Gay Marriage Fails In Maine

because the law says so.



Yes and citizens are free to petition their state to change marriage laws based on their 14th amendment protection of equal treatment under the law and the separation of Church and State. They should just petition for equal legal recognition of Civil Unions.

the people spoke, they dont want same gender marriage

So they're homophobes and bigots...:cool:
 
Yes and citizens are free to petition their state to change marriage laws based on their 14th amendment protection of equal treatment under the law and the separation of Church and State. They should just petition for equal legal recognition of Civil Unions.

the people spoke, they dont want same gender marriage

So they're homophobes and bigots...:cool:

Yep, all 31 states worth. Wow! Looks like Conservatives are going to rule! Woot! :eusa_whistle::doubt:
 
Yep, all 31 states worth. Wow! Looks like Conservatives are going to rule! Woot! :eusa_whistle::doubt:

Who's talking their politics....:eusa_whistle:

Even better, the 'liberals' are bigots and homophobes.' Good for you Grump, the company you keep.

Anybody who voted against it is a homophobe and/or a bigot, whether they're a fascist, communist, Taoist, socialist, conservative....The vast majority of the company I keep would have voted in favour of it....
 
Who's talking their politics....:eusa_whistle:

Even better, the 'liberals' are bigots and homophobes.' Good for you Grump, the company you keep.

Anybody who voted against it is a homophobe and/or a bigot, whether they're a fascist, communist, Taoist, socialist, conservative....The vast majority of the company I keep would have voted in favour of it....

Ah, but in Maine there had to be more than one Democrat, regardless of philosophical leanings. ;)
 
Who's talking their politics....:eusa_whistle:

Even better, the 'liberals' are bigots and homophobes.' Good for you Grump, the company you keep.

Anybody who voted against it is a homophobe and/or a bigot, whether they're a fascist, communist, Taoist, socialist, conservative....The vast majority of the company I keep would have voted in favour of it....



Honestly, I think most people just want to get it right.

Let's respect the institution of Marriage and move on to achieve equality as well.

It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition.
 
Honestly, I think most people just want to get it right.

Let's respect the institution of Marriage and move on to achieve equality as well.

It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition.

I try and look at different subjects and see how they affect me personally, as do most of us. I'm still struggling how something like this would affect me. So if two gay guys get married and move next to me, that somehow affects me? How? I'll start listening to Village People, have a hankering for the colour lilac and grow a moustache? I just can't believe how petty and pathetic some people can be, and how they want to control the lives of others when it has no affect on them...
 
Last edited:
Ah, but in Maine there had to be more than one Democrat, regardless of philosophical leanings. ;)

...and?....

Just clarifying that in this case, according to you, Democrats may be homophobes and bigots. Glad you are coming out.

You somehow them to think I am affiliated to the left. I'm not...and as I said in the first place, a person's politics is irrelevant...
 
Just because a person voted against homosexual marriage, doesn't make them a homophobe or a bigot.

They just believe in the traditional view of marriage being a man and a woman.
 
Just because a person voted against homosexual marriage, doesn't make them a homophobe or a bigot.

They just believe in the traditional view of marriage being a man and a woman.

I disagree. When you vote against a certain group of people on a subject it has everything to do with who they are and the subject at hand.

Those who believe in the traditional view still get their way...
 
Can you guys stop using these tired canards alluding to some very generalized notion of equality and fairness?

Do you have a problem with the 'generalized notions' of equality and fairness? If so, what are those problems - as they relate to gay marriage.

For me, marriage is the unique union of a man and a woman because it is RIGHT. The idea of changing my view just because it's not all-inclusive doesn't factor in. I don't have a problem with equality and fairness as generalized notions, but I also don't view the world through that kind of lens all the time. I would love to qualify for Social Security while still being an able-bodied, employed 20something. It would help me out a lot. But I understand it's there (ideally) for people who are not capable like me to work and provide for themselves, so it wouldn't be right for people like to receive it.

Why is according to you the union of a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) wrong? Does that have anything to do with your religion? Or do you also view homosexuality as a perversion, mental sickness?

Also, nobody can ever make you change your view, but why should your view have a negative impact on lives of others? Why should your view prevent others from what they view as reaching their happiness?


What I mean is, in my opinion, there's too much reliance on the idea that if we treat all couples the same, things will inherently be better. I don't think that it will, and furthermore, "marriage equality" is a misnomer...since those who want gay marriage have no shame in disqualifying other people from enjoying state-sanctioned, subsidized marriage.

Legal marriage is an acknowledgment of the social institution. As many benefits are tied to employment and income, taxation, economic factors that come with having a family, that's the main reason we have these benefits. It's not just to assert that people with spouses are better than those who are single.

Why can't homosexual couples have all the benefits tied to marriage?

Is it obvious? Some people seem to think "the right to marry the person you love" is an accurate statement, and it's not. It never has been.

It's always been ... it has always been understood that for example a twelve-year old can't marry (well, from certain period till now) ... etc.

If you acknowledge that the state (and yes, I'm including the People) has the right to set parameters on marriage, then you acknowledge that 1) it's a matter of social policy and not constitutionally protected civil rights, and 2) that notions of "equality" are largely unrealistic and irrelevant when talking about marriage.

Some could very well argue - and many do - that it indeed is a matter of constitutionally protected civil rights. Do you have your own argument against it?

You can't just contradict me and then ask me to argue against your unexplained contradiction. What is the basis for that argument?[/QUOTE]

Well I'm sorry. I'm pro-gay-marriage simply on the basis that I do not see any reason why gays should not be able to marry. I know that it doesn't sound like much of an argument, but to put in short ... that's how I see it.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I think most people just want to get it right.

Let's respect the institution of Marriage and move on to achieve equality as well.

It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition.

I try and look at different subjects and see how they affect me personally, as do most of us. I'm still struggling how something like this would affect me. So if two gay guys get married and move next to me, that somehow affects me? How? I'll start listening to Village People, have a hankering for the colour lilac and grow a moustache? I just can't believe how petty and pathetic some people can be, and how they want to control the lives of others when it has no affect on them...

Wow, now I'm really confused. How does any American policy/law towards gay rights effect you in New Zealand? I'm quite sure no gays here are worrying about how you or even Australia are addressing gay rights.
 
Marriage in Law is a Reflection of the Marriage of the Flesh...

This is ONLY Possible with One Man and One Woman... EVER.

A Civil Society Respects this Union and Holds it Responsible because of it's Potential Effects on Society in the Form of Offspring.

This Potential ONLY Exists with Heterosexual Coupling, and NEVER with Homosexual Coupling.

Every other Coupling is Secondary.

Civil Unions are the Answer for ALL other Combinations of Humans outside of One Man and One Woman.

:)

peace...
 

Forum List

Back
Top