It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

page: 18
8
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by Uniceft17
 


Well I see your point, but really all they will need to do is scan the human brain for cause and response to determine what areas cause people to choose same sex partners as the focus of their attraction.


You should see the amazing research that is going on in the area of detecting peoples thought patterns in real time. Trully incredible. It will lead to cures for many things and amazing technology.


Human sexuality is much more comples than sheep and ram sexuality, it's not animalistic, it ecompasses much more than sex, it has to do with emotion attraction etc. Chances are that when the scientists start experimenting on humans they are going to mess up and have some problems, if they are even aloud to if that day comes. It's pretty unethical if you ask me, to experiment on an unborn child and wait till it pops out to see if the experiment worked. I highly doubt this happens. And I don't see what parents would actually alow it to happen to them.

[edit on 11/5/2009 by Uniceft17]




posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Uniceft17
 


Cant have a baby like a straight human, thats why scientists developed in vitro, artificial insemination, and pretty soon a cure for gays.


Keep on wishing. The way they plan to initiate this 'cure' is unethical, I highly doubt parents are going to let scientists do there little experiments on there unborn children, especially when theres a chance soemthing could go wrong because human sexuality is much more complex than ram and sheep sex.

[edit on 11/5/2009 by Uniceft17]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by nixie_nox
 



And you sound like a broken record. And about 15 years old.


Your argumentative tactic leaves much to be desired....

Ad Homenim attacks are the recourse of those who are out of ACTUAL points of discussion.


It refers to a state of mind and experience that can't produce enough evidence to support an arguement and is just emotionally posting.


A child being raised in a loving home with two loving parents IS a right.


Single Mother Homes.

Should we outlaw that as well?

Nope, but the two family home needs to be encouraged and nurtured as much as possible. And divorce needs to be made much harder to obtain.

And much more effort needs to be put into sex education and family therapy to reduce out of wedlock pregnancies as much as possible.

Because by your logic, that is where this train is headed

Nope, most problems are symptom, not THE problem.


then it is in your best interest to have kids adopted, or taken care of by parents, then to be taken care of by the government for the rest of their lives.



How does this make Adopting children a "Right"?


Because you have insisted over and over again that government has and should have no bearing on your releationships and family. I am simply pointing out that by not having kids adopted out, they are now being raised by the government. So by your own admission, adopting is a necessary right, because it then prevents the very government you speak against from getting involved in families.




[edit on 5-11-2009 by nixie_nox because I really suck at quotes]


[edit on 5-11-2009 by nixie_nox]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uniceft17

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Uniceft17
 


Cant have a baby like a straight human, thats why scientists developed in vitro, artificial insemination, and pretty soon a cure for gays.


Keep on wishing. The way they plan to initiate this 'cure' is unethical, I highly doubt parents are going to let scientists do there little experiments on there unborn children, especially when theres a chance soemthing could go wrong because human sexuality is much more complex than ram and sheep sex.

[edit on 11/5/2009 by Uniceft17]


Removed by poster ...

[edit on 11/5/2009 by centurion1211]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uniceft17

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 

I don't know if it is deviant behavior so much as it is an illness like depression. The brain will not function at its optmum level if there is a chemical or hormonal imbalance or if one part of the brain is damaged.


Scientists are actually searching for a cure and they have had success with sheep, but of course the gay community is fighting it as being anti-gay.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by HotSauce]


How is it an illness, what are the downsides of being gay, we don't miss work unless we get sick, we work alright, function in school alright, get good grades, drive right, etc. We are just like everyone else aside for the fact that we don't have sex with the opposite sex.

And I wouldn't have it any other way, I love men and I love my husband who I am MARRIED to, yes gay marriage. And no scientist is going to change that.


I lived in the SF Bay Area for over 15 years. Earlier in this thread I asked a question about something I observed while living there, but I don't recall getting an answer. You seem open about discussing the subject, so I'll try again. I observed many g/l couples where one would assume a masculine role in dress, mannerisms and speech, while the other would assume a feminine role in much the same way. The question is that if having your partner look and act like the opposite sex is what you like, then why not just go with someone that really is the opposite sex? It seems to me that there would be much less hassle and stigma. Honest question ...



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 



he question is that if having your partner look and act like the opposite sex is what you like, then why not just go with someone that really is the opposite sex? It seems to me that there would be much less hassle and stigma. Honest question ...


I answered you once before on this question, but I will try to elaborate.

My last answer was "opposites attract". In this discussion opposites in terms of personality; not sexual parts. People who are outgoing usually get along with people who are more reserved. That way they don't compete with each other for attention. They complement each other.

Two very butch guys would not make sense as they might always be fighting for who is dominant. Once butch and one happy to be led would be a better match. These are generalizations, but you get the point.

This is relevant regardless of whether you look at gays, straights, or just friendships.

Being gay is not a choice you can make just to save stress. Trying to be something you are not would cause huge stress beyond anything.

People who are clearly bi-sexual are the only ones who might have a choice about the sex of their partner. They could not, however, choose who they are turned on by -- only with whom they choose to act upon that desire.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Free country, what a joke!

I can't not in my mind understand why marriage should be controlled and regulated by the government.

This can't be justified. What a disgrace.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by DwaynetheSpecious]

 

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by GAOTU789]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


You can quote that to someone else. I'm not interested in that person's opinion or viewpoint.


You do not like it because it means your argument has failed, and will continue to fail.

You can't deny any one piece of what was written.

Therefore, you ignore it.

Brilliant!


EQUAL is EQUAL - - every citizen deserves the same equal rights. That includes minorities.


The issue we are entertaining is about whether or not people should be allowed enter into matrimony with someone of the same sex. People with same sex attractions(SSA) and their sympathizers advocate this. They claim that people with SSA do not have equal rights with others. This is simply not true. In fact, it is a lie.

Let us compare Gregg and Bob. Gregg is your normal guy who wants to get married and have kids. Bob is just like Gregg, only he has same sex attractions. Let us compare their rights.

Gregg may not marry one person of the same sex. Neither may Bob.
Gregg may not marry someone who is a minor. Neither may Bob.
Gregg may not marry a blood relative. Neither may Bob.
Gregg may not marry someone who is already married. Neither may Bob.
Gregg may not marry someone who is legally unable to consent to the marriage. Neither may Bob.

There is your equal rights.



People evolve - society evolves. At one time soldiers took young boys to war with them to take care of their sexual needs. Multiple wives - concubines - etc.

I'm more then aware why this country leans toward Puritanical narrow mindedness.

Fortunately - that is changing - slowly but it is changing.








Strawman

[edit on 11/5/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 




How does this make Adopting children a "Right"?



Because you have insisted over and over again that government has and should have no bearing on your releationships and family. I am simply pointing out that by not having kids adopted out, they are now being raised by the government.


Of COURSE! after all, before government intervention, Children were NEVER TAKEN CARE OF!!!!


When you speak, do you actually hear what is coming out of your mouth?


So by your own admission, adopting is a necessary right, because it then prevents the very government you speak against from getting involved in families.


Logical Fallacy: False Dilemma.

Before Government intervention in Child related matters, these children were not a burden on the government... they were raised by their extended families, their neighbors, friends, etc...

Adding the government to the equation, and then presuming that Government facilitated Adoption is the only solution to removing government involvement is a trite, and illogical argument.

You should try harder.

-Edrick

[edit on 5-11-2009 by Edrick]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


You can quote that to someone else. I'm not interested in that person's opinion or viewpoint.


You do not like it because it means your argument has failed, and will continue to fail.

You can't deny any one piece of what was written.

Therefore, you ignore it.

Brilliant!


WRONG! The world does not revolve around one mindset.

If it did - we would have no conflict.

I have no interest in that particular mindset which was presented to me as "what is right" argument. I don't agree with it - it isn't for me.

Deny? Deny what? That there are people of independent thought - - I don't agree with?

You can not dictate to me how I am supposed to think.

(edit for spelling)





[edit on 5-11-2009 by Annee]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


You need a hobby. I appreciate your attempt to try to get a rise out of me and talk in circles, but you never will.

I can play the circle game too:

you said before government intervention that extended families and friends and neighbors would adopt the children to be taken care of.

SO........ then it is a part of the family circle that even a gay couple can adopt, by your methods, it keeps the government from interfering, and it solves two problems. Procreation, and non governmental interference.

So therefore by your very own digressions, adoption is a right. It is natural. It is needed.

do you even listen to what your saying? *laughs*


Oh, and I am tired of this little game so I will go ahead and cut you off with your predictable answer of...




*insert insult here*

and

whatever method you will pick to turn this around on the poster, without ever backing up your statement.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh


Let us compare Gregg and Bob. Gregg is your normal guy who wants to get married and have kids. Bob is just like Gregg, only he has same sex attractions. Let us compare their rights.

Gregg may not marry one person of the same sex. Neither may Bob.
Gregg may not marry someone who is a minor. Neither may Bob.
Gregg may not marry a blood relative. Neither may Bob.
Gregg may not marry someone who is already married. Neither may Bob.
Gregg may not marry someone who is legally unable to consent to the marriage. Neither may Bob.

There is your equal rights.



This is so stupid its funny.

Quoted for emphasis, this is what people who oppose gay marriage actually believe are equal rights.

How about this one?

Gregg may marry someone he loves. Bob may not.

Gregg may build a healthy family and adopt children. Bob may not.

Gregg is entitled to share the legal benefits of building a long-lasting relationship. Bob may not.



The real issue is: a gay person's right to marry only affects that gay person. It does not affect any straight couples anywhere. It does not affect any religious institutions. It does not affect you in the slightest, unless you intend to marry someone of the same sex. Therefore, you have no place to deny them that right.

And for the people who feel 'uncomfortable' with gay people getting married because it 'degrades the meaning', HOW are you at all morally superior to the bigots who didn't want to share the front of the bus with black people because it made them uncomfortable?

In 20 years society will look back at you and feel ashamed, the same way we are ashamed today of Jim Crow laws and lynchings. It will always be three steps forward, two steps back. The ones taking the steps back are the ones who will inevitably be shunned for their ignorance and bigotry.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
All I can say is that maybe if you guys keep working at it for another 10 -20 years you willl actually win a vote by the majority.

You have a lot going for you.

You have been brain washing are kids to convince them that it is ok to be gay.

You have been teaching little kids how to perform gay sex acts.

You have been screaming sexist and hater at anyone who disagrees with your lifestyle choices.

So look on the bright side maybe one day the majoirty of this country will learn to tolerate you.


OR
maybe someday we can find a cure for this hormonal or chemical imbalance that causes homosexuality.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by HotSauce]


Yes this is exactly what the voters in maine feared with what was being taught in our public schools and why they decided to repeal it.

They teach tolerance for gays while it is ok to bash religion. in fact it has become what's in style is to hate religion when that reallly had nothing to do with it. The gays are the ones that brought this issue to the courts and now they criticize the process when it doesn't agree with them they call it bigotry. It never occurs to them that if they call it a genetic mutation, then it would be something along the lines of a birth defect.

like most mutations, this one can't pro-create and pass on the defective gene. Keep in mind, I have never seen it proven that it is in fact a genetic bias. They were busted in every school they were allowed to speak in about gay sex for teaching kids the proper technique for inserting a fist in the rectum of a lover and many parents who gave gays the benefit of the doubt, actually and many times "secretly" attended events where this had been taught and if they weren't bigots then, they became bigots after watching those so called tolerance classes.

NO ONE should be compelled to have their children "tolerate" this lifestyle. These are the kind of practices that have made the gay life style so wholesome and safe, no one will even accept their blood during a blood donar drive with anymore enthusiasm they would someone with hepatitus.

This was the right thing to do and any sexual relationship that promotes unhealthy and unnatural acts should not be condoned with either a religious OR a government seal of approval which includes said government entitlements. The 14th ammendment ensures that also and was written not as clause to promote fairness for all enforcing inclusion making happiness a government entitlement. Marriage has nothing to do with that and MOST people find happiness before they get married not as a result of it. The idea that this issue deprives anyone of their equal rights is one of the most ridiculous arguments of an already overly mis understood 14th ammendment. The founders were wise enough to know LIFE just ISN'T fair and never did they intend to force it to be. That isn't what the 14th ammendment is about and it's about time gays finally FIGURED that out.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
- - I don't agree with?

You can not dictate to me how I am supposed to think.

(edit for spelling)

[edit on 5-11-2009 by Annee]


Exactly what us bigots have been saying all along to you gentle loving patient and tolerant progressives. Quit trying to legislate attitudes towrds the most depraved debased segment of society by attaching the legitimacy of a historically defined institution to one with the motto "if it feels good, do it" . They may not dictate your thinking, but we CAN keep them from getting married and if you don't like it, I guess you'll have to learn to tolerate that too. How's it feel anne? You know, having to tolerate something you find so utterly disgusting.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by Matt_Mason]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by DwaynetheSpecious
Free country, what a #ing joke!

I can't not in my mind understand why marriage should be controlled and regulated by the government.

This can't be justified. What a disgrace.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by DwaynetheSpecious]


Here we see it again. Same thing asking the Government they say has no business being involved in marriage, to give it's seal of approval to same sex marriage which is an oxymoron to begin with. Free means you can love anyone you want and you can. What you aren't happy with is that people still find it wrong. The people have spoken and that's that.

As the Obama voters used to say, YOU LOST

now get over it



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Well the Maine voters are jerks just like the California voters.
I hope all the gays laugh at the people who do not want them to have equal rights when those peoples rights are taken away.
What comes around, goes around.

PS: I am a Claifornian. Liberal as the day is long.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by cindymars]



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd

The real issue is: a gay person's right to marry only affects that gay person. It does not affect any straight couples anywhere.


Now you're starting to understand the reasons Government can agree with religion in this case. You see you might be right but what we DO know is heterosexual relationships historically have resulted in a unique side effect that effects EVERYONE. They seem to create these powerful forces that have been the backbone of nations from the begining and have been thought highly enough to promote by protecting them as an institution using the word marriage to define this type of relationship that effects everyone. They are called FAMILIES! and the relationships are those between one man and one woman and they are called MARRIAGES.

It isn't about the ones that affect no one else, it is about the ones that do.

Gays got no business thinking they have that kind of a wholesome positive influence on anyone. In fact, all they seem to want to do is diminish everyone by defining us and our relationships according to our sexual bent and that my friend, ain't no one elses business. I wish gays would quit making it ours.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by cindymars
Well the Maine voters are jerks just like the California voters.
I hope all the gays laugh at the people who do not want them to have equal rights when those peoples rights are taken away.
What comes around, goes around.

PS: I am a Claifornian. Liberal as the day is long.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by cindymars]


We do laugh, but not about them not having equal rights. We laugh at the idea they think they know what equal rights are about. We all have to play by the same rules everyone else has to when it comes to the definition of the institution called marriage. I can't marry anyone or anything I want and neither can they. That means the law is protecting us the same. You're blind and can't see but want a drivers license because it isn't fair. The law protects us from you in that regard but doesn't punish you for being blind. Same goes for a marriage license.

Why is this so hard for gays to understand Ill never know but I wonder if it is genetic



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matt_Mason

Originally posted by Annee
- - I don't agree with?

You can not dictate to me how I am supposed to think.

(edit for spelling)

[edit on 5-11-2009 by Annee]


Exactly what us bigots have been saying all along to you gentle loving patient and tolerant progressives. Quit trying to legislate attitudes towrds the most depraved debased segment of society by attaching the legitimacy of a historically defined institution to one with the motto "if it feels good, do it" . They may not dictate your thinking, but we CAN keep them from getting married and if you don't like it, I guess you'll have to learn to tolerate that too. How's it feel anne? You know, having to tolerate something you find so utterly disgusting.



You do not know anything about my political beliefs.

All you know is I support Equal Rights for Everyone.

So take your self-righteous bigotry elsewhere.



posted on Nov, 5 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by DwaynetheSpecious
Free country, what a #ing joke!

I can't not in my mind understand why marriage should be controlled and regulated by the government.

This can't be justified. What a disgrace.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by DwaynetheSpecious]


Did it ever occur to you that it's not our fault you can't understand something like this? Ever occur to you that it isn't our responsibility to explain to you what it is you refuse to understand?

How can you honestly call anything a disgrace when you have just said in the same voice you don't understand it at all. Perhaps you should research the REAL reasons behind Governments support of a unique type of relationship. One that is unique from all others, one that has been at the heart of your very existance. The kind that has been the cause of the most powerful armies the richest nations and the power of the people.

The kind that can only do what it is this very special and unique type can and very often does do creating the very soldiers, tax payers, voters, sons and daughters of every nation on earth and one rightfully protected by its very definition as the kind between one man and one woman.

Heterosexual MARRIED relationships, Good for America Government approved and protected and anyone that wants to be a part of that has the same opportunity to do so as anyone else and must abide by the same criteria that defines it as everyone else.

Gays want to get married? No one is has taken that right away from them. I just think it is rather strange they would want to marry someone that makes the entire definition something that would alter the entire meaning forcing the Government to create another institution for that unique one which marriage was intended to protect and promote for its powerful side effects from the start.

Then I suppose gays would whine and cry and say gimme that too.

You want what we got? try deserving the kind of tax breaks we should have. Try being a bread winner of three rug rats and a part time life coach, santa clause at christmas, disciplinarian when you don't want to be, financier of many childrens flights of fancy, being responsible for the lives of some of the most risk taking individuals we call children. Try getting up an extra hour early everyday making sure a group of individuals have had their breakfast and lunch while you finance that too.

Try being a heterosexual mate to a sex completely opposite of yours but enhancing it like no other kind can. Try finding that in a partner for a business called family and one where their is very little appreciation for it, no thank you's and certainly no perks. Do that while at the same time having others want to degrade your unique status as nothing more than a perk those same others, think they deserve the financial breaks for while assuming NONE of the great responsibilities.

Gays are the most self serving self absorbed individuals on the planet and they should be ashamed not of their sexual practices but of their bigotry and hatred of the institution that has given them the very life they enjoy.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by Matt_Mason]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join