Gay Marriage Fails In Maine

[G.T.]

If a brother and sister could not have a child, thus alleviating your concern, why should they not be given the same rights you would extend to your fellow poofters?

Thye should be given them in my eyes, but this statement makes no sense. Bro and Sis CAN reproduce for the most part.

there are medical procedures to prevent that. And I totally agree that such a relationship should not be given legal status. I also understand why many would exclude gays from marital laws based on similar considerations.

I dont comprehend. I said it should be given legal status, if they couldn't reproduce. Not shouldn't.

 

[Fatality]

It's creating a baby while harboring the knowledge said-baby will be defective, which is an abuse on the very baby itself and also an abuse of our Health-Care system.

that does not answer the question.

is "harm to society" only a physical manifestion (genetic defectivness) or does it include the psyche of the nation?

I'd say physical. It takes up our Doctors in a devious way, because they knew the consequences. Psyche? I don't follow how it would, taboo aside.

eta: again, it's also an abuse to the child they have.

we are talking about anyone marrying anyone without regards to gender.

you stated that is fine, but you had the one exception of blood relation (bother/sister) becasue you said it would "harm society"

Im interested in your definition of "harm"

you gave an example of the physical (genetic defectivness)

Im asking if the psyche of the nation/the people is included in your definition of "harm" (this leaves off the example of brother and sister and returns to the overall marriage "free for all" youve espoused)

 

[G.T.]

that does not answer the question.

is "harm to society" only a physical manifestion (genetic defectivness) or does it include the psyche of the nation?

I'd say physical. It takes up our Doctors in a devious way, because they knew the consequences. Psyche? I don't follow how it would, taboo aside.

eta: again, it's also an abuse to the child they have.

we are talking about anyone marrying anyone without regards to gender.

you stated that is fine, but you had the one exception of blood relation (bother/sister) becasue you said it would "harm society"

Im interested in your definition of "harm"

you gave an example of the physical (genetic defectivness)

Im asking if the psyche of the nation/the people is included in your definition of "harm" (this leaves off the example of brother and sister and returns to the overall marriage "free for all" youve espoused)

I do not include psyche, because the psyche of the nation was once racist, was once sexist, was once a lot of things that were wrong. Psyche to me isn't a prerequisit for doing right by people in the minority. Physical harm on society, on the other hand, is different to me than psychological.

And being honest, I didn't delve this far psychologically about why I wouldn't mind Gay marriage, because they can only "harm" your psyche, nothing physical, AND if you let them. My convictions and my teachings to my kids will have the utmost confidence in-self, not worried.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

Thye should be given them in my eyes, but this statement makes no sense. Bro and Sis CAN reproduce for the most part.

there are medical procedures to prevent that. And I totally agree that such a relationship should not be given legal status. I also understand why many would exclude gays from marital laws based on similar considerations.

I dont comprehend. I said it should be given legal status, if they couldn't reproduce. Not shouldn't.

Ok- I understand.

 

[Fatality]

I'd say physical. It takes up our Doctors in a devious way, because they knew the consequences. Psyche? I don't follow how it would, taboo aside.

eta: again, it's also an abuse to the child they have.

we are talking about anyone marrying anyone without regards to gender.

you stated that is fine, but you had the one exception of blood relation (bother/sister) becasue you said it would "harm society"

Im interested in your definition of "harm"

you gave an example of the physical (genetic defectivness)

Im asking if the psyche of the nation/the people is included in your definition of "harm" (this leaves off the example of brother and sister and returns to the overall marriage "free for all" youve espoused)

I do not include psyche, because the psyche of the nation was once racist, was once sexist, was once a lot of things that were wrong. Psyche to me isn't a prerequisit for doing right by people in the minority. Physical harm on society, on the other hand, is different to me than psychological.

And being honest, I didn't delve this far psychologically about why I wouldn't mind Gay marriage, because they can only "harm" your psyche, AND if you let them. My convictions and my teachings to my kids will have the utmost confidence in-self, not worried.

so your view disregards the psyche of a nation, ok.

How does "free for all" marraige, everyone marrying everyone constitute a "minority?"

 

[G.T.]

so your view disregards the pcyche of a nation, ok.

How does "free for all" marraige, everyone marrying everyone constitute a "minority?"

It doesn't, but NOT having it creates said minorities.

 

[Fatality]

so your view disregards the pcyche of a nation, ok.

How does "free for all" marraige, everyone marrying everyone constitute a "minority?"

It doesn't, but NOT having it creates said minorities.

not having it has everyone in the same boat, all are under the same law, there is no "minority."

 

[G.T.]

not having it has everyone in the same boat, all are under the same law, there is no "minority."

I don't follow your point whatsoever. It means nothing to the underlying viewpoint.

 

[Fatality]

not having it has everyone in the same boat, all are under the same law, there is no "minority."

I don't follow your point whatsoever. It means nothing to the underlying viewpoint.

what is it that you dont follow?

everyone has to live under the same law, no one can marry someone of the same gender, there is no elusive minority that are the only ones affected by this law.

 

[G.T.]

what is it that you dont follow?

everyone has to live under the same law, no one can marry someone of the same gender, there is no elusive minority that are the only ones effected by this law.

No, see, that's Marriage the religious definition. I'm talking legal, and I'd settle for Civil Unions.

As bodecea said earlier, there's states her and her partner can go to and if they got sick or in an accident, they'd be fucked because of these exclusions.

 

[Fatality]

what is it that you dont follow?

everyone has to live under the same law, no one can marry someone of the same gender, there is no elusive minority that are the only ones effected by this law.

No, see, that's Marriage the religious definition. I'm talking legal, and I'd settle for Civil Unions.

its the law, all are under the same law, there is no minority.

 

[G.T.]

its the law, all are under the same law, there is no minority.

Using the Religious definition, no. Legal? Yes. Man and Man are not offered the same legalities as a legally unified straight couple, therefore, are a minority in that there's not too many man/man couples and those man/man couples are being discriminated against in not being offered the same legal benefits of a legal partnership for THEIR relationship.

 

[Fatality]

its the law, all are under the same law, there is no minority.

Using the Religious definition, no. Legal? Yes. Man and Man are not offered the same legalities as a legally unified straight couple, therefore, are a minority in that there's not too many man/man couples and those man/man couples are being discriminated against in not being offered the same legal benefits of a legal partnership for THEIR relationship.

all people, all men, all women are under the same law, there is no minority.

this has nothing to do wiht some elusive "religious definition" this is the legal definition, this is the law, there is no minority. men cannot marry men, and women cannot marry women, it is the law for all men, for all women.

 

[Valerie]

not having it has everyone in the same boat, all are under the same law, there is no "minority."

I don't follow your point whatsoever. It means nothing to the underlying viewpoint.

what is it that you dont follow?

everyone has to live under the same law, no one can marry someone of the same gender, there is no elusive minority that are the only ones affected by this law.

What you're not seeming to follow is that not ALL people are sexually attracted to the opposite sex. So, what you call the elusive minority DOES exist. Telling homosexual people they are equally free to have heterosexual marriage is a disingenuous argument.

 

[G.T.]

all people, all men, all women are under the same law, there is no minority.

this has nothing to do wiht some elusive "religious definition" this is the legal definition, this is the law, there is no minority. men cannot marry men, and women cannot marry women, it is the law for all men, for all women.

smh, the minority is gay persons. they're a minority, they represent only a tiny fraction of the population. The law's got nothing to do with their status as a minority, the law does not make them a minority or not.............their actual population in comparison to the whole does.

they're the very definition of minority. that they are not allowed to get a legal contract solidifying their "relationship" as straight couples do, represents a discrimination against a minority.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

all people, all men, all women are under the same law, there is no minority.

this has nothing to do wiht some elusive "religious definition" this is the legal definition, this is the law, there is no minority. men cannot marry men, and women cannot marry women, it is the law for all men, for all women.

smh, the minority is gay persons. they're a minority, they represent only a tiny fraction of the population. The law's got nothing to do with their status as a minority, the law does not make them a minority or not.............their actual population in comparison to the whole does.

they're the very definition of minority. that they are not allowed to get a legal contract solidifying their "relationship" as straight couples do, represents a discrimination against a minority.

Individuals that seek polygamist unions fall into this same category of "discriminated" minorities.

 

[G.T.]

all people, all men, all women are under the same law, there is no minority.

this has nothing to do wiht some elusive "religious definition" this is the legal definition, this is the law, there is no minority. men cannot marry men, and women cannot marry women, it is the law for all men, for all women.

smh, the minority is gay persons. they're a minority, they represent only a tiny fraction of the population. The law's got nothing to do with their status as a minority, the law does not make them a minority or not.............their actual population in comparison to the whole does.

they're the very definition of minority. that they are not allowed to get a legal contract solidifying their "relationship" as straight couples do, represents a discrimination against a minority.

Individuals that seek polygamist unions fall into this same category of "discriminated" minorities.

but polygamy is fine so long as they pick 2 out of the couple of 3 or more who recieve the tax benefits. if not, they're a detriment to society/taking advantage. I'm not anti-polygamy except in that regard.

 

[ThePickledPunk]

smh, the minority is gay persons. they're a minority, they represent only a tiny fraction of the population. The law's got nothing to do with their status as a minority, the law does not make them a minority or not.............their actual population in comparison to the whole does.

they're the very definition of minority. that they are not allowed to get a legal contract solidifying their "relationship" as straight couples do, represents a discrimination against a minority.

Individuals that seek polygamist unions fall into this same category of "discriminated" minorities.

but polygamy is fine so long as they pick 2 out of the couple of 3 or more who recieve the tax benefits. if not, they're a detriment to society/taking advantage. I'm not anti-polygamy except in that regard.

polygamy is not fine. It is still illegal. And why would you deny the tax benefits to some members in a polygamous arrangement. Still sounds like it falls within your definition of discrimination.

 

[keee keee]

Screw what the people want, time to get some judge to change this and make gay marriage law!!!! who the hell do the citizens of Maine think they are being against this imoral act. These people who voted against this are now on Obama's shit list and he is now at war with you like Fox News!!!!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. That is how it has always been defined. Sow what next, we're going to say that milk is actually a lug wrench?

THis is too ******* stupid.