Maine Voters Shoot Down Gay Marriage Law

[BKLYN_C]

Gay marriage? What purpose does it carry for the human species? Will it help to carry the genetic code? K-A, whatever you use your a-hole for, it may give you some pleasant experiences, but thats not the real purpose of it

To remove this ad, register today or login if you already are registered!

[GBlansten]

Originally Posted by BKLYN_C

Gay marriage? What purpose does it carry for the human species? Will it help to carry the genetic code?
K-A, whatever you use your a-hole for, it may give you some pleasant experiences, but thats not the real purpose of it

I've been married for over twelve years and have no desire for kids. I have never really pondered the implications of the genetic code given the six plus billion people on the planet. Is there a shortage? For me the purpose of my marriage is the love I have for my wife. Best thing that ever happened to me. If some guy out there loves another guy as much as I love my wife then I am happy for him and if he wants to get married then good for him.

I just don't see how I am harmed or my marriage is harmed by two people committing to each other. If Britney Spears can get drunk and married over the weekend in Vegas then annul it then I want some architect and lawyer who are guys to be able to get married and enjoy a long life with each other.

If this leads to human-puff adder marriage then so be it. I think that would be a mighty small niche anyway.

[Glasgow Gold]

Originally Posted by GBlansten

If this leads to human-puff adder marriage then so be it. I think that would be a mighty small niche anyway.

I'm getting a kick out of your bestiality examples but gay marriage wouldn't lead to much of any meaningful slippery slope unless the times change.

Indeed, it's changing perceptions about what is "normal," more than any particular logic (Rev's underlying point is valid, IMO), that is getting the gay community closer to acceptance. Perceptions are personal and driven by experience. As far as the gay community is concerned, perceptions are aided by more and more decent gay people coming out of the closet, taking positions of leadership in business and government, etc.

The irony is that it doesn't seem that Lord Obama is doing anything to help the cause. The liberals' savior is opposed to gay marriage and appears to have reneged on his campaign promise to repeal DOMA in its entirety.

[GBlansten]

Originally Posted by Glasgow Gold

I'm getting a kick out of your bestiality examples but gay marriage wouldn't lead to much of any meaningful slippery slope unless the times change.

Indeed, it's changing perceptions about what is "normal," more than any particular logic (Rev's underlying point is valid, IMO), that is getting the gay community closer to acceptance. Perceptions are personal and driven by experience. As far as the gay community is concerned, perceptions are aided by more and more decent gay people coming out of the closet, taking positions of leadership in business and government, etc.

The irony is that it doesn't seem that Lord Obama is doing anything to help the cause. The liberals' savior is opposed to gay marriage and appears to have reneged on his campaign promise to repeal DOMA in its entirety.

Good points by you and too much Animal Planet for me.

[BKLYN_C]

Originally Posted by GBlansten

I've been married for over twelve years and have no desire for kids. I have never really pondered the implications of the genetic code given the six plus billion people on the planet. Is there a shortage? For me the purpose of my marriage is the love I have for my wife. Best thing that ever happened to me. If some guy out there loves another guy as much as I love my wife then I am happy for him and if he wants to get married then good for him.

I just don't see how I am harmed or my marriage is harmed by two people committing to each other. If Britney Spears can get drunk and married over the weekend in Vegas then annul it then I want some architect and lawyer who are guys to be able to get married and enjoy a long life with each other.

If this leads to human-puff adder marriage then so be it. I think that would be a mighty small niche anyway.

If you dont care about you blood line, good for you and the rest of us - less competition for the resources.

So following your logic of "no harm - allow", if some one want to marry a sheep or cow, will you let him? He means no harm to you, his choice will not affect the level of love you receive from you wife. So, will you?

[GBlansten]

Originally Posted by BKLYN_C

If you dont care about you blood line, good for you and the rest of us - less competition for the resources.

So following your logic of "no harm - allow", if some one want to marry a sheep or cow, will you let him? He means no harm to you, his choice will not affect the level of love you receive from you wife. So, will you?

I just don't worry about man-sheep marriage. Do you really worry about man-sheep marriage? Seriously? Do you honestly worry about the tidal wave of human-agrarian bestial love?

I just can't relate to that concern. It seems artificial. Not trying to be rude here. I just don't lose sleep over that issue.

I've known a fellow doctor for years. He's one of the funniest guys I know. He's gay and he is in a long term relationship. I just can't imagine telling him that I'm against him getting married because other people will want to marry farm animals. How could you look someone real in the eyes and make that argument?

[BKLYN_C]

Originally Posted by GBlansten

I just don't worry about man-sheep marriage. Do you really worry about man-sheep marriage? Seriously? Do you honestly worry about the tidal wave of human-agrarian bestial love?

I just can't relate to that concern. It seems artificial. Not trying to be rude here. I just don't lose sleep over that issue.

I've known a fellow doctor for years. He's one of the funniest guys I know. He's gay and he is in a long term relationship. I just can't imagine telling him that I'm against him getting married because other people will want to marry farm animals. How could you look someone real in the eyes and make that argument?

The answer is very simple- both ways are unnatural.
I dont care who sleeps with whom. But the marriage is an union between a man and a women before the G-d.
Your doctor can be the best person in the whole world, but he is the dead end. Humanity has to reproduce and evolve. He may have some value to the current society he lives in, but absolutely worthless to the human race. Dont you see some irony here, kind of natural selection?

[hkmb]

Originally Posted by BKLYN_C

The answer is very simple- both ways are unnatural.
I dont care who sleeps with whom. But the marriage is an union between a man and a women before the G-d.
Your doctor can be the best person in the whole world, but he is the dead end. Humanity has to reproduce and evolve. He may have some value to the current society he lives in, but absolutely worthless to the human race. Dont you see some irony here, kind of natural selection?

Does this mean atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry either?

How about non-Christian religious people? If they're getting married before the wrong God, should that be allowed?

And if marriage is an about union before God, and is a purely religious thing, then surely America's laws on separation of church and State should mean that the State doesn't recognise any marriage, gay or straight?

[BKLYN_C]

Originally Posted by hkmb

Does this mean atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry either?

How about non-Christian religious people? If they're getting married before the wrong God, should that be allowed?

And if marriage is an about union before God, and is a purely religious thing, then surely America's laws on separation of church and State should mean that the State doesn't recognise any marriage, gay or straight?

It is insignificant who or what you give your oath to. To me it was G-d. To you it was communist party. So, no need to build elaborate theory out of a single word.

[K-A]

Originally Posted by revstriker

In the 70s, nobody would have dreamed that gay marriage would even be a topic of discussion. Things change. Decisions made today can have an impact in 5 or 10 years down the road. Doesn't have to be a lifetime. The Constitutional grounds that some are arguing to allow gay marriage could also be the precedent to allow other types of marriage. There is no Constitutional right to marry, so advocates of Gay marriage argue on the right to privacy. I'd love to hear someone who believes this covers gay marriage explain how it wouldn't cover something like polygamy.

As for the "population on your side", I think it is quite obvious that the population is NOT on the side of gay marriage. Every single allowance of gay marriage in this country has been granted by the courts. Every single time the issue has been put to the voters, it has been rejected. That's not to say that the popular view on this won't change in the future, but all of the laws allowing gay marriage have been against the will of the people which is a shame.

Gays are working toward educating the masses, especially those on the ignorant side, to who they are, they are growing, more "respectable" and influential "members" are coming out, it is a fight from the losing end, but it will inevitably turn toward their favor. To me, it's doubtlessly a positive fight, for many great people, so the positive energy is on their side as well.

Originally Posted by BKLYN_C

Gay marriage? What purpose does it carry for the human species? Will it help to carry the genetic code?
K-A, whatever you use your a-hole for, it may give you some pleasant experiences, but thats not the real purpose of it

Why don't you get my a-hole off your mind big boy. So is the real purpose of a vagina to have sex without intent for reproduction? Hypocrite much?

Originally Posted by BKLYN_C

The answer is very simple- both ways are unnatural.
I dont care who sleeps with whom. But the marriage is an union between a man and a women before the G-d.
Your doctor can be the best person in the whole world, but he is the dead end. Humanity has to reproduce and evolve. He may have some value to the current society he lives in, but absolutely worthless to the human race. Dont you see some irony here, kind of natural selection?

You defined the word "tool" with this Post.

And God doesn't exist. You should be ashamed of yourself for claiming a higher ground over anyone in terms of "what's natural/real" when you're pretending a hocus pocus fairy tale is the end-all be all, and a mythical character is purportedly "watching over" these oh so wonderful Marriages full of sacred compassion.... Wait, wrong century, what's the divorce/abuse/crap-hell-hole of a Marriage rate again?

Do you get out much? I think humanity has taken the "reproduction" thing a bit too far, reproduce all you want, just know that you're a factor toward the reason that your future name-carriers will be in very "uncertain times", to put it nicely.

[K-A]

On a side note, anyone who has to write "G-d", and is convinced that they are somehow eligible to be sitting on any kind of high-horse, needs a reaaallittyyy cheeeckk, to put it Gayly.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by K-A

Gays are working toward educating the masses, especially those on the ignorant side, to who they are, they are growing, more "respectable" and influential "members" are coming out, it is a fight from the losing end, but it will inevitably turn toward their favor. To me, it's doubtlessly a positive fight, for many great people, so the positive energy is on their side as well.

I've got no problem with people who practice homosexuality in the privacy of their own homes, just as I have no issues with people who want to screw a blow up doll, or some other fetish. However, it is hardly "ignorant" to view the facts and determine that homosexuality is not a natural way (and certainly not an effective way) of procreating. It is also not "ignorant" to hold the view that the definition of marriage is and should remain a union between one man and one woman. This is a classic weak argument that we always get out of you. If someone doesn't agree with you, well then they must be "ignorant". You can't respectfully disagree with anyone, you must fly right into personal attacks.

By the way, you should look up the polygamy movement. You should note the steps that they are taken to be viewed as "normal". The steps they are taking to "educate the masses". And also look at their history to see just how much this movement has grown. It is the mirror image of the gay movement. And you can bet they are watching each and every decision being made on the gay marriage issue. Especially since their argument is identical.

And God doesn't exist. You should be ashamed of yourself for claiming a higher ground over anyone in terms of "what's natural/real" when you're pretending a hocus pocus fairy tale is the end-all be all, and a mythical character is purportedly "watching over" these oh so wonderful Marriages full of sacred compassion.... Wait, wrong century, what's the divorce/abuse/crap-hell-hole of a Marriage rate again?

And once again, an example of an attack, just because someone has a difference of opinion than you. So I guess you are "ashamed" of the more than 70% of Americans who follow a religion, or the even higher percentage of Americans who believe in a God? And yes, that includes quite a few homosexuals and Gay Marriage supporters.

[LRM1]

Here we go again. Again!

I can't say it enough. While being someone who is not opposed to gay marriage from a legal perspective (no church marriage), you guys on the left keep screwing up your own argument.

Stop attacking people, their beliefs, their faith and being such aggressive pricks and you might get somewhere. You aren't going to win this debate while you say there is no God, those of you who believe are ignorant, etc.

Being a pompous, self absorbed Ahole, certainly doesn't make two men screwing a "natural" or human progress.

Whomever said that he knew someone who is gay, with a life partner and they should have the same rights at least looks at it from a logical perspective. The reason you idiots keep losing these fights is not because the world is backward, I'd bet most people couldn't even care less, it's because you're arrogant asses like most liberals are.

[K-A]

Originally Posted by LRM1

Here we go again. Again!

I can't say it enough. While being someone who is not opposed to gay marriage from a legal perspective (no church marriage), you guys on the left keep screwing up your own argument.

Stop attacking people, their beliefs, their faith and being such aggressive pricks and you might get somewhere. You aren't going to win this debate while you say there is no God, those of you who believe are ignorant, etc.

Being a pompous, self absorbed Ahole, certainly doesn't make two men screwing a "natural" or human progress.

Whomever said that he knew someone who is gay, with a life partner and they should have the same rights at least looks at it from a logical perspective. The reason you idiots keep losing these fights is not because the world is backward, I'd bet most people couldn't even care less, it's because you're arrogant asses like most liberals are.

It's always a double standard.

Refer to brklyn c's comment, and see if you consider it "ahole"-ish.

My guess is of course, you guys won't, but don't get mad at me for laughing at his fairy tale belief, when he laughs at the idea of Gay people being "natural/normal/blah-blah".

The fact that you can't even call out "Conservatives" and the obvious ignorant comments many of them have toward Homosexuals, proves that your labeling most Liberals as "ignorant asses" is completely one sided and judged unfairly and through blinders, in a sense.

A Gay man can still get a women pregnant, a man having sex with a man for recreation isn't any more unnatural than a man using a vagina for merely pleasure. All "ooh that's gross" or "not like most people" and all that crap aside, if you want to say that two men having sex with each other is unnatural, I'd like to hear you follow it with admitting that having sex for recreation period is unnatural, or going the back-door route on a Female isn't either....

[K-A]

Originally Posted by revstriker

I've got no problem with people who practice homosexuality in the privacy of their own homes, just as I have no issues with people who want to screw a blow up doll, or some other fetish. However, it is hardly "ignorant" to view the facts and determine that homosexuality is not a natural way (and certainly not an effective way) of procreating. It is also not "ignorant" to hold the view that the definition of marriage is and should remain a union between one man and one woman. This is a classic weak argument that we always get out of you. If someone doesn't agree with you, well then they must be "ignorant". You can't respectfully disagree with anyone, you must fly right into personal attacks.

By the way, you should look up the polygamy movement. You should note the steps that they are taken to be viewed as "normal". The steps they are taking to "educate the masses". And also look at their history to see just how much this movement has grown. It is the mirror image of the gay movement. And you can bet they are watching each and every decision being made on the gay marriage issue. Especially since their argument is identical.

And once again, an example of an attack, just because someone has a difference of opinion than you. So I guess you are "ashamed" of the more than 70% of Americans who follow a religion, or the even higher percentage of Americans who believe in a God? And yes, that includes quite a few homosexuals and Gay Marriage supporters.

Again, double standard. You obviously point me out but aren't fazed by comments from brklyn c over Homo's, why? Because you don't care about Homosexuality, and do about Religion (clearly).

Call them whatever you want, personal attacks or whatever, if the arguments on your side are intellectual and compassionate, I'll go with that, if someone starts spouting non-sense about their BELIEF that Homo isn't natural, then get on their case just like you get on mine when I make a joke out of the unproven Religion and the fact that one would HILARIOUSLY write "G-d", assuming that delusionally free's them of any "sinning".

About Polygamy, it's a different scenario. I know (I'll pretend and say "believe" to save from an argument from you) that Gays are born the way they are, and due to that, amongst other things, they should not have less privileges/benefits, whatever, than people born Hetero. I don't even care if they call it "Marriage", they can make a different fancy name, with the exact same benefits, recognition, etc. and I'd be down for it.

[K-A]

Regarding the fact that majority rules, that is again the fortunate or unfortunate way our society works, however, just because hordes of people are on one side of the fence, doesn't in any way make them right, just, intelligent, etc. I'm sure you can remember historical and current situations which prove that.

[markopolo]

I myself, have nothing against gay people







.

[K-A]

Jesus. Worst part is that actually look kind of proper on her.

[markopolo]

Originally Posted by K-A

Jesus. Worst part is that actually look kind of proper on her.

LOL. There is nothing better than a good laughter to start your morning

[K-A]

Agreed!

[K-A]

My Brother always had the theory about Lindsay that she'd probably have bad B.O.

[MG]

Originally Posted by K-A

Again, double standard. You obviously point me out but aren't fazed by comments from brklyn c over Homo's, why? Because you don't care about Homosexuality, and do about Religion (clearly).

Call them whatever you want, personal attacks or whatever, if the arguments on your side are intellectual and compassionate, I'll go with that, if someone starts spouting non-sense about their BELIEF that Homo isn't natural, then get on their case just like you get on mine when I make a joke out of the unproven Religion and the fact that one would HILARIOUSLY write "G-d", assuming that delusionally free's them of any "sinning".

About Polygamy, it's a different scenario. I know (I'll pretend and say "believe" to save from an argument from you) that Gays are born the way they are, and due to that, amongst other things, they should not have less privileges/benefits, whatever, than people born Hetero. I don't even care if they call it "Marriage", they can make a different fancy name, with the exact same benefits, recognition, etc. and I'd be down for it.

lol, I love watching KA get himself all worked up over this stupidity.

Dude, no one is handing you any less of a bucket of privledges. You are free to marry any woman who will have you. You choose to bang men instead.

Good for you. Don't make it our problem.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by K-A

Again, double standard. You obviously point me out but aren't fazed by comments from brklyn c over Homo's, why? Because you don't care about Homosexuality, and do about Religion (clearly).

I wasn't intending to defend brklyn's comments, but if you re-read them, you will see they are quite different than yours. He doesn't personally attack homosexuals for their beliefs. He respectfully disagrees. He took a jab at YOU personally, but quite frankly, you deserve it.

Call them whatever you want, personal attacks or whatever, if the arguments on your side are intellectual and compassionate, I'll go with that, if someone starts spouting non-sense about their BELIEF that Homo isn't natural, then get on their case just like you get on mine when I make a joke out of the unproven Religion and the fact that one would HILARIOUSLY write "G-d", assuming that delusionally free's them of any "sinning".

Again, you are so self absorbed in your own homosexual propaganda that you cannot even tell the difference between an insult and a comment of disagreement. Saying that homosexuality is not natural based on the laws of nature is an opinion supported by fact. It is certainly not an insult. Saying that someone who believes in a higher power believes in "hocus pocus" or is "ignorant" certainly is an insult.

About Polygamy, it's a different scenario. I know (I'll pretend and say "believe" to save from an argument from you) that Gays are born the way they are, and due to that, amongst other things, they should not have less privileges/benefits, whatever, than people born Hetero. I don't even care if they call it "Marriage", they can make a different fancy name, with the exact same benefits, recognition, etc. and I'd be down for it.

Not claiming that polygamy is equivalent to homosexuality. However, the grounds on which some are trying to argue that restricting gay marriage is unconstitutional (by saying it violates a right to privacy), would apply to almost any situation of someone wanting to marry some other consenting adult. That is why the "slippery slope" does exist, and why those in favor of things like Polygamy have been following the gay marriage issue. And if you look at the polygamy movement (and group marriage), you will see that it has actually grown considerably in recent years.

[panzr15]

Originally Posted by K-A

I don't even care if they call it "Marriage", they can make a different fancy name, with the exact same benefits, recognition, etc. and I'd be down for it.

Based on this statement, you are saying that you would be happy with a civil union that accords all the same rights and benefits of a marriage between a man and a woman, even if it is not called "marriage"? If that is the case, then why does the gay rights movement have such a tunnel visioned goal legalizing gay "marriage", when it would be so much simpler and more successful to campaign instead for a civil union? I myself am against gay marriage, but would fully support such a union.

[LRM1]

Originally Posted by panzr15

Based on this statement, you are saying that you would be happy with a civil union that accords all the same rights and benefits of a marriage between a man and a woman, even if it is not called "marriage"? If that is the case, then why does the gay rights movement have such a tunnel visioned goal legalizing gay "marriage", when it would be so much simpler and more successful to campaign instead for a civil union? I myself am against gay marriage, but would fully support such a union.

AHA!!

I've been telling him that for months. But it isn't about that is it.

It's not about actually having the rights/privleges/benefits, whatever. It's about us having to agree with them, like them and accept them whether we like it or not.

It's a small part in the bigger stupidity of liberalism.

Abortion - Even if you think it should be legal, but disagree with a free for all birth control method abortion, you are wrong, ignorant and backwards. A woman should be able to use abortion any way she sees fit.

Gay Marriage - Even if you are fine with civil unions that grant ALL of the legal benefits of "marriage", that's not enough, you're ignorant and stupid. You must agree that it is perfectly natural, you must cede that there is nothing different about two men being married and YOU MUST force your evil and oppressive, backwards Christian/Muslim/Jewish sanctuary to allow gay "marriage" - other wise you are an ignorant redneck.

Health Reform - Even if you agree that there needs to be reform, there must be changes and insurance companies should not drop people or deny coverage, you are a MURDERER unless you agree that MILLIONS of people are dying because of the GREED of insurance companies and EVERYONE MUST have free health insurance regardless of cost or consequences!!!! The right talks about "Death Panels" to scare old people, but we, the liberals know that PEOPLE DIE because they can't get insurance!!

You ever wonder why we treat liberals like the neighborhood retarded kid?