigamy = Two Marriage

Polygamy = Many Marriage

Definition of Monogamy

monogamy - Dictionary definition and pronunciation - Yahoo! Education




Definition of Bigamy

Bigamy is the condition of having two wives or two husbands at the same time.



Definition of Polygamy:

Polygamy Law & Legal Definition

Polygamy means having more than one wife or husband at the same time, usually implying more than just two (which is "bigamy").

I am open to other definitions if you can find them.

Note: both bigamy and polygamy deal only with marriage and having multiple spouses at a given time, unless you can find another definition.

Living in a monogamous relationship is not always dealing with spousal relationships.

Immie

might want to check the latin derivatives.

I think you better... perhaps you should link your sources?

Immie

 

[G.T.]

that there are relationships more deserving of legal recognition than others.

Disagree here, also.

There are relationships that deserve NO legal recognition based on Health Concerns of reproduction(incest), and Polygamy should be equal in my eyes except it is an abuse of the legal benefits to a marriage.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

that there are relationships more deserving of legal recognition than others.

Disagree here, also.

There are relationships that deserve NO legal recognition based on Health Concerns of reproduction(incest), and Polygamy should be equal in my eyes except it is an abuse of the legal benefits to a marriage.

Another way to put this is that there ARE relationships deserving of recognition due to the basics of reproduction.

 

[Valerie]

no. no more than I admit potheads and heroin abusers are subject to discriminatory drug laws.

Don't tell the children but those people are PARENTS too!

thats beside the point. our drug laws treat potheads and heroin abusers differently than caffeine users. In much the same way that heterosexual couples are treeated differently from homosexual couples under marital law.

My point is the Bible teaches that all people have their "sins" and because some people are SO afraid of the "sin" of homosexuality, they feel righteous in keeping people from being treated equally as if we can socially engineer homosexuality out of existence. All law abiding citizens deserve equality under the law.



As far as how it affects the children.....

How sacred is mommy has three children by three daddies? How sacred is that 4th heterosexual marriage.....to a heroine addict?

Is "Daddy has a mistress" on the school curriculum? How about "Mom married the old man for money 101" ? Or "Why do I look just like the mailman" ?

 

[G.T.]

Disagree here, also.

There are relationships that deserve NO legal recognition based on Health Concerns of reproduction(incest), and Polygamy should be equal in my eyes except it is an abuse of the legal benefits to a marriage.

Another way to put this is that there ARE relationships deserving of recognition due to the basics of reproduction.[/QUOTE]

Disagree here also. It's NOT on the basis of Reproduction (can or cannot), it's on the basis of Reproduction (harmful to child or not). Surely you see the difference, and can understand the "why?"

 

[bodecea]

The laws proscribing incestuous marriages and polygamous marriages are based on exactly the same reasoning as those that proscribe gay marriages

Which is....?

that there are relationships more deserving of legal recognition than others.

The Government must present a compelling case in order to constitutionally withhold equal treatment from a minority of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.


Got a compelling case?

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Don't tell the children but those people are PARENTS too!

thats beside the point. our drug laws treat potheads and heroin abusers differently than caffeine users. In much the same way that heterosexual couples are treeated differently from homosexual couples under marital law.

My point is the Bible teaches that all people have their "sins" and because some people are SO afraid of the "sin" of homosexuality, they feel righteous in keeping people from being treated equally as if we can socially engineer homosexuality out of existence. All law abiding citizens deserve equality under the law.



As far as how it affects the children.....

How sacred is mommy has three children by three daddies? How sacred is that 4th heterosexual marriage.....to a heroine addict?

Is "Daddy has a mistress" on the school curriculum? How about "Mom married the old man for money 101" ? Or "Why do I look just like the mailman" ?

Never met someone that thought homosexuality could be socially engineered out of existence, so I cant comment on that. And I agree about equal protection. Especially as it pertains to marriage. Noone should be denied the right to marry. But they may not be able to marry whomever they want.

 

[mal]

Funny how you are all concerned about incest and polygamy and want us to be all concerned about incest and polygamy. I AM quite sure you held MLK Jr. responsible for not being all concerned about the rights of women and hispanics during the civil rights movement too.

You were Born Female... With the Equipment to ProCreate with a Male...

Hispanics are Born Hispanic...

Women are Born Women...

If a White Guy wanted the Law to Acknowledge him as Black, it would be as Absurd as Homosexuals wanting to be Acknowledged in Marriage as Equal to the Design that they are Defying.

Marriage is NOT Capable with (2) People of the Same Sex NO matter what is Claimed.

I can't Claim to be Black... I ain't.

Race and Gender are NOT Analagous to Sexual Choices.



peace...

 

[mal]

Which is....?

that there are relationships more deserving of legal recognition than others.

The Government must present a compelling case in order to constitutionally withhold equal treatment from a minority of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.


Got a compelling case?

You are NOT being Denied Marriage... You are Trying to Redefine it in Law.

You CAN Marry, you just Choose to Defy your Design and Expect Society to Humor you...

Since we won't, you are Insisting that we Embrace you and you will Use the Despotic Branch, as those who did with Dred Scott, to get your Way.



peace...

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Disagree here, also.

There are relationships that deserve NO legal recognition based on Health Concerns of reproduction(incest), and Polygamy should be equal in my eyes except it is an abuse of the legal benefits to a marriage.

Another way to put this is that there ARE relationships deserving of recognition due to the basics of reproduction.

Disagree here also. It's NOT on the basis of Reproduction (can or cannot), it's on the basis of Reproduction (harmful to child or not). Surely you see the difference, and can understand the "why?"[/QUOTE]

If reproduction has anything to do with the justification of marital laws- then perhaps we have it right.

 

[G.T.]

Disagree here, also.

There are relationships that deserve NO legal recognition based on Health Concerns of reproduction(incest), and Polygamy should be equal in my eyes except it is an abuse of the legal benefits to a marriage.

Another way to put this is that there ARE relationships deserving of recognition due to the basics of reproduction.

Disagree here also. It's NOT on the basis of Reproduction (can or cannot), it's on the basis of Reproduction (harmful to child or not). Surely you see the difference, and can understand the "why?"

If reproduction has anything to do with the justification of marital laws- then perhaps we have it right.[/QUOTE]

dis-agree.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Which is....?

that there are relationships more deserving of legal recognition than others.

The Government must present a compelling case in order to constitutionally withhold equal treatment from a minority of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens.


Got a compelling case?

Sure. The ideal family unit for children to be raised involves the biological, emotional, and intellectual input from a father and a mother.

 

[mal]

Disagree here also. It's NOT on the basis of Reproduction (can or cannot), it's on the basis of Reproduction (harmful to child or not). Surely you see the difference, and can understand the "why?"

It's about the Possibility and the Responsibility that one has to the Child, and to the Society in which the Child is brought into.

Homosexuals can't Reproduce 100% of the Time they are Defying their Design.

They CAN Marry the Opposite Sex, ProCreate and get Married... Or NOT get Married.

Marriage is NOT a Mandate when Coupling, and Homosexuals are NOT Denied the Right to Marry.

The "Right", as Loving Concluded, was Based in the Reality that Marriage is "Fundamental to our very Existence"...

Nothing that (2) of the Same Sex do in their "Union" is Fundamental to Humanity's VERY Existence.



peace...

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Another way to put this is that there ARE relationships deserving of recognition due to the basics of reproduction.

Disagree here also. It's NOT on the basis of Reproduction (can or cannot), it's on the basis of Reproduction (harmful to child or not). Surely you see the difference, and can understand the "why?"

If reproduction has anything to do with the justification of marital laws- then perhaps we have it right.

dis-agree.[/QUOTE]

Well, maybe you know something about homosexual reproduction that I dont.

 

[Valerie]

thats beside the point. our drug laws treat potheads and heroin abusers differently than caffeine users. In much the same way that heterosexual couples are treeated differently from homosexual couples under marital law.

My point is the Bible teaches that all people have their "sins" and because some people are SO afraid of the "sin" of homosexuality, they feel righteous in keeping people from being treated equally as if we can socially engineer homosexuality out of existence. All law abiding citizens deserve equality under the law.



As far as how it affects the children.....

How sacred is mommy has three children by three daddies? How sacred is that 4th heterosexual marriage.....to a heroine addict?

Is "Daddy has a mistress" on the school curriculum? How about "Mom married the old man for money 101" ? Or "Why do I look just like the mailman" ?

Never met someone that thought homosexuality could be socially engineered out of existence, so I cant comment on that. And I agree about equal protection. Especially as it pertains to marriage. Noone should be denied the right to marry. But they may not be able to marry whomever they want.

No, opponents of gay marriage act is if they intend to modify homosexual behavior.

"you have a right to heterosexual marriage just like everyone else! tsk tsk"

 

[G.T.]

Disagree here also. It's NOT on the basis of Reproduction (can or cannot), it's on the basis of Reproduction (harmful to child or not). Surely you see the difference, and can understand the "why?"

It's about the Possibility and the Responsibility that one has to the Child, and to the Society in which the Child is brought into.

Homosexuals can't Reproduce 100% of the Time they are Defying their Design.

They CAN Marry the Opposite Sex, ProCreate and get Married... Or NOT get Married.

Marriage is NOT a Mandate when Coupling, and Homosexuals are NOT Denied the Right to Marry.

The "Right", as Loving Concluded, was Based in the Reality that Marriage is "Fundamental to our very Existence"...

Nothing that (2) of the Same Sex do in their "Union" is Fundamental to Humanity's VERY Existence.



peace...

You and I are done on this, because I already told you that I disagree with your premise. I don't feel legislation should be based on our design. If it were, holy moses man. Holy moses.

 

[mal]

No, opponents of gay marriage act is if they intend to modify homosexual behavior.

"you have a right to heterosexual marriage just like everyone else! tsk tsk"

"Behaviors" don't Require Equal Sanction in Law as our Design does.

There are MANY "Behaviors" and just because this one is OK in Modern Pop Culture doesn't Mean that it's Deserving of anything Special.



peace...

 

[G.T.]

Well, maybe you know something about homosexual reproduction that I dont.

No, you're being obtuse(on-purpose?). Homosexuals don't have any scientific evidence showing their reproduction patterns are harmful to anything in society. It's the opposite, in fact, because we're over-populated. Incestual reproduction; however, is harmful to society. I think reproduction should only be "considered" in legislation if proven harmful. Make sense or nah?

 

[ThePickledPunk]

My point is the Bible teaches that all people have their "sins" and because some people are SO afraid of the "sin" of homosexuality, they feel righteous in keeping people from being treated equally as if we can socially engineer homosexuality out of existence. All law abiding citizens deserve equality under the law.



As far as how it affects the children.....

How sacred is mommy has three children by three daddies? How sacred is that 4th heterosexual marriage.....to a heroine addict?

Is "Daddy has a mistress" on the school curriculum? How about "Mom married the old man for money 101" ? Or "Why do I look just like the mailman" ?

Never met someone that thought homosexuality could be socially engineered out of existence, so I cant comment on that. And I agree about equal protection. Especially as it pertains to marriage. Noone should be denied the right to marry. But they may not be able to marry whomever they want.

No, opponents of gay marriage act is if they intend to modify homosexual behavior.

"you have a right to heterosexual marriage just like everyone else! tsk tsk"

Not sure how you think thats the case. I couldnt give a rats ass about homosexual behavior. Marriage is not about behavior. Its about what we hold up as ideal in our society. You do not think heterosexual relationships are inherently better for society than homosexual relationships. I do. I also think a relationship between a man and a woman is preferable- socially speaking- to a relationship between a man a man and a woman.