Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Very comfortable with my sexuality, I am not a Christian, I have a few gay friends, been hit on more times then I can count while in Germany and I have no ill will toward homosexuals.

I do not support gay marriage.

Call me a closet homosexual, a bigot or just a big meanie, I really don't care.




posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted 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]


We (humans) are animals. Our history is in a way their history. Since we can't question other animals directly, it's quite impossible to know their views on marriage, right?
And so just how would we know whether their so-called "homosexuality" is the same as it is for humans? Are they simply being opportunists in "scratching an itch", or maybe making a mistake in trying to choose a partner, or are they looking for long-term binding relationships that other animals will respect?

Perhaps you need to think (not feel) things through in a little more depth before throwing out words like hypocrisy?




posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Well I think you should get to share benfits and all of that stuff. I just think it shouldn't be allowed to be called marriage and the ceremony shouldn't be allowed to be conducted in any Christian/Jewish church.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted 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


Nice spin

YA they are not rights,,, you guys just insured that

IF homosexuals want to have a ceremony, which indicates exclusivity, commitment
and affords them legal RIGHTS, what business is it of the electorate?

Do you guys want the GOVMENT to define words for us now?

IF two people want to get "married" its nobodies business - don't tread on them.

Practice what "you" preach



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 



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


Fair enough... you said "People" instead of government... my mistake.

BUT my original point remains valid.

What PEOPLE are preventing homosexuals from loving each other, and spending their lives together? (Aside for criminals, obviously)


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.


the thread is about a vote in Maine to repeal a law that allows same sex marriage.

This does *Not* mean that Gay people CAN'T be together, love each other, etc... it just means that the STATE will not recognize it.

-Edrick



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
a gay man with Aids who is cheating can spread his illness to others.


Unlike victims of second hand smoke, when it comes to AIDS, it takes two to tango. Unless it's rape, there really should be no "victim" in that scenario either.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


See your logic is failed. The majority and history defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, but people supporting gay marriage want the government to redifine marriage to fit their wants and agenda. So it is those that want homosexual marriage who are pro government interference into a sacred union that has been around for millenia.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bored To Tears
Call me a closet homosexual, a bigot or just a big meanie, I really don't care.


You big meanie. Joking to lighten the mood.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 



Nice spin

YA they are not rights,,, you guys just insured that

IF homosexuals want to have a ceremony, which indicates exclusivity, commitment
and affords them legal RIGHTS, what business is it of the electorate?

Do you guys want the GOVMENT to define words for us now?

IF two people want to get "married" its nobodies business - don't tread on them.

Practice what "you" preach



What rights, prey tell, are you speaking of?

you go ahead and give me a list of these "Rights of married people" and I will show you why they are not rights at all.

Go ahead... I triple dog dare ya.

-Edrick



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted 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]


Are they simply being opportunists in "scratching an itch", or maybe making a mistake in trying to choose a partner, or are they looking for long-term binding relationships that other animals will respect?



seems you are not thinking

Its called freedom for a reason -

Have you ever looked up the word FREE or freedom?

You are imposing your views on the behavior of another

The second you impose yourself, you are not promoting FREEdom, you are promoting
intervention and limiting the scope of freedom.

It is not your business to engineer boundaries upon other people if you advocate Liberty.

The two are contrary - you are FEELING



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Well I think you should get to share benfits and all of that stuff. I just think it shouldn't be allowed to be called marriage and the ceremony shouldn't be allowed to be conducted in any Christian/Jewish church.


so...if 2 guys got married and called it a marriage, would you have them arrested? or if they got married in a christian/jewish church, would you also have them charged with a crime? and would they do jail time? and who would be the victim? god? jesus? the church? hetrosexual married people?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
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]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
The majority of people with AIDS in this country are in fact heterosexual. (Just felt a few of you needed the reminder).

Regardless of your religious beliefs, marriage in this country IS a social contract between two individuals. To deny that contract is to deny equal rights. It's very simple. I really thought by the time I reached my thirties, this country would've learned to accept homosexuality as a part of human nature, but I guess we're not there yet.

I know this is a bit off topic, but we live in a time where the resources are available to create a utopia of the world, but our greed and hate keep us from attaining it. That is very sad. The arguments against gay marriage are a clear indicator of how for we have left to go.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Well I think you should get to share benfits and all of that stuff. I just think it shouldn't be allowed to be called marriage and the ceremony shouldn't be allowed to be conducted in any Christian/Jewish church.


so...if 2 guys got married and called it a marriage, would you have them arrested? or if they got married in a christian/jewish church, would you also have them charged with a crime? and would they do jail time? and who would be the victim? god? jesus? the church? hetrosexual married people?


No I just wouldnot make it legally acceptable and I wouldn't allow them to get any benefits beause they were working outside of what is right.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
We (humans) are animals. Our history is in a way their history. Since we can't question other animals directly, it's quite impossible to know their views on marriage, right?
And so just how would we know whether their so-called "homosexuality" is the same as it is for humans? Are they simply being opportunists in "scratching an itch", or maybe making a mistake in trying to choose a partner, or are they looking for long-term binding relationships that other animals will respect?


And yet you pretend to know exactly their reason for a monogomous relationship without asking? And post it as a fact for us humans to follow?

So, going by what you posted from wiki about monogomy and then what you posted just now, what would you call it other than hypcritical?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
I just think it shouldn't be allowed to be called marriage and the ceremony shouldn't be allowed to be conducted in any Christian/Jewish church.


I have been to a Christian church that is very accepting to gay people. Should they be excluded in performing the cerimony too just because you don't feel it's right?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Missletow
 


Wrong.

Here are stats from wikipedia


48% were tracked back to male-to-male contact
27% were tracked back to male-to-female contact and intravenous drug use,
7% were tracked back to male-to-male contact and intravenous drug use,
16% tracked back to male-to-female contact, and
2% were tracked back to other causes, including hemophilia and other blood recipients, perinatal, and risk not reported or not identified.[6]




posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


Not because I don't feel iit is right, but because the God in THEIR bible says that homosexual sex is an abomination. So I guess they should choose who they will serve.. their God or the gay people who want to be married.

Now don't get me wrong I think it is good for churches to outreach and serve the gay community, but it is wrong to condone their actions or marriage when it conflicts with what God has to say on the matter.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Missletow
 



marriage in this country IS a social contract between two individuals.


What makes you think that "Social" equates to "Governmental"?

-Edrick



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
The majority and history defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, but people supporting gay marriage want the government to redifine marriage to fit their wants and agenda.


My theory on why gay people want the word marriage instead of anything else is that if something else is used, it's an automatic "outing". Believe it or not there are still those out there who are extremely hostle towards homosexuals.



  exclusive video


top topics
 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join