Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 



There's a few other things that marriage effects that simply isn't covered in a civil union. If a partner is sick, the other may not be able to visit (just one example).

It also effect things from pay to insurance. While the military is just one example, there is a pay gap between married folks and the unmarried counterpart. This difference extends quite a bit further than many people realize (something I didn't even realize until I was married).

Here's a link with a few other examples:
fogarty.org...




posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by Edrick
Marriage should not be a legal institution.


I agree. That includes EVERYONE.


Exactly.

That is the real discussion we should be having as a nation....

Why we trust the government so much as to have them Legislate, and Adjudicate our personal affairs.

I think that sort of act by the federal government would technically violate the 4th amendment.


Relationship status should have absolutely no bearing on how the government views or treats individuals.

-Edrick



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
And do you really want to return to the original definition of "marriage"?


For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. Romantic love, and even simple affection, were not considered essential.


That's all it is now. 'Marriage' as per being recognized by the government is just for tax purposes.

If love was the goal people wouldnt bother with marriage under the eyes of 'god'...... oops...... I meant government.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by Bored To Tears
 


LOL, I know. I was just trying to indicate that I wasn't intending to be as hostile to the poster you were originally responding to.


I figured I had better clarify it so that he didn't get his panties in a bunch.

As you can see after my clarification the figure of speech went way over his head.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
For all of those ridiculing the process by which this issue was decided, would you be so quick to do so had this vote turned in favor of the position you support?


I for one would still be pissed. This issue should not be up for majority vote.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bored To Tears
I figured I had better clarify it so that he didn't get his panties in a bunch.

As you can see after my clarification the figure of speech went way over his head.


Nothing went over my head. Maybe you shouldn't get your redneck all burnt out of shape.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Anesthesia
 


Those dont seem like government or 'legal' issues. More like individual policies of particular institutions. Nobody is saying an institution cant change it's policies. Feds arent going to bust down the door of an insurance provider for opening it's terms and I have no idea why visiting rights would be an issue for anyone ever. You want to visit and the person wants you to visit go ahead and visit. Anyone trying to stop you should be punched in the face.

Also, many seem like you can get around them just with a name change and claiming relation.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Anesthesia
 



There's a few other things that marriage effects that simply isn't covered in a civil union. If a partner is sick, the other may not be able to visit (just one example).


That is hospital policy, not Government mandate....

Stop expecting the government to be your parent.


It also effect things from pay to insurance.


So does gender, and age, and race, and education level... that's not fair is it?


there is a pay gap between married folks and the unmarried counterpart.


Assuming that every unequal facet of life is due to discrimination is childish.

Also, this has to do with tax breaks for married people.


Here's a link with a few other examples:


Most of these are benefits that Corporations give out.... not Government mandate.

Stop thinking that the government is your parent.

-Edrick



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Janitor From Mars
reply to post by IAF101
 


I wonder how that high divorce rate works out for the much-touted (but oh so overrated) nuclear family unit?

Let's just face it: This is an issue best left up to the courts, not the ignorant masses.



But this IS a representative democracy with majority rule (in spite of what BH says above).
And majority rule only works for you as long as you agree with the outcome, such as obama's election? Hypocrisy alert!


Ignorant masses? Is everyone that doesn't agree with your own "exalted" points of view a member of the "ignorant masses"?

But I can guess why you want the courts to handle this issue. They've been filled with liberal judges that feel that they should legislate from the bench on issues that liberals can't get voters to approve.



[edit on 11/4/2009 by centurion1211]


No, NO

the hypocrisy is that people who carry signs that say DON'T TREAD ON ME
and complain about GOVERNMENT interference are perfectly happy to mandate this government interference onto other people.

Frame it how you will - you guys are not consistent in your beliefs -

DON'T TREAD ON ME


But I hope my vote lets the government tread on you!!!



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bored To Tears
reply to post by Janitor From Mars
 


Leave it up to the courts so that they can pass things that the majority doesn't agree with?

Funny how everyone wants the government to stay out of our lives, but when things don't go the way we want them we want them to step in.


facinating that this law could get by the 14th amendment to the constitution. where is all the people that support the constitution? i guess there are only parts of the constitution that are supported by the republicans. and the 14th ONLY applies to some people not all.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
I your statement was correct, the group or candidate with the least votes on any issue would be declared the winner of an election.

[edit on 11/4/2009 by centurion1211]



i hope somebody tagged you on this already...but you are wrong.

the reason the senate was created was so that those people with the smallest voice would still be heard. sounds like YOU need to go back to government 101.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


You hit the nail on the head, congrats.




posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
And if they want to hide behind the "equal protection clause", it is there to protect the majority from special interest groups and the opinions of small minorities just as much as it is there to protect those groups.


...and again. it really appears that YOU are the one that is mistaken on the function of our government.

the founding fathers' intent in drafting the constitution was to protect the idea of pluralism. pluralism means encouraging as many special interest groups as possible and letting the interest groups fight it out.

the constitution has nothing to do with "protecting the majority from special interest groups".



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by vor78
For all of those ridiculing the process by which this issue was decided, would you be so quick to do so had this vote turned in favor of the position you support?


I for one would still be pissed. This issue should not be up for majority vote.


Would you still feel that way had the majority voted in favor of gay marriage?

2nd line.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


Well I am sure if the founding fathers were all wild about the idea of gay rights then they would have put them in the constitution, but I do not see them anywhere.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by vor78
For all of those ridiculing the process by which this issue was decided, would you be so quick to do so had this vote turned in favor of the position you support?


I for one would still be pissed. This issue should not be up for majority vote.


Would you still feel that way had the majority voted in favor of gay marriage?

2nd line.


Makes sense doesn't it.

Pissed when he doesn't get his way and pissed when he does. Can't reason with people like him.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

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]


I couldn't read all the pages in this thread, but this sums up how I feel exactly.

I often ask people, especially rabid anti gay people when they made the choice to like girls. And I'll ask everyone here the same question, when did you sit down and decide to be attracted to and like the sex you do?

I can't recall ever sitting down and weighing the pros and cons of liking a girl over liking a guy. I was always just naturally attracted to women. The same goes for gay people, no gay man ever sat down and said "ew boobies" I'll go with the penis instead. It was just something they naturally felt.

Seeing 2 men holding hands isn't going to make your children "want to be gay" any more than seeing a guy and a girl holding hands makes them want to be in a relationship. I'm pretty sure if your child turns out to be gay, its not because they watched too much Will & Grace.

I don't see how allowing gay people to marry would "destroy marriage" or the "idea" of marriage. In my opinion, just the prenuptial agreement did that because it immediately presents the idea that this marriage won't last. Not to mention the divorce rate, dead beat parents, abusive spouses, liars, cheaters and etc... All those things do far more damage to the "idea" of marriage than any homosexual ever could.

Also, there are plenty of heterosexual couples that cannot produce offspring, and plenty that can and for whatever reason don't. Are they technically not married because of that fact?

I thought America was supposed to be the land of the free? The same people that cry about the government oppressing them, in turn suppress the rights of gay people, and other people who live lifestylse they don't agree with.

People need to realize when they allow the rights of one group of people to be suppressed they open the door for all our rights to be suppressed.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bored To Tears
reply to post by jimmyx
 


You hit the nail on the head, congrats.



to perserve the institution of marriage, there should be a law against divorce. and every god-fearing, red-blooded, family-values, patriot, should have no problem with voting for that.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by centurion1211
Oh, and you do understand that the idea of marriage being between a man an a woman predates our government - in fact all governments and religions by thousands of years.


Really? Care to back up that statement?

And do you really want to return to the original definition of "marriage"?


For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. Romantic love, and even simple affection, were not considered essential.


Heterosexual marriage developed from monogamy millennia ago because there was a need by the male to ensure that any offspring were his and by the female to ensure that a "provider" would be there for her and her offspring during the times they could not fend for themselves. It is about the children (which are required to perpetuate a species), which homosexual couples would not have had in the past unless they bought them or stole them.

There are quite a few articles on this, but here is a basic wiki for you to start with:

article


Monogamy as a Best Response

In species where the young are particularly vulnerable and may benefit from protection by both parents, monogamy may be an optimal strategy. The selection factors in favor of different mating strategies for a species of animal, however, may potentially operate on a large number of factors throughout that animal's life cycle. For instance, with many species of bear, the female will often drive a male off soon after mating, and will later guard her cubs from him similar to that of other animals after they are born. It is thought that this might be due to fact that too many bears in close proximity to one another may deplete an area of food resources for the relatively small but growing cubs. Monogamy could be social but rarely genetic. Thierry Lodé[16] argued that monogamy should result from conflict of interest between the sexes called sexual conflict. Organized from territory defense and mate guarding, monogamy appears as a response of male for the control of female sexuality, but exclusive monogamy would be rare and the biological evolution would privilege the diversity of sexual behaviors.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by vor78
For all of those ridiculing the process by which this issue was decided, would you be so quick to do so had this vote turned in favor of the position you support?


I for one would still be pissed. This issue should not be up for majority vote.


Would you still feel that way had the majority voted in favor of gay marriage?

2nd line.


Try to keep up. That was the original question.






top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join