Gay Marriage Fails In Maine

Get the religious institution of marriage out of the laws ... then I won't care who gets what, so long as it has religious ties ... it's not legal in any form.

It already has been, Kittycat. Take a look at your state's marital and domestic relations code. There is absolutely no religious aspect to the legal aspects of marriage, any more than there is to the prohibition against the sale of marijuana.
 
One question that has yet to be answered by those against gay marriage:

Why is it so important to you?

All I hear is whining about "redefinition" ... which is utter bullshit, nor does it answer the question.

Because we all have an interest in what relationships we consider to be the most beneficial, and therefore the most deserving of leal status under our marital laws. You might ask the same question about those opposed to polygamist marriages, or incestuous marriages. The fact is, some types of relationships are more valuable to society than others.

Really ... how so? Just saying it is doesn't make it so, how is gay marriage less beneficial to society?

So As I recall you had a fit when I brought up Incest before. And Polygamy. Why should gays have rights Adult incestuous relationships don't have? Why should Gays have rights that multiple partners don't have? Those are all LOVING relationships between consenting adults. Using your logic, what right do you have to deny them their basic rights?
 
people know what they want and what they dont want, and they are not buying that this is about civil rights.

Jesus H. Christ on a Popsicle stick! "people know what they want and what they dont want" Well, if "people" would concentrate on their OWN wants and leave the rest of the populace alone we'd have a pretty happy world. One of my favorite Thanksgiving graces asks God to protect us from the puritans. It wouldn't make a damned bit of difference to you if you weren't Myrtle Kravitz.

I have a friend who was in the Army serving in Germany a few years ago. He struck up a conversation with a local friend at one of the Beer Gardens and they started talking about countries and their comparative freedom. While my friend went on about America's tradition of freedom, the German disagreed and stated that many of the European countries were freer now. When asked how so, he stated that Europeans aren't all up in everyone else's personal business, trying to regulate private issues. My friend had to agree with that one.

Exactly! And that's what keeps some of our brightest minds, hetro, homo, and especially female from becoming involved with public service. Its part of the set up. Those "values" are decidedly conservative (although conservative males certainly seem to be excluded from censure), and like a cover charge at an exclusive club, they exclude those of an unlike mind. That's why even supposedly liberal politicians toe, and tow, the "line."
 
Really ... how so? Just saying it is doesn't make it so, how is gay marriage less beneficial to society?

I am not sure that it is. However, our marital laws recognize heterosexual relationships above same sex relationships, incestuous relationships, polygamous relationships, etc. And the simple fact is that there is no argument in support of gay marriage that should not also be extended to polygamist and incestuous relationships.

Originally they did include polygamy ... so they have already been changed as far as laws go ... what difference will one more change make?

so, by your logic, it is ok to deny the benefits of marriage to polygamists, who after all only want the freedom to marry who they choose, while offering it to same sex couples. Care to explain?
 
Get the religious institution of marriage out of the laws ... then I won't care who gets what, so long as it has religious ties ... it's not legal in any form.

It already has been, Kittycat. Take a look at your state's marital and domestic relations code. There is absolutely no religious aspect to the legal aspects of marriage, any more than there is to the prohibition against the sale of marijuana.

Aaah ... but if my religion performs a gay marriage it is not legally recognized ... therefore it is connected to religion still.
 
Get the religious institution of marriage out of the laws ... then I won't care who gets what, so long as it has religious ties ... it's not legal in any form.

It already has been, Kittycat. Take a look at your state's marital and domestic relations code. There is absolutely no religious aspect to the legal aspects of marriage, any more than there is to the prohibition against the sale of marijuana.

Aaah ... but if my religion performs a gay marriage it is not legally recognized ... therefore it is connected to religion still.

I repeat, what about Incestuous Adult relationships? Why shouldn't they have the right to marry? Why shouldn't multiple Partners have the right to marriage, if it IS a right?
 
One question that has yet to be answered by those against gay marriage:

Why is it so important to you?

All I hear is whining about "redefinition" ... which is utter bullshit, nor does it answer the question.

Because we all have an interest in what relationships we consider to be the most beneficial, and therefore the most deserving of leal status under our marital laws. You might ask the same question about those opposed to polygamist marriages, or incestuous marriages. The fact is, some types of relationships are more valuable to society than others.

If you consider over-population a threat to the sustainability of our planet, then having at least some same-sex marriages is a benefit to society.

It happens frequently in nature - when the population of a particular species increases to an unsustainable level, homosexuality and increased violence happens.

In terms of incest - the polluting of the gene pool is the detriment to society. Same thing with polygammy - the resulting gene pool loses it's diversity and is contaminated.
 
Last edited:
Get the religious institution of marriage out of the laws ... then I won't care who gets what, so long as it has religious ties ... it's not legal in any form.

It already has been, Kittycat. Take a look at your state's marital and domestic relations code. There is absolutely no religious aspect to the legal aspects of marriage, any more than there is to the prohibition against the sale of marijuana.

Aaah ... but if my religion performs a gay marriage it is not legally recognized ... therefore it is connected to religion still.

Actually, what you are proving is that religion has been excised from marital laws. There is absolutely no prohibition on any type of marriage ceremony. But unless the marriage is performed in accordance with state law, it will not receive the legal recognition of marriage.
 
again.... and again... if left to the voter, we would not have had civil rights for blacks in America. I do not want the rights of the minority trampled by a majority mob.

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?

It would work for me.
 
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?

It would work for me.
Me too
 
It already has been, Kittycat. Take a look at your state's marital and domestic relations code. There is absolutely no religious aspect to the legal aspects of marriage, any more than there is to the prohibition against the sale of marijuana.

Aaah ... but if my religion performs a gay marriage it is not legally recognized ... therefore it is connected to religion still.

I repeat, what about Incestuous Adult relationships? Why shouldn't they have the right to marry? Why shouldn't multiple Partners have the right to marriage, if it IS a right?

Kittenkodder running away.
 
One question that has yet to be answered by those against gay marriage:

Why is it so important to you?

All I hear is whining about "redefinition" ... which is utter bullshit, nor does it answer the question.

Because we all have an interest in what relationships we consider to be the most beneficial, and therefore the most deserving of leal status under our marital laws. You might ask the same question about those opposed to polygamist marriages, or incestuous marriages. The fact is, some types of relationships are more valuable to society than others.

If you consider over-population a threat to the sustainability of our planet, then having at least some same-sex marriages is a benefit to society.

It happens frequently in nature - when the population of a particular species increases to an unsustainable level, homosexuality and increased violence happens.

In terms of incest - the polluting of the gene pool is the detriment to society. Same thing with polygammy - the resulting gene pool loses it's diversity and is contaminated.

so, if i am understanding you, nodog, you have no problem with giving higher status to heterosexual relationships as long as a valid public policy reason can be articulated. :clap2:
 
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

It's good to see there's folks out there with some common sense.


Says the poster who lives in the equivalent of a third world country when it comes to human rights. Why aren't you guys gone yet?

Don't be a hater.
 
Yeah, screw what "the majority" thinks anyway.

A democracy: 51% screwing over the 49%.

Go adore your local Founding Father.
 
It already has been, Kittycat. Take a look at your state's marital and domestic relations code. There is absolutely no religious aspect to the legal aspects of marriage, any more than there is to the prohibition against the sale of marijuana.

Aaah ... but if my religion performs a gay marriage it is not legally recognized ... therefore it is connected to religion still.

I repeat, what about Incestuous Adult relationships? Why shouldn't they have the right to marry? Why shouldn't multiple Partners have the right to marriage, if it IS a right?

You are free to take that up.

BTW...when the Black Civil Rights movement was in full swing in the 50s/60s, were you known to excuse Segregation by saying "what about women's rights? Why shouldn't they have the same rights? Why shouldn't Hispanics have the same rights if it IS a right?"
 
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Liberty lost yesterday. And those who cheer its defeat are quislings, aiding domestic enemies of the Constitution of the United States.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top