Gay Marriage Fails In Maine

[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...

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.

Legislation can NOT Exist without the Benefit of your and my "Very Existence"...

Our Design is "Fundamental" to the Conversation we are having, because if (2) People didn't ProCreate, we wouldn't be having it, GT.

Every other Combination of Human is Secondary to the what we are and why we are.



peace...

 

[Valerie]

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...

They don't want "special", they want EQUAL access to the legal benefits of marriage.


I personally think they should step around all this nonsense and drop the word "Marriage" since it's so "special" and sacred.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

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?

"homosexual reproduction"?

 

[Andrew2382]

Somewhere Rachel Maddow is crying

 

[G.T.]

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.

Legislation can NOT Exist without the Benefit of your and my "Very Existence"...

Our Design is "Fundamental" to the Conversation we are having, because if (2) People didn't ProCreate, we wouldn't be having it, GT.

Every other Combination of Human is Secondary to the what we are and why we are.



peace...

Umm, no. Procreation can be done without Marriage, so the law isn't necessary to solidify it whatsoever. That's fluff. I told you why I disagree.

 

[amrchaos]

For the proponents of gay marriage--why not expand the concept and laws governing Civil Unions?

You see that the rest of us are tied by the religious nutjobs---why not work around and get what you want--then start referring to it as a marriage after you get it passed.

I mean, why force us lowly humans to accept you when you already know that some people cannot accept others regardless?

 

[Qball]

The main (lol, no pun intended) reason people are upset with the result in Maine is because it completely contradicts the inevitability narrative people have been building up, and it especially puts the breaks on the idea that New England is totally in the tank for gay marriage.

 

[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?

"homosexual reproduction"?

Exactly. Read again.

 

[Andrew2382]

I say let them marry that way we can all laugh at them when the divorces start coming through and they start losing 50% of their assets

 

[ThePickledPunk]

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...

They don't want "special", they want EQUAL access to the legal benefits of marriage.


I personally think they should step around all this nonsense and drop the word "Marriage" since it's so "special" and sacred.

Everyone can marry. Its the right to marry anyone you choose that is at the heart of the dispute. And we all seem to agree that we should not be able to marry whomever you choose. If this is about discrimination (and I do not believe it is), then the question is who we discriminate against. But we are all guilty.

 

[bodecea]

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?

"homosexual reproduction"?

Yes. What about it? We DO have children, you know.

 

[G.T.]

Everyone can marry. Its the right to marry anyone you choose that is at the heart of the dispute. And we all seem to agree that we should not be able to marry whomever you choose. If this is about discrimination (and I do not believe it is), then the question is who we discriminate against. But we are all guilty.

I think you have to discriminate to make laws. A Murderer is discriminated against. So is a child molester. It's common sense.

They're discriminated against based on being a harm to society.

Until you can show that homosexuality harms society, I think you need to remove said discrimination from said party. I'm cool with anything as long as it doesn't harm society.

 

[bodecea]

For the proponents of gay marriage--why not expand the concept and laws governing Civil Unions?

You see that the rest of us are tied by the religious nutjobs---why not work around and get what you want--then start referring to it as a marriage after you get it passed.

I mean, why force us lowly humans to accept you when you already know that some people cannot accept others regardless?

That would be ok if civil unions were legally equal to the term Marriage or the term 'marriage' was dropped completely from legal documentation. But right now, it is NOT equal.

 

[bodecea]

I say let them marry that way we can all laugh at them when the divorces start coming through and they start losing 50% of their assets

And some of us have been together longer than 50% of the straight population even without legal marriage. We just have to avoid those "third world" states where it would actually be dangerous for us to visit and get sick or have an accident in.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

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?

"homosexual reproduction"?

Yes. What about it? We DO have children, you know.

My mother is gay and she had me- so yes, I do realize that. However, I am pretty sure I am not the product of homosexual reproduction. I am no doctor- well, actually I am, but I dont think homosexual reproduction is possible.

BTW- my computer would not accept the private message you sent. You weren't talkin dirty to me, were you?

 

[Valerie]

"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...

They don't want "special", they want EQUAL access to the legal benefits of marriage.


I personally think they should step around all this nonsense and drop the word "Marriage" since it's so "special" and sacred.

Everyone can marry. Its the right to marry anyone you choose that is at the heart of the dispute.

Individual citizens have the right to have committed relationships with whomever they choose. Individual state marriage laws provide "special" legal privileges. Homosexuals are denied these privileges based on some religious ideas about "sin".

Our constitution requires a Separation of Church and State and the 14th amendment requires law abiding citizens are treated equally.


DOMA defends the definition of the legal word "Marriage" as "one man one woman", but does NOT override the state requirement to provide equality to all citizens, so once the argument steps aside the word "Marriage", individual states are still required to offer legal equality under the term Civil Union. Either that or drop the "special" benefits all together.

 

[Father Time]

Not my contention at all, but I do understand how someone as intellectually challenged might infer that. My contention is very simple- if gay relationships are put on equal footing with traditional marriage, shouldn't it be ok to include in story hour tales that include gay relationships? Why should gay relationships not be included in the books read to third-graders?

I'll bite. what would be the harm in informing children of a normal, legal form of relationship? Why would it be wrong, even if gay marriage WEREN'T legal to let children know that some people enter into loving relationships with people of the same gender,that love is not limited to heterosexual relationships, and in America we are tolerant and accepting of such behavior whereas other cultures are not?

Again- not agrrein or disagreein- just lookin for clarity.

He's not advocating that he's wondering why you think it's a grave concern. Personally I don't think we should be telling kids too much about relationships at that age, since they aren't interested in getting dates anyway, they can learn about that stuff by observing their parents.

Although it's a pointless discussion, because we can have gay marriage without mentioning it in elementary school and they could mention gay couples there even if they couldn't be married.

Really your 'shouldn't we mention gay couples' argument works just as well even if there isn't gay marriage because gay couples do exist and being gay is not unnatural so why should it be part of the gay marriage discussion?

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Everyone can marry. Its the right to marry anyone you choose that is at the heart of the dispute. And we all seem to agree that we should not be able to marry whomever you choose. If this is about discrimination (and I do not believe it is), then the question is who we discriminate against. But we are all guilty.

I think you have to discriminate to make laws. A Murderer is discriminated against. So is a child molester. It's common sense.

They're discriminated against based on being a harm to society.

Until you can show that homosexuality harms society, I think you need to remove said discrimination from said party. I'm cool with anything as long as it doesn't harm society.

Its not just about harm to society. Its about perceived benefit as well, amonmg other issues. Our tax laws are a perfect example. Saving money is considered beneficial, and depending how you do it you can get favorable tax treatment. Which discriminates against those that do not so invest in the same way marital laws "discriminate" against homosexual and polyamorous relationships.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

They don't want "special", they want EQUAL access to the legal benefits of marriage.


I personally think they should step around all this nonsense and drop the word "Marriage" since it's so "special" and sacred.

Everyone can marry. Its the right to marry anyone you choose that is at the heart of the dispute.

Individual citizens have the right to have committed relationships with whomever they choose. Individual state marriage laws provide "special" legal privileges. Homosexuals are denied these privileges based on some religious ideas about "sin".

Our constitution requires a Separation of Church and State and the 14th amendment requires law abiding citizens are treated equally.


DOMA defends the definition of the legal word "Marriage" as "one man one woman", but does NOT override the state requirement to provide equality to all citizens, so once the argument steps aside the word "Marriage", individual states are still required to offer legal equality under the term Civil Union. Either that or drop the "special" benefits all together.

That may have been true at one time, but it certainly is not true now.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

They don't want "special", they want EQUAL access to the legal benefits of marriage.


I personally think they should step around all this nonsense and drop the word "Marriage" since it's so "special" and sacred.

Everyone can marry. Its the right to marry anyone you choose that is at the heart of the dispute.

Individual citizens have the right to have committed relationships with whomever they choose. Individual state marriage laws provide "special" legal privileges. Homosexuals are denied these privileges based on some religious ideas about "sin".

Our constitution requires a Separation of Church and State and the 14th amendment requires law abiding citizens are treated equally.


DOMA defends the definition of the legal word "Marriage" as "one man one woman", but does NOT override the state requirement to provide equality to all citizens, so once the argument steps aside the word "Marriage", individual states are still required to offer legal equality under the term Civil Union. Either that or drop the "special" benefits all together.

and there is no "right to marry anyone you choose". we all agree on that.