Gay Marriage Fails In Maine

[G.T.]

sure, Tinkerbell. Society has an interest in giving special status to and encouraging the formation of some relationships over others. Same sex relations between two consenting adults is deemed more socially valuable than a similar relationship bewteen three adults, or two women.
Or how about- marriage has worked well and been a stabilizing factor in society for so long- it does not need to be redefined.

Hows that, sissieboy?

You wouldn't call me sissy to my face, that's a fact. To your point: Marriage has not worked well or been stable. Divorce rate is 50%. That's an argument that holds no water in-terms of reality. It's fluff. Also, it hasn't been shown to "stabilize" society in any way. We have war, poverty, crime, etc. etc. same as ALWAYS. Society is stabilized by laws, not Marriages.

Actually, thats an opinion, Lollipop.

And marriage has worked well, in my opinion. You hold yours. Nobody will ever be able to articulate what you consider to be a "good argument" You are too self-absorbed. And more than a bit light in the loafers.

Actually, I provided a fact while you state opinions, so who's self absorbed? I cited divorce rates. You're citing.....nothing.

 

[Qball]

No, there just has never been one good reason to keep gay marriage banned.

That just like if the NRA said there's never been a good reason for gun control.

All I've heard is: "oh noes!! the definition!!"

or.... we should not defy what creates us. (I dont hate this one, I simply disagree with it).

or...... it's bad to raise kids that way (unsubstantiated claim).

Do we have others?

Hmm. You're dismissively paraphrasing the arguments you've heard. I'd also remind you that since gay marriage is the exception and not the rule, the onus is actually on those who want to institute to come up with good arguments. Though I do think there are good arguments for not legalizing it, technically we can't ban something that to most people has never existed.

Dismissively because I've argued them all in-depth over the years and it all ended up being (as you're seeing with pickledick) veiled bigotry.

I like the 14th amendment, that's a good argument. I also like the word "freedom." I think that gays being married doesn't harm society in any way I've eva eva eva eva seen proven, and so discriminating against them (in terms of the legal contract) to me, is based on bigotry or religion. If anyone can show another reason that is actually substanciated through study or 1 + 1 = 2 logic, I'll look into it.

PickledPunk's colorful language aside, gay marriage advocates always use the most egregious examples of dissent with gay marriage to broadly dismiss everyone. I don't buy for one second that "it all ended up being veiled bigotry".

How does the 14A have anything to do with gay marriage? Gay marriage is a fairly novel concept, and there's no way people can "prove" that it harms society. People can argue it, but it's easy to simply not care. It's all a matter of perspective, and you're asking people to objectively prove your perspective wrong. That's never going to happen, because neither perspectives are mired in absolute objectivity.

Whatever about discrimination and legal contracts and bigotry. You're using how you feel about gays as your guiding principle for how you feel about gay marriage, and you figure that's all those opposed to it consider as well. There's no right to government recognition of your relationship, and trying to hide the fact that that's your actual assertion behind stuff like "legal contracts" isn't going to work. I doubt it's bigotry and religion that's behind the reticence to alter the definition of marriage. That might be apart of it, but it's also a cop-out. In any issue, there are people with basest motives.

 

[G.T.]

I'm a lollipop, then you can suck me, pussy. Upstate NY is where I reside, love.

 

[Qball]

Do you know what the word "summarily" means?


And still waiting for your good argument.

Yes I do know what "summarily" means.

So...since you know what it means, you lied to us about only getting your arguments "summarily" dismissed.

What are you talking about? Where did I lie? Who is "us"?

You'll be waiting for a long time, since nothing I've read from you would suggest you have an open mind about anything that would contradict your opinions.

Yes, we have been waiting a long time...but things are better than they were 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago. Progress moves on...and the groundwork is STILL being laid for SCOTUS challenges to state/federal DOMA laws. Quite a few legal minds are working on this.

I meant you would be waiting a long time for a "good argument" if you're going to continue to be closed-minded about any opinion that differs from your own.

 

[KittenKoder]

That just like if the NRA said there's never been a good reason for gun control.



Hmm. You're dismissively paraphrasing the arguments you've heard. I'd also remind you that since gay marriage is the exception and not the rule, the onus is actually on those who want to institute it to come up with good arguments. Though I do think there are good arguments for not legalizing it, technically we can't ban something that to most people has never existed.

... and I don't believe in gun control either. So, what's one really strong, factually based, all encompassing reason gay marriage should remain banned?

So Kittenkoder? Ever answer the one about Incestuous couples getting married? Or are you still running from that?

1. Incest itself is illegal.

2. Incest has demonstrated scientifically to produce invalid offspring. Invalid offspring live horrible torturous lives so to make one willingly is just cruel.

 

[Qball]

No, there just has never been one good reason to keep gay marriage banned.

That just like if the NRA said there's never been a good reason for gun control.

All I've heard is: "oh noes!! the definition!!"

or.... we should not defy what creates us. (I dont hate this one, I simply disagree with it).

or...... it's bad to raise kids that way (unsubstantiated claim).

Do we have others?

Hmm. You're dismissively paraphrasing the arguments you've heard. I'd also remind you that since gay marriage is the exception and not the rule, the onus is actually on those who want to institute it to come up with good arguments. Though I do think there are good arguments for not legalizing it, technically we can't ban something that to most people has never existed.

... and I don't believe in gun control either. So, what's one really strong, factually based, all encompassing reason gay marriage should remain banned?

It's not a constitutional right, same-sex relationships don't produce children, marriage incentives from the government aren't "rights" (thus you can't lay claim to them just because someone else gets them), and most people don't support it.

Can you refute that with facts and not racial analogies and appeals that basically say "well straight people have screwed up marriage so they don't have any right to tell gay people they would too"? We'll see.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

... and I don't believe in gun control either. So, what's one really strong, factually based, all encompassing reason gay marriage should remain banned?

So Kittenkoder? Ever answer the one about Incestuous couples getting married? Or are you still running from that?

1. Incest itself is illegal.

2. Incest has demonstrated scientifically to produce invalid offspring. Invalid offspring live horrible torturous lives so to make one willingly is just cruel.

Number 2 is simply not true in a single case of incest. And if you are going to argue number 2 then what is your position on those currently allowed to produce offspring that have known defective genies some with an incident rate of 50 percent or more? Should they be barred from marrying?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So Kittenkoder? Ever answer the one about Incestuous couples getting married? Or are you still running from that?

1. Incest itself is illegal.

2. Incest has demonstrated scientifically to produce invalid offspring. Invalid offspring live horrible torturous lives so to make one willingly is just cruel.

Number 2 is simply not true in a single case of incest. And if you are going to argue number 2 then what is your position on those currently allowed to produce offspring that have known defective genies some with an incident rate of 50 percent or more? Should they be barred from marrying?

By the way number one used to be illegal as well.

 

[G.T.]

That just like if the NRA said there's never been a good reason for gun control.



Hmm. You're dismissively paraphrasing the arguments you've heard. I'd also remind you that since gay marriage is the exception and not the rule, the onus is actually on those who want to institute to come up with good arguments. Though I do think there are good arguments for not legalizing it, technically we can't ban something that to most people has never existed.

Dismissively because I've argued them all in-depth over the years and it all ended up being (as you're seeing with pickledick) veiled bigotry.

I like the 14th amendment, that's a good argument. I also like the word "freedom." I think that gays being married doesn't harm society in any way I've eva eva eva eva seen proven, and so discriminating against them (in terms of the legal contract) to me, is based on bigotry or religion. If anyone can show another reason that is actually substanciated through study or 1 + 1 = 2 logic, I'll look into it.

PickledPunk's colorful language aside, gay marriage advocates always use the most egregious examples of dissent with gay marriage to broadly dismiss everyone. I don't buy for one second that "it all ended up being veiled bigotry".

How does the 14A have anything to do with gay marriage? Gay marriage is a fairly novel concept, and there's no way people can "prove" that it harms society. People can argue it, but it's easy to simply not care. It's all a matter of perspective, and you're asking people to objectively prove your perspective wrong. That's never going to happen, because neither perspectives are mired in absolute objectivity.

Whatever about discrimination and legal contracts and bigotry. You're using how you feel about gays as your guiding principle for how you feel about gay marriage, and you figure that's all those opposed to it consider as well. There's no right to government recognition of your relationship, and trying to hide the fact that that's your actual assertion behind stuff like "legal contracts" isn't going to work. I doubt it's bigotry and religion that's behind the reticence to alter the definition of marriage. That might be apart of it, but it's also a cop-out. In any issue, there are people with basest motives.

lol this is a bunch of blah. Seriously, it really is. You're living in a Country where Slavery, women's right, etc. for equality were all good things, and you can't come up with a reason not to allow Gays to have a legal relationship. (currently it's inequality). And yea, it means something when you can't show a harm on society. It means that there's no justification for said inequality. You sure as shit haven't shown me one.

 

[bodecea]

That would be a little pointless, don't you think? I'm sure you've summarily dismissed every argument you've ever heard against gay marriage. So to ask for a "good argument" when you're hardly objective is disingenuous.

All I've heard is: "oh noes!! the definition!!"

or.... we should not defy what creates us. (I dont hate this one, I simply disagree with it).

or...... it's bad to raise kids that way (unsubstantiated claim).

Do we have others?

sure, Tinkerbell. Society has an interest in giving special status to and encouraging the formation of some relationships over others. Same sex relations between two consenting adults is deemed more socially valuable than a similar relationship bewteen three adults, or two women.
Or how about- marriage has worked well and been a stabilizing factor in society for so long- it does not need to be redefined.

Hows that, sissieboy?

Love the name calling. Makes your argument so compelling.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

That would be too easy to get around. He'd just post a pic of an average Joe, not USMB's Average Joe, but an average Joe and the chances of anyone figuring out that it is not him would be nearly impossible.

Immie

 

[ThePickledPunk]

You wouldn't call me sissy to my face, that's a fact. To your point: Marriage has not worked well or been stable. Divorce rate is 50%. That's an argument that holds no water in-terms of reality. It's fluff. Also, it hasn't been shown to "stabilize" society in any way. We have war, poverty, crime, etc. etc. same as ALWAYS. Society is stabilized by laws, not Marriages.

Actually, thats an opinion, Lollipop.

And marriage has worked well, in my opinion. You hold yours. Nobody will ever be able to articulate what you consider to be a "good argument" You are too self-absorbed. And more than a bit light in the loafers.

Actually, I provided a fact while you state opinions, so who's self absorbed? I cited divorce rates. You're citing.....nothing.

Ok. 50% of marriages do not end in divorce (assuming your "facts" are not merely guesses)

 

[KittenKoder]

So Kittenkoder? Ever answer the one about Incestuous couples getting married? Or are you still running from that?

1. Incest itself is illegal.

2. Incest has demonstrated scientifically to produce invalid offspring. Invalid offspring live horrible torturous lives so to make one willingly is just cruel.

Number 2 is simply not true in a single case of incest. And if you are going to argue number 2 then what is your position on those currently allowed to produce offspring that have known defective genies some with an incident rate of 50 percent or more? Should they be barred from marrying?

Sure ... if they are going to ban people who cannot create offspring from marriage, then all who produce poor offspring should be as well.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

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

Post a pic of-self, or stfu.

That would be too easy to get around. He'd just post a pic of an average Joe, not USMB's Average Joe, but an average Joe and the chances of anyone figuring out that it is not him would be nearly impossible.

Immie

I am an average Joe.

 

[bodecea]

That just like if the NRA said there's never been a good reason for gun control.



Hmm. You're dismissively paraphrasing the arguments you've heard. I'd also remind you that since gay marriage is the exception and not the rule, the onus is actually on those who want to institute it to come up with good arguments. Though I do think there are good arguments for not legalizing it, technically we can't ban something that to most people has never existed.

... and I don't believe in gun control either. So, what's one really strong, factually based, all encompassing reason gay marriage should remain banned?

So Kittenkoder? Ever answer the one about Incestuous couples getting married? Or are you still running from that?

Would this classify as an obsession? Or a fetish?

 

[Qball]

Dismissively because I've argued them all in-depth over the years and it all ended up being (as you're seeing with pickledick) veiled bigotry.

I like the 14th amendment, that's a good argument. I also like the word "freedom." I think that gays being married doesn't harm society in any way I've eva eva eva eva seen proven, and so discriminating against them (in terms of the legal contract) to me, is based on bigotry or religion. If anyone can show another reason that is actually substanciated through study or 1 + 1 = 2 logic, I'll look into it.

PickledPunk's colorful language aside, gay marriage advocates always use the most egregious examples of dissent with gay marriage to broadly dismiss everyone. I don't buy for one second that "it all ended up being veiled bigotry".

How does the 14A have anything to do with gay marriage? Gay marriage is a fairly novel concept, and there's no way people can "prove" that it harms society. People can argue it, but it's easy to simply not care. It's all a matter of perspective, and you're asking people to objectively prove your perspective wrong. That's never going to happen, because neither perspectives are mired in absolute objectivity.

Whatever about discrimination and legal contracts and bigotry. You're using how you feel about gays as your guiding principle for how you feel about gay marriage, and you figure that's all those opposed to it consider as well. There's no right to government recognition of your relationship, and trying to hide the fact that that's your actual assertion behind stuff like "legal contracts" isn't going to work. I doubt it's bigotry and religion that's behind the reticence to alter the definition of marriage. That might be apart of it, but it's also a cop-out. In any issue, there are people with basest motives.

lol this is a bunch of blah. Seriously, it really is. You're living in a Country where Slavery, women's right, etc. for equality were all good things, and you can't come up with a reason not to allow Gays to have a legal relationship. (currently it's inequality). And yea, it means something when you can't show a harm on society. It means that there's no justification for said inequality. You sure as shit haven't shown me one.

LOL, this is what I mean when I say it's silly for people who claim to be for gay marriage "because they haven't seen a good argument against it" to say that. Yeah, it's a bunch of "blah" because you're waiting on me to beg at your lap to not support gay marriage, and you aren't going to change your mind, and I'm sure as hell not going to beg you.

Most of the arguments for gay marriage are pretty bad, too. But that doesn't matter since you believe them, right? LOL.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

I'm a lollipop, then you can suck me, pussy. Upstate NY is where I reside, love.

Does your wife know you go online and ask other men to suck you?

 

[bodecea]

Actually, thats an opinion, Lollipop.

And marriage has worked well, in my opinion. You hold yours. Nobody will ever be able to articulate what you consider to be a "good argument" You are too self-absorbed. And more than a bit light in the loafers.

Actually, I provided a fact while you state opinions, so who's self absorbed? I cited divorce rates. You're citing.....nothing.

Ok. 50% of marriages do not end in divorce (assuming your "facts" are not merely guesses)

A fine record showing how SERIOUSLY straight couples really take marriage.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

1. Incest itself is illegal.

2. Incest has demonstrated scientifically to produce invalid offspring. Invalid offspring live horrible torturous lives so to make one willingly is just cruel.

Number 2 is simply not true in a single case of incest. And if you are going to argue number 2 then what is your position on those currently allowed to produce offspring that have known defective genies some with an incident rate of 50 percent or more? Should they be barred from marrying?

Sure ... if they are going to ban people who cannot create offspring from marriage, then all who produce poor offspring should be as well.

Trying to change or ignore the question I see. Your entire argument on why Gays should be allowed to marry applies to Incestuous couples but you do not like that so resort to ignoring the argument or trying to change it.

 

[KittenKoder]

... and I don't believe in gun control either. So, what's one really strong, factually based, all encompassing reason gay marriage should remain banned?

So Kittenkoder? Ever answer the one about Incestuous couples getting married? Or are you still running from that?

Would this classify as an obsession? Or a fetish?

Fetish at this point.