Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law, page 6

privacy

Pages: << 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times

reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 01:51 PM by HotSauce

reply to post by jimmyx

Obviously you have never been married to someone who was once awesome but then somehow transformed into a raving .....

[edit on 4-11-2009 by HotSauce]

reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 01:51 PM by Bored To Tears

reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 01:51 PM by Edrick

reply to post by ThaLoccster

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.

Freedom
Rights
Oppression

You think you got enough emotionally charged buzz words in there?

What government institution is preventing homosexuals from promising themselves to each other for the rest of their lives?

-Edrick

reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 01:53 PM by Anesthesia

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

I agree with a fair portion of what you have said.

Many of the things on the list are to prevent abuse of the already quite broken system(which is not to say I agree with the rationale). Truthfully I think it's completely ridiculous that there are any benefits for the marriage license.

Another (more government oriented) link:
www.nolo.com...

Truthfully, my own view is rather nicely stated in this quote:

Homosexual advocates seek not to redefine what marriage is for religion. Instead, they seek to modify civil marriage to include them. There is resistance to this from many religious groups who see marriage as based on sacred practice, and for government to change its definition of marriage is to reduce the sacred value of marriage. Advocates counter that civil marriage is available to many people that any one particular religion would not permit — gay marriage, in this case, is just another of those groups.

From here: www.usconstitution.net...

While I can concede that not all of the benefits of a marriage versus simply being a 'couple' aren't all government related.

Spouses are afforded benefits that others simply are not. Sure one can change their name, claim another relation but that also poses other issues.

I can respect a religion's rights to practice their faith however they deem fit.

People aren't fighting that, what people are fighting is to have certain rights, that our society only gives to married couples.

Something that many who are in 'hetero' relationships may not be able to fully appreciate. Redefine the word, create a basic all encompassing title to refer to all non-faith related couplings, just afford the same right to those couples.

While I am divorced now, I wasn't married in a church sanctioned ceremony. To be fair, at the time I wouldn't have cared what someone called it, and still I was afforded all the same benefits that hetero couple are. I also think those rights I was afforded should also be extended to same-gendered couples as well.

reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 01:53 PM by Nutter

Originally posted by Bored To Tears

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.

Did you people even read? And yet you feel that you should be able to vote on someone else's rights/privaledges when you yourself can't even read and conprehend something?

[edit on 4-11-2009 by Nutter]

reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 01:55 PM by KrazyJethro

On the issue of the vote:

Good, I'm glad this was struck down as I really don't see the need for the government to have any involvement in the family we choose to establish. This would apply to homo and heterosexual affairs.

On the issue itself:

I've said it many times, this is an area the government has no need to be involved in.

If we disconnected the government from the approval/disapproval process and simply had them document the establishment of familial relationships things would be a lot easier.

We would have a system that did not favor any particular status of direct relationship.

Polygamy, homosexual, and heterosexual relationships could be established quite easily with simple contract law that already exists.

Peace,
KJ

reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 01:56 PM by Janky Red

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.

Well then nobodies pursuit of happiness or range of liberty has been infringed upon...

I wish people got that -

A souls passage into heaven depends on their OWN deeds and relationship with god.
My behavior will not impact anyone passage into the great afterlife and my behavior
cannot fundamentally impact anyones love for another

You guys cannot state; DON'T TREAD ON ME, then vote to tread on others and expect
the motto only be applied to your causes.

Seems to be a fine way to ensure you will be treaded upon...

[edit on 4-11-2009 by Janky Red]

reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 02:00 PM by Nutter

reply to post by centurion1211

So, you want to throw animals in the mix? But, then when we show you that homosexuality appears in the animal kingdom also it's "do you really want to do what animals do" or "animals also kill their young, should we start doing that too".

Hypocrisy for all to see.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by Nutter]

reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 02:02 PM by Edrick

reply to post by Janky Red

Well then nobodies pursuit of happiness or range of liberty has been infringed upon...

I wish people got that -

A souls passage into heaven depends on their deeds and relationship with god.

You guys cannot state; DON'T TREAD ON ME, then vote to tread on others and expect
the motto only be applied to your causes.

Seems to be a fine way to ensure you will be treaded upon...

AGAIN: What Pursuit of happiness is the government saying that homosexuals CANNOT HAVE?

These things that you are arguing for ARE NOT RIGHTS!

PERIOD!

No one needs the governments permission to love someone, or to live with them.

-Edrick

reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 02:04 PM by HotSauce

I could probably go pro gay marriage if they taxed the male couples at a higher rate, just like they do smokers, because their activities tend to lead to a greater healthcare burden to the rest of society and a large number of people get a terminal disease from the activity.

reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 02:06 PM by Janky Red

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
On the issue of the vote:

Good, I'm glad this was struck down as I really don't see the need for the government to have any involvement in the family we choose to establish. This would apply to homo and heterosexual affairs.

On the issue itself:

I've said it many times, this is an area the government has no need to be involved in.

If we disconnected the government from the approval/disapproval process and simply had them document the establishment of familial relationships things would be a lot easier.

We would have a system that did not favor any particular status of direct relationship.

Polygamy, homosexual, and heterosexual relationships could be established quite easily with simple contract law that already exists.

Peace,
KJ

JETHRO - Your statement is a maze of contradiction -

This is a case of using the government to interfere in peoples affairs -

Based upon your feeling upon government OVERREACH, why on Earth would you
have the government define anything? You WANT the GOVERNMENT to DEFINE
range of LIBERTY??? Really?

Your avatar say libertarian

But in this case the title does not match the rhetoric

reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 02:08 PM by jimmyx

Originally posted by Nutter

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.

i, (being a male who has been married to my wife ((female)) for 27 years, having a son who is currently spending our income while in college)

, think that a homosexual couple should have the right to marry. it is beyond belief that the supreme court has not overturned this type of bigotry. i think you might have to consider that these men that oppose it, are not comfortable with their own masculinity. when i was younger, i was approached a couple of times by gay men, and i simply told them i was not interested and they left me alone. we know of a few gay friends, and i have never been "bothered" by them. but i think some of these guys on this thread, might have a secret excitement toward a gay sexual act, that they has repressed because of their strict upbringing. i'm not saying they are gay, but sometimes the people the protest the most, are the ones that would like to have some type of secret encounter.

[edit on 4-11-2009 by jimmyx]

reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 02:10 PM by HotSauce

reply to post by jimmyx

LOL, I love how every man who is opposed to gay marriage is somehow a repressed homosexual in disguise. Just because some of yu may wish that to be true doesn't make it so.

reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 02:11 PM by Nutter

Originally posted by HotSauce
I could probably go pro gay marriage if they taxed the male couples at a higher rate, just like they do smokers, because their activities tend to lead to a greater healthcare burden to the rest of society and a large number of people get a terminal disease from the activity.

Sure. Let's go down this slippery slope.

Fat people

People who have too many speeding tickets

People who have children as child birth is extremely risky and can lead to death

People who.....

You get the picture.

reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 02:13 PM by KrazyJethro

Originally posted by Janky Red
JETHRO - Your statement is a maze of contradiction -

This is a case of using the government to interfere in peoples affairs.

I disagree, it's quite a simple concept really. What is a case of "using the government to interfere in people's affairs"? My approach or the current method?

Based upon your feeling upon government OVERREACH, why on Earth would you have the government define anything? You WANT the GOVERNMENT to DEFINE range of LIBERTY??? Really?

The government would define nothing, which is quite literally the point. Not sure where you got that idea, but it's patently a false impression.

Care to explain why you think so in more detail?

Your avatar say libertarian

But in this case the title does not match the rhetoric

Simple statements don't make a case. Why do you think so?

reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 02:13 PM by Edrick

reply to post by jimmyx

Argumentative Fallacy: Ad Homenim Attack

Attacking the Arguer does not make you right.

Concurrently, Your remark could be construed as an attempted Thread derailment.

(Which is a violation of the TOS)

-Edrick

reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 02:14 PM by jimmyx

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by jimmyx

LOL, I love how every man who is opposed to gay marriage is somehow a repressed homosexual in disguise. Just because some of yu may wish that to be true doesn't make it so.

i didn't say every man, nor even imply a majority. i simply don't understand how this affects your own marriage, or why it is any of your business. what do you think would happen if it was legalized?

reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 02:15 PM by HotSauce

reply to post by Nutter

Sure. Let's go down this slippery slope.

Fat people

People who have too many speeding tickets

People who have children as child birth is extremely risky and can lead to death

People who.....

You get the picture.

See this is where your logic fails.

Fat people cannot make other people fat.
People with too many speeding tickets don't give other people a lead foot.
People who have children are necessary as our species would die without them.

Just like smokers get taxed because their smoke can affect others, a gay man with Aids who is cheating can spread his illness to others. Plus should tax payers be on the hook for depends for a man who can't hold it in anymore because the muscles are worn out.

reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 02:15 PM by Nutter

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by jimmyx

LOL, I love how every man who is opposed to gay marriage is somehow a repressed homosexual in disguise. Just because some of yu may wish that to be true doesn't make it so.

Talk about protesting too much.

reply posted on 4-11-2009 @ 02:15 PM by ThaLoccster

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by ThaLoccster

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.

Freedom
Rights
Oppression

You think you got enough emotionally charged buzz words in there?

What government institution is preventing homosexuals from promising themselves to each other for the rest of their lives?

-Edrick

I don't recall saying the government was? If you could point out to me where I did that would be great.

But on that line of thought, there is apparently a law that either allows or bans it correct? This thread is about that law right? So if there's a law, theres bound to be some organization that is enforcing the law. I would say look there for your answer.