Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

reply to post by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest


Didn't you know it's *contagious*, Zombi??? Like living near tall folks makes you taller! Umm...no, it doesn't, does it...

Humans are born with their gender preference hardwired. Get over it, folks.

reply to post by Tmd111

HOWEVER, to be honest, I don't want it promoted in schools for my future kids, ... I don't want my kids being "swayed" to be gay and that is how I feel. That is not hate, it is my feelings.

I appreciate your attempt at tolerance, but you are seriously misinformed about some basic facts. Your kids could never be "swayed" to be gay. They could possibly be swayed to try it, but if they aren't gay they won't like it and will reject it from there on.

Any family could, potentially, have a child who is gay, even you. Remember, almost every gay person was born into a family with straight parents. Seeing your nature, I can't imagine that if one of your future children turned out to be gay, that you would not want him or her to have all the information that they could have, to feel good about him/herself.

All the best to you.

reply to post by Tmd111

I would rather have the majority of people vote for the minority than the government vote for a minority. I honestly have no beef against a choice that the majority of American's decide, whether I like it or not.

All in all, I think the government should stay out.

This is a little confusing. You don't want government involved; and yet you are OK with a majority of people voting for government to get involved in restricting the life of people who are gay.

This comes across like you actually don't care about government involvement so long as it only affects other people's lives and not yours.

reply to post by wayno


Exactly.

The courts should decide rights, not the populace.

What is wrong with legal civil unions? Why can't people who want to be together, live together, and love together, be allowed to be together, under a different legal banner? Same rights, same benefits, same protections...just not HOLY MATRIMONY!

Gay haters and Homophobes , will not ever agree to anything...so there must be a compromise. The issue will never go away, until there is...

Originally posted by LostNemesis

Originally posted by IAF101
At least the heterosexual family can produce offspring and further the human species- something a homosexual couple could never do by themselves ever!
[edit on 4-11-2009 by IAF101]

You make it sound like reproducing is a good thing? Just cause an idiot has the ability to knock up another idiot, doesn't mean they should have at it. When gays marry, nobody but them must deal with the 'consequences'.

When heterosexuals breed out of control, we all must put up with the loud, disgusting offspring wherever we go.

What is so magnificent about one human suing another for half of their paycheck for the rest of their natural lives, just because they forgot a condom one night?

As for the courts... Who do YOU believe should decide who can marry who, the CHURCH?? Gotta be kidding. The church needs to be painfully KICKED out of our social issues.

Nobody should decide who can marry who, except for those getting married. In a case like this, since RELIGION has claimed all rights to the word 'marriage', let's get the state out of it and make sure that 'Marriage' is nothing but a religious ceremony. For anyone who wants their relationship to be recognized by the state/insurance/etc... We should call it a 'Civil Union' or something, whether homo or hetero.
This way the church can KEEP their prejudiced Jesus-worshipping ceremonies to themselves. The state cannot regulate religious-types. Religious-types cannot regulate the rest of us. It's a Win-Win.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by LostNemesis]

DO you realize how inconsistent your arguments are?

You rant against "idiots" reproducing and they you say "Nobody should decide who can marry who".

Originally posted by Confused and Dazed!
What is wrong with legal civil unions? Why can't people who want to be together, live together, and love together, be allowed to be together, under a different legal banner? Same rights, same benefits, same protections...just not HOLY MATRIMONY!

Gay haters and Homophobes , will not ever agree to anything...so there must be a compromise. The issue will never go away, until there is...

A marriage license is a government document - - that has nothing to do with religion or god. Atheists can legally get married god free.

It is a government licensing contract to protect rights and property of those joining together as one household.

You can get married without god --- but you can not get married by god without the government contract. Separation of church and state should apply to this issue.

We've already been through Separate but Equal with the Jim Crowe laws. (In reality, this led to treatment and accommodations that were usually inferior to those provided for white Americans, systematizing a number of economic, educational and social disadvantages.)

Civil Unions will NEVER be equal to marriage rights or equal in society.

Marriage for ALL - - - is the ONLY equality.

Originally posted by Annee


A marriage license is a government document - - that has nothing to do with religion or god. Atheists can legally get married god free.

It is a government licensing contract to protect rights and property of those joining together as one household.

You can get married without god --- but you can not get married by god without the government contract. Separation of church and state should apply to this issue.

We've already been through Separate but Equal with the Jim Crowe laws. (In reality, this led to treatment and accommodations that were usually inferior to those provided for white Americans, systematizing a number of economic, educational and social disadvantages.)

Civil Unions will NEVER be equal to marriage rights or equal in society.

Marriage for ALL - - - is the ONLY equality.

And this is the logic that kills every popular vote on the issue. Until the homosexual community can get behind an effort to remove the word marriage from what they want and turn it into a simple legal status.
Since it is the legal benefits that are what the desired goal is. The fact of it is a civil marriage is already separate but equal standing as it is now.

No self respecting atheist couple would dream of walking into a church demanding that they marry them. If gay community was really interested in just the legal aspects that they are currently deny, the appropriate compromise would be to take the title civil union with all the legal rights of a marriage attached to it. It does not change any of the equivalency of the status. Anything beyond the state performing a legal ceremony and granting the same legal rights is impossible. The state cannot force religious institutions to perform a marriage that goes against their core principles.

Just by doing this and making the legal aspects the center of the debate they could likely get these passed. Continuously pushing to redefine the term as the crusade is doing now turns alot of people off that would support the legal principle of it off. It makes them feel as if their faith and culture are under attack.

Originally posted by Annee


We've already been through Separate but Equal with the Jim Crowe laws. (In reality, this led to treatment and accommodations that were usually inferior to those provided for white Americans, systematizing a number of economic, educational and social disadvantages.)

Civil Unions will NEVER be equal to marriage rights or equal in society.

Marriage for ALL - - - is the ONLY equality.

Originally posted by Jovi1

And this is the logic that kills every popular vote on the issue. Until the homosexual community can get behind an effort to remove the word marriage from what they want and turn it into a simple legal status.
Since it is the legal benefits that are what the desired goal is. The fact of it is a civil marriage is already separate but equal standing as it is now.

No self respecting atheist couple would dream of walking into a church demanding that they marry them. If gay community was really interested in just the legal aspects that they are currently deny, the appropriate compromise would be to take the title civil union with all the legal rights of a marriage attached to it. It does not change any of the equivalency of the status. Anything beyond the state performing a legal ceremony and granting the same legal rights is impossible. The state cannot force religious institutions to perform a marriage that goes against their core principles.

Just by doing this and making the legal aspects the center of the debate they could likely get these passed. Continuously pushing to redefine the term as the crusade is doing now turns alot of people off that would support the legal principle of it off. It makes them feel as if their faith and culture are under attack.

Nice SELECTIVE reading.

The homosexual community should continue as they are and NOT accept "Jim Crowe" civil unions.

Full equality can only be Marriage for ALL.

(edited for quotes)

[edit on 9-11-2009 by Annee]

As a gay man myself, I'm glad I live in Canada. Even our conservative federal government knew enough not to attempt to re-legislate the decision to sanction gay marriage. We've been able to marry legally here since June 2003 and shockingly enough, the sky hasn't fallen - dogs aren't marrying cats, brothers aren't marrying sisters, men aren't marrying farm animals (yes, I've even heard THAT one thrown around as a reason not to allow gay marriage - you know, slippery slope and all...).

The recent "decision" in Maine is yet another example of the tyranny of the majority. It, like most others, won't stand the test of time or the courts, in all likelihood. It's just a shame that these things have to get drawn out like this. Why are people always so afraid of somebody else having equal rights? It's almost 2010. It's mind boggling.

reply to post by Annee


It isn't selective reading it is the facts pure and simple. The fact that you cannot process it says more about you than anything else you say. It is simple the gay community is going to have to make a compromise on it.

The fact of it is all civilly performed "marriages" should be classified as a Civil Union period. It doesn't change the fact that for all intents and purposes you are in fact "married". It doesn't change that you will still be checking off the married box on your forms and applications. It doesn't take away any of the legal rights that go with it and in a lot of communities becomes something digestible without the other side of it from feeling their way of life is completely and totally under attack.

While the state should and does have a responsibility to not discriminate against these pairings and to ensure they receive equal treatment under the law, they cannot force religious institutions into doing so, this is what scares away many would be supporters away from supporting these issues.

Taking a complete and total all or nothing approach has garnered nothing but a collective 31 of 31 losses. Either you walk away from those losses learning something from them or you do not, it is very easy to see you would rather ram your head against the wall 50 times and come away empty handed than to find a different tact to get what the ultimately desired outcome legal equality.

Originally posted by Missletow

Originally posted by HotSauce

All I can say is that maybe if you guys keep working at it for another 10 -20 years you will 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 majority 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]

Really? REALLY?
Okay, I hate to break it to you, but it actually IS okay to be gay. Maybe it's not okay for YOU to be gay, and that's just fine, but for others it's perfectly normal. (NORMAL NOT AVERAGE)

Secondly, who exactly are these perverts teaching children about gay sex acts? Are they like the majority of other perverts who molest children of the opposite sex? Molestation is wrong, and to think that any sex act with a child is less wrong than another is to reveal your own sickness.

Third, homosexuality is not a choice. I know I'll never convince you of that no matter what studies I link to so I won't waste the time.

Fourth, you are not a "hater" or a "sexist" just sadly misinformed.

Last, hopefully some day we can find a cure for intolerance, but it would be made illegal by the intolerant majority.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by Missletow]

If it is NORMAL to be gay, why do Homophiles commonly refer to themselves as QUEER? (defined as: demented, unnatural, unbalanced, freakish, psycho, deviant, phony, twisted and perverse.) Maybe PARADOXICAL or HYPOCRITICAL or ABNORMAL or ALL OF THE ABOVE?

I don't know where you get your information that homosexuality is an inherent trait because it certainly doesn't come from science or medical documentation. Perhaps you've just bought into the Homophile propaganda machine that spreads lies and disinformation while smearing anyone who opposes them as being a homophobe, hater or bigot.

They should be happy their parents didn't feel the same way they do about sex or they wouldn't be around at all.

Contrary to what you've been told, homosexuality is not genetic. If it were, it could not be altered by mere choice. You cannot choose to be Caucasian, blonde, tall or attractive. But homosexuals can choose to alter their behavior.

In fact, many homosexuals have been known to change their sexual propensity. ("International Journal of Psychiatry", March 1972, p. 119)

Dr. Lorraine Day, an internationally acclaimed surgeon and medical expert on AIDS, has treated hundreds of homosexuals and she states the majority come from homes where the father figure was either absent or neglectful.

John McKeller, President of Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism (HOPE) has publicly stated he staunchly opposes gay activism and the "marriage" of two men to be lawfully considered the same as the union of man and woman.

This statement demonstrates two things: that the term "homophobe" is erroneous, and that the gay rights movement is largely controlled by a minority of radical activists intent on subverting morality and sexuality, as well as the minds of the young.

Regarding the perverts who are teaching children about gay sex acts... the evidence can be found at the Mass Resistance website. See what indifference and tolerance has manifested itself into at schools in Massachusetts.

Some of the gays distributing these publications to school kids are known child molesters. How someone with any hint of moral value could justify this deplorable action is beyond reason. Clearly they would have to be suffering from an illness far worse than a mere "phobia".

Mass Resistance - Horror Stories In Your Schools

Originally posted by Seiko
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Re-read my words, we have a republic, in the form of a representative democracy. If you're trying to tell me that this is equal to mob rule, you're the one who needs a refresher course.

What you refer to is a direct democracy, we are not one.

Go tell that to the politicians and the military who say they want to spread our "democracy" around the rest of the world... naturally in places where there's something they can gain from. It's no surprise that other nations want no part of our system of governance, whether you call it a republic or a democracy.

Personally, I think totalitarianism, militarism, fascism, monarchy or oligarchy are far more accurate depictions.

Originally posted by Seiko
reply to post by sos37

I would very much like to hear an argument against gay marriage that is not based on religious conviction. One that holds up to the test as making it so different from other marriages.

An epidemiological study from Canada of data for AIDS-related deaths reveals that male homosexual or bisexual practitioners lost up to 20 years of life expectancy. The San Francisco Public Health Department reports that syphilis among the city's gay and bisexual men was at epidemic levels. Men having sex with other men leads to greater health risks than men having sex with women not only because of promiscuity but also because of the nature of sex among men.

A study in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that homosexuals and bisexuals contracted potentially fatal ailments such as AIDS, anal cancer, tuberculosis and hepatitis disproportionately. The U.S. National Institute of Health reports that the median age of death is less than 50 years for those involved in homosexuality.

Although gay activists often argue that legalizing homosexual marriage would help make such relationships more permanent, the reality is that most gays desire variety in their sex partners, not the monogamy of traditional marriage. Numerous studies throughout North America and Europe show that the plea for legal homosexual marriage is less about marriage than the push for legitimacy. Most gays and lesbians are not in monogamous relationships, and in fact often live alone by preference.

The best scientific evidence suggests that putting society's stamp of approval on homosexual partnerships would harm society in general as well as homosexuals themselves, the same group some contend would be helped.

A large body of scientific evidence suggests that homosexual marriage is a defective counterfeit of traditional marriage and that it poses a clear and present danger to the health of the community.

A study by Dr. Cameron, Chairman of the Family Research Institute in Colorado reports that traditional marriage improves the health of its participants, has the lowest rate of domestic violence, prolongs life, and is the best context in which to raise children.

Homosexual coupling undermines its participants' health, has the highest rate of domestic violence, shortens life, and is a poor environment in which to raise children.

In Denmark, a form of homosexual marriage has been legal since 1989. Through 1995, less than 5% of Danish homosexuals had gotten married, and 28% of these marriages had already ended in divorce or death.

The Danish experience provides no evidence that gay 'marriage' is beneficial. Men who married men were three times more apt to be widowers before the age of 55 than men who married women. Similarly, a woman who married a woman was three times more apt to be a widow than a woman who married a man.

Across the world, numerous researchers have reported that 'committed' or 'coupled' homosexuals are more apt to engage in highly risky and biologically unsanitary sexual practices than are 'single' gays. As a consequence of this activity, they increase their chances of getting AIDS and other sexually transmitted or blood-borne diseases.

Among heterosexuals, domestic violence is an obvious marker of a troubled marriage, and media attention and tax dollars to aid 'battered women' have both grown tremendously in recent years. What is not reported is the empirical evidence indicating homosexual couples have higher rates of domestic violence than do heterosexual couples, especially among lesbians.

In 1996, Susan Holt, coordinator of the domestic violence unit of the L.A. Gay Lesbian Center, said that "domestic violence is the third largest health problem facing the gay and lesbian community today and trails only behind AIDS and substance abuse in terms of sheer numbers and lethality."

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Bored To Tears
Leave it up to the courts so that they can pass things that the majority doesn't agree with?

Let's go through some history.

Had slavery been put to a vote, black people would still be owned today.

Had racial equality been voted on, black people would still not be able to vote at all.

Had racial equality been voted on, then black people could not marry whites.

Had sexual equality been voted on, women would not be voting now.

Had sexual equality been voted on, women would still be "barefoot and pregnant" year round.

Your argument is fallacious because you're equating race with sexual proclivity.

You're also confusing sexuality with gender. There's a big difference.

If you believe in equality for all people, then surely you would have to support those whose sexual appetites include children or animals.

Are you going to deny the rights of MANBLA, the man-boy organization, or are you intolerant and bigoted?

Originally posted by alpha crusis

Originally posted by Seiko
reply to post by sos37

I would very much like to hear an argument against gay marriage that is not based on religious conviction. One that holds up to the test as making it so different from other marriages.

An epidemiological study from Canada of data for AIDS-related deaths reveals that male homosexual or bisexual practitioners lost up to 20 years of life expectancy. The San Francisco Public Health Department reports that syphilis among the city's gay and bisexual men was at epidemic levels. Men having sex with other men leads to greater health risks than men having sex with women not only because of promiscuity but also because of the nature of sex among men.

It's useless to quote these studys because no one on earth knows how many gay people there are, is that counting the people in the closets, the people that are just now coming out, and the people who have not yet realized they are gay?

The great irony is conservatives do not want government deciding on health care, but it is morally acceptable for them to be involved in defining marriage.

Originally posted by alpha crusis

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Bored To Tears
Leave it up to the courts so that they can pass things that the majority doesn't agree with?

Let's go through some history.

Had slavery been put to a vote, black people would still be owned today.

Had racial equality been voted on, black people would still not be able to vote at all.

Had racial equality been voted on, then black people could not marry whites.

Had sexual equality been voted on, women would not be voting now.

Had sexual equality been voted on, women would still be "barefoot and pregnant" year round.

Your argument is fallacious because you're equating race with sexual proclivity.

You're also confusing sexuality with gender. There's a big difference.

If you believe in equality for all people, then surely you would have to support those whose sexual appetites include children or animals.

Are you going to deny the rights of MANBLA, the man-boy organization, or are you intolerant and bigoted?

The fact is if that would have been voted on in the past the majority would have ruled, and you would have agreed under your agrument "majority rules".

And we are talking about 2 consenting adults here.

Originally posted by Missletow
The majority of people with AIDS in this country are in fact heterosexual. (Just felt a few of you needed the reminder).

As has already been noted, your statement is erroneous and in fact the homosexual community comprises the majority of cases of AIDS as well as other STD's.

It's important to note that much of the spread of AIDS from homosexuals is contributed to bi-sexuals, which accounts for the rapid rise of the disease in hetero women.

It also evidences that many homosexuals are in fact bi-sexual or even pan-sexual, meaning that nothing is unacceptable when it comes to fulfilling their sexual cravings.

Originally posted by IAF101
Hallelujah !! Finally New England's electorate has some semblance of sanity! Its ridiculous to have "marriage" between people who can never build a family by themselves.

One good thing about Obama in office is that it's a whole lot easier to beat the liberals when they think they have already won!

They say we are what we hate you know, lol.
And don't waste time saying you don't hate gays... your posts are dripping with it.