Maine Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Mackie2k

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: Mackie2k

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Mackie2k

But Marriage's definition is between a man and woman.

And the legal definitions once did not include freedom for slaves - so that's that, right?

The legal definition of 'voter' once said 'male' - and so that's that, right?

The fact that the definition *is based on unjustified bigotry and discrimination is a reason to change it, not leave it with the bigotry in place.*

You're a frickin idiot and a bigot. You're lucky idiots are not discriminated against legally.

Nice personal attack. I can see your level of maturity and it's not very impressive.

I work with and have alot of friends who are gay. You know nothing of me or my background. Because I believe that somethings should be sacred and not shared by everyone you call me a bigot. You are the reason that you won't convince the majority of american's of your cause. Because you have no respect of anyone's point of view.

Go suck a fat one.

I feel sorry for the self-hating homosexuals with whom you are associated.

They aren't gay first, people second.

They are just people. My friends. That's the problem with people like you, you put GAY FIRST and the person 2nd. You don't want to be married because it's equal rights, you want to do because you are pissing off straight people. Pure and Simple.

I think marriage is between a man and a woman. It doens't mean I HATE GAYs. IT DOESN'T MEAN I AM A BIGOT.

What it means is, I'm free to feel how I want. And any person, gay or straight who doesn't think I can feel the way I want, can goto hell.

why should gay people getting married piss off straight people?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Mackie2k

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I've been to every continent on the planet except Antarctica, I've been in a war, I've been in big cities and the backwoods boonies of Cambodia. If you honestly think the way you do after 'vast amounts of life experience', then you haven't been paying attention. You think we should 'cure' gay people? For what possible reason? When you say stupid shit like that, expect to be called out on it. If you really are as old as you seem to claim, be ashamed of it.

Everyone knows this.

The primary purpose of living creatures is to reproduce. Gays do not reproduce, therefore there is something wrong with them. This is a fact of nature, you cannot deny it. I did not claim that there is a definite cure for being gay, however I proposed a study of gays. Perhaps gay humans are programed into our DNA as a natural population control. I am only interested in learning the facts, unlike you, who uses only emotion to make decisions.

You suggested such research could be used to 'cure' gay people. Do we require increased human reproduction? For what possible reason would we decide what is right and wrong for our society based upon reproductive evolutionary principles?

I would love to know what decisions you think I have made, along with the thought process that I've used to make them. You sound a lot like RichardE, as he embarrassed himself like this too. So far I've noticed you being dogpiled in a bunch of different threads when you tried to exert your 'expert knowledge' on issues, only to be shown up. I would have thought you would have learned better by now, but no such luck.

Show me where being gay has evolutionary advantages and I'll start to agree with your argument

But the fact is, there is no benefit. In fact, it's a burden.

You don't produce children, thusly you have no offspring to take care of you in your old age. (assuming you don't adopt). Which means taking care of you will fall onto society more often than straight people with Children.

Obviously this doesn't always hold true, but it's more true than not.

gay can't reproduce? If gay is a genetic defect, how does it keep getting passed on? Gays spend less on children, so they have higher disposable incomes and more savings, so are less of a burden.

Regardless, there is absolutely no point in not letting gay's get married. Everyone knows this.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
It is good to see Maine exercising a right reserved to it by the US constitution, just as California and others have done (regardless of the outcome, I am just happy to see state rights in action). Like our president Obama, I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. But, I will not press my views on other states. Hopefully the federal government will not meddle, but you know how the feds love messing with the rights reserved to states by the constitution. I would gladly support another state's right to chose either way on this issue should the feds ever try to meddle.

Unless by meddle you actively not recognizing what each state decides should constitute marriage? DOMA was meddling. Repealing DOMA would be the opposite of meddling. It would be the Feds saying "we're not in this debate. The states can decide what marriage is and we'll respect their decisions." Right now DOMA tells the states that have legalized gay marriage that the Fed doesn't care what they think, those marriages aren't real. A state's rights argument should demand the Fed gov't recognize what each state defines as marriage.

"Like our president Obama, I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman"

I've been tempted to start a thread about this often repeated line. Many opposed to same-sex marriage often cite Obama as justification, or claim their position is the same as the president's, which is shaky on several levels. First, let's assume Obama was sincere in expressing this sentiment and didn't take the position for political expediency. He is still opposed to state legislation banning same-sex marriage, was opposed to Prop 8, opposes a constitutional amendment on marriage, opposes DOMA, and opposes DADT. So when Rev. Rick Warren says his position is "exactly the same as the president", that's disingenuous and pretty much not the case except at the most superficial level.

Second, we have to question whether Obama actually believes 1m1w. He may simply have made a practical strategic and safe decision that coming out for gay marriage during his campaign would have been enough of a wedge issue to prevent him from getting elected and enacting policies that are far more pressing to the country than gay marriage. He said he would unilaterally renegotiate NAFTA too, but no one believed that for a second (and rightly so apparently) so why believe that this socially progressive liberal (if you ask the Right, Obama's a far left wing socialist) is against gay-marriage in anything other than rhetoric? He's pro-choice, pro-stem cell research, socially liberal on everything else down the line...but he draws the line at gay marriage? I don't buy it personally. If re-elected I think he may make some changes at the federal level on marriage. But losing the presidency over support for gay marriage seemed like a poor trade-off.

My guess is this is the last generation of Democratic politicians who favor anything but full marriage rights for gays.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

why should gay people getting married piss off straight people?

For the same reason why if the university I received a diploma from decided to start selling diplomas to anyone for money over the internet.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

why should gay people getting married piss off straight people?

For the same reason why if the university I bought a diploma from decided to start selling diplomas to anyone for money over the internet.

FYP.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

why should gay people getting married piss off straight people?

For the same reason why if the university I received a diploma from decided to start selling diplomas to anyone for money over the internet.

Your implication is that by allowing gay people to get married that it would diminish the value of your marriage (or straight marriage in general).

Please give specific examples of how gay marriage diminishes the value of straight marriage.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

why should gay people getting married piss off straight people?

For the same reason why if the university I received a diploma from decided to start selling diplomas to anyone for money over the internet.

How does that make any sense?
Did you have to study for four years to get your marriage license? Would those people buying diplomas somehow make you unlearn what you studied in college?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

why should gay people getting married piss off straight people?

For the same reason why if the university I received a diploma from decided to start selling diplomas to anyone for money over the internet.

How does that make any sense?
Did you have to study for four years to get your marriage license? Would those people buying diplomas somehow make you unlearn what you studied in college?

Well with a university degree if the place just started selling them it would devalue what you worked for, because prospective employers would have no way of knowing if you had worked for your degree or just bought it.

It still doesn't apply to marriage though.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

why should gay people getting married piss off straight people?

For the same reason why if the university I earned a diploma from decided to start selling diplomas to anyone for money over the internet.

FYP.

Oops, my mistake. I missed that point. Although your response was a thinly-veiled troll whose purpose was to discredit my argument by personally insulting me, (a common logical fallacy), I thank you anyway for helping me clarify the issue.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

why should gay people getting married piss off straight people?

For the same reason why if the university I received a diploma from decided to start selling diplomas to anyone for money over the internet.

How does that make any sense?
Did you have to study for four years to get your marriage license? Would those people buying diplomas somehow make you unlearn what you studied in college?

Well with a university degree if the place just started selling them it would devalue what you worked for, because prospective employers would have no way of knowing if you had worked for your degree or just bought it.

It still doesn't apply to marriage though.

That is true if your view of marriage is simply a government-regulated contract between two or more entities negotiating a sharing of resources.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

That is true if your view of marriage is simply a government-regulated contract between two or more entities negotiating a sharing of resources.

Well considering we are specifically talking about the government regulated contract and not the religious institution, what other areas do you think we should include?

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

why should gay people getting married piss off straight people?

For the same reason why if the university I earned a diploma from decided to start selling diplomas to anyone for money over the internet.

FYP.

Oops, my mistake. I missed that point. Although your response was a thinly-veiled troll whose purpose was to discredit my argument by personally insulting me, (a common logical fallacy), I thank you anyway for helping me clarify the issue.

I didn't make a thinly veiled troll to discredit your argument by insulting you, I fixed your post for consistency. Gay people are not marrying any differently than you are. They are not purchasing something that you earned. You made a ridiculously inaccurate analogy, and I corrected it.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Mackie2k

Originally posted by: andy9o

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: Mackie2k

Originally posted by: andy9o
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI...ex.marriage/index.html

I agree with the governor, that separation cannot be legal. Even among the "liberal" parties politicians, not many get this.

Depends on your definition of marriage. I see it as between a man and a woman....

But I see being "gay" as a genetic disorder. You are born that way, and it's something that is phsically wrong with you, not a choice by anymeans. Doesn't mean we should support that way of life as normal.

Good thing your definition of marriage doesn't matter, and your view of homosexuality is irrelevant.

So, you agree with most that homosexuality is not a choice, but, think they should be second-class citizens? I guess I'm a little confused as to what you would have them do then? Sit at the back of the bus?

It's funny how I can't get benefits for my girlfriend who's lived with me for 4 years and we are in a committed, loving relationship...but all the gay guys at work who have been dating for 6 months can get full benefits if they sign a piece of paper.

You get benefits and domestic partnerships. Be happy you get anything at all.

Who says you can't? All you have to do is 'sign a piece of paper'... :roll:

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Mackie2k
Show me where being gay has evolutionary advantages and I'll start to agree with your argument.

But the fact is, there is no benefit. In fact, it's a burden.

You don't produce children, thusly you have no offspring to take care of you in your old age. (assuming you don't adopt). Which means taking care of you will fall onto society more often than straight people with Children.

Obviously this doesn't always hold true, but it's more true than not.

I know you have mental problems, but gay people can have children.

Originally posted by: Mackie2k
Saying Same Sex Marriage is a Civil Rights issue dimenishes all the real civil rights issues real minorities have fought for......

Real minorities? That's impressively stupid even for you. Even among all the retarded shit that spews out of your mind, that is the dumbest. Its even dumber then anything theflyingpig has written, and it looks like he's a 'sperger.

I like how "I have gay friends, therefore I can't be a bigot" has suddenly replaced "I have black friends, therefore I can't be a racist."

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

That is true if your view of marriage is simply a government-regulated contract between two or more entities negotiating a sharing of resources.

Well considering we are specifically talking about the government regulated contract and not the religious institution, what other areas do you think we should include?

What makes you think they can be separated in such a way?

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

why should gay people getting married piss off straight people?

For the same reason why if the university I earned a diploma from decided to start selling diplomas to anyone for money over the internet.

FYP.

Oops, my mistake. I missed that point. Although your response was a thinly-veiled troll whose purpose was to discredit my argument by personally insulting me, (a common logical fallacy), I thank you anyway for helping me clarify the issue.

I didn't make a thinly veiled troll to discredit your argument by insulting you, I fixed your post for consistency. Gay people are not marrying any differently than you are. They are not purchasing something that you earned. You made a ridiculously inaccurate analogy, and I corrected it.

You saying that marriage licenses are not purchased? And that traditional marriage is not an earned privilege?

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

why should gay people getting married piss off straight people?

For the same reason why if the university I earned a diploma from decided to start selling diplomas to anyone for money over the internet.

FYP.

Oops, my mistake. I missed that point. Although your response was a thinly-veiled troll whose purpose was to discredit my argument by personally insulting me, (a common logical fallacy), I thank you anyway for helping me clarify the issue.

I didn't make a thinly veiled troll to discredit your argument by insulting you, I fixed your post for consistency. Gay people are not marrying any differently than you are. They are not purchasing something that you earned. You made a ridiculously inaccurate analogy, and I corrected it.

You saying that marriage licenses are not purchased? And that traditional marriage is not an earned privilege?

Homosexuals only want to purchase the same thing that you purchase. That's why I edited your post to say that you bought a diploma too.

No, you did nothing to earn the privilege of marriage. Your heterosexuality is an immutable quality, just as homosexuality is immutable. Your ability to marry is something that is given to you by the state. You did no work to earn it.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

That is true if your view of marriage is simply a government-regulated contract between two or more entities negotiating a sharing of resources.

Well considering we are specifically talking about the government regulated contract and not the religious institution, what other areas do you think we should include?

I wouldn't even bother arguing with QuantumBigot. People like him will eventually die off and the world will be a better place. Future history books will negatively portray them in the same way they portray racists today.

 

[nixium]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

That is true if your view of marriage is simply a government-regulated contract between two or more entities negotiating a sharing of resources.

Well considering we are specifically talking about the government regulated contract and not the religious institution, what other areas do you think we should include?

What makes you think they can be separated in such a way?

They can of course be separated, because it's perfectly possible for any church/religious body to conduct a gay marriage. Hell, my girlfriend and I can call ourselves married by mutual agreement, but unless the government recognizes the contract, it means nothing in view of the rights we are entitled to as a 'married' couple.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

That is true if your view of marriage is simply a government-regulated contract between two or more entities negotiating a sharing of resources.

Well considering we are specifically talking about the government regulated contract and not the religious institution, what other areas do you think we should include?

What makes you think they can be separated in such a way?

Because under our laws they already are. There's a reason why a justice of the peace or a sea captain can marry people. It's why atheists get married.

Furthermore, throughout history marriage has been far more of a civil arrangement than a religious one. In many eras (Rome for one), marriage required no religious sanction whatsoever.

Why would you say that the institution of marriage cannot be separated from religion, when in practice in both the past and today it has been explicitly separated. In what ways are they inseparable?

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

That is true if your view of marriage is simply a government-regulated contract between two or more entities negotiating a sharing of resources.

Well considering we are specifically talking about the government regulated contract and not the religious institution, what other areas do you think we should include?

What makes you think they can be separated in such a way?

Millions if not billions of people are married without the sanction of Judeo-Christian-Muslim mythology.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

why should gay people getting married piss off straight people?

For the same reason why if the university I received a diploma from decided to start selling diplomas to anyone for money over the internet.

Wow way to fail at analogies.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

That is true if your view of marriage is simply a government-regulated contract between two or more entities negotiating a sharing of resources.

Well considering we are specifically talking about the government regulated contract and not the religious institution, what other areas do you think we should include?

What makes you think they can be separated in such a way?

Religion played absolutely no part whatsoever in my wedding. No church, no holy man (just a friend ordained via the internet), no mentions of any higher power in the vows... sounds like the separation is complete.

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
You saying that marriage licenses are not purchased? And that traditional marriage is not an earned privilege?

What exactly do you do to "earn" the privilege to marry?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
You saying that marriage licenses are not purchased? And that traditional marriage is not an earned privilege?

For the thousandth time, marriage is not a privilege, it is a fundamental right, as the SC held over 40 years ago. It's regulated, but so is gun ownership and free speech, and such regulation doesn't transform those rights into privileges.

 

[coloumb]

From a legal standpoint - this is good news for 2 people who want to be legally bound to each others assets