Gay Marriage Fails In Maine

[saveliberty]

There is equality, where we are viewed equally under the law. In this instance that can happen with legal civil unions.

Then we have being treated the same by people. When you say look at the old couple and mean they look nice together and still care and so on. As nice as people may be in public, this is not going to happen for gays. You feel uncomfortable in society because you ARE different. A law will not change that. I draw a parallel to this and prohibition. You simply can't legislate that type of change.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

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?

I dont think its a grave concern, but a legitimate one. And your right. Being gay is not unnatural, anymore than being born with three eyes is unnatural. That is not to say it is normal.

 

[Fatality]

Marriage is not a right, and all should be denied it.

nobody is allowed to marry someone of the same sex, nobody! its all encompassing, everyone lives under the same law.

 

[KittenKoder]

Me neither, but I do remember all kinds of things dealing with marriages being put before me. Like during story hour. I am sure you would agree that gay married couples should have their relationships included with other books teachers read to their students. To do otherwise would not be fair, would it? Why should stories that contain a traditional marriage be permitted, unless "My Two Dads" can also be read? Nice try. Keep swingin, poofter.

so your contention is that if gay marriage is legalized, millions of children will be psychologically damaged during story hour?

you rode the short bus, huh?

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?

What school did you go to that includes stories pushing kids to be livestock? It should be shut down.

 

[KittenKoder]

Marriage is not a right, and all should be denied it.

nobody is allowed to marry someone of the same sex, nobody! its all encompassing, everyone lives under the same law.

... and there should be no laws about marriage one way or the other, no benefits, nothing.

 

[KittenKoder]

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?

I dont think its a grave concern, but a legitimate one. And your right. Being gay is not unnatural, anymore than being born with three eyes is unnatural. That is not to say it is normal.

"Normal" is a machine setting, not a lifestyle.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

so your contention is that if gay marriage is legalized, millions of children will be psychologically damaged during story hour?

you rode the short bus, huh?

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?

What school did you go to that includes stories pushing kids to be livestock? It should be shut down.

You ever see Being There? Remember the scene where Chauncey is trying to get out of a situation he does not understand using his remote control? Thats how I feel reading your post....

 

[ThePickledPunk]

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?

I dont think its a grave concern, but a legitimate one. And your right. Being gay is not unnatural, anymore than being born with three eyes is unnatural. That is not to say it is normal.

"Normal" is a machine setting, not a lifestyle.

soooo, now there is no such thing as a normal lifestyle.... interesting. I am clicking my remote as we speak...

 

[KittenKoder]

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?

What school did you go to that includes stories pushing kids to be livestock? It should be shut down.

You ever see Being There? Remember the scene where Chauncey is trying to get out of a situation he does not understand using his remote control? Thats how I feel reading your post....

Well ... it would explain why so many kids are becoming pregnant so young now.

 

[Valerie]

"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?

Your mother is gay and you're a doctor?


Well, Doctor Pickled Punk...WHY shouldn't your own mother be equally socially secure as the heroine addict on her third sacred heterosexual marriage?

What's up with that, doc?

 

[ThePickledPunk]

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?

Your mother is gay and you're a doctor?


Well, Doctor Pickled Punk...WHY shouldn't your own mother be equally socially secure as the heroine addict on her third sacred heterosexual marriage?

What's up with that, doc?

Yes, my mother is gay, and I am a hold a doctorate. hahaha. My mother is as socially secure as anyone (whatever that means). And I do not see anything sacred about marriage- as I am in no way religious.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Between consenting adults that harm no one, why not?

 

[KittenKoder]

I like the idea that if people want to hold to this "it's because of the family unit" argument, we make them have to conceive one child within six months of marriage or it's annulled.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

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.

Between consenting adults that harm no one, why not?

well, then we return to the "why not three people, or a brother and sister" aspect.

 

[Valerie]

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?

Your mother is gay and you're a doctor?


Well, Doctor Pickled Punk...WHY shouldn't your own mother be equally socially secure as the heroine addict on her third sacred heterosexual marriage?

What's up with that, doc?

Yes, my mother is gay, and I am a hold a doctorate. hahaha. My mother is as socially secure as anyone (whatever that means). And I do not see anything sacred about marriage- as I am in no way religious.

Social Security provides spousal benefits. Homosexual couples are excluded from these benefits by virtue of their unequal status as currently provided under most state laws.

So mom could cruise the local nursing home and grab herself some social security benefits by virtue of our sacred marriage laws, whereas committing to a relationship with the woman she loves does not provide her those same benefits.

Despite what you see, DOMA is all about protecting this sort of "sacred" and I think that's sad.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

I like the idea that if people want to hold to this "it's because of the family unit" argument, we make them have to conceive one child within six months of marriage or it's annulled.

Whether a married couple has children or not says nothing about whether a married, heterosexual couple is the ideal environment in which to raise children.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Your mother is gay and you're a doctor?


Well, Doctor Pickled Punk...WHY shouldn't your own mother be equally socially secure as the heroine addict on her third sacred heterosexual marriage?

What's up with that, doc?

Yes, my mother is gay, and I am a hold a doctorate. hahaha. My mother is as socially secure as anyone (whatever that means). And I do not see anything sacred about marriage- as I am in no way religious.

Social Security provides spousal benefits. Homosexual couples are excluded from these benefits by virtue of their unequal status as currently provided under most state laws.

So mom could cruise the local nursing home and grab herself some social security benefits by virtue of our sacred marriage laws, whereas committing to a relationship with the woman she loves does not provide her those same benefits.

Despite what you see, DOMA is all about protecting this sort of "sacred" and I think that's sad.

Unmarried couples are similarly excluded. By that same logic, why should non-married heterosexual couples not be given all the benefits of marriage? Answer: because society has an interest in promoting marriage.

 

[G.T.]

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

Between consenting adults that harm no one, why not?

well, then we return to the "why not three people, or a brother and sister" aspect.

you've been given the answer. the brother and sister harm society. gays do not. three people take extra advantage because of the tax benefits. where's your why not for gays?

 

[KittenKoder]

I like the idea that if people want to hold to this "it's because of the family unit" argument, we make them have to conceive one child within six months of marriage or it's annulled.

Whether a married couple has children or not says nothing about whether a married, heterosexual couple is the ideal environment in which to raise children.

Um ... not according to the studies done on the few families with gay parents.

 

[mal]

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.

Homosexuals are NOT Denied it Based on Sin... Anymore than Consenting Aged Siblings are.

Marriage is a Legal Acknowledgement of the Responsibility to Potential Child and the Society that the Coupling my be bringing that Child into...

Homosexuals do NOT have this Responsibility, NOR even the Possibility of it.

As for Adoption, well... Again, Consenting Aged Siblings can and do Care for Children... Are they being Denied Marriage Unconstitutionally Using your Standard?



peace...