Gay Marriage Fails In Maine

[ThePickledPunk]

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?

a married brother and sister does not harm society anymore than gays do.

My why not for gays is this- marriage is the central facet around which society is built. It is the strongest foundation for the raising of a family, which ideally involves children. And the ideal situation for a child to be raised in involves the social, emotional, and intellectual input from both a mother and a father. In short, heterosexual marriage is more wrth promoting.

 

[Valerie]

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.

I thought you said it wasn't about social engineering?


Hint: Those supposed "interests" do not depend upon heterosexual marriage either! (see my previous examples of shitty marriages that qualify as "sacred")

 

[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.

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

keeping in mind that we are talking about consenting adults, i think for the most part laws on marraige and divorce are there to give power to the state over the individual (maybe). so in that I agree (for now), forcing a "license" to get married is a joke (possibly). at least that is where I am now. I have not thought to far ahead on it, that will come in time. My opinon could change one way or the other. There may be a time to reconsider marraige/divorce laws in their entirety as they relate to all adults. Why are they the way they are? what is the logic behind them? how has that intial idea been manipulated? what are the normative ecumenical, secular, and societal concerns when we talk about marraige and what that means for our identity as nation, and a people? lots of questions to be worked through.

 

[G.T.]

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?

a married brother and sister does not harm society anymore than gays do.

My why not for gays is this- marriage is the central facet around which society is built. It is the strongest foundation for the raising of a family, which ideally involves children. And the ideal situation for a child to be raised in involves the social, emotional, and intellectual input from both a mother and a father. In short, heterosexual marriage is more wrth promoting.

Umm, yea they do. Because marriage assumes sexual partnership and bros and sis's create bad offspring. Now, prove gay sex hurts society.

Marriage is not the fucking central facet. That's honkey dorey bullcrap. Single parents raise fine individuals all the fucking time. I think heterosexual marriage and gay marriage are equally worth promoting.

 

[Valerie]

Now, prove gay sex hurts society.

Marriage is not the fucking central facet. That's honkey dorey bullcrap. Single parents raise fine individuals all the fucking time. I think heterosexual marriage and gay marriage are equally worth promoting.

Yes, any commitment is worth promoting!

 

[KittenKoder]

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...

Then ... every married couple should have to conceive a child within six months of marriage or they go to prison for fraud.

 

[bodecea]

"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.

However, gay couples such as ourselves use the artificial insemination technology first invented for infertile STRAIGHT couples. Plus gay couples adopt as do STRAIGHT couples. And gay couples have children from previous straight relationships as do STRAIGHT couples.

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

No, for a while my computer was not allowing me onto this thread...dang blocker...and I was pointing out that any story like Beauty and the Beast and stories about princesses kissing frogs are beastiality stories.

 

[Fatality]

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?

a married brother and sister does not harm society anymore than gays do.

My why not for gays is this- marriage is the central facet around which society is built. It is the strongest foundation for the raising of a family, which ideally involves children. And the ideal situation for a child to be raised in involves the social, emotional, and intellectual input from both a mother and a father. In short, heterosexual marriage is more wrth promoting.

I think heterosexual marriage and gay marriage are equally worth promoting.

you should stop framing your argument based on sexual appetite. or are you affirming that only gays should be allowed to marry someone of the same sex?

 

[G.T.]

Mind you people, I have a song of my own, in the general topics section, where I use the word faggot in a derrogatory way. Let me explain: when I say faggot, it's been so engrained in my grade/high school's vocabulary as meaning the same thing as "dickhead!" or "ass hole" that I do NOT mean it as a gay slur. I use it for umph in calling someone an ass hole. If it offends any gay persons, so be it I do not give a pooh because I explained myself.

 

[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.

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

non-sequiter

 

[G.T.]

a married brother and sister does not harm society anymore than gays do.

My why not for gays is this- marriage is the central facet around which society is built. It is the strongest foundation for the raising of a family, which ideally involves children. And the ideal situation for a child to be raised in involves the social, emotional, and intellectual input from both a mother and a father. In short, heterosexual marriage is more wrth promoting.

I think heterosexual marriage and gay marriage are equally worth promoting.

you should stop framing your argument based on sexual appetite. or are you affirming that only gays should be allowed to marry someone fo the same sex?

No, you're hammering me on an unnecessary technicality as though this was a philosophy paper though. You knew what I meant.

 

[manu1959]

Mind you people, I have a song of my own, in the general topics section, where I use the word faggot in a derrogatory way. Let me explain: when I say faggot, it's been so engrained in my grade/high school's vocabulary as meaning the same thing as "dickhead!" or "ass hole" that I do NOT mean it as a gay slur. I use it for umph in calling someone an ass hole. If it offends any gay persons, so be it I do not give a pooh because I explained myself.

what a niggardly point of view.....

 

[G.T.]

Mind you people, I have a song of my own, in the general topics section, where I use the word faggot in a derrogatory way. Let me explain: when I say faggot, it's been so engrained in my grade/high school's vocabulary as meaning the same thing as "dickhead!" or "ass hole" that I do NOT mean it as a gay slur. I use it for umph in calling someone an ass hole. If it offends any gay persons, so be it I do not give a pooh because I explained myself.

what a niggardly point of view.....

Excellent! Thumbs Up! Would try again!

 

[ThePickledPunk]

However, gay couples such as ourselves use the artificial insemination technology first invented for infertile STRAIGHT couples. Plus gay couples adopt as do STRAIGHT couples. And gay couples have children from previous straight relationships as do STRAIGHT couples.
QUOTE]

so we do at least agree that there is no such thing as homosexual reproduction, right???

 

[Fatality]

I think heterosexual marriage and gay marriage are equally worth promoting.

you should stop framing your argument based on sexual appetite. or are you affirming that only gays should be allowed to marry someone fo the same sex?

No, you're hammering me on an unnecessary technicality as though this was a philosophy paper though. You knew what I meant.

I only know what youve written, I see an argument for gays to marry one another, but i do not see a provision for ALL people to marry someone of the same sex. So if you dont mind a clarification, is it only for gays or is it for everyone?

 

[del]

If blacks and indians were systematically excluded from education when other races were included- you bet Id have a problem with that. How is a policy that does not essentially teach gay marriage in the same way it teaches traditional marriage not discriminatory?

It is discriminatory. What are you talking about? I said excluding Gay Marriages from literature as a policy, was wrong. You musta mis-read me.

Then again, I wasn't really formally "taught" what marriage is in a school to begin with so I don't understand this whole premise to begin with. My books were like...........Clifford and shit If I recall correctly.

I also read playboy as a child

Of course you weren't formally taught about traditional marriage. But you were taught about it.

what, if anything, does that mean?

 

[G.T.]

However, gay couples such as ourselves use the artificial insemination technology first invented for infertile STRAIGHT couples. Plus gay couples adopt as do STRAIGHT couples. And gay couples have children from previous straight relationships as do STRAIGHT couples.
QUOTE]

so we do at least agree that there is no such thing as homosexual reproduction, right???

My post MEANT that they don't reproduce, which is why I said read it again b/c you missed where I insinuated that. (the part about the oversized population).

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

non-sequiter

No ... it's fact.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

And gay couples have children from previous straight relationships as do STRAIGHT couples.

kind of blows a hole in the "homosexuality is not a choice" theory, at least for many (like my mother).

 

[G.T.]

you should stop framing your argument based on sexual appetite. or are you affirming that only gays should be allowed to marry someone fo the same sex?

No, you're hammering me on an unnecessary technicality as though this was a philosophy paper though. You knew what I meant.

I only know what youve written, I see an argument for gays to marry one another, but i do not see a provision for ALL people to marry someone of the same sex. So if you dont mind a clarification, is it only for gays or is it for everyone?

Everyone so-long as it doesn't harm society, like bro/sis lovers because of their offspring.