Gay Marriage Fails In Maine

[G.T.]

It is a Right, and I have Explained why... People don't get to Redifine our Natural Existence Exclusively for ONE Deviation from what is just because they want to.

Religion is Irrelevant in my Argument, and in the one Made by the Supreme Court in Loving.



peace...

Our "natural design" is a Monkey. Or wait, stuff before that. "Natural Design" is a pair of hands. A pair of hands can be used for many things, but they're not all legal. Natural design therefore should not govern what's legal and not, because natural design (we have canine toofies) would have us eating...............................each other.

Natural Design, determining law, is a stupid premise.

In your Opinion...

It is in Fact a Fact that what Distinguishes Heteros and Homos is the Ability to ProCreate...

A Responsibility that a Civil Society Protects and Sanctions.

But guess what, Homosexuals are also Capable of ProCreation, but only when they Marry Flesh with the Opposite Sex...

As we were Designed to do by Nature.



peace...

"PROTECTS" in what way? Currently, being gay is not "illegal" and our population is booming, too-much in fact. Our society needs less world Citizens currently, because of the amount of non-renewable and inadequate resources. So again, another faulty premise because slowing the population growth isn't fucking bad at all. No, this is not a call for Eugenics.

 

[amrchaos]

Something to think about........

If we keep gay marriage illegal, do we encourage Gay Shacking? Hmmmmmm....

 

[Valerie]

Why can't the sodomites figure out that the majority of americans do not want homo marriage?

however a majority of americans would support a civil union.....

I think that's exactly it in a nutshell...

 

[manu1959]

Our "natural design" is a Monkey. Or wait, stuff before that. "Natural Design" is a pair of hands. A pair of hands can be used for many things, but they're not all legal. Natural design therefore should not govern what's legal and not, because natural design (we have canine toofies) would have us eating...............................each other.

Natural Design, determining law, is a stupid premise.

In your Opinion...

It is in Fact a Fact that what Distinguishes Heteros and Homos is the Ability to ProCreate...

A Responsibility that a Civil Society Protects and Sanctions.

But guess what, Homosexuals are also Capable of ProCreation, but only when they Marry Flesh with the Opposite Sex...

As we were Designed to do by Nature.



peace...

"PROTECTS" in what way? Currently, being gay is not "illegal" and our population is booming, too-much in fact. Our society needs less world Citizens currently, because of the amount of non-renewable and inadequate resources. So again, another faulty premise because slowing the population growth isn't fucking bad at all. No, this is not a call for Eugenics.

why is it important to have the word marriage applied to a gay union.....why can't the term civil union be enough if it gives all the same rights....

gay defines one group staright another...why can't their be different terms for their union....

 

[G.T.]

In your Opinion...

It is in Fact a Fact that what Distinguishes Heteros and Homos is the Ability to ProCreate...

A Responsibility that a Civil Society Protects and Sanctions.

But guess what, Homosexuals are also Capable of ProCreation, but only when they Marry Flesh with the Opposite Sex...

As we were Designed to do by Nature.



peace...

"PROTECTS" in what way? Currently, being gay is not "illegal" and our population is booming, too-much in fact. Our society needs less world Citizens currently, because of the amount of non-renewable and inadequate resources. So again, another faulty premise because slowing the population growth isn't fucking bad at all. No, this is not a call for Eugenics.

why is it important to have the word marriage applied to a gay union.....why can't the term civil union be enough if it gives all the same rights....

gay defines one group staright another...why can't their be different terms for their union....

I agree with this, totally. But Mal is saying marriage is a RIGHT, and by his premise (arguing that it's a RIGHT), I'm arguing they should also be allowed.

I see it as a societal contract, and am fine with civil unions, but I don't call Marriage a "right."

 

[Qball]

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.

Not every public policy issue has to turn on this sort of basic notion of sameness. It's reductive and disingenuous.

Could you clear this statement up for me? I'm simply not sure what you're trying to say.



"Marriage benefits", "higher class of person" ... now I really don't know what you're talking about.

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.

There's never been the unmitigated right to marry whomever you want.

Stating the obvious, ok ...

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.

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?

 

[bodecea]

Then how would you propose that we institute laws in this country? Let everyone do their own thing?

I like that! I would not have to pay anymore in taxes than I want. Works for me!

And technically, the courts will decide these matters, because if a law is passed that is unconstitutional, it will eventually end up in the hands of the courts and they will ultimately make the decision.

Immie

And that's what has been happening and the Right Wing 'Do As We Say, Not As We Do' Crowd starts screaming about activist judges.

Well, in CA, there is a petition out to change ALL legal marriages to civil unions and strike the word "marriage" from all civil laws and documentation. Perhaps that will make the "marriage is religious only" crowd happy. You think?

How happy do you think that will make the "marriage equality" pro-gay-marriage crowd?

Speaking for myself, delighted. It's all about equality UNDER THE LAW, after all.

 

[bodecea]

Why can't the sodomites figure out that the majority of americans do not want homo marriage?

The majority of Americans aren't too keen on Muslims right now either.

 

[bodecea]

Then how would you propose that we institute laws in this country? Let everyone do their own thing?

I like that! I would not have to pay anymore in taxes than I want. Works for me!

And technically, the courts will decide these matters, because if a law is passed that is unconstitutional, it will eventually end up in the hands of the courts and they will ultimately make the decision.

Immie

And that's what has been happening and the Right Wing 'Do As We Say, Not As We Do' Crowd starts screaming about activist judges.

Well, in CA, there is a petition out to change ALL legal marriages to civil unions and strike the word "marriage" from all civil laws and documentation. Perhaps that will make the "marriage is religious only" crowd happy. You think?

Well, for the last year I have heard a lot of, "we won now you have to wait eight years or more before you get your say back so sit down and shut up."

Personally, I would like the removal of the word "marriage" from all civil laws and documentation. I think it would bring an end to this ridiculous bickering and be a step forward in the fight for equality.

I know as a right winger, I am not supposed to care about equality.

I do believe that marriage is a religious rite and that is why I believe the government should get out of the business of marriage. I also believe, and I will choose the Christian Church because I am a member of that church, that if a particular denomination values the souls of homosexuals and elects to invite homosexuals into their congregations offering them the rite of marriage or even ordaining them, then that is the right of that denomination.

I see nothing unfair with that at all. Do you?

Immie

No I do not.

 

[Qball]

And that's what has been happening and the Right Wing 'Do As We Say, Not As We Do' Crowd starts screaming about activist judges.

Well, in CA, there is a petition out to change ALL legal marriages to civil unions and strike the word "marriage" from all civil laws and documentation. Perhaps that will make the "marriage is religious only" crowd happy. You think?

How happy do you think that will make the "marriage equality" pro-gay-marriage crowd?

Speaking for myself, delighted. It's all about equality UNDER THE LAW, after all.

But it's essentially "equality" by doing away with the law itself, thus everyone is equal, because no one has it. Which is fine, by the way, but then the whole argument that marriage being one man and one woman is also equal because it doesn't allow straight people to legally do something that gays cannot makes sense under your logic.

 

[mal]

I agree with this, totally. But Mal is saying marriage is a RIGHT, and by his premise (arguing that it's a RIGHT), I'm arguing they should also be allowed.

I see it as a societal contract, and am fine with civil unions, but I don't call Marriage a "right."

It's a Right that you can't Redifine...

Homosexuals aren't Denied Marriage... They are Denied the Ability to Redifine it to Fit their Exclusive Devation from their Natural Design.

They could Marry, they just have to Marry the Opposite Sex, which in Turn Reflects the Marriage of Flesh that is the Basis for our "very Existence", and for which they were Born Equipped to do.

It's not Society's Burden that they don't.



peace...

 

[masquerade]

So you are ok with a minority telling a Majority what they can and can not do?

You may want to take some classes on Government. The majority in a Democracy always tells the minority what is right and wrong in that Country.

in Maine, the minority would never try to tell the majority what they can or cannot do. If the majority of Mainers don't want to marry someone of the same gender, no one would ever tell them that they must do so. Similarly, the minority would never tell the majority of Mainers that they could NOT marry someone of the opposite sex.

Really?

You are trying to imply that the majority should not be dictating to the minority with the fallacious argument that the minority would never attempt to do so if the shoe were on the other foot.

So you have no laws at all in Maine?

Here is a sample: no basic speed laws? Everyone can drive whatever the hell speed they want? The speed laws are the majority of people who believe that driving to fast down the streets of a state is unsafe and immoral; therefore, the majority makes the law that says that a driver can only drive at a safe rate of speed regardless of the posted speed limit. Not everyone agrees with the speed laws, but they are there for a good reason.

The majority wins in this country in these cases. Not everyone agrees with the majority, but our laws are decided by the majority in every case that it is put to a vote.

Someone has to make the decision. One side or the other has to make the laws. Not everyone agrees with any particular law that is passed. Are you proposing that we flip flop and let the minority make the decisions? Are you proposing that we not have any laws at all: anarchy? Are you proposing that we let the Governor make all decisions? Or are you proposing that we simply let Maineman make all decisions?

Immie

Excellent post!

 

[masquerade]

in Maine, the minority would never try to tell the majority what they can or cannot do. If the majority of Mainers don't want to marry someone of the same gender, no one would ever tell them that they must do so. Similarly, the minority would never tell the majority of Mainers that they could NOT marry someone of the opposite sex.

Really?

You are trying to imply that the majority should not be dictating to the minority with the fallacious argument that the minority would never attempt to do so if the shoe were on the other foot.

So you have no laws at all in Maine?

Here is a sample: no basic speed laws? Everyone can drive whatever the hell speed they want? The speed laws are the majority of people who believe that driving to fast down the streets of a state is unsafe and immoral; therefore, the majority makes the law that says that a driver can only drive at a safe rate of speed regardless of the posted speed limit. Not everyone agrees with the speed laws, but they are there for a good reason.

The majority wins in this country in these cases. Not everyone agrees with the majority, but our laws are decided by the majority in every case that it is put to a vote.

Someone has to make the decision. One side or the other has to make the laws. Not everyone agrees with any particular law that is passed. Are you proposing that we flip flop and let the minority make the decisions? Are you proposing that we not have any laws at all: anarchy? Are you proposing that we let the Governor make all decisions? Or are you proposing that we simply let Maineman make all decisions?

Immie

now...comparing traffic laws to equal rights is silly, don't you think?

and "rights" ought not be left to the majority... see my last post.

Then who should decide our 'rights'? Liberal judges?

 

[G.T.]

I agree with this, totally. But Mal is saying marriage is a RIGHT, and by his premise (arguing that it's a RIGHT), I'm arguing they should also be allowed.

I see it as a societal contract, and am fine with civil unions, but I don't call Marriage a "right."

It's a Right that you can't Redifine...

Homosexuals aren't Denied Marriage... They are Denied the Ability to Redifine it to Fit their Exclusive Devation from their Natural Design.

They could Marry, they just have to Marry the Opposite Sex, which in Turn Reflects the Marriage of Flesh that is the Basis for our "very Existence", and for which they were Born Equipped to do.

It's not Society's Burden that they don't.



peace...

Your reasoning is not very sound at all. You're essentially arguing from a "just because," or even "altruistic" vantage point. "Honor our design," sort of shit, that's pie in the sky altruism and not logic, and currently has no bearing on determining our laws. We "Naturally" are designed to do a lot of things, but if our laws were based on these then we'd be fukt. Logic isn't on your side here. Marriage as a means to "honor our existence" is fluff, because marriage is not necessary TO EXIST. It's an honoring, which is emotional fluff.

 

[masquerade]

By GLENN ADAMS and DAVID CRARY, Associated Press Writers Glenn Adams And David Crary, Associated Press Writers – 19 mins ago

PORTLAND, Maine – Maine voters repealed a state law Tuesday that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed, dealing the gay rights movement a heartbreaking defeat in New England, the corner of the country most supportive of gay marriage.

Gay marriage has now lost in every single state — 31 in all — in which it has been put to a popular vote. Gay-rights activists had hoped to buck that trend in Maine — known for its moderate, independent-minded electorate — and mounted an energetic, well-financed campaign.

Maine voters reject gay-marriage law - Yahoo! News

Link provided to comply with USMB copyright policy. You know better ...

~A15

Sad....for now.

really , sad, why are we straight people obessed with gays?
leave them alone

Why are SOME gays so obessed with being gay?

 

[mal]

I agree with this, totally. But Mal is saying marriage is a RIGHT, and by his premise (arguing that it's a RIGHT), I'm arguing they should also be allowed.

I see it as a societal contract, and am fine with civil unions, but I don't call Marriage a "right."

It's a Right that you can't Redifine...

Homosexuals aren't Denied Marriage... They are Denied the Ability to Redifine it to Fit their Exclusive Devation from their Natural Design.

They could Marry, they just have to Marry the Opposite Sex, which in Turn Reflects the Marriage of Flesh that is the Basis for our "very Existence", and for which they were Born Equipped to do.

It's not Society's Burden that they don't.



peace...

Your reasoning is not very sound at all. You're essentially arguing from a "just because," or even "altruistic" vantage point. "Honor our design," sort of shit, that's pie in the sky altruism and not logic, and currently has no bearing on determining our laws. We "Naturally" are designed to do a lot of things, but if our laws were based on these then we'd be fukt. Logic isn't on your side here. Marriage as a means to "honor our existence" is fluff, because marriage is not necessary TO EXIST. It's an honoring, which is emotional fluff.

In your Opinion...

But the Fact is that the Coupling of Flesh is why we are even having this Discussion...

And another Fact is that Homosexuals are NOT Denied Marriage...



peace...

 

[G.T.]

In your Opinion...

But the Fact is that the Coupling of Flesh is why we are even having this Discussion...

And another Fact is that Homosexuals are NOT Denied Marriage...



peace...

In a legal sense, yes they are in many places.

 

[del]

It's a Right that you can't Redifine...

Homosexuals aren't Denied Marriage... They are Denied the Ability to Redifine it to Fit their Exclusive Devation from their Natural Design.

They could Marry, they just have to Marry the Opposite Sex, which in Turn Reflects the Marriage of Flesh that is the Basis for our "very Existence", and for which they were Born Equipped to do.

It's not Society's Burden that they don't.



peace...

Your reasoning is not very sound at all. You're essentially arguing from a "just because," or even "altruistic" vantage point. "Honor our design," sort of shit, that's pie in the sky altruism and not logic, and currently has no bearing on determining our laws. We "Naturally" are designed to do a lot of things, but if our laws were based on these then we'd be fukt. Logic isn't on your side here. Marriage as a means to "honor our existence" is fluff, because marriage is not necessary TO EXIST. It's an honoring, which is emotional fluff.

In your Opinion...

But the Fact is that the Coupling of Flesh is why we are even having this Discussion...

And another Fact is that Homosexuals are NOT Denied Marriage...



peace...

are you really this stupid or are you trying to tell me that without marriage, there'd be no procreation?

 

[Sunni Man]

Why can't the sodomites figure out that the majority of americans do not want homo marriage?

The majority of Americans aren't too keen on Muslims right now either.

The majority of Americans and Muslims aren't too keen on homosexuals

 

[Neser Boha]

Sad....for now.

really , sad, why are we straight people obessed with gays?
leave them alone

Why are SOME gays so obessed with being gay?

Did you just actually ask that? Wow.