Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

page: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
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


The right to speak freely and call the ceremony MARRIAGE -

The pursuit of happiness that such a union might provide to the participants and loved ones.

And the liberty to chose who they would like to MARRY

ALL three fundamental to American liberty

If you are trying to dictate or define these three things for me, then you are trying to impose your ideals on me which is the enemy of freedom.




posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
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]


Really? REALLY?
Okay, I hate to break it to you, but it actually IS okay to be gay (Take a few moments to calm down). 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. (hope you followed that)
Third, homosexuality is not a choice. I know I'll never convince you of that no matter what studies I link to so I wont waste the time (unless you ask nicely)
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. Unless we release it by force (we have ways of making you grok)





[edit on 4-11-2009 by Missletow]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

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.



Outing? Outing? Lmao, aren't you pretty much going to be outed when your name is Bob and they ask you what your wifes name is and you say Neil.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
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


I think you're just playing semantics.

It's pretty clear my post was aimed at the topic at hand, gay marriage. Not gay love in general.

Maybe you should reread my original post.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Missletow
 


Its the liberals and those for the gay agenda working to put intoo elementary school cirriculum regarding how to properly perform gay sex acts as well as heterosexual ones. That is totally inappropriate.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


I honestly expected more effort from you Janky... I really did.


The right to speak freely and call the ceremony MARRIAGE -


First amendment, you can call your ceremony whatever you like...

If you want to call it the "Celestial Alignment precursor to the coming of the Great old ones" then that is up to you.


The pursuit of happiness that such a union might provide to the participants and loved ones.


Whoever said that you couldn't be in union with another?

Homosexuality is not against the law here, neither is same sex cohabitation.


And the liberty to chose who they would like to MARRY


So your love interest is being picked for you, eh?


ALL three fundamental to American liberty

If you are trying to dictate or define these three things for me, then you are trying to impose your ideals on me which is the enemy of freedom.


You clearly have no idea what freedom is my friend, because you are swimming in it, and complaining about your lack of rights to name your "Commitment" ceremony.

-Edrick

[edit on 4-11-2009 by Edrick]



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
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


What makes you ignore the word CONTRACT?
CONTRACT is the key word here.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 



I think you're just playing semantics.

It's pretty clear my post was aimed at the topic at hand, gay marriage. Not gay love in general.

Maybe you should reread my original post.



Getting your relationship Consented to by the government is not a right.

Read the "Bill of Rights" tell me what it says about marriage in there.

-Edrick



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce

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.


well, at least you have given me a reason...because you don't think it is right. and i think that explanation is the only one that CAN be given, considering all the others ring false.
what is right and what is wrong has been changed many times down thru the history of man. and only the perceptions of life experience can influence that. maybe in the future, you might be able to understand why this is so critical to gay people.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
reply to post by Missletow
 


Its the liberals and those for the gay agenda working to put intoo elementary school cirriculum regarding how to properly perform gay sex acts as well as heterosexual ones. That is totally inappropriate.


How is this affected by legally recognizing gay marriage?
Really, I must be missing something.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
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.


It also says that about pork eaters. But, I do remember having ham on Easter sunday though?


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.


Should they condemn the eating of pork and shellfish then too? How about the way to sacrifice your lamb on your alter? Or stone someone to death for working on the Sabbat?

Let's not pick and choose now.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Missletow
 



What makes you ignore the word CONTRACT?
CONTRACT is the key word here.


Is that really what you are arguing for?

Homosexuals "Rights" to have their relationships dictated by the government?

Don't seem like a right to me...

Seems more like Lunacy.

-Edrick



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
I was under the belief that marriage was in the realm of the religious, not the state. This is one of the reasons why the founding fathers wanted a wall between church and state. When a person uses religion as an excuse to not allow something, it is a lose/lose situation. It is one of the few things in our lives where the 2 come together and it should not. It should not be the will of the government to deny 2 people from getting married, rather it should be left to the church, or religious organization that they belong to and believe in to make that determination. It is sad that in this day and age, a person can not be themselves, as there is still prejudice, and bigorty that still exists in the United States today. Change takes time, but it needs to be a gradual change, not one that is forced. So that means that yes children need to know, without bias and at an appropirate age, that yes there are families and couples who are the same sex and it is ok to be yourself. Now before you go into the children part, the question is why are you afraid of same sex couples? I know many same sex couples who have chosen to have children, and those children are raised, and have a happy, healthy life, which should be more the concern of all, instead of it is morally wrong. Those kinds of thoughts also lead to the thought, that is a man and woman split, any children go automatically to the woman, and the man has to go through legal hoops and nightmares to get custody.
The other problem to the question of gay marriage is gay people. Yes they want equal rights, but if they do not understand that you can not force change, there is a good chance that any changes will be fought against. For the longest time, I have stated, that if you want acceptance, then you need to accept the other side and try to blend in, not stand out, not demand special treatment, but to show that you are just like everyone else, have the same concerns, needs and wants like everyone else. Once people see that, then acceptance will come alot faster, rather than the way it is done, where it is shock a person and demand such.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce



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.


Thats right, the old people will die out and society will progress... If that did not happen as a natural occurrence we would still be burning "witches".

Convince??? Poppy cock!

IT is a matter of people doing as they think or feel, do you think being gay is NEW???

Could someone convince you to lay with a man???

Not I



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.


Teaching? I have never performed any gay acts, so how in the hell would I teach such a thing?

You can disagree all you want, FREE WILL buddy - remember that?
You make a choice to succeed in life right? And you make a choice to screw who you want. Not YOUR business and your business is not mine - or is

DON'T TREAD ON ME

really

Don't Tread On Me (but I reserve the right to get all up in your business!)

The Majority in this country will die off, just like the old bigots who opposed
the civil rights movement. Things progress, Freedom is expansive, its the way the world works.



OR
maybe someday we can find a cure for this hormonal or chemical imbalance that causes homosexuality.


Maybe - Would you force people to be treated for their problem?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


It is not picking and choosing. If you would actually pick up a Bible and read it from cover to cover you would understand why some things are allowed that weren't because of the life and death of Jesus. There was a new convenant, but unfortunately fox homosexuals they didn't get a break under the new convenant.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by HotSauce
Outing? Outing? Lmao, aren't you pretty much going to be outed when your name is Bob and they ask you what your wifes name is and you say Neil.


Do you always tell everyone you meet your wife's name? The redneck who rents you a vehicle for instance? Do you have to tell him your wife's name to have her automatically be able to drive the car and be on the insurance?

Now, I understand what you are saying, but there ARE certain instances when a simple "yeah, I'm married" will suffice to not have your arse kicked.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Merriam-Webster defines Marriage as:

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage.

I don't get it. It's just a word. For some if you say Civil Union its ok and all laws apply so it's just a word!

This is America and we're suppose to be FREE! Let the gays marry.

Heck i'm a male lesbian!



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 



I think you're just playing semantics.

It's pretty clear my post was aimed at the topic at hand, gay marriage. Not gay love in general.

Maybe you should reread my original post.



Getting your relationship Consented to by the government is not a right.

Read the "Bill of Rights" tell me what it says about marriage in there.

-Edrick



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


I think it kinda spells it out right there.

Being able to "legally" marry who you please is about as close to the pursuit of happiness as it gets.

Once again I say semantics, or maybe you're just confused. The points you seem to keep throwing at me are not points I brought up.

My post was in regards to the PEOPLE that attack gay marriage and say that it "destroys the idea of marriage" etc...



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Missletow
What makes you ignore the word CONTRACT?
CONTRACT is the key word here.


The word 'contract' holds no relevance. The equal protection clauses of the Constitution only apply in cases where the government is involved. There could be an argument made about the tax implications, but since the government is only banning the marriage contract itself and not the relationship, and since the government does not actually perform the marriage, I'm not sure that 14th amendment argument would stick if it ever went to the Supreme Court.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ThaLoccster
 


FYI the Declaration of Independence isnt the Bill of Rights.





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join