Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

reply to post by Annee

---

I doubt walmart has a bunch of accidents that end up giving people communicable and deadly diseases that then get spread to more and more people increasing the death and devastaton.

[edit on 7-11-2009 by HotSauce]

Really? Do you see cashiers wearing sanitation gloves? How many people handle the products before they get to the checkout stand? Kids love to play with those moving belts - getting their grubby hands and germs all over them.

Sorry - but statistics are on my side. This is just one article of many.

Legalized Prostitution - Regulating the Oldest Profession - by Mark Liberator

Given the three broad categories above (Crime, Healthcare, Social conditions), the countries having legal prostitution enjoy many benefits the United States does not. Crime is higher within the U.S., despite severe laws, intense prosecution rates and a high number of imprisonments. People infected with HIV/AIDS are higher, as is the number of HIV/AIDS deaths in the U.S. Even suicide rates and divorce rates are disproportionately high in the U.S., too.

Upon a close examination of the Netherlands reveals interesting findings. Amsterdam is the capitol of the Netherlands and is internationally known for its redlight district. Critics to prostitution might be stunned to learn that the Netherlands has the least number of murders and rapes. It prosecutes a considerable amount of criminals but has a low number of prisoners. It does not suffer from an HIV/AIDS epidemic, like the U.S. and the U.K., and has the second lowest suicide rate listed. This news will literally stop critics (who are open to reason) in their tracks when they are confronted with such information.

liberator.net...

This really belongs in the Feminist thread - - so done - moving back to topic.

-----------------------------------

Who's to Blame for Maine's Marriage Failure?


After yesterday's voter-approved rape of our marriage rights in Maine, the obvious question to ask is: How'd this happen? And next: Who can we blame? It's a natural instinct. Surely there must be someone or something out there to direct our anger, our frustration, our disgust. It's the same thing that happened exactly one year ago in California, when Prop 8 took away the M-word from gays and lesbians. Fingers started pointing, and not in very nice places. Race and religion were blamed. So, too, was the "No On 8" campaign, accused of misguided direction and ineffective outreach. Now here we are in Maine, wondering aloud, . . .

www.queerty.com...

reply to post by Annee

---

I sadly worked at wal mart as a cashier and your arguement doesn't mirror anything that I saw.

All the managers except for one on my shift were women, we were required to disenfect the conveyer belt after each rush unless it was a steady stream then it was every 5 customers.

Kids were not allowed to put their fingers on the belt, it was a liability thing.

As for wearing gloves. You can't really take a dig at them for not doing that, nobody does. If you aren't responsible enough to wash off your fruits or vegies then that is your fault alone.

reply to post by Annee

---

So now you are trying to say that if you shop at Walmart you risk AIDS and Herpes infection unless you wear a biological hazard suit? You are stretching things a bit.

But as I said before if you want to back women being used and abused then by all means support prostitution to your hearts content. If I could stomach it then I might show you some support and go buy me a piece of tail.

Honestly, I couldn't even imagine it. I would have to dip myself in clorox when I got home. Plus, I would probablly kill myself for being such a piece of trash to use a woman like that.

[edit on 8-11-2009 by HotSauce]

Yep - I worked at K-Mart as a cashier.

Its just an example that infectious germs can be anywhere in normal day life.

Its a false perception to think something has to be viewed as "seedy" to be a health hazard.

reply to post by Annee

---

My post was mainly your arguement about the women being mistreated.

Really wasn't condusive to your over all arguement, I was just putting my experiance out there for you.

No Problem - did not want to personally offend your experience.

But - there have been lawsuits against Walmart for gender discrimination.

reply to post by Annee

---

You didn't offend me at all. I hated that job and was happy to quit. As far as the lawsuits, I don't put much thought into them, to many factors go into them.

Cool Beans - I only did a Christmas gig for a little extra cash. I owned my own business too.

But I believe Walmart has lost a couple lawsuits of gender discrimination.

reply to post by Annee

---

I'm sure they have.

Those type of case you are guilty until proven innoccent. Thats why most places you can't even get a pat on the back from your boss any more.

I am not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying its not as common as the lawsuits make it out to be.

Now we are getting way off topic.

I know - I keep trying to bring it back to topic.

Where Gay Marriage Really Lost
By Matthew Gagnon on Saturday, November 7, 2009

A few days ago, I made the argument that gay marriage lost in Maine because proponents were unable to persuade “middle Maine” – the somewhat suburban voters who were probably able to be convinced on the subject, but were simply not won over. These are people who are hardly “anti-gay”, but still remained (at least during this vote) opposed to an extension of marriage rights to homosexual couples.

After doing some additional research and analysis, what I have found reinforces that opinion.

Today, I would like to specifically take a look at the differences in the 2005 ballot question which asked voters if they wanted to reject the law that would protect people from discrimination in employment, housing, education, public accommodations and credit based on their sexual orientation, and the 2009 gay marriage vote.

www.pinetreepolitics.com...

reply to post by Annee

---

The people of Maine made a decision. The majority spoke and I really can't say anything bad about it.

Atleast the courts didn't shove it down there throats, they let the people decide.

What would have happened if Race Equality went to public vote in 1964?

Voting on Equal Rights for a minority group is not OK - in my opinion.

Religion is the #1 factor in denying this right. Religion should not even be considered in an Equal Rights issue.

reply to post by Annee

---

This isn't about racial equality. It is about sexual PREFERENCE. Why do gay marriage supporters keep trying to tie their wagon to the racial equality horse. Those people were treated like animals. They lived in an entirely seperated world that was substandard. Homosexuals live in the same world as the rest of us. Eat the same food, drink at the same fountains, get the same education. Just because you cannot legally marry doesn't mean your ancestors were slaves and sold like cattle.

. . . and before someone goes off - that marriage is a religious issue.

1. marriage survivor benefits - has nothing to do with religion.
2. insurance beneficiary - has nothing to do with religion.
3. visiting a partner in the hospital - has nothing to do with religion.
4. tax breaks for married couple - has nothing to do with religion.
5. parental rights if there is a child - has nothing to do with religion.

For those who argue "domestic partnership" - - it is not honored state to state.

Example: gay couple buys an insurance policy in one state. Insurance policies are sold all the time. Partner dies. New owner of policy denies right of "domestic partnership". If this gay couple were married - rights would not be denied because marriage is accepted in all states.

Who does it hurt if gay people get married?

Just wondering why they aren't allowed to be miserable just like the rest of us married folks.

reply to post by galatea

---

Welll probably has something to do with living in a democracy and loosing 31 or 31 elections. Just a guess though.

I know we live in a democracy, my question was WHO does it hurt if they get married?

The answer is nobody.

reply to post by galatea

---

It doesn;t hurt anyone. My issues with it is if you redifine marriage everytime some minority group with enough clout comes along then marriage will basicallly become meaningless. It has always been thought of as an institution between a man and a woman.

Personally, I am all for some sort of federally recognized civil union that gives them shared benefits and all that. I just don't want marriage to become redifinable for every new sexual preference that comes down the pike.