Gay Marriage Fails In Maine

[bodecea]

The liberal definition of marriage- All Things to All People

No, the Liberal Definition of Marriage: Law-abiding, tax-paying consenting adults not hurting anyone get treated equally.

Perhaps your definition of Marriage is: Let me stick my nose in YOUR private business to make you do what I want you to do.

Your definition includes incestuous and multi-partner marriage. Mine in volves a man and a woman.

I could care less about anyone's private business. Marital laws are not private matters.

Exactly. I'm glad we agree. They are public, legal, civil matters where the government is REQUIRED to treat all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens equally regardless of their gender.

 

[saveliberty]

No, the Liberal Definition of Marriage: Law-abiding, tax-paying consenting adults not hurting anyone get treated equally.

Perhaps your definition of Marriage is: Let me stick my nose in YOUR private business to make you do what I want you to do.

Your definition includes incestuous and multi-partner marriage. Mine in volves a man and a woman.

I could care less about anyone's private business. Marital laws are not private matters.

Exactly. I'm glad we agree. They are public, legal, civil matters where the government is REQUIRED to treat all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens equally regardless of their gender.

Once again making the case for civil unions, marriages, not so much.

 

[mal]

No, the Liberal Definition of Marriage: Law-abiding, tax-paying consenting adults not hurting anyone get treated equally.

Perhaps your definition of Marriage is: Let me stick my nose in YOUR private business to make you do what I want you to do.

Your definition includes incestuous and multi-partner marriage. Mine in volves a man and a woman.

I could care less about anyone's private business. Marital laws are not private matters.

Exactly. I'm glad we agree. They are public, legal, civil matters where the government is REQUIRED to treat all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens equally regardless of their gender.

You aren't being Treated Differently, you have Chosen to Defy what is.



peace...

 

[bodecea]

Your definition includes incestuous and multi-partner marriage. Mine in volves a man and a woman.

I could care less about anyone's private business. Marital laws are not private matters.

Exactly. I'm glad we agree. They are public, legal, civil matters where the government is REQUIRED to treat all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens equally regardless of their gender.

Once again making the case for civil unions, marriages, not so much.

Civil Unions are fine if:

1) rights equal to marriage....(right now there is not one state with 'civil unions' where it is the same legally as 'marriage' ) better yet, get rid of the term "marriage" all together when we are talking about legal/civil documentation.

2) civil unions apply to ALL legal unions, straight and gay

If I'm not mistaken, that's what the UK has.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

No, the Liberal Definition of Marriage: Law-abiding, tax-paying consenting adults not hurting anyone get treated equally.

Perhaps your definition of Marriage is: Let me stick my nose in YOUR private business to make you do what I want you to do.

Your definition includes incestuous and multi-partner marriage. Mine in volves a man and a woman.

I could care less about anyone's private business. Marital laws are not private matters.

Exactly. I'm glad we agree. They are public, legal, civil matters where the government is REQUIRED to treat all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens equally regardless of their gender.

of course. But we are not talking about any single individual not being able to marry a partner of the opposite sex, are we? Your argument is premised on being able to marry whoever you want. In that regard everyone is treated equally. You may want to marry your mother, and our marital laws treat you the same as everyone else. Quit cryin about not being able to get whatever you want.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Exactly. I'm glad we agree. They are public, legal, civil matters where the government is REQUIRED to treat all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens equally regardless of their gender.

Once again making the case for civil unions, marriages, not so much.

Civil Unions are fine if:

1) rights equal to marriage....(right now there is not one state with 'civil unions' where it is the same legally as 'marriage' ) better yet, get rid of the term "marriage" all together when we are talking about legal/civil documentation.

2) civil unions apply to ALL legal unions, straight and gay

If I'm not mistaken, that's what the UK has.

this is really what its all about. The poofters will never be happy unless any one can marry anyone, or noone can marry anyone.

 

[G.T.]

Why don't you guys begin telling the negative effects of legalizing gay marriage, on you personally. Not on everyone else, but on you personally.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Why don't you guys begin telling the negative effects of legalizing gay marriage, on you personally. Not on everyone else, but on you personally.

This has nothing to do with whether or not we have a right as a society to give heightened recognition and preference to certain decisions individuals make.

 

[bodecea]

Your definition includes incestuous and multi-partner marriage. Mine in volves a man and a woman.

I could care less about anyone's private business. Marital laws are not private matters.

Exactly. I'm glad we agree. They are public, legal, civil matters where the government is REQUIRED to treat all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens equally regardless of their gender.

of course. But we are not talking about any single individual not being able to marry a partner of the opposite sex, are we? Your argument is premised on being able to marry whoever you want.

Any law-abiding, tax-paying consenting adult I want (and they want too)

In that regard everyone is treated equally. You may want to marry your mother, and our marital laws treat you the same as everyone else. Quit cryin about not being able to get whatever you want.

Isn't it odd that that same sort of argument was used by the State of Virginia when arguing Loving v. Virginia in front of the Supreme Court...that black people weren't being discriminated against because white people couldn't interracially marry either. You might want to look up what the Supreme Court thought of that argument.

 

[G.T.]

This has nothing to do with whether or not we have a right as a society to give heightened recognition and preference to certain decisions individuals make.

"have a right as a society" ?

Marriage, = heightened recognition. Giving them a legal contract with tax benefits is a heightened recognition.

 

[bodecea]

Once again making the case for civil unions, marriages, not so much.

Civil Unions are fine if:

1) rights equal to marriage....(right now there is not one state with 'civil unions' where it is the same legally as 'marriage' ) better yet, get rid of the term "marriage" all together when we are talking about legal/civil documentation.

2) civil unions apply to ALL legal unions, straight and gay

If I'm not mistaken, that's what the UK has.

this is really what its all about. The poofters will never be happy unless any one can marry anyone, or noone can marry anyone.

You'd fit right in with the other Yes on H8 liars with that post.

 

[bodecea]

Why don't you guys begin telling the negative effects of legalizing gay marriage, on you personally. Not on everyone else, but on you personally.

This has nothing to do with whether or not we have a right as a society to give heightened recognition and preference to certain decisions individuals make.

It most certainly does.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Civil Unions are fine if:

1) rights equal to marriage....(right now there is not one state with 'civil unions' where it is the same legally as 'marriage' ) better yet, get rid of the term "marriage" all together when we are talking about legal/civil documentation.

2) civil unions apply to ALL legal unions, straight and gay

If I'm not mistaken, that's what the UK has.

this is really what its all about. The poofters will never be happy unless any one can marry anyone, or noone can marry anyone.

You'd fit right in with the other Yes on H8 liars with that post.

Hey- queereye- Im not against gay marriage. Neither am I for it. Might work great in CA. Not so well other places. Why do lesbians seem to be so fucking ugly?

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Why don't you guys begin telling the negative effects of legalizing gay marriage, on you personally. Not on everyone else, but on you personally.

This has nothing to do with whether or not we have a right as a society to give heightened recognition and preference to certain decisions individuals make.

It most certainly does.

No, it doesn't. Legalizing gay marriage might be good for me individually. That does not mean that, on the whole, redefining a foundation of society is good. Pull your head out of your ass. Its fat enough.

 

[bodecea]

this is really what its all about. The poofters will never be happy unless any one can marry anyone, or noone can marry anyone.

You'd fit right in with the other Yes on H8 liars with that post.

Hey- queereye- Im not against gay marriage. Neither am I for it. Might work great in CA. Not so well other places. Why do lesbians seem to be so fucking ugly?

See? Thanks for the real You coming out...no pun intended.

 

[G.T.]

Hey- queereye- Im not against gay marriage. Neither am I for it. Might work great in CA. Not so well other places. Why do lesbians seem to be so fucking ugly?

Not against it but you spend time stating philosophical(supposed)arguments against it. Odd, really.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

You'd fit right in with the other Yes on H8 liars with that post.

Hey- queereye- Im not against gay marriage. Neither am I for it. Might work great in CA. Not so well other places. Why do lesbians seem to be so fucking ugly?

See? Thanks for the real You coming out...no pun intended.

You are right- I really dont like fat ugly chicks.

 

[bodecea]

This has nothing to do with whether or not we have a right as a society to give heightened recognition and preference to certain decisions individuals make.

It most certainly does.

No, it doesn't. Legalizing gay marriage might be good for me individually. That does not mean that, on the whole, redefining a foundation of society is good. Pull your head out of your ass. Its fat enough.

See? When one cannot argue on the topic's merit, use lies and personal attacks. Sometimes it even works.

 

[G.T.]

Hey- queereye- Im not against gay marriage. Neither am I for it. Might work great in CA. Not so well other places. Why do lesbians seem to be so fucking ugly?

See? Thanks for the real You coming out...no pun intended.

You are right- I really dont like fat ugly chicks.

Post a pic of-self, or stfu.

 

[bodecea]

Hey- queereye- Im not against gay marriage. Neither am I for it. Might work great in CA. Not so well other places. Why do lesbians seem to be so fucking ugly?

Not against it but you spend time stating philosophical(supposed)arguments against it. Odd, really.

Well, I think we are finally seeing what he "really" believes, aren't we?