N104UA From United States, joined Dec 2007, 813 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3735 times:
Preface- I do not live in Maine, I live in Colorado, I am not gay but many of my close friends are, I know that this is long but I feel that it must be.
-----
Yesterday (3 Nov 2009) Maine became another state to tell a group of citizens "You are second class citizens," This is focused to the people who voted for this or support those who do. WHY DO YOU CARE, why can you as the majority tell the minority that they can not marry, because they are different than you. I am not saying that your religion is required to support it, your church can be as discriminatory as you want. You say that we redefine marriage, well just so you know we have redefined marriage many times in the past, 45 years ago 16 states had laws on the books that did not allow interracial marriage, that means that the President of the United States. People who support these horrible laws quote the bible as fact why it is not right AMERICA IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION (read the Treaty of Tripoli and Article XI if you have any questions about that) but what when Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." How would you feel if someone told you that you could not marry!! I know that another argument against gay marriage is "It is not healthy for children to grow up with out a mother and a father" Well then you are saying that every single mother and every single father is doing a bad job, then I would like you to be out there supporting a law prohibiting divorce (Jesus said that divorce is not in God's plan). If you do not support gay marriage I want to know HOW DOES THIS AFFECT YOU, nothing is going to happen to your marriage, your marriage will not become invalid, the world will not explode! If you can name one negative thing that will happen to straight people if gay marriage is made legal I really want to know. I can not believe that in 2009 we are telling people that they are second class citizens because of who they are!!
"Forget regret or life is yours to miss...no other road no other way no day but today"
JpetekYXMD80 From United States, joined Jul 2003, 3463 posts, RR: 38 Reply 1, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3731 times:
They should be.
YAY!! I'm SO happy my fellow citizens can now be denied equal protection under the law! Looks like he won the goddamn superbowl.
Really, sickening, but I wouldn't be so happy either had the vote been 5% different. This is not the venue to determine minority rights. Denying gay marriage is unlawful under the equal protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution, and no popular referendum changes that. Just another example of how we are moving in the right direction, but bigotry, ignorance, and the theocrats who feed off and mobilize this is alive and well. How would a popular referendum on women's suffrage have gone back in the day? What about equal rights in the 1950s and 60's south?
Now you know how those of us with brains in California felt almost exactly one year ago... I'm actually pretty surprised a New England state like Maine would overturn their same-sex marriage law... but I guess a lot of people were surprised when CA did too. Crazy world we live in.
Airstud From United States, joined Nov 2000, 469 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3654 times:
Then put an initiative on the ballot to change the law so that a domestic partner has the same visitation rights as a spousicus. There's piles of polls that show the same people who oppose gay marriage have no objection to so expanding the rights of dp's.
Since the m word seems to set so many people off, why not just change the phraseology, is what my point is.
JpetekYXMD80 From United States, joined Jul 2003, 3463 posts, RR: 38 Reply 7, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3638 times:
Quoting Airstud (Reply 6): Then put an initiative on the ballot to change the law so that a domestic partner has the same visitation rights as a spousicus. There's piles of polls that show the same people who oppose gay marriage have no objection to so expanding the rights of dp's.
Since the m word seems to set so many people off, why not just change the phraseology, is what my point is.
Want to know what my point is? The 'm word' in most cases has been the preferred play-card of the opposition. Look at all the state marriage referendums in 2006 and 2008 which had absolutely no movement or prospect of gay marriage being legalized in the foreseeable future... through all the scare tactics and BS that went on so publicly in the CA referendum, untruths about education, child manipulation, Utah financiers trying to lead us to theocracy.
Sure, gay marriage has become legalized in some places, and i've been wary that some people have been to ambitious and it may backfire at some point. BUT, in the majority of cases with these referendums, not only are they the "m word", but are preemptive strikes at any kind of rights for gay relationships whatsoever.
They frequently have read like this: "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."
WIth that second sentence: civil unions: BOOM. partnership benefits: BOOM.
In most cases this is not 'protecting marriage', its cold, callous, and most of all unconstitutional strikes at any kind of rights for homosexuals.
It's bigotry, it's bullshit, and anyone who supports that better get used to hearing a hell of a lot from me.
You are mostly right about the polls, and support rising for DPs, civil unions, whatever. BUT the ones in control of the opposition pulling the strings don't feel that way, and people have either ignorantly or intentionally decided that a word is more important than any kind of rights after being coerced into this decision by these referendums far beyond the scope of marriage. Either way, when push comes to shove, many of those "just not marriage" folks are talking the talk, certainly not walking the walk.
San747 From United States, joined Dec 2004, 3932 posts, RR: 13 Reply 8, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3613 times:
Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 7):
It's bigotry, it's bullshit, and anyone who supports that better get used to hearing a hell of a lot from me.
I'll be right with you. There is no excuse for supporting restricting rights to a group of people. I'm actually wondering, just like last year with the whole CA Prop 8 fiasco, why this issue is one that can be voted on? I thought the whole basis of our country's Constitution was that minorities can't just be deprived of rights over the whims of the majority.
MSNDC9 From United States, joined Jul 2009, 413 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3586 times:
Quoting San747 (Reply 8): I'm actually wondering, just like last year with the whole CA Prop 8 fiasco, why this issue is one that can be voted on? I thought the whole basis of our country's Constitution was that minorities can't just be deprived of rights over the whims of the majority.
Couple of reasons.
1. Marriage isn't recognized at the Federal level for anyone. Generally speaking, the Fed doesn't care about your marital status and it honors civil unions so there's no equal protection issue. They simply won't get involved in a State sanctioned issue. That said, if you have a constitutional amendment, then that would obviously change.
2. Marriage is generally considered an act or a rite. The State generally issues a license to allow the act or rite to be performed, and by definition a license can be revoked if the terms of the license do not conform to State Law. If the constitution allows voters to define what the terms of license issuance are, then you get the California result. In legal terms, a marriage license in every state doesn't hold any more weight than a Driver License does. Its the certification of an event (i.e... You aren't marrying your mom/dad, your sister/brother, aunt/uncleor a cousin and that you only have one husband/wife - some states have different standards here as well with regard to how far out on a limb of a family tree you have to go to be legal).
It seems to me that those who want to see gay marriage on the books are going about it the wrong way. I personally prefer the State oversight of Marriage just go away period and Marriage be left to the Church where it was until Polygamy became an issue when Utah became a State (the irony of Mormon Church involvement on this issue). This alone would end the debate. Those who aren't part of a church get a civil union - problem solved. If people want a ceremony to go along with it, then by all means - have at it.
People chucking the bible around on one side and screaming about it on the other side aren't going to gain any points here. I'm pretty much sick of hearing about it from both sides.
EA CO AS From United States, joined Nov 2001, 9949 posts, RR: 73 Reply 10, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3543 times:
Quoting MSNDC9 (Reply 9): People chucking the bible around on one side and screaming about it on the other side aren't going to gain any points here. I'm pretty much sick of hearing about it from both sides.
I'm especially weary of hearing people scream for this to be voted on by the people, and then shriek in horror when they don't get the result they wanted.
For the record, I support gay marriage - but damn, I do NOT support the name-calling that comes from the GLBT community and their supporters when public votes like this don't turn out their way.
Calling people out as homophobes and bigots isn't the way to engender support the next time your cause is voted on.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
Ferengi80 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 494 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3505 times:
Okay, firstly, apologies for the long post here, but its something I think should be said.
There's a lot of religious people out there who believe the Bible word for word. Don't get me wrong, I class myself a Christian, but I believe the Bible is Man's interpretation of the Word of God. It's the way people understood what God was saying and wrote it down. And some of 'em got it a little bit wrong.
Now I am a huge fan of The West Wing, and one of the greatest quotes from the entire series comes from the episode The Midterms, the third episode of the second series. In this, President Bartlet addresses a group which includes a radio talk show host by the name of Jenna Jacobs. The following pretty much sums it up...
JENNA JACOBS
I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.
BARTLET
Yes, it does. Leviticus.
JENNA JACOBS
18:22
BARTLET
Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here.
I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21: 7.
(small chuckles from the guests) She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, and
always clears the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While
thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff, LeoO McGarry, insists on working
on the Sabbath, Exodus 35:2, clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important,
'cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes
us unclean, Leviticus 11: 7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins
still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn
my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?
Jenna Jacobs fidgets uncomfortably.
BARTLET
Think about those questions, would you? One last thing, while you may be mistaking this
for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tightass Club, in this building, when the President
stands, nobody sits.
There's a lot in the Bible that today is totally irrelevant. It is quite obvious that the parts on homosexuality are included here.
Our God loves us all for who we are, He made us the person we are.
There is a line in the Neil Diamond song "Brother Love's Travelling Salvation Show" that also hits the nail on the head - "Brothers and Sisters - black or white, big or small, gay or straight, rich or poor, God's Children All"
Elite From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Jun 2006, 2328 posts, RR: 12 Reply 12, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3505 times:
I don't think "the people of Maine should be ashamed of themselves" just because they disagree with your position, you know. To you, it may be clear cut, but right now this is a very controversial and hotly debated topic.
NIKV69 From United States, joined Jan 2004, 8447 posts, RR: 56 Reply 13, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3491 times:
Quoting Elite (Reply 12): I don't think "the people of Maine should be ashamed of themselves" just because they disagree with your position, you know. To you, it may be clear cut, but right now this is a very controversial and hotly debated topic.
Mir From United States, joined Jan 2004, 13225 posts, RR: 65 Reply 14, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3480 times:
Quoting Elite (Reply 12): I don't think "the people of Maine should be ashamed of themselves" just because they disagree with your position, you know.
No, they should be ashamed of themselves because they have voted to deprive a certain group of people of the rights that most Maine residents have. I don't care what they think about my position on gay marriage, or gay marriage itself.
Aaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 4555 posts, RR: 22 Reply 15, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3480 times:
Quoting Airstud (Reply 6): Since the m word seems to set so many people off, why not just change the phraseology, is what my point is.
Because then it's separate but equal - what part of that don't people get? Why does it have to be separate?
Quoting MSNDC9 (Reply 9): 1.Marriage isn't recognized at the Federal level for anyone. Generally speaking, the Fed doesn't care about your marital status and it honors civil unions so there's no equal protection issue. They simply won't get involved in a State sanctioned issue. That said, if you have a constitutional amendment, then that would obviously change.
If that's the case then the federal government needs to throw out the 1000+ rights and privileges that are already conferred to married straight couples by a litany of federal statutes, not the least of which is DOMA.
Just as the federal government is bloated and inefficient, it can't even keep track of the discrimination it has already established with regard to gays. Thankfully we have the GAO to at least get some work done.
Quoting Elite (Reply 12): I don't think "the people of Maine should be ashamed of themselves" just because they disagree with your position, you know.
It has nothing to do with a mere position. It's always upsetting when Americans tramp all over the flag and the memories of thousands of fallen soldiers by standing against their neighbors and individual liberty while upholding values our current ideological enemies hold dear.
"Sentimentality plays with sweet intentions in place of good sense." - Jane Jacobs
KiwiinOz From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 1492 posts, RR: 7 Reply 16, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3480 times:
I wouldn't worry about these sort of backward, outdated rulings anymore. As previous posters have alluded, this is more reflective of the diminishing importance of marriage as an institution, rather than the significant discrimination.
Over the course of history, it means little. In 10 years, some of these states will catch up with modern societal thinking anyway and overturn these rulings, and concurrently, the importance of marriage will be further diminished so people won't give a darn anyway.
If it's legal status people are looking for, this can be attained in other ways. If it's recognition of partnership/love.....well I don't think marriage plays a huge part in itself
"I don't know how to put this but I'm kind of a big deal. "
LTBEWR From United States, joined Jan 2004, 9391 posts, RR: 7 Reply 17, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3471 times:
There are many people out there who are very closed minded as to GLBT persons. They believe from their faith or from their cultural upbringing, that to be gay or lesbian is immoral and abnormal. You have some of faith who believe that to oppose same-gender marriage will get them a better chance to get into Heaven and stay out of Hell. I bet all but a tiny number of regular church attendees voted against gay marriage in Maine, probably hyped up further from almost every church, temple or mosque pulpit for weeks to vote against it, perhaps in violation of IRS rules. It also trips over the line between 'Church and State' protections in our Constitution.
A public official marriage is not recognized by most faith groups, yet we recognize faith ministers to officiate for governmental legal status marriage. As I have suggested here and elsewhere, we need to change the laws as to who can legally officiate marriages or DP's to only public government employees or individuals who are licensed by the state and won't discrimate. Some countries (Belgium for one) do not recognize faith ministers to officiate marraiges, one has to have to do it before a government official or file papers. That is the way we should go too.
Charles79 From United States, joined Mar 2007, 1091 posts, RR: 8 Reply 18, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3465 times:
This country never ceases to amaze me. We travel thousands of miles to bring "freedom" and "liberty" to other cultures yet find it totally acceptable to deny the most basic human right of equality to millions of citizens back home.
Hypocrisy is not a strong enough word to describe these cowards.
Cgnnrw From Germany, joined May 2005, 754 posts, RR: 5 Reply 19, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3429 times:
53% of Maine residents are complete idiots.
Quoting Airstud (Reply 6): Then put an initiative on the ballot to change the law so that a domestic partner has the same visitation rights as a spousicus.
Not so easy because I'm sure the same idiots who oppose gay marriage laws would use the same scare tatics to prevent this too...."only a legal husband and wife should be allowed to decide over life and death". Also what about inheritance issues? I'm sure there are plenty of cases where some dipshit family member opposed a testament leaving them nothing but the gay partner everything.
At least with a "covers it all" gay marriage law the necessity to have ballots jpassed each and every time to get "approval" for these issues is rule out.
KPWMSpotter From United States, joined Dec 2006, 151 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3422 times:
This is honestly the first time I've been ashamed in my home state.
Maine's politics tend to lean liberal socially and conservative fiscally...the way things should be. But damn. I don't understand how the Catholic initiative to repeal gay marriage found so many voters who are willing to be flamingly ignorant and intolerant.
I am beyond words now. I thought my vote would be one I could be proud of, showing that Maine was above the ignorance and fear that prevails elsewhere. Well, it turns out that there's a whole lot more ignorance and fear than I knew about.
Mir From United States, joined Jan 2004, 13225 posts, RR: 65 Reply 21, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3383 times:
Quoting KPWMSpotter (Reply 20): I thought my vote would be one I could be proud of, showing that Maine was above the ignorance and fear that prevails elsewhere.
You can still be proud of your own vote, and the votes of the 47% who voted against a ban.
Eventually, enough people will come to their senses and realize that disagreeing with gay marriage is not justification for banning it. If people don't like gay marriage, then they shouldn't get one - seems simple enough, but the desire to impose one's beliefs on others through legal means is too alluring for some. It's a real shame.
N104UA From United States, joined Dec 2007, 813 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3297 times:
Quoting San747 (Reply 5): Now you know how those of us with brains in California felt almost exactly one year ago
Oh I know I have been pissed off since Colorado passed Amendment 43 in 2006 defining marriage.
Quoting Airstud (Reply 6): Then put an initiative on the ballot to change the law so that a domestic partner has the same visitation rights as a spousicus. There's piles of polls that show the same people who oppose gay marriage have no objection to so expanding the rights of dp's.
That is horrible that is like saying that girls can go to something but we won't call it school, because only boys can go to school, but we will tell the girls that we are teaching them all the same stuff, while we are giving the boys a better education, what would you think of that
This makes me think of Deuteronomy 22: 13-21, that says that a marriage shall only be considered valid if the wife is a virgin and if she is not a virgin, her father shall stone her to death at the front door of his home
if we are going to start using the bible as a way to make our national laws why not uses this passage, and also while we are at it ban all pork and shellfish also.
Quoting Ferengi80 (Reply 11): There's a lot in the Bible that today is totally irrelevant. It is quite obvious that the parts on homosexuality are included here.
Exactly, plus since America is not a christian nation, we should not use the bible at all to make any laws
Quoting Elite (Reply 12): I don't think "the people of Maine should be ashamed of themselves" just because they disagree with your position, you know. To you, it may be clear cut, but right now this is a very controversial and hotly debated topic.
How would you feel if I took a right from you just because of who you are.
Quoting Charles79 (Reply 18): This country never ceases to amaze me. We travel thousands of miles to bring "freedom" and "liberty" to other cultures yet find it totally acceptable to deny the most basic human right of equality to millions of citizens back home.
Hypocrisy is not a strong enough word to describe these cowards.
Mt99 From Bouvet Island, joined May 1999, 4036 posts, RR: 9 Reply 24, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3278 times:
Quoting Cgnnrw (Reply 19): 53% of Maine residents are complete idiots.
No, 53% of the people who voted are idiots.
How can gay marriage win in an election? I don't think it can.
Who is going to vote to allow gay marriage? 99% Gays, most friends of gay people, some family members of gays,and a few straight people that dont know any gay people but support the cause.
Who is going to vote to block it? 80% of Church goes who are fed lies and "values" every Sunday.
If you do the simple math of population (10% gays vs 60% church goers), there is no way that gay marriage can be approved by a majority.
Its OK. Give it 10 years - by then it will all be a bad dream
DXing From United States, joined Nov 2008, 2493 posts, RR: 13 Reply 25, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3256 times:
Quoting N104UA (Thread starter): You say that we redefine marriage, well just so you know we have redefined marriage many times in the past, 45 years ago 16 states had laws on the books that did not allow interracial marriage, that means that the President of the United States
No matter the color of their skin it does not change the fact that it was one man and one woman. One man and one man, or one woman and one woman redefines the word no matter how you would like to think differently.
Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 3): Yeah, only have to break up if you're in the ICU trying to visit your partner and your attorney isn't by your side with a mountain of paperwork.
You can give POA to anyone. Your living will can stipulate who is to make medical decisions on your behalf. Your argument has been debunked many times over by many different people some gay some not.
Quoting San747 (Reply 8): I thought the whole basis of our country's Constitution was that minorities can't just be deprived of rights over the whims of the majority.
If that were true then Utah would have been admitted as a State without having to outlaw bigamy.
Quoting N104UA (Reply 23): How would you feel if I took a right from you just because of who you are.
Marriage has always been defined by the States. Some courts have ruled that the laws defining marriage are unconstitutional as they are written, but where have they said that marriage is a "right"?
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
Aaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 4555 posts, RR: 22 Reply 26, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3358 times:
Quoting DXing (Reply 25): One man and one man, or one woman and one woman redefines the word no matter how you would like to think differently.
Only if people let it. My marriage or how I feel about it doesn't change any when I see two members of the opposite sex together. Wifey is right here next to me in the next chair and, gee golly, she doesn't seem any different. Damn that gay marriage, what will we do now?!
If people are so offended by that notion, they obviously don't have much confidence in what they believe in. Individual liberty should triumph over any such nonsense.
Quoting DXing (Reply 25): If that were true then Utah would have been admitted as a State without having to outlaw bigamy.
A whole different animal - allowing bigamy creates a legal mess. How can one contractually tie their life tidings to more than one person? Is the property divided 50-50 or 33-33-33? Who gets more or less? If one person bows out what happens to the other two? If they are financially liable for anything do both remaining partners foot the bill or only one?? They didn't want anything to do those questions and that's why virtually no western country allows it.
Quoting DXing (Reply 25): Some courts have ruled that the laws defining marriage are unconstitutional as they are written, but where have they said that marriage is a "right"?
It's not so much that as the fact that marriage the contract establishes more rights and privileges. 1138 of them at the federal level, in fact.
"Sentimentality plays with sweet intentions in place of good sense." - Jane Jacobs
FLY2HMO From United States, joined Jan 2004, 4075 posts, RR: 5 Reply 27, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3356 times:
Quoting Charles79 (Reply 18): This country never ceases to amaze me. We travel thousands of miles to bring "freedom" and "liberty" to other cultures yet find it totally acceptable to deny the most basic human right of equality to millions of citizens back home.
Hypocrisy is not a strong enough word to describe these cowards.
Took the words out of my mouth.
We've declared war on countries ruled by religious fanatics and yet the bible thumpers in our own soil are making important decisions in politics. It's pathetic.
Happiness is just an illusion caused by the temporary absence of reality
Airstud From United States, joined Nov 2000, 469 posts, RR: 0 Reply 28, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3353 times:
Quoting DXing (Reply 25): Marriage has always been defined by the States. Some courts have ruled that the laws defining marriage are unconstitutional as they are written, but where have they said that marriage is a "right"?
Exactly. As contemporary society struggles with this question (in a way that future society may jolly well not), the question people are up against is how to define what marriage is, not a question of who is "allowed" to participate in it. For millenia the de facto definition of marriage has been a union between a man and a woman. (Some bodies go further to say it is for the procreation of children but that falls apart as a legal argument as long as hetero couples aren't prosecuted for being childless.)
Nowadays, gays are rapidly emerging from cultural hiding, and society (or rather those elements of society that haven't encountered much of gayness) is going to have to take time to get used to the idea of same-sex folk being together openly, let alone institutionally.
While society is taking its time to learn that gays aren't going to live closeted and sheltered-like, gays would do well to take some time to understand the non-gay folk's sheltered context and how entrenched their values are because of it.
Give society some time. (They'll take less of it, a lot less of it, if you don't holler "BIGOT!!" at them for understanding marriage to be man+woman. That's not gay-hating, and it's not "deprivation of rights"; it's their idea of the definition of marriage. They're not beating Matthew Shepard or sending package bombs to Atlanta lesbian night clubs.)
RussianJet From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 3646 posts, RR: 16 Reply 29, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3318 times:
Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 27): We've declared war on countries ruled by religious fanatics and yet the bible thumpers in our own soil are making important decisions in politics. It's pathetic.
I have a question.
I am not wading in to whether this is right or not because I'm sick of hearing about it. But, why is it that 53% or those who voted, the majority, are dismissed as "bible thumpers" and the like as in the comment above? Do we really suppose that all of those who voted against did so for Christian beliefs, or that all of those who voted for are not Christians? Seems like prejudice to me. I can't see that it is even remotely helpful to one's aims to resort to such polarisation of the debate. Even if you disagree with someone strongly, surely trying to understand why rather than just dishing out the insults is going to be the more constructive strategy?
Seb146 From United States, joined Nov 1999, 6504 posts, RR: 24 Reply 30, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3300 times:
Quoting N104UA (Thread starter): nothing is going to happen to your marriage, your marriage will not become invalid, the world will not explode! If you can name one negative thing that will happen to straight people if gay marriage is made legal I really want to know.
Look at the countries that HAVE legalized civil unions. Have they been thrown into civil war? Have they disbanded? Also, gay marriage is an OPTION. Just because it is legal, does not mean you HAVE to marry you best friend of the same gender. Does not mean you HAVE to marry at all. I think, sometimes, people forget that and think it is all-or-nothing.
MaverickM11 From United States, joined Apr 2000, 11947 posts, RR: 51 Reply 31, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3278 times:
Quoting Elite (Reply 12): To you, it may be clear cut, but right now this is a very controversial and hotly debated topic.
But has it? It's never been debated with a shred of credible evidence. This is not healthcare, or the war in Afghanistan, or anything where there are vastly different consequences depending on the path you choose. There has never been one iota of credible evidence against gay marriage.
LAXintl From United States, joined May 2000, 12217 posts, RR: 22 Reply 32, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3249 times:
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 29): But, why is it that 53% or those who voted, the majority, are dismissed as "bible thumpers" and the like as in the comment above? Do we really suppose that all of those who voted against did so for Christian beliefs, or that all of those who voted for are not Christians? Seems like prejudice to me. I can't see that it is even remotely helpful to one's aims to resort to such polarisation of the debate. Even if you disagree with someone strongly, surely trying to understand why rather than just dishing out the insults is going to be the more constructive strategy?
This issue now has been in voter hands now in 31 states. And all of 31 of these states have decided along the same lines.
I think its ridiculous to call all these people bigots, idiots, bible thumpers or any other wishful derogatory term. They are everyday Americans from all walks of life that hold a very basic mainstream societal view.
Quoting Airstud (Reply 28): For millenia the de facto definition of marriage has been a union between a man and a woman
. Frankly this is one of the most basic understandings of life that many people hold. Just like how the sun rises in the morning and sets at night, marriage is solely between a man and a women.
Quoting Airstud (Reply 6): Then put an initiative on the ballot to change the law so that a domestic partner has the same visitation rights as a spousicus. There's piles of polls that show the same people who oppose gay marriage have no objection to so expanding the rights of dp's.
Absolutely, and I suspect many people would support domestic partner laws that make sense and also would cover other situations including opposite-sex couples that might be living together but have not formalized the relationship via marriage.
At the end of the day, I see it as a joke and a affront to society that a group of folks that live alternate lifestyle basically are demanding that society bless their alternate life styles and convey the title of marriage upon them as some stamp of approval.
The way I see it, the more this issue is pushed, the more society will push back particularly as these proponents manage very well to aliante many potential voters by their loud in your face tactics.
To me if this gets pushed too far, we might reach the point where 2/3 of States could even pass an ultimate Federal constitutional ammendment, ending the discussion for good.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
NIKV69 From United States, joined Jan 2004, 8447 posts, RR: 56 Reply 33, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3254 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 14): No, they should be ashamed of themselves because they have voted to deprive a certain group of people of the rights that most Maine residents have.
Here we go again. Marriage is not a right, it is something governed by the state and voted on.
Quoting Mt99 (Reply 24): No, 53% of the people who voted are idiots.
Jesus will you stop with the name calling? People have the right to vote any way they want what are you going to do next get Bill Ayers and bomb them?
Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 27): We've declared war on countries ruled by religious fanatics and yet the bible thumpers in our own soil are making important decisions in politics. It's pathetic.
LOL we are talking about Maine pal, definately not a bunch of Bible thumpers. It isn't the far right that voted this down. Be clear about that. Stop blaming the religious right.
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 29): why is it that 53% or those who voted, the majority, are dismissed as "bible thumpers"
Well because the people that are mad at this vote are so blinded by rage and hatred they have to blame someone and the religious right is the best scapegoat. Even though clearly they are not the ones who voted against it. The people for gay marriage won't accept thinking different from their own and can't accept the fact that this was voted down from people that are not bible thumpers.
Revelation From United States, joined Feb 2005, 4097 posts, RR: 4 Reply 34, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3243 times:
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 31): There has never been one iota of credible evidence against gay marriage.
Well, to be fair, it does potentially extend a whole range of benefits like sharing medical insurance that do not currently exist, no? If so one could choose to object purely on the issue of cost, although to me that's quite small minded.
UAL747 From United States, joined Dec 1999, 6542 posts, RR: 35 Reply 35, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3243 times:
For the 400th time, if I get married to another man, does it diminish your marriage any? Are your kids going to grow up and all of a sudden turn gay? Are they going to become murderers and thieves?
There is all this focus on the word "Marriage" and how GLBT shouldn't have the right to it. But if it's truly just a word, then why won't you let us use it as well? Is there some magical meaning in it that homosexuals shouldn't be privy to? If it is truly "just a word," as you keep telling us, then there's got to be something behind the actions of these people who want to prevent homosexuals from using it. I call it fear and bigotry, and you can get mad at me all you want, but that's what it is plain and simple. Homosexuals affect your lives in NO way and letting homosexuals get married affects your life in NO way. I mean, this argument is SO stupid, yet so debated. It's very illogical.
Financially speaking Gays stimulate the economy more than any other minority group, and also have higher household incomes than any other group in the US.
* The Annual Value of the Gay and Lesbian Market is $515 Billion
* 21% of Gay and Lesbian households have income greater than $100,000 per year. This represents a greater household income versus the average US household income.
* 28% of Gay and Lesbian households have income greater than $50,000 per year. This represents a greater household income versus the average US household income.
* Consists of the most economically advantaged people in the US.
* 88.3% buy products/services of national businesses because of advertising.
* Twice as likely to have household income over $60,000 than general US population.
* Twice as likely to have household income over $250,000 than general US population.
* Twice as likely to have graduated college.
* Over 90% took a domestic trip during the year of research study.
* 60% took a foreign trip in the last 3 years.
* 77% "believe in indulging in themselves".
* 57% "prefer to buy top-of-the line".
* 59% buy themselves whatever they want.
And you know what else is crazy? The churches that fuel this bigotry get tax-exempt status.
RussianJet From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 3646 posts, RR: 16 Reply 36, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3231 times:
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 35): There is all this focus on the word "Marriage" and how GLBT shouldn't have the right to it. But if it's truly just a word, then why won't you let us use it as well? Is there some magical meaning in it that homosexuals shouldn't be privy to? If it is truly "just a word," as you keep telling us, then there's got to be something behind the actions of these people who want to prevent homosexuals from using it. I call it fear and bigotry, and you can get mad at me all you want, but that's what it is plain and simple. Homosexuals affect your lives in NO way and letting homosexuals get married affects your life in NO way. I mean, this argument is SO stupid, yet so debated. It's very illogical.
I can understand your upset, but will you listen to what you're saying? YOU this, YOU that. It's all very 'them and us'. Illogical it might seem to you, and that's fine - but again, do you really think it's going to help any to just call people names?
UAL747 From United States, joined Dec 1999, 6542 posts, RR: 35 Reply 37, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3219 times:
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 36): I can understand your upset, but will you listen to what you're saying? YOU this, YOU that. It's all very 'them and us'. Illogical it might seem to you, and that's fine - but again, do you really think it's going to help any to just call people names?
Umm, that's what this entire vote was about. "Them and Us." And anti-gay marriage advocates/voters, are the ones who are doing the labeling my friend.
Also, if it's an irrational attitude toward a minority, what else could it be but fear and bigotry? Find me something concrete, rational, and scientific that would support the banning of gay marriage, and I will totally back down.
Mt99 From Bouvet Island, joined May 1999, 4036 posts, RR: 9 Reply 38, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3209 times:
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 33):
LOL we are talking about Maine pal, definately not a bunch of Bible thumpers. It isn't the far right that voted this down. Be clear about that. Stop blaming the religious right.
N104UA From United States, joined Dec 2007, 813 posts, RR: 0 Reply 39, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3201 times:
Quoting DXing (Reply 25): Quoting N104UA (Thread starter):
You say that we redefine marriage, well just so you know we have redefined marriage many times in the past, 45 years ago 16 states had laws on the books that did not allow interracial marriage, that means that the President of the United States
No matter the color of their skin it does not change the fact that it was one man and one woman. One man and one man, or one woman and one woman redefines the word no matter how you would like to think differently.
Yes but in the 1950s people were saying that it is against the bible for interracial marriage, and now almost everyone is fine with interracial marriage
Quoting Airstud (Reply 28): As contemporary society struggles with this question (in a way that future society may jolly well not), the question people are up against is how to define what marriage is, not a question of who is "allowed" to participate in it. For millenia the de facto definition of marriage has been a union between a man and a woman.
Yes but also for millenia the Man was the person who controlled the marriage, the woman had no choice on who she would marry, do you want to go back to that if we are really wanting marriage never to change.
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 29): I am not wading in to whether this is right or not because I'm sick of hearing about it. But, why is it that 53% or those who voted, the majority, are dismissed as "bible thumpers" and the like as in the comment above? Do we really suppose that all of those who voted against did so for Christian beliefs, or that all of those who voted for are not Christians? Seems like prejudice to me
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 33): Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 27):
We've declared war on countries ruled by religious fanatics and yet the bible thumpers in our own soil are making important decisions in politics. It's pathetic.
LOL we are talking about Maine pal, definately not a bunch of Bible thumpers. It isn't the far right that voted this down. Be clear about that. Stop blaming the religious right.
But who financed this issue, it was the Mormon Church, Evangelical Christians, and The American Catholic League and Catholic Church, and I bet once we see campaign disclosures come out next month over 70% of the funding did not come from with in Maine
Quoting Seb146 (Reply 30): Look at the countries that HAVE legalized civil unions. Have they been thrown into civil war? Have they disbanded? Also, gay marriage is an OPTION. Just because it is legal, does not mean you HAVE to marry you best friend of the same gender. Does not mean you HAVE to marry at all. I think, sometimes, people forget that and think it is all-or-nothing.
Exactly, I just say if you don't like gay marriages don't get one.
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 33):
Here we go again. Marriage is not a right, it is something governed by the state and voted on.
Yes it is a right because as soon as you tell someone they can not marry but someone else can you are giving the right to that person who can marry and not giving the same right to that other person
Quoting Revelation (Reply 34): Well, to be fair, it does potentially extend a whole range of benefits like sharing medical insurance that do not currently exist, no? If so one could choose to object purely on the issue of cost, although to me that's quite small minded.
Well if you are going for that way it makes more sense to get rid of all Marriages (Straight or Gay) because then companies would not have to pay for the spouse's health care and the Government would get more money from taxes because everyone would be filling as a single.
"Forget regret or life is yours to miss...no other road no other way no day but today"
LAXintl From United States, joined May 2000, 12217 posts, RR: 22 Reply 40, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3194 times:
How about a paradigm shift for the GLBT community.
Instead of showing that you are different, or have a unique niche in society, portray yourselves are regular every day valuable Americans in our communities
So forget wrapping yourselves in multicolor flags, fly an American flag, avoid creating enclaves in cities but instead work to erase the boundaries and show you are as much part of mainstream society as plumber Joe or anyone.
Rightly or wrongly, but to me me the GLBT groups have a terrible PR, or brand placement issue if they were a product.
Instead of alienating people, work to bridge them and I would think over time much of the us versus them mentality would melt away.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
FlyPNS1 From United States, joined Nov 1999, 3893 posts, RR: 27 Reply 41, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3192 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 32): They are everyday Americans from all walks of life that hold a very basic mainstream societal view.
200 years ago the same "everyday Americans" would have voted to ban interracial marriages, ban women from voting, ban Native Americans from being recognized as citizens and allow slavery to continue. So were they right in their "everyday" beliefs?
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 32): Frankly this is one of the most basic understandings of life that many people hold.
For millenia, most people believed slavery to be a "most basic understanding of life" as they believed some humans to be intrinisically inferior. The Bible even condones slavery. Yet today, few Americans support slavery.
What's ironic is that the people who pushed for this vote (Stand for Marriage Maine) have communist beliefs underlying them. Here's a quote from their website:
"If Question 1 fails and LD 1020 is allowed to take effect, marriage will be redefined to be about any two consenting adults without regard to gender, the focus being only about what the adults want for themselves, and not what is best for society as a whole."
Who goes to their spouse and says, "Honey, I want to marry you because it would be best for society?"
Sorry, people are what make up the government and the majority of the people, even black people, don't see it that way. Interracial and same sex are seen as completely different aspects.
So marriage is a "basic" right until 3 people are involved?
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 26): It's not so much that as the fact that marriage the contract establishes more rights and privileges.
Then hetrosexual people who remain single are just as equally denied those rights and priviliges as well no?
Quoting N104UA (Reply 39): Yes but in the 1950s people were saying that it is against the bible for interracial marriage, and now almost everyone is fine with interracial marriage
One aspect, certainly not the entire view. No way all the people that voted for this measure did so out of religious fervor. Yet that is all I see as an argument here. Sooner or later the gay community will have to recognize that far more than just deeply religious people don't agree with their stance.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
NIKV69 From United States, joined Jan 2004, 8447 posts, RR: 56 Reply 43, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3164 times:
Quoting Mt99 (Reply 38): Let see some exit polls numbers.
Exit polls have never been reliable and are never accurate and furthermore becoming a tool for more left wing propaganda.
Quoting N104UA (Reply 39): But who financed this issue, it was the Mormon Church, Evangelical Christians, and The American Catholic League and Catholic Church, and I bet once we see campaign disclosures come out next month over 70% of the funding did not come from with in Maine
Who cares? Had nothing to do with who went into the booth and flicked the switch.
Quoting N104UA (Reply 39): Yes it is a right because as soon as you tell someone they can not marry but someone else can you are giving the right to that person who can marry and not giving the same right to that other person
LAXintl From United States, joined May 2000, 12217 posts, RR: 22 Reply 45, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3156 times:
Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 41): So were they right in their "everyday" beliefs?
Yes absolutely in the context of their times.
What might happen in 10, 100 or 1000 years to mankind and his understanding and beliefs surrounding society is hard to say for any of us. For all we know marriage might be frowned upon totally, or there might even be 3-person or even communal marriages. Who knows.
But people today vote for what they believe today, for which the mainstream thinking is the opposition of same-sex marriage.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
UAL747 From United States, joined Dec 1999, 6542 posts, RR: 35 Reply 46, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3157 times:
Guys, we could go about debating everything and defer the argument to a race debate, majority rules debate, etc., but can anyone honestly provide me with concrete, coherent, scientific and statistical data that supports banning gay marriage? I think THAT is the real question people against it need to ask themselves. I know some of you here are against it, so if you could please answer that question. I'd like to know how you are rationalizing your opinion.
EA CO AS From United States, joined Nov 2001, 9949 posts, RR: 73 Reply 47, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3129 times:
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 26): Quoting DXing (Reply 25):
One man and one man, or one woman and one woman redefines the word no matter how you would like to think differently.
Only if people let it. My marriage or how I feel about it doesn't change any when I see two members of the opposite sex together.
But to those who are deeply religious about the rite of marriage - not the state-codified aspect of it - it DOES change how they feel. Read on...
Quoting Seb146 (Reply 30): Look at the countries that HAVE legalized civil unions. Have they been thrown into civil war? Have they disbanded? Also, gay marriage is an OPTION. Just because it is legal, does not mean you HAVE to marry you best friend of the same gender.
And that's why legalized civil unions with the same rights as marriage will likely be successful if put to a vote. While it may seem silly, yes - omitting the word "marriage" will likely make all the difference. Read on...
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 35): There is all this focus on the word "Marriage" and how GLBT shouldn't have the right to it
While I fully support gay marriage, let me explain WHY those who oppose it do:
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 35): But if it's truly just a word, then why won't you let us use it as well?
Because to those who don't support gay marriage, it's that the word "marriage" isn't just a word - it's a religious rite that to them, stands for the best in all they believe from a religious standpoint.
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 35): Is there some magical meaning in it that homosexuals shouldn't be privy to?
Yes, as their religious beliefs typically compel them to proclaim homosexuality as immoral.
So to these people - again, rightly or wrongly - the thought of homosexuals sharing in their religious rite DOES, to them, diminish what they believe is the sanctity of their own marriage.
That's why "gay marriage" is probably likely to continue to fail wherever it's put to a public vote. In my mind, the GLBT community would be better served to abandon the "marriage" word entirely and instead work to see civil unions elevated to the same legal status as marriage in all states.
And, as LAXIntl also said, not trying so hard to establish their own identity as a separate community within society, as all this does is create a de-facto "us vs. them" mentality on both sides.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
LAXintl From United States, joined May 2000, 12217 posts, RR: 22 Reply 48, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3127 times:
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 46): but can anyone honestly provide me with concrete, coherent, scientific and statistical data that supports banning gay marriage?
OK I'll bite;
I think you need to remember people don't vote based on scientific or statistical data, and neither are laws primarily designed around them.
For your answer, I believe we need to delve into history instead, and recognize that the church teachings and dogma has served as the core foundation shaping of modern societies, their laws and common understandings.
If you want a little science you can throw in the fact that the human anatomy was designed for X+Y compatibility, not Y+Y or X+X. which helps butress many church teaching.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
NIKV69 From United States, joined Jan 2004, 8447 posts, RR: 56 Reply 49, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3121 times:
Quoting Mt99 (Reply 44): Ahh,. ok.. so you have nothing back up your claim. Great.
I have plenty, Maine is not a far right state. What is an exit poll going to tell you? Your going to ask someone leaving a voting booth if they thump bibles? Everyone who voted this down is not a far right religious nut. As much as you want them to be.
FlyPNS1 From United States, joined Nov 1999, 3893 posts, RR: 27 Reply 50, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3107 times:
Quoting DXing (Reply 42): Sooner or later the gay community will have to recognize that far more than just deeply religious people don't agree with their stance.
I tend to believe that it is mostly those with strong religious beliefs that are voting against gay marriage. These types of votes bring those people out with great fervor. Keep in mind too that voting in general is skewed toward older people who typically hold views that are a bit behind the curve.
53% of the population supported the ban and I'd bet most of that 53% has reasonably strong religious convictions....though they may not be the stereotypical "bible thumper" of the deep South.
There really aren't many other reasons for being against it.
UAL747 From United States, joined Dec 1999, 6542 posts, RR: 35 Reply 51, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3065 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 48): I think you need to remember people don't vote based on scientific or statistical data, and neither are laws primarily designed around them.
For your answer, I believe we need to delve into history instead, and recognize that the church teachings and dogma has served as the core foundation shaping of modern societies, their laws and common understandings.
If you want a little science you can throw in the fact that the human anatomy was designed for X+Y compatibility, not Y+Y or X+X. which helps butress many church teaching.
So it goes back to religious teachings then? Is there ANYTHING that justifies this argument that is NOT Religious based?
Mt99 From Bouvet Island, joined May 1999, 4036 posts, RR: 9 Reply 53, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3057 times:
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 49): I have plenty, Maine is not a far right state. What is an exit poll going to tell you? Your going to ask someone leaving a voting booth if they thump bibles? Everyone who voted this down is not a far right religious nut. As much as you want them to be.
Apparently 50% of the population may have voted. So 53% of the 50% - that's about 25% of the entire population voted against gay marriage.
25% of the population are religious nuts? Sounds about right.
I think you're gonna have a hard time finding atheists or religious people who haven't been brainwashed by their church amongst those who voted.
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 46): but can anyone honestly provide me with concrete, coherent, scientific and statistical data that supports banning gay marriage?
No. Because it's all a case of remaining "i art holier than thou"
Happiness is just an illusion caused by the temporary absence of reality
Vikkyvik From United States, joined Jul 2003, 3829 posts, RR: 26 Reply 55, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3038 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 32): At the end of the day, I see it as a joke and a affront to society that a group of folks that live alternate lifestyle basically are demanding that society bless their alternate life styles and convey the title of marriage upon them as some stamp of approval.
Same exact thing could have been said back when folks were fighting for interracial marriage. How dare they want to marry someone of a different race or skin color!
Quoting Revelation (Reply 34): Well, to be fair, it does potentially extend a whole range of benefits like sharing medical insurance that do not currently exist, no? If so one could choose to object purely on the issue of cost, although to me that's quite small minded.
If cost is the issue, then we should start saving money by denying everyone marriage.
Quoting DXing (Reply 25): No matter the color of their skin it does not change the fact that it was one man and one woman. One man and one man, or one woman and one woman redefines the word no matter how you would like to think differently.
It was one white man and one white woman, or one black man and one black woman.
Why is redefining a word a big deal? Never figured that one out. And it's not even redefining - it's expanding the definition. Your marriage can still be between one man and one woman. Someone else's marriage might be between two men.
The spirit of Massachusetts is the spirit of America!
JpetekYXMD80 From United States, joined Jul 2003, 3463 posts, RR: 38 Reply 56, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3026 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 32): Absolutely, and I suspect many people would support domestic partner laws that make sense and also would cover other situations including opposite-sex couples that might be living together but have not formalized the relationship via marriage.
Sometimes I feel as if i talk to the wall..
Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 7): Want to know what my point is? The 'm word' in most cases has been the preferred play-card of the opposition. Look at all the state marriage referendums in 2006 and 2008 which had absolutely no movement or prospect of gay marriage being legalized in the foreseeable future... through all the scare tactics and BS that went on so publicly in the CA referendum, untruths about education, child manipulation, Utah financiers trying to lead us to theocracy.
Sure, gay marriage has become legalized in some places, and i've been wary that some people have been to ambitious and it may backfire at some point. BUT, in the majority of cases with these referendums, not only are they the "m word", but are preemptive strikes at any kind of rights for gay relationships whatsoever.
They frequently have read like this: "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."
WIth that second sentence: civil unions: BOOM. partnership benefits: BOOM.
In most cases this is not 'protecting marriage', its cold, callous, and most of all unconstitutional strikes at any kind of rights for homosexuals.
It's bigotry, it's bullshit, and anyone who supports that better get used to hearing a hell of a lot from me.
You are mostly right about the polls, and support rising for DPs, civil unions, whatever. BUT the ones in control of the opposition pulling the strings don't feel that way, and people have either ignorantly or intentionally decided that a word is more important than any kind of rights after being coerced into this decision by these referendums far beyond the scope of marriage. Either way, when push comes to shove, many of those "just not marriage" folks are talking the talk, certainly not walking the walk.
MaverickM11 From United States, joined Apr 2000, 11947 posts, RR: 51 Reply 57, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3007 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 34): Well, to be fair, it does potentially extend a whole range of benefits like sharing medical insurance that do not currently exist, no? If so one could choose to object purely on the issue of cost, although to me that's quite small minded.
That happens to heterosexuals, so that's not so much a change as more of the same. Seems to dovetail nicely with what the administration is doing anyway .
Clemsonaj From United States, joined Aug 2009, 87 posts, RR: 0 Reply 58, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3003 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 40):
Instead of showing that you are different, or have a unique niche in society, portray yourselves are regular every day valuable Americans in our communities
So forget wrapping yourselves in multicolor flags, fly an American flag, avoid creating enclaves in cities but instead work to erase the boundaries and show you are as much part of mainstream society as plumber Joe or anyone.
What you are suggesting is exactly what is happening throughout the nation and the world. For the longest time gay people were forced to form enclaves in cities where there was in essence "strength in numbers." To this day gay folks are beaten and killed for being who they are and these enclaves provided a sense of security. Places like the Castro in SF, the Village in Montreal and NYC, and Midtown in ATL are becoming much less gay as more and more straight people move in and more and more gay people move out. This is why gay bars, shops, and hotels are closing or becoming welcoming of everyone. We are becoming more integrated into society, but apparently there are still lots of folks holding on to socially conservative viewpoints, despite our community doing pretty much everything you have asked of us. "Why can't you just act normal?" doesn't work any longer.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 48): For your answer, I believe we need to delve into history instead, and recognize that the church teachings and dogma has served as the core foundation shaping of modern societies, their laws and common understandings.
If you want a little science you can throw in the fact that the human anatomy was designed for X+Y compatibility, not Y+Y or X+X. which helps butress many church teaching.
That's about the only thing "scientific" that most religious folks can come up with in support of their dislike (read bigotry) toward homosexuality. On the other hand there is quite a bit of literature out there supporting the fact that homosexuality is innate and biological. A couple prominent ones come to mind. The first being a study that found that as a female has more male children the odds of each successive one being gay increases significantly. There are lots of good theories floating around as to why this is the case, but never-the-less a significant trend. A second study reported a couple years ago found through brain imaging that sectors of the brain dealing with sexual arousal and attraction in homosexual males behaved almost identically to those of heterosexual females. Similarly in homosexual females their brain patterns behaved in much the same way as heterosexual males. While neither of these is a scientific smoking gun to point at homosexuality being biological, these lend a lot more evidence to support that idea.
San747 From United States, joined Dec 2004, 3932 posts, RR: 13 Reply 59, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3003 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 32):
I think its ridiculous to call all these people bigots, idiots, bible thumpers or any other wishful derogatory term. They are everyday Americans from all walks of life that hold a very basic mainstream societal view.
Yes, I understand gay marriage opponents are a diverse group, but it doesn't make them right.
Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 33): People have the right to vote any way they want
Absolutely. I just don't feel this subject is one that should be up for a popular vote by the people. If anything, let the SCOTUS decide on it.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 40):
Instead of showing that you are different, or have a unique niche in society, portray yourselves are regular every day valuable Americans in our communities
So forget wrapping yourselves in multicolor flags, fly an American flag, avoid creating enclaves in cities but instead work to erase the boundaries and show you are as much part of mainstream society as plumber Joe or anyone.
That's fine, and I agree it would accomplish a lot, but if the mainstream society the GLBT community is trying to assimilate into won't let them, then it just won't work. This is a two-way street. People need to stop being prejudiced and discriminatory if they want gays to be more "normal."
Quoting DXing (Reply 42):
So marriage is a "basic" right until 3 people are involved?
Um... yes. What's so hard to understand about that? Gay marriage and polygamy are completely different things, and comparing the two or implying they're equal is insulting.
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 46): but can anyone honestly provide me with concrete, coherent, scientific and statistical data that supports banning gay marriage?
No. No study has shown that gay couples are any less loving, any less capable of raising a child, any less capable of being responsible members of their community. And no study ever will.
LAXintl From United States, joined May 2000, 12217 posts, RR: 22 Reply 60, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2974 times:
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 51): So it goes back to religious teachings then? Is there ANYTHING that justifies this argument that is NOT Religious based?
We have to appreciate that religion very broadly shaped very basic way societal understandings exist today. Look at the Ten-Commandments for examples whose concepts are shared across most modern religions.
Bottom line is religion effects the way we think, we act and very clearly our laws.
Now for the science piece, we were designed to partner up with the opposite sex to further our species. I don't think anyone can deny this as the physical norm. If all of us were gay, then there would be no mankind left. Gay as a result is basically the variation or in scientific terms or the biological mutation/change as Clemsonaj points to.
Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 56): Inconvenient facts for many of your arguments..
I'm not sure at what you are referring to.
If its about civil unions, they might or might not happen. I have personally not voted on one, and will withhold my decision until I can read any proposed specific language.
At the end of the day, I am very comfortable with my held views, which I believe reflect broad society.
Quoting San747 (Reply 59): If anything, let the SCOTUS decide on it.
Agreed.
From what I understand many in the GLBT are leery of pushing things to that venue, as one bad judgment against them would end the debate for decades to come. The state by state initiatives while futile in outcomes are clearly lower risk.
[Edited 2009-11-04 12:49:37 by laxintl]
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Slider From United States, joined Feb 2004, 5400 posts, RR: 49 Reply 61, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2972 times:
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 10): For the record, I support gay marriage - but damn, I do NOT support the name-calling that comes from the GLBT community and their supporters when public votes like this don't turn out their way.
Calling people out as homophobes and bigots isn't the way to engender support the next time your cause is voted on.
And you just nailed it there. I had this discussion with a few people already today. First, I’m not going to stake a claim on either side, but it does tell you something when ALL 31 states in which this has been presented have rejected it. The continued berating, bigot-calling, all that crap does nothing to help the gay cause.
Shazam- you don’t need to be a genius to figure out that the whole approach, verbiage and campaign has been wrong. There is a cultural change that hasn’t happened yet and as long as the vitriol as evidenced in this thread exists, it won’t change, bank on it, because people will stay entrenched.
The same people in this thread who say the war is unwinnable until you change hearts and minds in Iraq are some of the same voices who are now hollering the loudest and angriest. Makes no sense. Carry on.
JpetekYXMD80 From United States, joined Jul 2003, 3463 posts, RR: 38 Reply 62, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2949 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 60):
If its about civil unions, they might or might happen. I have personally not voted on one, and will withhold my decision until I can read any proposed specific language.
Why is the leadership against gay rights feeling the need to more of then than not include preemptive strikes against civil unions, domestic partnerships, or "A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage "??
And look who is falling for the guise of 'protecting marriage'..
JakeOrion From United States, joined Oct 2005, 871 posts, RR: 0 Reply 63, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2952 times:
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 46): Guys, we could go about debating everything and defer the argument to a race debate, majority rules debate, etc., but can anyone honestly provide me with concrete, coherent, scientific and statistical data that supports banning gay marriage?
The only true concrete, coherent, scientific and statistical fact is neither a man/man or woman/woman cannot conceive a child. What is the true essence of a marriage over history? To conceive heirs and the next generation. All the love, status and crap is just a by product of "marriage."
With that said, I'm personally indifferent about this issue, but I am getting sick and tired of both sides bitching and whinning about this.
Revelation From United States, joined Feb 2005, 4097 posts, RR: 4 Reply 64, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2938 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 60): Now for the science piece, we were designed to partner up with the opposite sex to further our species. I don't think anyone can deny this as the physical norm. If all of us were gay, then there would be no mankind left.
Wake me up when there is a shortage of people willing to breed.
Till then, it's a non-issue.
Scientifically, the sun is burning 4 million tons of hydrogen a second and will run out of fuel in 5 billion years or so. Once it goes dark, we're all done for.
Something tells me there will be people still willing to breed then.
LAXintl From United States, joined May 2000, 12217 posts, RR: 22 Reply 65, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2928 times:
Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 62): Why is the leadership against gay rights feeling the need to more of then than not include preemptive strikes against civil unions, domestic partnerships, or "A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage "??
I don't know - go ask one of the groups that write the ballot measures.
But from legal background I suspect the language is meant to ensure that marriage is not bestowed by default or under the guise of something else, and provide the clarity of such.
My understanding is that the concept of, and benefits under potential domestic partnership laws are in no means to be tantamount to formal State sanction of same-sex marriage.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
PSA53 From United States, joined Aug 2003, 2332 posts, RR: 6 Reply 66, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2926 times:
Quoting Slider (Reply 61): Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 10):
For the record, I support gay marriage - but damn, I do NOT support the name-calling that comes from the GLBT community and their supporters when public votes like this don't turn out their way.
Calling people out as homophobes and bigots isn't the way to engender support the next time your cause is voted on.
And you just nailed it there. I had this discussion with a few people already today. First, I'm not going to stake a claim on either side, but it does tell you something when ALL 31 states in which this has been presented have rejected it. The continued berating, bigot-calling, all that crap does nothing to help the gay cause
I will second those inputs.Gays have not done a good PR relations.In fact,It's been,in some cases, as hateful of those they accused.Sometimes,it has been insisted upon,demanded upon and even threaten upon, (Ca,Prop 8 post election street protest upon some churches) that gays are not going to win any votes using these tactics.There's even this feeling of,"If you're not all in" with gay politics,you're called a religious fanatic.And I oppose that.That's horrible.And parading down main street during gay pride half or full nude doesn't help.
I recommend,IMHO, that gays stop blaming John Q public,who is not buying into this,take a sobering look, and fix the PR problems.This is why I never given my approval of gay politics,as I have said before.
Slider From United States, joined Feb 2004, 5400 posts, RR: 49 Reply 67, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2894 times:
Quoting PSA53 (Reply 66): I will second those inputs.Gays have not done a good PR relations.In fact,It's been,in some cases, as hateful of those they accused.Sometimes,it has been insisted upon,demanded upon and even threaten upon, (Ca,Prop 8 post election street protest upon some churches) that gays are not going to win any votes using these tactics.There's even this feeling of,"If you're not all in" with gay politics,you're called a religious fanatic.And I oppose that.That's horrible.And parading down main street during gay pride half or full nude doesn't help.
I recommend,IMHO, that gays stop blaming John Q public,who is not buying into this,take a sobering look, and fix the PR problems.This is why I never given my approval of gay politics,as I have said before.
Well said and I don’t say this to be inflammatory or provocative, but many gays are very thin-skinned and that doesn’t help. A buddy of mine said as much too—jokingly saying that there’s too many queens among us to play this politics game seriously to get the change they want. I thought that tacit admission took a lot of guts on his part, but just like so many other issues, until an organization or constituency evaluates itself and its message, the continued blaming of others, who have just as much right and thousands of years more tradition (not to mention beliefs and the foundations of Western Civilization as they see it) on their side, nothing will change.
Since the gay marriage things has been bounced in all 31 states proposed, at some point, you have to start looking inward and stop blaming everyone for this massive perceived injustice and the drama that goes with it.
I say that quite seriously and respectfully—I really don’t mean that in a flippant sense. I’m a Libertarian, do what you want with one another.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 64): Wake me up when there is a shortage of people willing to breed.
If you look at replacement birth rates of almost EVERY Western nation, they're not sustaining.
Airstud From United States, joined Nov 2000, 469 posts, RR: 0 Reply 68, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2873 times:
Quoting N104UA (Reply 39): Yes it is a right because as soon as you tell someone they can not marry but someone else can you are giving the right to that person who can marry and not giving the same right to that other person
"[Y]ou tell someone they cannot marry but someone else can" isn't the whole of the situation. The law doesn't say 'If you are a gay person then you cannot have a marriage.' Legions of disappointed wives will testify to this. Proscribing gay marriage doesn't equal DEPRIVING SOMEONE OF A RIGHT. The matter, as I said, involves redefining an institution that's been solidly defined for millenia. It's not even remotely like the right to vote or own property, which are >>INDIVIDUAL<< rights, not couples' rights; and are cut-and-dried: You're either allowed into the voting booth or you're not; no one's questioning the definition of voting.
Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 55): Same exact thing could have been said back when folks were fighting for interracial marriage.
I would not say it is the same exact thing, for you see it in fact is broadly different: the difference between races is skin color. Difference between the genders are far more numerous and far more significant.
Quoting Clemsonaj (Reply 58): the only thing "scientific" that most religious folks can come up with in support of their dislike (read bigotry) toward homosexuality
Like so many other posters on this thread, I don't understand, and am absolutely infuriated at, those who think they get to slap the reprehensible "BIGOT" label on anyone who doesn't support their agenda. BIGOTS are those who believe that blacks are stupid or violent, or that Jews are thieves or that Mexicans are pickpockets and purse snatchers. Having a strong feeling that marriage is a man and a woman is not bigotry. Save that label for, and fight that battle against, the actual bigots in the world.
Quoting San747 (Reply 59): Gay marriage and polygamy are completely different things, and comparing the two or implying they're equal is insulting.
I won't go so far as to say that they're the same thing. However, an issue arises because the reason why millenia-old marriage has consisted of two people is that there are two genders. With the requirement for heterogeneity removed, what legal argument remains for keeping marriage defined as two people? If a man and a man can have the same love for one another as a husband and wife, who is anyone to say three people, whatever their genders, can't have the same love? The door then opens (heh...) to "committed threesomes" and any number of other "alternative arrangements."
RussianJet From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 3646 posts, RR: 16 Reply 69, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2865 times:
Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 54): I think you're gonna have a hard time finding atheists or religious people who haven't been brainwashed by their church amongst those who voted.
Just out of interest, what is the basis for that assertion?
Quoting N104UA (Reply 39): But who financed this issue, it was the Mormon Church, Evangelical Christians, and The American Catholic League and Catholic Church, and I bet once we see campaign disclosures come out next month over 70% of the funding did not come from with in Maine
Doesn't make it just a Christian issue though. They don't decide who turns up to vote or why.
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 37): Also, if it's an irrational attitude toward a minority, what else could it be but fear and bigotry?
You obviously find it irrational. Clearly many others don't.
MaverickM11 From United States, joined Apr 2000, 11947 posts, RR: 51 Reply 70, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2842 times:
Quoting Airstud (Reply 68): Like so many other posters on this thread, I don't understand, and am absolutely infuriated at, those who think they get to slap the reprehensible "BIGOT" label on anyone who doesn't support their agenda.
"Idiot" is probably more appropriate, because only an idiot would go through so much effort to defend himself from a bogeyman that doesn't exist.
Clemsonaj From United States, joined Aug 2009, 87 posts, RR: 0 Reply 72, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2802 times:
Quoting Airstud (Reply 68): Like so many other posters on this thread, I don't understand, and am absolutely infuriated at, those who think they get to slap the reprehensible "BIGOT" label on anyone who doesn't support their agenda. BIGOTS are those who believe that blacks are stupid or violent, or that Jews are thieves or that Mexicans are pickpockets and purse snatchers. Having a strong feeling that marriage is a man and a woman is not bigotry. Save that label for, and fight that battle against, the actual bigots in the world.
Bigotry is blind, uninformed intolerance of someone or something. Those are excellent examples, however many opinions on marriage are based on not being well informed. I was attempting to illustrate that there is plenty of resources and research out there to help people become informed on the subject. My use of the term was appropriate in my statements entirety. Please quote my entire statement in the future.
Yellowstone From United States, joined Aug 2006, 2312 posts, RR: 11 Reply 73, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2778 times:
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 69): You obviously find it irrational. Clearly many others don't.
Until they provide a rational reason - and "the magic invisible man in the sky said so" doesn't count as rational - they are being irrational.
Quoting Airstud (Reply 68): I don't understand, and am absolutely infuriated at, those who think they get to slap the reprehensible "BIGOT" label on anyone who doesn't support their agenda. BIGOTS are those who believe that blacks are stupid or violent, or that Jews are thieves or that Mexicans are pickpockets and purse snatchers.
Suppose I think that black men are incapable of maintaining marital relationships, and so shouldn't be allowed to marry. Is that bigotry? And if so, then why isn't it also bigotry to make the same claim about gay men and women?
Quoting PSA53 (Reply 66): I will second those inputs.Gays have not done a good PR relations.In fact,It's been,in some cases, as hateful of those they accused.
It's a hard balancing act - yes, gays have every reason to be angry, and calling people out on their bigotry and close-mindedness feels good, but that's not going to win them the rights they deserve.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 60): At the end of the day, I am very comfortable with my held views, which I believe reflect broad society.
I doubt that I need to remind you of the countless times throughout history that broadly held societal views were in the wrong.
Quoting Airstud (Reply 68): Proscribing gay marriage doesn't equal DEPRIVING SOMEONE OF A RIGHT.
Yes, it does. A woman has the right to marry the man that she loves. A man does not have that right. Hence, sex discrimination. And sex is subject to intermediate (bordering on strict) scrutiny, meaning that the government must show that it has an important interest at stake in making the discrimination. It has not done so.
The concept of hell as a place of eternal fiery damnation is thermodynamically unsound.
LH459 From United States, joined Aug 2005, 704 posts, RR: 2 Reply 74, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2776 times:
Quoting Airstud (Reply 68): If a man and a man can have the same love for one another as a husband and wife, who is anyone to say three people, whatever their genders, can't have the same love? The door then opens (heh...) to "committed threesomes" and any number of other "alternative arrangements."
Ah yes, the old "slippery slope" argument. It falls apart when you examine the experience of other countries that have successfully enacted domestic partnership or full marriage rights for gays. No sign of the "alternative arrangements" you mention clamoring for recognition in Canada or Spain, which have full marriage equality, or in Germany, which has domestic partnership equal to civil marriage.
This issue has always been about couples (i.e. two people) in a committed relationship. Your "committed threesomes," which are rare if not psychologically impossible, are irrelevant.
"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is temporary; the evil it does is permanent" - Ghandi
2H4 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 8171 posts, RR: 65 Reply 75, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2753 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 73): Yes, it does. A woman has the right to marry the man that she loves. A man does not have that right. Hence, sex discrimination. And sex is subject to intermediate (bordering on strict) scrutiny, meaning that the government must show that it has an important interest at stake in making the discrimination. It has not done so.
A great article was published in the Philadelphia Enquirer on Sunday. Some particularly good excerpts:
"The purpose of constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process is to limit the power of the majority to restrict minority rights."
"...(The) first Amendment, as well as the due-process and equal-protection clauses, precludes anyone from using state law to enforce his or her religious beliefs on others."
San747 From United States, joined Dec 2004, 3932 posts, RR: 13 Reply 77, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2714 times:
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 75):
A great article was published in the Philadelphia Enquirer on Sunday. Some particularly good excerpts:
"The purpose of constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process is to limit the power of the majority to restrict minority rights."
"...(The) first Amendment, as well as the due-process and equal-protection clauses, precludes anyone from using state law to enforce his or her religious beliefs on others."
That should be the end of the argument right there. Allow any two legal, consenting adults to marry each other should they desire so, make it a written statute if we must (which we probably will have to) and leave this issue behind. The Constitution supports the idea. Let's move on to more important things, like the economy or the wars we're waging overseas.
LAXintl From United States, joined May 2000, 12217 posts, RR: 22 Reply 78, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2696 times:
Quote: Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 73): and "the magic invisible man in the sky said so" doesn't count as rational - they are being irrational.
Many would say, that power and teachings of religion is the ultimate guidance. There simply cant be a higher authority, and provides many the rational for their lives.
Quote: Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 73): I doubt that I need to remind you of the countless times throughout history that broadly held societal views were in the wrong.
You are making that statement based on historical view. Like I said earlier what might happen or be deemed acceptable in 10, 100 or 1000 years can very well be different.
My views, and those I am sure of most people are based on the realities and circumstance as seen and experienced today.
Quote: Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 76): It is, if those religious convictions are being used to squelch the rights of others.
There is no "right" to marriage. Not even legal scholars will argue that one.
As with many things in life, there are qualifications that must be met in order to viewed as such by a government.
[Edited 2009-11-04 16:00:22 by laxintl]
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
UAL747 From United States, joined Dec 1999, 6542 posts, RR: 35 Reply 79, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2672 times:
.....yet, they'll let a convicted child molester/rapist marry and let that person have children, but OH NO, don't let the gays get married let alone adopt children.
Sometimes people's ideas of what is morally right and wrong confuse me.
Yellowstone From United States, joined Aug 2006, 2312 posts, RR: 11 Reply 80, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2587 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 78): Many would say, that power and teachings of religion is the ultimate guidance. There simply cant be a higher authority, and provides many the rational for their lives.
Until you can demonstrate that God exists, basing your beliefs on his existence is irrational. I'm not saying that's a bad thing for your everyday life, but when it comes to the law, decisions must be based on reason and logic.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 78): You are making that statement based on historical view. Like I said earlier what might happen or be deemed acceptable in 10, 100 or 1000 years can very well be different.
Irrelevant. Denying rights to individuals based on factors such as race, gender, or sexual orientation is wrong, regardless of era or context. "But everyone else is doing it" is a lame excuse, whether it's a teen excusing his drinking or you excusing your homophobia.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 78): As with many things in life, there are qualifications that must be met in order to viewed as such by a government.
But not all qualifications are constitutional. Qualifications based on gender are valid only if the state can demonstrate that they have a significant interest at stake.
The concept of hell as a place of eternal fiery damnation is thermodynamically unsound.
FLY2HMO From United States, joined Jan 2004, 4075 posts, RR: 5 Reply 81, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2586 times:
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 69): Just out of interest, what is the basis for that assertion?
I'm pretty sure the majority of atheists (myself included and all the ones I know, which are many) consider the gay marriage thing a non-issue. I also know many religious people that don't have a problem with it as well.
Bible thumpers. on the other hand...
[Edited 2009-11-04 18:28:09]
Happiness is just an illusion caused by the temporary absence of reality
FlyDeltaJets87 From United States, joined Aug 2006, 4565 posts, RR: 24 Reply 84, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2557 times:
For starters, I am for gay marriage, and voted against the "Marriage Defining" Amendment here in Florida last year. I don't buy the "sanctity of marriage" argument. I wish it were, but with the divorce rate at 50%, I can't listen to it anymore. Two guys being married to each other doesn't effect me and it shouldn't effect you either. I also don't have a problem with gay adoption because I think a two-parent household that can provide a stable, comfortable living environment for a child , then I see that as a good thing. That said, this is something I must address:
I'm reading about all these "bible thumpers" in this thread, yet Maine is a state that has been blue on the Presidential level since 1992, and voted in favor of Obama by 58% in 2008. Sounds like a state full of "bible thumpers" to me. Only 10 states had a higher margin for Obama than Maine did, and many of those 10 have voted down gay marriage too. So maybe some of these liberals on here should stop only blaming the "other side" of the spectrum. You have quite a few on your own side to convince too, so stop just blaming "Bible Thumpers" and "Republicans". Gay marriage is an issue that goes far beyond just simple "Left or Right". Even California, one of the most liberal states in the US, can't pass gay marriage. So it's not just conservatives who are against that one.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 40): Instead of showing that you are different, or have a unique niche in society, portray yourselves are regular every day valuable Americans in our communities
So forget wrapping yourselves in multicolor flags, fly an American flag, avoid creating enclaves in cities but instead work to erase the boundaries and show you are as much part of mainstream society as plumber Joe or anyone.
I think that sums it up pretty well as to why many people are against gay marriage. Despite the fact that most gay people can't be identified as gay in their every day lives at work and such, what the mainstream public sees are the flamboyant ones who want to be "in your face" about it. Here in Florida, there was a story on the local news that a local gay man was NOT going to Disney World for Gay Week because the people who show up don't act "normal". It's the people wearing "man thongs", walking each other around on leashes, cross dressing, etc. But this is what the public sees and many of them don't like it. To be honest, I don't think many of them would like it if it was the straight culture acting that way either. I don't want to see that kind of behavior from a gay or straight couple. I don't know how to word it better, but if the perception the public had of gay people was more "normal" (yes, I know "normal" is a vague term and open to interpretation, hence why it's in quotes), I think more people would come around on gay marriage like I have.
NIKV69 From United States, joined Jan 2004, 8447 posts, RR: 56 Reply 85, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2519 times:
Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 84): I'm reading about all these "bible thumpers" in this thread, yet Maine is a state that has been blue on the Presidential level since 1992, and voted in favor of Obama by 58% in 2008. Sounds like a state full of "bible thumpers" to me. Only 10 states had a higher margin for Obama than Maine did, and many of those 10 have voted down gay marriage too. So maybe some of these liberals on here should stop only blaming the "other side" of the spectrum. You have quite a few on your own side to convince too, so stop just blaming "Bible Thumpers" and "Republicans". Gay marriage is an issue that goes far beyond just simple "Left or Right". Even California, one of the most liberal states in the US, can't pass gay marriage. So it's not just conservatives who are against that one.
JpetekYXMD80 From United States, joined Jul 2003, 3463 posts, RR: 38 Reply 86, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2506 times:
Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 84): I'm reading about all these "bible thumpers" in this thread, yet Maine is a state that has been blue on the Presidential level since 1992, and voted in favor of Obama by 58% in 2008. Sounds like a state full of "bible thumpers" to me. Only 10 states had a higher margin for Obama than Maine did, and many of those 10 have voted down gay marriage too. So maybe some of these liberals on here should stop only blaming the "other side" of the spectrum. You have quite a few on your own side to convince too, so stop just blaming "Bible Thumpers" and "Republicans". Gay marriage is an issue that goes far beyond just simple "Left or Right". Even California, one of the most liberal states in the US, can't pass gay marriage. So it's not just conservatives who are against that one.
You are absolutely right, and we need to be careful not to simplify matters beyond reality. I have been very outspoken about what I perceived to be hypocrisy with how staunchly the black vote in CA went against.
2H4 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 8171 posts, RR: 65 Reply 87, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2496 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 84): It's the people wearing "man thongs", walking each other around on leashes, cross dressing, etc. But this is what the public sees and many of them don't like it.
In virtually any cultural or religious group, there will always be a subset of brash and over-the-top individuals. It's up to all of us to become reasonably educated about a topic before promoting, opposing, or voting on it.
Television, Hollywood, and popular culture portray Harley-Davidson riders as mean, tough, ruthless felons. Anyone who has spent much time at Harley dealerships, fundraisers, parades, etc knows that in reality, Harley riders are just as likely to be physicians, H.R. directors, or teachers.
Many of the reality shows, movies, and news stories I see about devoutly religious individuals feature what most of us would describe as zealots, fanatics, or extremists. It's easy to label ALL religious people with those characteristics and write them all off as identical and offensive.
But those of us with a shred of maturity or intelligence stop, think, and realize that what we see portrayed does not necessarily reflect reality. We recognize that we're only seeing part of the picture...and an extreme part, at that. And we take it upon ourselves to learn before we judge.
Choosing to base one's opinion solely on information gained from the media, Hollywood, and popular culture is stupid and shortsighted regardless of the topic at hand. In my opinion, the gay population as a whole should not be faulted or penalized for the general public's unwillingness or inability to discern the difference between the fraction of the gay population that is overexposed in the media and the majority of the gay population that consists of our "normal" friends, co-workers, daughters, nephews, soldiers, and everything in between.
UAL747 From United States, joined Dec 1999, 6542 posts, RR: 35 Reply 88, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days ago) and read 2470 times:
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 87):
Television, Hollywood, and popular culture portray Harley-Davidson riders as mean, tough, ruthless felons. Anyone who has spent much time at Harley dealerships, fundraisers, parades, etc knows that in reality, Harley riders are just as likely to be physicians, H.R. directors, or teachers.
You didn't just watch the latest episode of South Park did you?
Yellowstone From United States, joined Aug 2006, 2312 posts, RR: 11 Reply 90, posted (1 month 1 week 3 days ago) and read 2448 times:
Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 84): I'm reading about all these "bible thumpers" in this thread, yet Maine is a state that has been blue on the Presidential level since 1992, and voted in favor of Obama by 58% in 2008. Sounds like a state full of "bible thumpers" to me.
A good point. It is uncomfortable for many people, I think, to admit that it is not just hard-core right wing Christianity that is the problem. Mainstream Christian churches are bigoted as well, and this hits too close to home for some. This is not, of course, to say that all Christians are bigots, but the standard variant of Christianity teaches that homosexuality is a sin. Liberal Christians can argue (correctly, IMO) that Jesus didn't care about homosexuality, and that he would have accepted his gay brothers and sisters in Himself, but that's not what the current church teaches. And until Christian churches start proclaiming that they were wrong, and that it's not in the spirit of Christ to look down on and discriminate against your fellow man, those churches are part of the problem, whether they are hard-core conservative or more moderate institutions.
The concept of hell as a place of eternal fiery damnation is thermodynamically unsound.
2H4 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 8171 posts, RR: 65 Reply 92, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2414 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting DXing (Reply 91): Ok, lets redefine the word murder. I mean who cares who's being killed as long as it's not somebody you know right?
One of the commandments says "Thou shalt not kill". Yet, somehow, many religious people applaud putting a bullet through someone's head when you're in uniform with your country's flag on your shoulder.
With all due respect, I'd say the word has already been redefined.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm a CONSERVATIVE Christian and I support gay marriage. Yes, I lean conservative more for economic reasons than social ones but the social aspect does have some impact. You also have to demonstrate that everyone who opposes gay marriage does so based on their Christian beliefs. Is that true? Yes, the extremist quote the bible (which I find amusing because the bible talks about slavery but I dont see too many people using those lines to reinstate slavery). I don't know tho. But since you want to call out Christians, it's up to you to prove. How many people are non-religious but are consciously just sub-consciously homophobic?
Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 90): Mainstream Christian churches are bigoted as well, and this hits too close to home for some.
Again, are you sure it's just Christians?
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 87): But those of us with a shred of maturity or intelligence stop, think, and realize that what we see portrayed does not necessarily reflect reality. We recognize that we're only seeing part of the picture...and an extreme part, at that. And we take it upon ourselves to learn before we judge.
I agree. But I think what happens is that in the other cases you mention, most people know a several other people who fall into that category and thus know that the majority of people who are Christians/Harley Davidson riders/fill-in-the-blank are not extremists. However, when it comes to gay people, most people don't know that many gay people, at least really well. Most people have several good friends who are Christians. Most people know a few others who ride Harley Davidsons and they aren't renegades (Although Bike Week here in Daytona could put that statement to the test haha). But I think it's safe to say that a significant portion of straight people don't hang around gay people on a regular basis.
PWM2TXLHopper From United States, joined Jan 2004, 848 posts, RR: 0 Reply 94, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2400 times:
Well, as a voting citizen of Maine, I for one am glad Mainer's flushed this garbage down the john! Marriage has always been between as between a man and a woman, and Mainer's choose to keep it this way! As I've tried to point out on here before, there's two Maines. There's Greater Portland and Southern Maine, which is pretty much just an extension of Boston, and then there's the rest of Maine! Sometimes, those here in the Portland area tend to forget they don't speak for the majority of us, with their progressive agenda. Good thing Boston and New York are close by! Don't let the door hit y'all on the way out!
Just remember there's only 31 other states that reject gay marriage, too, and only a handful that allow it! Guess it's easy to forget that and just think of Maine as a secluded, bigoted place full of haters? For those convinced that everybody here is a bigot that opposed gay marriage, just remember ,your savior President Obama doesn't support it either. Is he a bigoted hater, that would probably vote to take away rights from blacks and women voters, too? After all, the gay rights crowd around the country are already starting to vent about how the Maine was influenced by all the backwoods, hillbilly, ignorant haters! So if that's the only type that's against gay marriage, than I guess pour President must be one too! Right?
The truth is, in 2005, Maine voted to give gays special rights and protection because Maine is a tolerant place. Back then, the gays rights supporters promised Mainer's this wasn't a first step in their agenda to bring gay marriage here. Then four years later, this year, Mainer's saw this absolutely was their planned next step and we'd been lied to and mislead to take advantage of our tolerance. Then for the last six months, anybody who
stood for keeping gay marriage out of Maine has been deemed full of hate, bigoted, and "they probably hates blacks as well", etc. All the typical BS. Tolerant traditional Mainer's were fed up with the name calling, ridicule, demonizing, and the promise during the last election this wouldn't lead to marriage! The gay agenda pushed too hard! They were too forceful and intolerant of those who thought differently! They were downright disrespectful of those forming their opinion on their religious faith and tried to force something on us that we don't want!
Let the intolerance and hate begin! Can't wait to read all the angry responses calling me every name in the book and demonstrating how to "celebrate" diversity! Truth is. most Americans don't support gay marriage, and those who do are the minority. So who really cares what they have to say. It's insignificant because the voters prove them the minority. Just as in California, and now in Maine!
Pwm2txlhopper From United States, joined Jan 2004, 848 posts, RR: 0 Reply 95, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2387 times:
Quoting Mt99 (Reply 24): Who is going to vote to block it? 80% of Church goes who are fed lies and "values" every Sunday.
That's only your opinion they're lies! Does anybody really know? No. And nobody will until they die.
But that debate aside. There's plenty of non religious people who oppose gay marriage. I'm one of them. It's possible to be traditional and conservative without being a Christian. The Maine vote is only further proof of this considering Maine is statistically one of the least religious states in the entire country. It's like Europe here. The only people that go to church are about 75 years old!
SO believe it or not. It's not just religious folks opposing something that makes a mockery of our traditional western culture.
PWM2TXLHopper From United States, joined Jan 2004, 848 posts, RR: 0 Reply 97, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2383 times:
Quoting KPWMSpotter (Reply 20): Maine's politics tend to lean liberal socially and conservative fiscally..
That's where you're wrong. I assume you're from Southern Maine/Portland area? Maine's a big place and the only liberal/progressive areas are in these parts. The rest of Maine just laughs at the people around here and that's why Portland and Southern Maine is just considered north Boston among real Mainer's who reject this new age progressive crap!
I use to think the same thing when I was younger, until I realized there was much more to Maine than The People's Republic of Portland and Cumberland or York Counties
Mir From United States, joined Jan 2004, 13225 posts, RR: 65 Reply 98, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2383 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 40): How about a paradigm shift for the GLBT community.
Instead of showing that you are different, or have a unique niche in society, portray yourselves are regular every day valuable Americans in our communities
So forget wrapping yourselves in multicolor flags, fly an American flag, avoid creating enclaves in cities but instead work to erase the boundaries and show you are as much part of mainstream society as plumber Joe or anyone.
How many gay people do you know? Now think about how many of them would obviously stand out as gay if you took a passing glance at them on the street. I know about one or two gay people who are clearly identifiable as gay. The rest of them do in fact blend in quite well with mainstream society.
Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 84): Despite the fact that most gay people can't be identified as gay in their every day lives at work and such, what the mainstream public sees are the flamboyant ones who want to be "in your face" about it.
That's true of most groups. Westboro Baptist Church is the poster child for evangelical baptists, Jeremiah Wright is the poster child for black churches, etc. Yet most people recognize that such stereotypes are not accurate. Why can't the same be done for the gay community?
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 47): But to those who are deeply religious about the rite of marriage - not the state-codified aspect of it - it DOES change how they feel.
And that's fine, but it doesn't equate to justifying the legal imposition of their feelings on others.
FlyDeltaJets87 From United States, joined Aug 2006, 4565 posts, RR: 24 Reply 99, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2380 times:
Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 94): For those convinced that everybody here is a bigot that opposed gay marriage, just remember ,your savior President Obama doesn't support it either. Is he a bigoted hater, that would probably vote to take away rights from blacks and women voters, too? After all, the gay rights crowd around the country are already starting to vent about how the Maine was influenced by all the backwoods, hillbilly, ignorant haters! So if that's the only type that's against gay marriage, than I guess pour President must be one too! Right?
That's certainly a fair point. I'll be curious to see the response to this, if there is one (JpetekYXMD80 did to an extent in Reply 86, calling the black vote in California "hypocritical". But I'll be curious to see what those who have been comparing this to race have to say about Obama specifically, should they dare).
Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 94): Truth is. most Americans don't support gay marriage, and those who do are the minority. So who really cares what they have to say. It's insignificant because the voters prove them the minority.
This is the one part I really disagree with you on, and here's why. There's a phrase that all must be weary of democracies and republics - "Tyranny of the Majority", which is why I have become a proponent for gay marriage. Just because a significant portion of the population agrees with something doesn't mean it should be so. There was a time in this country when it was a minority of people in some states who opposed the abolition of slavery and then again with Civil Rights based on rights, because minorities were the minority. My point is - just be careful about dismissing the "minority" on certain issues.
That said, since I used to be against gay marriage and am now on the other side, I think I have a better understanding of how BOTH sides think on the issue, and I can tell you that many of the liberals who are throwing out the terms like "idiots" and "bigots" and such that we've seen in this thread don't understand the logic used by some who are opposed to gay marriage and I can tell you that it's probably not going to work in swinging too many's people's opinions. If they want to succeed in changing the logic and beliefs of mainstream America to bring a majority of the country to accept it, they need to understand the "why" and "how" of the beliefs of the other side, which I can say most of them don't.
UAL747 From United States, joined Dec 1999, 6542 posts, RR: 35 Reply 100, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2376 times:
This subject has become too sensitive for me. I've let myself get emotionally wrapped up in this fight with usual suspects on far too many occasions, so I'll back out, but I do wish you people against this would consider my previous questions and think long and hard about how gay marriage truly affects you, your families, society, and anyone else.
PWM2TXLHopper From United States, joined Jan 2004, 848 posts, RR: 0 Reply 101, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2358 times:
Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 99): That said, since I used to be against gay marriage and am now on the other side, I think I have a better understanding of how BOTH sides think on the issue, and I can tell you that many of the liberals who are throwing out the terms like "idiots" and "bigots" and such that we've seen in this thread don't understand the logic used by some who are opposed to gay marriage. If they want to succeed in changing the logic and beliefs of mainstream America to bring a majority of the country to accept it, they need to understand the "why" and "how" of the beliefs of the other side, which I can say most of them don't.
RIght on! I know I'm not the only one in Maine who voted for gay protections and rights in 2005 because I am a fair, tolerant person,who believes that gays shouldn't have to worry about getting a job or apartment because of their sexuality. Or even face harassment! And it infuriated me and a lot of Mainers when proponents started throwing around the smear terms to describe traditional people such as us! Terms like idiot, hate filled, bigoted, homophobic, bible thumpers, etc. All used in an attempt to ridicule, bully and silence their opposition.
It's this kind of intolerance and the all or nothing attitude that very possibly swayed just enough angry people like me here in Maine to vote against gay marriage. The pride parades and outwardly need to advertise their sexuality doesn't help their cause either! Nor does dismissing people of faith as idiots... Seeming the USA is still made up of relatively more people of faith than most other Western Countries, offending these people isn't going to help!
San747 From United States, joined Dec 2004, 3932 posts, RR: 13 Reply 102, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2331 times:
Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 94): They were too forceful and intolerant of those who thought differently! They were downright disrespectful of those forming their opinion on their religious faith and tried to force something on us that we don't want!
No offense, brotha, but that speech could have been used 40 years ago when interracial marriage was being decided on, or 150 years ago when slavery was being debated. Religious feeling and faith, while prevalent and important to many people's lives, are not an acceptable basis for secular laws.
Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 94): Truth is. most Americans don't support gay marriage, and those who do are the minority. So who really cares what they have to say. It's insignificant because the voters prove them the minority.
A) it's not a huge majority (around 53/47-ish last time I looked, don't quote me), and B) this country is founded on the idea that just because you are a minority, your voice is not less significant or important. As a resident of one of the lowest populated states in the Union, you should understand this very well. Read up on the Great Compromise, and you'll understand that even the founding fathers knew that minority opinions and smaller segments of the population should not be marginalized by a majority.
Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 94): just remember ,your savior President Obama doesn't support it either. Is he a bigoted hater, that would probably vote to take away rights from blacks and women voters, too?
Anyone who feels he is a savior is irrational, so just like you get upset when gay marriage proponents label you a bigot or bible thumper, don't generalize them yourself.
But let's be honest here. You, I and anyone who has ever heard Obama talk know that in his heart, he really has no problem with gay marriage. He had to keep up appearances as a moderate to appeal to as broad a base as possible during the campaign, and obviously he needs to continue doing so during his presidency. Politics is all about kissing ass and making yourself as appealing to as many people as possible. It's unfortunate, but it's the reality of the situation.
PWM2TXLHopper From United States, joined Jan 2004, 848 posts, RR: 0 Reply 103, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2334 times:
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 100): but I do wish you people against this would consider my previous questions and think long and hard about how gay marriage truly affects you, your families, society, and anyone else.
Goodnight.
UAL
For those opposed, it's not about how it affects us personally. We're thinking about society as a whole, not just about ourselves and what we want, or what makes us happy. We value our traditional morals, values, social norms and our culture as we know it! It is sacred to us and we desire to keep it that.
How does it affect society? Creating legal same sex marriage is just one more step at legitimizing homosexual relationships as normal or mainstream. Traditional Americans and/or the many people of faith see this progression as just a little more decay or our traditional societal morals that have been slowly crumbling for 30 years as we turn into a whatever makes me happy, anything goes, no rules or judgments to be made society with no standards toward personal behavior and what's normal.. It's fine if somebody is secular or doesn't hold values, but they must realize the majority of Americans do.
Once same sex marriage is law, of course in schools they're going to start teaching kids that homosexual marriage is as normal and accepted as real marriage. Why wouldn't they? It'd be law! All this kind of stuff just continually progresses and before you know it, our traditional social norms and morals and values have been rewritten and our society becomes more like The Netherlands and Western Europe than the USA we've always loved! Well, most of us.
It invalidates the sanctity of traditional marriage, and makes it worth nothing because now anybody can get married. And before long that will expand to things like accepting polygamy as we further progress and our society turns into anything goes free for all. It opens a pandoras box.
You asked, and I gave you answers. I'm experienced in this debate so I'm sure they will be dismissed because your view of reality is probably completely different than mine and thus incompatible at understanding each other. But I always see people asking the same things. Somebody gives answers and they are all dismissed as wrong. It's just beating a dead horse. Neither side will ever understand where the others coming from
San747 From United States, joined Dec 2004, 3932 posts, RR: 13 Reply 104, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2320 times:
Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 103): Creating legal same sex marriage is just one more step at legitimizing homosexual relationships as normal or mainstream.
Why is that a bad thing? That's a very serious question.
I thought in the United States, we had a right to pursue happiness as long as we don't hurt or deprive others of their rights. But maybe I'm wrong.
Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 103): It invalidates the sanctity of traditional marriage, and makes it worth nothing because now anybody can get married.
I see so many people just in personal life (and keep in mind I'm 21, so most of my friends are within the 19-23 age range) getting married or have been married, abandoning their educational pursuits or budding careers because they're "in love," only to find out a few months later that they made a stupid mistake.
Traditional marriage died decades ago. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but if you want to talk about beating a dead horse...
Pure speculation, and a really great excuse if you want to manipulate someone who is intellectually weak. Look at any country or US state that has legalized gay marriage. Nothing in their society is crumbling, and polygamy and bestiality etc. are being all of a sudden accepted.
Once again, comparing gay marriage to polygamy (or even worse, bestiality) and implying that one leads to the other is extremely insulting to gay people. That argument bandied about is a huge reason why gay marriage opponents are labeled bigots.
DocLightning From United States, joined Nov 2005, 7500 posts, RR: 50 Reply 105, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2324 times:
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 10):
For the record, I support gay marriage - but damn, I do NOT support the name-calling that comes from the GLBT community and their supporters when public votes like this don't turn out their way.
I see, so if a ban on interracial marriage were to pass and people were to cry racism, you would call that "name-calling"?
Sorry, but my relationship is MY business. Not anyone else's.
For those opposed, it's not about how it affects us personally. We're thinking about society as a whole,
No, actually, YOU, Hopper, are thinking about your hatred of gay people. You've said as much in other posts on this board. I don't know why you're so afraid of us. We haven't done anything to you, and yet we scare you so.
But be scared, Hopper. Because the inevitable is coming. We'll get our full citizenship. Be very afraid, because we are out to destroy society, bring about the total downfall of the USA, and convert all children to flaming queens by... getting married.
Vikkyvik From United States, joined Jul 2003, 3829 posts, RR: 26 Reply 106, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2319 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 60): At the end of the day, I am very comfortable with my held views, which I believe reflect broad society.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 78): My views, and those I am sure of most people are based on the realities and circumstance as seen and experienced today.
Not trying to be an ass, but I sincerely hope you're not basing your own personal views simply on what you think are mainstream societal views.
Quoting DXing (Reply 91):
Ok, lets redefine the word murder. I mean who cares who's being killed as long as it's not somebody you know right?
Why would I care if the word "murder" (those 6 letters spelled in that particular order) is redefined? Just because the act of killing someone isn't called "murder" doesn't mean said act won't still be illegal or frowned upon, no matter what you call it.
I can't think of any particular attachment I have to any words. It just seems silly to me, honestly.
Quoting Mir (Reply 98): I know about one or two gay people who are clearly identifiable as gay. The rest of them do in fact blend in quite well with mainstream society.
Not to mention, I know one or two people who I would have clearly identified as gay, but who are actually straight.
Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 94): Truth is. most Americans don't support gay marriage, and those who do are the minority. So who really cares what they have to say. It's insignificant because the voters prove them the minority. Just as in California, and now in Maine!
That's a horrible argument. "The minority doesn't matter because they're the minority!" I'm sure you are or have been in the minority on some issue sometime. Well guess what, your opinion doesn't matter! May as well give up!
Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 99): That said, since I used to be against gay marriage and am now on the other side, I think I have a better understanding of how BOTH sides think on the issue, and I can tell you that many of the liberals who are throwing out the terms like "idiots" and "bigots" and such that we've seen in this thread don't understand the logic used by some who are opposed to gay marriage and I can tell you that it's probably not going to work in swinging too many's people's opinions. If they want to succeed in changing the logic and beliefs of mainstream America to bring a majority of the country to accept it, they need to understand the "why" and "how" of the beliefs of the other side, which I can say most of them don't.
I completely agree with that. I'm very liberal socially (and tend to vote liberal as well), but hurling insults at each other isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
The spirit of Massachusetts is the spirit of America!
JpetekYXMD80 From United States, joined Jul 2003, 3463 posts, RR: 38 Reply 107, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2316 times:
Quoting San747 (Reply 104):
Why is that a bad thing? That's a very serious question.
Because putting their fingers in their ears and saying la la la la, i don't see you makes them feel better.
Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 103): We're thinking about society as a whole, not just about ourselves and what we want, or what makes us happy.
Seems kind of running contrary to the Declaration of Independence, that our country is founded on 'unalienable rights of' life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Only to be mocked by you for being selfish. As San747 said, doesn't hurt others or deprive anyone of their rights.
JpetekYXMD80 From United States, joined Jul 2003, 3463 posts, RR: 38 Reply 108, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2305 times:
Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 106):
That's a horrible argument. "The minority doesn't matter because they're the minority!" I'm sure you are or have been in the minority on some issue sometime. Well guess what, your opinion doesn't matter! May as well give up!
The scariest thing is that people actually believe that Democracy is a nothing more than a majority rule system across the board, not built on the cornerstone of respect and protection minority rights from any tyranny of the majority scenario to come along.
Hopper has called me "disgusting," "immoral," and accused me of being the downfall of society. Me, personally. So has QXatFAT, by the way, who called me a liar when I told him that I didn't choose to be gay.
My advice is not to read his posts on the topic. I don't. I already know what he is going to say. I just skim for his buzzwords. Very predictable. "Society" "Sacred" blah, blah, blah.
JpetekYXMD80 From United States, joined Jul 2003, 3463 posts, RR: 38 Reply 110, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2307 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 105): No, actually, YOU, Hopper, are thinking about your hatred of gay people. You've said as much in other posts on this board.
Ain't that the truth!
Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 101): RIght on! I know I'm not the only one in Maine who voted for gay protections and rights in 2005 because I am a fair, tolerant person,who believes that gays shouldn't have to worry about getting a job or apartment because of their sexuality. Or even face harassment!
This kind, loving soul will even go as far as to say gays shouldn't be harassed!
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 109): Hopper has called me "disgusting," "immoral," and accused me of being the downfall of society. Me, personally. So has QXatFAT, by the way, who called me a liar when I told him that I didn't choose to be gay.
RussianJet From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 3646 posts, RR: 16 Reply 112, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2291 times:
Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 81): I'm pretty sure the majority of atheists (myself included and all the ones I know, which are many) consider the gay marriage thing a non-issue. I also know many religious people that don't have a problem with it as well.
Bible thumpers. on the other hand...
That doesn't really make a lot of sense. 53% voted against. Are you saying that all of those were "Bible Thumpers"? Common sense would tell one that a diverse and large group of people must have voted this down.
EA CO AS From United States, joined Nov 2001, 9949 posts, RR: 73 Reply 113, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2273 times:
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 87): Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 84):
It's the people wearing "man thongs", walking each other around on leashes, cross dressing, etc. But this is what the public sees and many of them don't like it.
In virtually any cultural or religious group, there will always be a subset of brash and over-the-top individuals.
There's a difference, however, between, "I'm gay!" and, "I'm gay - and YOU HAVE TO BE OKAY WITH IT!"
Many of those brash, over-the-top individuals convey the latter, and it reflects poorly on the rest of their community. It feeds that "us vs. them" mentality.
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 92): One of the commandments says "Thou shalt not kill". Yet, somehow, many religious people applaud putting a bullet through someone's head when you're in uniform with your country's flag on your shoulder.
Wow - grasp at straws much?
Horrible example. But then again you know that.
I hope.
Quoting Mir (Reply 98):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 47):
But to those who are deeply religious about the rite of marriage - not the state-codified aspect of it - it DOES change how they feel.
And that's fine, but it doesn't equate to justifying the legal imposition of their feelings on others.
Again, I don't think you'd be seeing civil unions with the same legal protections and standing as marriage go down to defeat - it's the "marriage" word that's largely the issue, IMHO.
Not saying it's right, just saying that's what I believe is ultimately holding the GLBT community back.
Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 101): It's this kind of intolerance and the all or nothing attitude that very possibly swayed just enough angry people like me here in Maine to vote against gay marriage. The pride parades and outwardly need to advertise their sexuality doesn't help their cause either!
As has been said already, the GLBT community has a PR problem ...
For the record, I support gay marriage - but damn, I do NOT support the name-calling that comes from the GLBT community and their supporters when public votes like this don't turn out their way.
I see, so if a ban on interracial marriage were to pass and people were to cry racism, you would call that "name-calling"?
No, but there's also a difference - such a ban would be taking AWAY something that currently exists.
Quoting Jcs17 (Reply 111): However, it's shameful that the people against gay marriage are slandered and insulted.
This is all I'm saying - the name-calling is counterproductive and wrong.
Quoting Jcs17 (Reply 111): They do have valid arguments.
No - they've got what may be valid (to them) feelings about the issue, but I'm not convinced they equal valid arguments.
But again, being pragmatic, you have to understand WHY the people who oppose it so vehemently feel the way they do, and find ways to work around that or change their opinions.
Shouting them down and saying their whole state should be ashamed of themselves does neither, though.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
LTBEWR From United States, joined Jan 2004, 9391 posts, RR: 7 Reply 115, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2238 times:
One problem with these anti-same gender marriage referendas is that they bring out the most conservative voters much more than in an election without them, especially in an off-peak year. They are encouraged by their local churches and by groups often led by religious leaders. I believe I saw a statement from the Maine group that led the opposition and he was an employee 'on loan' from the Roman Catholic Diocies of Portland. That the RC church cares so much about gay marriage to support political campaigns against it is not right. I wish some groups would get together to go after faith groups that hid sexual abuse by it ministers and take away some of their legal protections that they have abused to not pay damages or report dirty priests to authorities.
Yellowstone From United States, joined Aug 2006, 2312 posts, RR: 11 Reply 116, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2224 times:
Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 93): This is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm a CONSERVATIVE Christian and I support gay marriage.
I meant "liberal Christian" in the same sense as, say, the phrase "reform Jew." Its a description of the way one approaches religion, not a political label (in this case, at least).
Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 93): You also have to demonstrate that everyone who opposes gay marriage does so based on their Christian beliefs.
No, I don't. There's a few secularists out there who oppose gay marriage, but their numbers are insignificant compared to the number of people who oppose it due to the teachings of the Christian church. Plus, the connection need not be direct. There's probably some people out there who would say "I don't believe all that stuff in Leviticus, but the idea of gay marriage just makes me uncomfortable." But why does it make them uncomfortable? Because they were raised in a society that rejected gays. And where does that rejection trace back to? The Christian church.
No, but since three-quarters of the US identifies as Christian, compared to just five percent identifying with other religions, it's the Christians that matter.
Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 94): anybody who stood for keeping gay marriage out of Maine has been deemed full of hate, bigoted,
Regarding that word, bigot - it's become misdefined. Being a bigot doesn't mean you kill puppies or anything like that. It means the following:
Quote: A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing devotion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigot
Let's check those factors. Obstinacy? Yep, those against gay marriage are pretty darn obstinate. Irrationality? Check - there are no logical arguments against gay marriage. Animosity toward those of differing devotion? Check - willingness to deny equal treatment qualifies as animosity in my book.
So if you believe that gay marriage is wrong, and your intolerance of gays keeps you from supporting a measure letting them make the marriage decision themselves, you're a bigot! You're probably a perfectly nice person in lots of other respects, but hey, we've all got flaws.
The concept of hell as a place of eternal fiery damnation is thermodynamically unsound.
Mir From United States, joined Jan 2004, 13225 posts, RR: 65 Reply 117, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2186 times:
Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 103): Once same sex marriage is law, of course in schools they're going to start teaching kids that homosexual marriage is as normal and accepted as real marriage. Why wouldn't they?
Why shouldn't they? Homosexual marriage is a non-event, and should be treated as such.
Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 103): It invalidates the sanctity of traditional marriage, and makes it worth nothing because now anybody can get married.
In case you haven't noticed, the sanctity of marriage left the barn a long time ago. Marriages are a dime a dozen these days. Unless, of course, you decide to make more of yours. I would recommend doing that rather than letting others define your marriage for you. Because there will always be another Britney/K-Fed to make a mockery of this whole "sanctity" idea.
Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 103): And before long that will expand to things like accepting polygamy as we further progress and our society turns into anything goes free for all. It opens a pandoras box.
The slippery slope argument doesn't work.
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 113): Again, I don't think you'd be seeing civil unions with the same legal protections and standing as marriage go down to defeat - it's the "marriage" word that's largely the issue, IMHO.
Perhaps. But then we get into the "separate but equal" idea, and I just can't accept that approach to resolving the problem.
Mt99 From Bouvet Island, joined May 1999, 4036 posts, RR: 9 Reply 118, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2177 times:
Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 116): There's a few secularists out there who oppose gay marriage, but their numbers are insignificant compared to the number of people who oppose it due to the teachings of the Christian church
Agreed. And you know what i bet the amount of people who "don't care either way" far outnumbers the religious nuts who vote gay marriage down.
Problem is - they don't care either way - so they don't vote.
But gather 25% of the population that goes to church to listen on how gay marriage spells the end of civilization, encourage them to vote.. and there you have it - an un-winnable vote.
N229NW From United States, joined Sep 2004, 1343 posts, RR: 51 Reply 119, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2152 times:
So again, I ask those who claim they don't hate gays but their "faith" determines that they should rally others and spend money to make people vote to ban gay marriage. If you are not driven by your insecurity and hatred of gays, then why are you so selective with your "faith"?
The West Wing segment is brought up often, but have you really thought about it? Why are these campaigners not out spending millions on campaigns to make sure that no one works on Sundays (no stores open, no airline flights, no TV broadcasts, etc.)? After all, according to the bible, working on the sabbath is an offense worthy of death, while two men lying together is just an "abomination"--like eating shellfish. (And shouldn't you also be protecting society from its downfall by campaigning against seafood restaurants and making sure that children aren't taught in school that eating shrimp--gasp--is condoned by society?)
And will you take to the streets to ban marriages when the wife isn't a virgin?
Why is your faith suddenly something you want to impose on everyone else only when it comes to gays?
As for the argument about "in-your-face" gayness, it's interesting. But, it really comes down to fear again. I admit that, as a straight male, I find some over-the-top gay camp makes me personally uncomfortable, or at least it did. But I realized that was my problem really, since our society is absolutely full of people expressing their heterosexual sexuality publicly (the clothes they wear, sex scenes in movies, etc.) and other over-the-top heterosexual imagery, on every billboard, beer commercial, etc. Just because my own hormones make me find hetero imagery sexy and gay imagery, well, not sexy, doesn't mean it is going to be a problem for society or anyone else, unless you have a problem with insecurity yourself...
Seb146 From United States, joined Nov 1999, 6504 posts, RR: 24 Reply 120, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2128 times:
Is there someplace where the actual question was posed? I would like to see the wording of it. Could it be that it is one of those "a no vote is a yes vote" type things?
BlackProjects From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 708 posts, RR: 0 Reply 121, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2123 times:
Eventually your president will get his finger out and start making it a federal law that same sex people can marry and take it away from the states.
He is leaning that way as he said Publicly that he supported same sex Marriages, So the people who look like they won the Super bowl may well wind up being the losers after all.
Yellowstone From United States, joined Aug 2006, 2312 posts, RR: 11 Reply 122, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2117 times:
Quoting N229NW (Reply 119): So again, I ask those who claim they don't hate gays but their "faith" determines that they should rally others and spend money to make people vote to ban gay marriage. If you are not driven by your insecurity and hatred of gays, then why are you so selective with your "faith"?
Another question along those lines - if your stance is "it's not me, it's my church/faith," why didn't you look a little harder for a less discriminatory faith tradition? Unlike gays, Christians choose to be Christians. Whatever version of Christianity you believe in - including any anti-gay bits - is entirely up to you. Don't try to shift the blame.
The concept of hell as a place of eternal fiery damnation is thermodynamically unsound.
EA CO AS From United States, joined Nov 2001, 9949 posts, RR: 73 Reply 123, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2106 times:
Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 114): Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 113):
No - they've got what may be valid (to them) feelings about the issue, but I'm not convinced they equal valid arguments.
Soo.. there are not valid arguments for a position you, yourself, hold?
If you'd re-read what I'd written, you'd see I was saying I'm not convinced the arguments of those AGAINST gay marriage are valid.
Quoting Mir (Reply 117): Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 113):
Again, I don't think you'd be seeing civil unions with the same legal protections and standing as marriage go down to defeat - it's the "marriage" word that's largely the issue, IMHO.
Perhaps. But then we get into the "separate but equal" idea, and I just can't accept that approach to resolving the problem.
This is one place where I believe "separate but equal" - even though legally, marriage isn't defined as a right - may have to suffice. Fact is that no matter how tolerant or enlightened people become, there's a good portion of the population that will never (in their minds) confer legitimacy upon homosexuality by letting the term "marriage" be used to define their unions.
And this isn't based on any hatred of homosexuals, but rather their belief system telling them what homosexuals do is immoral.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
...as you define them, seem to lack libertarian values. Government has no right to tell people how to conduct their lives in my view, period - and that extends to whom they can/cannot marry. Yes, we're talking about people, not animals. And we're talking about marrying one person, not two, because that's not permitted for a host of legal problems it brings with it. Leave the slippery slope fallacy stuff at the door and answer a simple question: are you for limited role of government in the private lives of citizens or not? Are you for individual liberty or not?
"Sentimentality plays with sweet intentions in place of good sense." - Jane Jacobs
MarSciGuy From United States, joined Jun 2007, 368 posts, RR: 0 Reply 125, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2091 times:
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 112):
Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 81):
I'm pretty sure the majority of atheists (myself included and all the ones I know, which are many) consider the gay marriage thing a non-issue. I also know many religious people that don't have a problem with it as well.
Bible thumpers. on the other hand...
That doesn't really make a lot of sense. 53% voted against. Are you saying that all of those were "Bible Thumpers"? Common sense would tell one that a diverse and large group of people must have voted this down.
I'm guessing the people that tipped the vote away from equality were the rural, backwoodsmen, lumbermen, fishermen and farmers (there are still a fair number of all of these)...
"There weren't a ton of gnats there where a ton of gnats and their families as well!"
FuturePilot16 From United States, joined Mar 2007, 819 posts, RR: 0 Reply 126, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2076 times:
Quoting N104UA (Reply 39): Yes but in the 1950s people were saying that it is against the bible for interracial marriage, and now almost everyone is fine with interracial marriage
I would like to see your proof of that.
Quoting Jcs17 (Reply 111): However, it's shameful that the people against gay marriage are slandered and insulted. They do have valid arguments.
That's how it is in this country, if you go against the popular option, you get slaughtered. We all saw hat happened to Carrie Prejean. Anyone who doesn't agree with gay marriage is afraid to protest against it because if they they do, they'll be called evil and bigot and bible thumpers and all these names that have appeared in this discussion. I could care less what you're protesting. Gay rig the fact is this is a free country and people have a right to their opinion.
Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 103):
Once same sex marriage is law, of course in schools they're going to start teaching kids that homosexual marriage is as normal and accepted as real marriage. Why wouldn't they?
Why shouldn't they? Homosexual marriage is a non-event, and should be treated as such.
Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 103):
It invalidates the sanctity of traditional marriage, and makes it worth nothing because now anybody can get married.
In case you haven't noticed, the sanctity of marriage left the barn a long time ago.
FlyDeltaJets87 From United States, joined Aug 2006, 4565 posts, RR: 24 Reply 127, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2074 times:
Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 116): I meant "liberal Christian" in the same sense as, say, the phrase "reform Jew." Its a description of the way one approaches religion, not a political label (in this case, at least).
Fair enough.
Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 103): Creating legal same sex marriage is just one more step at legitimizing homosexual relationships as normal or mainstream.
What you have to understand is for the 5% of the population or so who are gay, they are biologically wired that way. There are gay animals in the animal kingdom too. If God truly believed homosexuality and homosexual relationships were wrong and something that was a decision made only by humans, he wouldn't have made animals gay, and thus it can be concluded that heterosexuality and homosexuality are no more or less a choice than the receiving 20/20 or 20/200 eyesight.
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 92): One of the commandments says "Thou shalt not kill". Yet, somehow, many religious people applaud putting a bullet through someone's head when you're in uniform with your country's flag on your shoulder.
Some interpretations of the Bible say "Thou Shalt Not Murder". However, as with many parts of the Bible, many of the exact meanings of the words have been lost with time and translation, and thus why I feel it's far more important to look at the overall message of the Bible rather than reading too deeply into specific parts (for example, these people who believe the Earth is only 11,000 years old or whatever, yet we don't know how God defines "one day". One day to God could be millions or billions of years to us.) But there is a difference between "murder" and "killing".
Quoting Mt99 (Reply 118): Problem is - they don't care either way - so they don't vote.
Well then it's up to you to encourage them to get out and vote if you believe they will vote in favor of what you support. To those who don't care either way, it means the issue isn't important to them and thus they're going to focus their efforts elsewhere on issues that are important to them. If you want people to believe your message is important, it's up to you to show them why.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 105): Sorry, but my relationship is MY business. Not anyone else's.
I wish the Republican party would drop the gay marriage issue. I think the Republican party is losing a significant percentage of the national vote, many of which might otherwise be conservative/Republican, but choose not to because of the GOP's overall stance on gay marriage.
Sbworcs From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 579 posts, RR: 3 Reply 128, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2040 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 32): At the end of the day, I see it as a joke and a affront to society that a group of folks that live alternate lifestyle basically are demanding that society bless their alternate life styles and convey the title of marriage upon them as some stamp of approval.
Yet we have to sit there and bless your lifestyle without question?
Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 41): "If Question 1 fails and LD 1020 is allowed to take effect, marriage will be redefined to be about any two consenting adults without regard to gender, the focus being only about what the adults want for themselves, and not what is best for society as a whole."
How is me marrying someone of the same sex going to be bad for society?
Quoting San747 (Reply 59): That's fine, and I agree it would accomplish a lot, but if the mainstream society the GLBT community is trying to assimilate into won't let them, then it just won't work. This is a two-way street. People need to stop being prejudiced and discriminatory if they want gays to be more "normal."
So its our fault people are trying to stop us getting equality?
Quoting Slider (Reply 61): The continued berating, bigot-calling, all that crap does nothing to help the gay cause.
Two way street this respect thing!
Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 94): Well, as a voting citizen of Maine, I for one am glad Mainer's flushed this garbage down the john! Marriage has always been between as between a man and a woman, and Mainer's choose to keep it this way! As I've tried to point out on here before, there's two Maines. There's Greater Portland and Southern Maine, which is pretty much just an extension of Boston, and then there's the rest of Maine! Sometimes, those here in the Portland area tend to forget they don't speak for the majority of us, with their progressive agenda. Good thing Boston and New York are close by! Don't let the door hit y'all on the way out!
Just remember there's only 31 other states that reject gay marriage, too, and only a handful that allow it! Guess it's easy to forget that and just think of Maine as a secluded, bigoted place full of haters? For those convinced that everybody here is a bigot that opposed gay marriage, just remember ,your savior President Obama doesn't support it either. Is he a bigoted hater, that would probably vote to take away rights from blacks and women voters, too? After all, the gay rights crowd around the country are already starting to vent about how the Maine was influenced by all the backwoods, hillbilly, ignorant haters! So if that's the only type that's against gay marriage, than I guess pour President must be one too! Right?
The truth is, in 2005, Maine voted to give gays special rights and protection because Maine is a tolerant place. Back then, the gays rights supporters promised Mainer's this wasn't a first step in their agenda to bring gay marriage here. Then four years later, this year, Mainer's saw this absolutely was their planned next step and we'd been lied to and mislead to take advantage of our tolerance. Then for the last six months, anybody who
stood for keeping gay marriage out of Maine has been deemed full of hate, bigoted, and "they probably hates blacks as well", etc. All the typical BS. Tolerant traditional Mainer's were fed up with the name calling, ridicule, demonizing, and the promise during the last election this wouldn't lead to marriage! The gay agenda pushed too hard! They were too forceful and intolerant of those who thought differently! They were downright disrespectful of those forming their opinion on their religious faith and tried to force something on us that we don't want!
Let the intolerance and hate begin! Can't wait to read all the angry responses calling me every name in the book and demonstrating how to "celebrate" diversity! Truth is. most Americans don't support gay marriage, and those who do are the minority. So who really cares what they have to say. It's insignificant because the voters prove them the minority. Just as in California, and now in Maine!
Interesting post - the first line of your last paragraph - "Let the intolerance and hate begin" - already going on and affecting my life and my rights because other people feel they are better than me
Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 103): no rules or judgments to be made society with no standards toward personal behavior and what's norma
And what has it got to do with Society the gender of who I sleep with?
Quoting Jcs17 (Reply 111): There are good arguments one way or the other,
Could you please provide some balanced arguments from the Anti Gay side that are not relgion based?
I sick to death of religion entering into politics and having an effect over me when it is not my religion.
FlyPNS1 From United States, joined Nov 1999, 3893 posts, RR: 27 Reply 129, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2026 times:
Quoting Sbworcs (Reply 128): How is me marrying someone of the same sex going to be bad for society?
I have no idea, but that's what many in the anti gay marriage crowd believe.
For some reason, people are supposed to decide who they will marry based on what is "best for society" instead of because they love the person. Socialism in the strangest form....
LAXintl From United States, joined May 2000, 12217 posts, RR: 22 Reply 130, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2025 times:
Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 127): What you have to understand is for the 5% of the population or so who are gay
So its OK for this 5% to define what the other 95% must accept at moral, and ok?
Thats one of the big issues here -- The mainstream is being forced to accept the alternate lifestyle and actions(same sex marriage in this case) as being normal and acceptable behavior by codifying it and stamping approval with a marriage license.
To me, I could really care less what one does in their home, but to jump up and down in my face with 'you like it or not" attitude is what drives me further away from supporting such benefits.
As I have posted before I think the GLBT community has a piss-poor PR issue and instead of making themselves out to being a cherished special 5%, should instead on focusing on making themselves as average as the other 95% of society might be.
Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 127): and thus it can be concluded that heterosexuality and homosexuality are no more or less a choice than the receiving 20/20 or 20/200 eyesight.
I think most people understand accept that variations or mutations occur with science.
Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 127): I wish the Republican party would drop the gay marriage issue. I think the Republican party is losing a significant percentage of the national vote, many of which might otherwise be conservative/Republican, but choose not to because of the GOP's overall stance on gay marriage.
The issue along with abortion, gun rights etc, are major national issues and frankly need to be discussed and stance taken on.
When you have huge block of the nation that have very strong views why ignore it and allow laws to be defacto changed by Democrats or others that have an opposing view point.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
FlyPNS1 From United States, joined Nov 1999, 3893 posts, RR: 27 Reply 131, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2000 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 130): should instead on focusing on making themselves as average as the other 95% of society might be.
So in your view, it would have been best if Rosa Parks had just kept sitting in the back of the bus instead of creating a stir by refusing? In your view, people should never stand up for their rights and just try to blend into the majority and hope that somehow that will magically get them equal rights.
History would say that your approach is guaranteed to fail. The GLBT community may be a little over the top at times, but your "just be average" approach is even worse.
Mir From United States, joined Jan 2004, 13225 posts, RR: 65 Reply 132, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1985 times:
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 123): And this isn't based on any hatred of homosexuals, but rather their belief system telling them what homosexuals do is immoral.
And that's fine for them to have that belief system, but that doesn't justify using the law to enforce that belief system on others.
Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 129): For some reason, people are supposed to decide who they will marry based on what is "best for society" instead of because they love the person. Socialism in the strangest form....
Good point.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 130): So its OK for this 5% to define what the other 95% must accept at moral, and ok?
They don't have to accept it as moral, they just have to accept it as legal.
FLY2HMO From United States, joined Jan 2004, 4075 posts, RR: 5 Reply 133, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1983 times:
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 112): Are you saying that all of those were "Bible Thumpers"?
Not all, but i'm sure that at least 3/4 of those who voted against it are in one way or another. The rest probably fall into the very narrow minded category.
Happiness is just an illusion caused by the temporary absence of reality
DocLightning From United States, joined Nov 2005, 7500 posts, RR: 50 Reply 134, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1970 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 130):
So its OK for this 5% to define what the other 95% must accept at moral, and ok?
No. Because nobody is insisting that anyone accept anything. The point is that the other 95% does not have the right to decide our rights. That's the very basis of the U.S.A. There is to be no tyranny of the majority.
If gay marriage is legal, nobody is forcing YOU to accept it. You can reject it. It has no impact on your life or anything that you do.
But you really already knew that. In fact, everyone already knows that. Of course, some of them have such a difficult time wrapping their heads around the fact that they don't get to force their personal beliefs on someone else that they make up strange and backward justifications as to why they can.
Gay marriage has no effect on your marriage or your life, but banning it has a huge affect on mine. It's unfortunate that you refuse to see that.
RussianJet From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 3646 posts, RR: 16 Reply 135, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1921 times:
Quoting FLY2HMO (Reply 133): Not all, but i'm sure that at least 3/4 of those who voted against it are in one way or another.
That's pure speculation. I'd prefer to see figures from a credible source to back up such an assertion.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 134): The point is that the other 95% does not have the right to decide our rights. That's the very basis of the U.S.A. There is to be no tyranny of the majority.
Really? Surely that is in fact exactly what happens in so-called democracies like the US, that the majority vote in a government which may introduce all sorts of things that other people disagree with, but have to put up with until the day the majority votes differently. We witness it day in, day out on this very forum, one side arguing with the other, disagreeing with things that are introduced....
FlyDeltaJets87 From United States, joined Aug 2006, 4565 posts, RR: 24 Reply 136, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1899 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 130): So its OK for this 5% to define what the other 95% must accept at moral, and ok?
YES, because for most (I'm guessing 99%) of people who are gay are not gay by choice. They aren't gay to be "different". They're gay because they're biologically programmed that way and for them it IS normal. And I don't think someone should be punished or told they can't do something that has no effect on you because of how they're biologically wired. Sure I agree when human safety is involved, yes, one might have to say no. The Air Force says I can't be a pilot because of my lack of depth perception. It sucks but that's life because flying a plane is life or death. However, Adam marrying Eve or Steve has (or should have) no bearing on how you live your life.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 130): To me, I could really care less what one does in their home, but to jump up and down in my face with 'you like it or not" attitude is what drives me further away from supporting such benefits.
Which is a point I've already made in this thread, including stating why one local gay man in Florida opposes going to Gay Week at Disney World, because of the bad PR. I'm not going to sit here and say the people in Maine who voted against gay marriage are bigoted. I think there's a huge misunderstanding of the gay culture and just how most gay people live. Most of them live "normal" lives (as you insist), going to work from 8 to 5 Monday through Friday; going to the bar or club on Friday night with friends after a long week at work, etc. The fact that those gay guys choose to look at men instead of women while they're there should be of no consequence to you. And if that barrier of misunderstaning is broken, I think more citizens in this country would be okay with the concept of gay marriage, and I say this because as I've said, I'm one of the ones who has come around on gay marriage for pushing through that barrier.
Now on a side not and not to get offensive: it is a two-way street, I will say. I do believe that gay people should stop pushing us to "experiment" with homosexuality. If I wanted to I would, but I don't. Something that I do believes hurts their movement is trying to persuade the heterosexual crowd to "try it". That doesn't mean get pissed off if someone of the same sex hits on you at a bar or wherever, but "No thanks. I'm straight and 'm not interested" means just that. Saying I'm not interested does not make me a homophobe. It just means I'm not gay.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 130): As I have posted before I think the GLBT community has a piss-poor PR issue and instead of making themselves out to being a cherished special 5%, should instead on focusing on making themselves as average as the other 95% of society might be.
Wouldn't that be an arguement FOR gay marriage then? If you want them to be part of the "average 95%" and assimilate into the rest of the society, then that's one more reason to allow gay marriage in my eyes. However, you're telling them to be "normal" but then telling them they can't do the things "normal" people do, like get married. Seems backwards IMO.
Quoting Mir (Reply 132): They don't have to accept it as moral, they just have to accept it as legal.
If churches as private institutions choose not recognize gay marriage, that's their business as privately funded ogranization and more power to them. But it is discrimination by the government to not recognize gay marriage.
DocLightning From United States, joined Nov 2005, 7500 posts, RR: 50 Reply 137, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1893 times:
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 135):
Really? Surely that is in fact exactly what happens in so-called democracies like the US,
Incorrect. There are things that are expressly NOT to be decided by popular vote, including the election of the President (which is decided by electors, not popular vote).
Among those things falls the issue of civil rights. Women did not gain their rights through the popular vote. Nor did Blacks. Nor did people under 21. In fact, no civil right has ever been granted to a group by popular vote. Ever. Not once. And marriage is, accordiing to Loving v. Virginia, a "fundamental right."
By your argument, if someone floated a proposal to ban interracial marriage and it garnered the majority vote, it should go into effect. Or if someone floated a proposal right after 9/11 to put all Arabs, Muslims, and anyone who looked like they might be of Mid-Eastern descent into concentration camps, it might well have passed. That doesn't mean that it should go into effect.
LAXintl From United States, joined May 2000, 12217 posts, RR: 22 Reply 139, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1856 times:
Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 131): So in your view, it would have been best if Rosa Parks had just kept sitting in the back of the bus instead of creating a stir by refusing? In your view, people should never stand up for their rights and just try to blend into the majority and hope that somehow that will magically get them equal rights.
You are equating gay marriage with a Black civil rights issue which it is not.
There is no presumed right to marriage. Marriage like gaining a drivers license has certain qualifications. The most basic one being two separate sexes.
Quoting Mir (Reply 132):
They don't have to accept it as moral, they just have to accept it as legal.
But to be legal it needs society input, and like it or not we legislate very much based on our morals and assumptions of right and wrong.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 134): No. Because nobody is insisting that anyone accept anything. The point is that the other 95% does not have the right to decide our rights. That's the very basis of the U.S.A. There is to be no tyranny of the majority.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 134): If gay marriage is legal, nobody is forcing YOU to accept it. You can reject it. It has no impact on your life or anything that you do.
By defacto we would have to accept it. So would churches and such. It becomes the law of the land.
In essance a small special interest group tells the rest of society how its must view, act and condone the actions of that group.
Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 136): And if that barrier of misunderstaning is broken, I think more citizens in this country would be okay with the concept of gay marriage, and I say this because as I've said, I'm one of the ones who has come around on gay marriage for pushing through that barrier.
Maybe, and that change needs to come from within the GLBT community. Seeing billboard adds for Gay Cruises, colored flag banners, etc works to make the community stand out in negative light in my view. Almost elitist in a way I suppose.
Maybe for some. Either way I feel the current positioning of the GLBT community PR wise makes the whole group viewed as the in your face flaming guys wearing suspenders and chaps on a gay parade float.
Off course it does not help as they have politicians like SF mayor Gavin Newsom here in CA making public statements like "like it or not" as trying to shove something down society.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
San747 From United States, joined Dec 2004, 3932 posts, RR: 13 Reply 140, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1853 times:
Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 126):
Quoting N104UA (Reply 39):
Yes but in the 1950s people were saying that it is against the bible for interracial marriage, and now almost everyone is fine with interracial marriage
I would like to see your proof of that.
Come on, really? You actually think there is still a SUBSTANTIAL amount (I know the number definitely isn't zero, but I'm willing to bet it's not huge) of people who still in 2009 have a problem with interracial marriage?
Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 127): I think the Republican party is losing a significant percentage of the national vote, many of which might otherwise be conservative/Republican, but choose not to because of the GOP's overall stance on gay marriage.
Au contraire. I think gay marriage is a Republican cause celebre which is attracting opponents to them.
Quoting Sbworcs (Reply 128):
Quoting San747 (Reply 59):
That's fine, and I agree it would accomplish a lot, but if the mainstream society the GLBT community is trying to assimilate into won't let them, then it just won't work. This is a two-way street. People need to stop being prejudiced and discriminatory if they want gays to be more "normal."
So its our fault people are trying to stop us getting equality?
Absolutely not. I didn't mean for it to sound that way. I'm saying society needs to be more accepting of homosexuality in general and not demonize it and view it as this reprehensible thing. It's easier for people to hate and fear those who are different than make an effort to learn about and educate themselves, but I think that's exactly what needs to be done by many people if real progress is to be made in this issue.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 137):
Among those things falls the issue of civil rights. Women did not gain their rights through the popular vote. Nor did Blacks. Nor did people under 21. In fact, no civil right has ever been granted to a group by popular vote. Ever. Not once. And marriage is, accordiing to Loving v. Virginia, a "fundamental right."
Thank you. No one understands this about American politics. Not every issue is something the people can (or should) vote about. Our country would be a very, very different place if we COULD do that, and frankly, I wouldn't want to live in a place like that. I'm a pro-choice atheist who fully supports gay rights in every possible way and thinks the government should at least help me a little to pay for my higher education. Even worse, I don't find any aspect of homosexuality uncomfortable, disgusting or immoral.
I don't think I'd be legally allowed to step outside my house in this America if it was run by popular votes.
Jpetekyxmd80 From United States, joined Jul 2003, 3463 posts, RR: 38 Reply 141, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1844 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 139): Seeing billboard adds for Gay Cruises, colored flag banners, etc works to make the community stand out in negative light in my view. Almost elitist in a way I suppose.
Oh, I understand. You are upset at them for acting like they are different after you tell them that they are different and undeserving of the same rights as you. Got it .
San747 From United States, joined Dec 2004, 3932 posts, RR: 13 Reply 142, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1834 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 139):
There is no presumed right to marriage. Marriage like gaining a drivers license has certain qualifications.
As far as I know in this country, the only qualification for marriage is age, and obviously that depends on what state you're in. Otherwise, unlike a driver's license (just using your example), any person can get married to any other person. One can be denied a driver's license if they're disabled, blind, deaf, addicted to drugs, etc. Any of those people I just named can get married in a heartbeat however.
Unless they want to marry another man, another woman (as the case may be). That has been shown in at least one Supreme Court case (the one in CA that legalized same-sex marriage back in March 2008) to be gender discrimination in violation of the constitution.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 139):
By defacto we would have to accept it. So would churches and such. It becomes the law of the land.
Yes, you'd have to accept, but you wouldn't have to practice it. This is kind of an extreme example, but if heroin became legal, would you start doing it? Hopefully not. Legalization of same sex marriage is just giving the GLBT community the same opportunity you have- to marry someone you love.
Considering how much people complain about gays "immoral lifestyle" and their supposed promiscuity, I don't understand why the main institution that begets responsibility and maturity in relationships is denied to those who supposedly "need" it the most.
Sbworcs From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 579 posts, RR: 3 Reply 143, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1822 times:
Can I just ask all the anti gay marriage people on here - what would YOU do if one of your Children came to you and told you that they were gay and wanted to marry their partner - would you deny your child happiness??
DocLightning From United States, joined Nov 2005, 7500 posts, RR: 50 Reply 144, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1828 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 139):
By defacto we would have to accept it. So would churches and such. It becomes the law of the land.
In essance a small special interest group tells the rest of society how its must view, act and condone the actions of that group.
I'm sorry, but that's bulldroppings. Can a Catholic Church refuse to marry two Hindus? Yes. And yet Hindus are allowed to marry. The same would be true of gays.
AM744 From Mexico, joined Jun 2001, 1267 posts, RR: 0 Reply 145, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1817 times:
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 46): but can anyone honestly provide me with concrete, coherent, scientific and statistical data that supports banning gay marriage?
That would be really interesting.
I for one support same sex civil unions that allow for inheritance, medical decisions, loans and whatever. I have one honest question though. A marriage could potentially involve children. I'm no doctor nor psychologist, but I can empirically assert that men and women tend to think, feel, talk and express their feelings and emotions differently. So, wouldn't a same sex union give their children an incomplete picture of first hand human behaviour? Not better nor worse, just different. I even concede that it could actually enrichen society with new educational models and points of view from an early formative stage (by doing away with sexist stereotypes of what a man or a woman is supposed to be or what activities he or she is supposed to engage in) but, couldn't that be a cause of concern for some segments of society? In any case, it doesn't sound as something to be taken lightly.
Mt99 From Bouvet Island, joined May 1999, 4036 posts, RR: 9 Reply 146, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1809 times:
Quoting AM744 (Reply 145): So, wouldn't a same sex union give their children an incomplete picture of first hand human behaviour?
Do Britney Spears and K-Fed's children get an complete picture of first hand human behavior? You think that Michael Jackson's kids will be completely normal?
Is Ballon Boy's family normal? Is his father worthy of kids?
San747 From United States, joined Dec 2004, 3932 posts, RR: 13 Reply 147, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1795 times:
Quoting AM744 (Reply 145): So, wouldn't a same sex union give their children an incomplete picture of first hand human behaviour? Not better nor worse, just different.
Probably, but once the child is old enough to be going to school and interacting with other kids, I think that mission portion of that picture would be largely filled in. Also, I'm sure in most cases, the child would probably have aunts or grandmothers in their life, so there would be some female influence I imagine.
Airstud From United States, joined Nov 2000, 469 posts, RR: 0 Reply 148, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1780 times:
Quoting Sbworcs (Reply 143): they were gay and wanted to marry their partner - would you deny your child happiness??
There is a fair amount of balderdash being bandied about on this thread by people on both sides of the argument, but so far, equating marriage with happiness just about takes the cake.
San747 From United States, joined Dec 2004, 3932 posts, RR: 13 Reply 149, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1771 times:
Quoting Airstud (Reply 148): but so far, equating marriage with happiness just about takes the cake.
OK, Mr. Cynical, we all know how people joke around about marriage being a living hell, but for two mature individuals, marriage can be a very happy and fulfilling venture. My parents, after their divorce (which I might add came after over 11 years of marriage), have been happily remarried for 15 and 12 years respectively, with no signs of any dwindling feelings or love for each other.
Mir From United States, joined Jan 2004, 13225 posts, RR: 65 Reply 150, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1754 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 139): By defacto we would have to accept it. So would churches and such. It becomes the law of the land.
Accept it as legal, yes. But that doesn't mean you have to like it, nor does it mean that you have to recognize the marriages. As far as churches go, they shouldn't be compelled to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples if they don't want to. But if they do want to, then they should be able to.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 139): But to be legal it needs society input, and like it or not we legislate very much based on our morals and assumptions of right and wrong.
We also have a Constitution to guide us in what laws we can pass. Can you find another example of a law that restricts two consenting adults from doing something that has no direct impact on any other member of society? I can't, and that says a lot about the limits of the imposition of morals on others.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 139): it does not help as they have politicians like SF mayor Gavin Newsom here in CA making public statements like "like it or not" as trying to shove something down society.
Ironic you should say that when your own arguments in this thread contained a "like it or not" statement to support shoving something down society.
Airstud From United States, joined Nov 2000, 469 posts, RR: 0 Reply 151, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1758 times:
Quoting San747 (Reply 149): we all know how people joke around about marriage being a living hell, but for two mature individuals, marriage can be a very happy and fulfilling venture. My parents, after their divorce (which I might add came after over 11 years of marriage), have been happily remarried for 15 and 12 years respectively, with no signs of any dwindling feelings or love for each other.
That's fantastic, and I wish them continued happiness.
I was merely trying to inject a bit of levity into a thread that seemed to need it.
Vikkyvik From United States, joined Jul 2003, 3829 posts, RR: 26 Reply 153, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1730 times:
Quoting AM744 (Reply 145): A marriage could potentially involve children. I'm no doctor nor psychologist, but I can empirically assert that men and women tend to think, feel, talk and express their feelings and emotions differently. So, wouldn't a same sex union give their children an incomplete picture of first hand human behaviour? Not better nor worse, just different. I even concede that it could actually enrichen society with new educational models and points of view from an early formative stage (by doing away with sexist stereotypes of what a man or a woman is supposed to be or what activities he or she is supposed to engage in) but, couldn't that be a cause of concern for some segments of society? In any case, it doesn't sound as something to be taken lightly.
A marriage can just as easily NOT involve children.
And more importantly, there are plenty of unmarried people who have children. If we're going to talk about being raised by two dads or two moms, shouldn't we deal with that too?
Even a heterosexual couple can present an incomplete picture of human behavior to their child. At a certain point, you have to let the parents have responsibility for that. We can't legislate everything that has to be presented to a child by their parents.
The spirit of Massachusetts is the spirit of America!
N229NW From United States, joined Sep 2004, 1343 posts, RR: 51 Reply 154, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1727 times:
Quoting AM744 (Reply 145): I have one honest question though. A marriage could potentially involve children. I'm no doctor nor psychologist, but I can empirically assert that men and women tend to think, feel, talk and express their feelings and emotions differently. So, wouldn't a same sex union give their children an incomplete picture of first hand human behaviour? Not better nor worse, just different.
Well every single parent family already does this. Furthermore, gay couple that want children often adopt, and most of the kids they adopt would otherwise have NO family. So it's not like choosing between a kid having a mom and dad and a kid having two dads. It's more like choosing between a kid growing up unloved in an orphanage or in 20 different foster homes (in the US some of those being abusive), or have a stable, loving family, that just happens to be two moms/dads...
LAXintl From United States, joined May 2000, 12217 posts, RR: 22 Reply 155, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1707 times:
Quoting Jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 141): Oh, I understand. You are upset at them for acting like they are different after you tell them that they are different and undeserving of the same rights as you. Got it .
They are indeed free to advertise gay cruises if they wish, however in my professional and business experience, I would not segmentise and market to the GLBT separately, and matter of fact have openly opposed such ideas.
I don't believe the benefits off any potential added revenue offsets the corresponding loss, and potential PR headaches associtated with targeting GLBT. For a good example, look at AA which 5-6 years ago launched a portal(AA rainbow), and the backlash and direct business loss from various civic, and church groups (and assume by individuals also). There was even a national petition going around that AA was pandering too much to GLBTs.
What might have been seen as a trendy move by some AA sales rep in LA, Miami or NY cost the corporation in other areas. Today the GLBT portal while still alive does not even have a link off the main aa.com website and AA plays down its existence now with very limited(and carefull) marketing.
Quoting San747 (Reply 142): As far as I know in this country, the only qualification for marriage is age, and obviously that depends on what state you're in. Otherwise, unlike a driver's license (just using your example), any person can get married to any other person. One can be denied a driver's license if they're disabled, blind, deaf, addicted to drugs, etc. Any of those people I just named can get married in a heartbeat however.
What does the number of requirements in one license versus another have to do with its legitimacy?
Marriage yes has one key fundamental requirement - cannot be same sex.
You can add in restriction on age, cousins, blood test, fees etc based on jurisdiction if you wish.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 144): I'm sorry, but that's bulldroppings. Can a Catholic Church refuse to marry two Hindus? Yes. And yet Hindus are allowed to marry. The same would be true of gays.
Quoting Mir (Reply 150): As far as churches go, they shouldn't be compelled to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples if they don't want to. But if they do want to, then they should be able to.
Yes it would be great if churches could opt out, but for example here in California our Attorney General admitted in his opinions on Prop-8, that it could be a slippery slope for churches that openly deny marriage services based on same-sex.
You and I both know, sooner of later some church or another will end up in court for refusing to marry someone. So while the principle of freedom of religion is strong in the US, how it may fare and the collateral damage from being opposed to other existing law could be yet another costly can of worms by allowing same-sex marriage.
Along with churches, I also believe private schools should have the right to also continue teaching what they feel is moral or immorality including statements on same-sex marriage.
Quoting Mir (Reply 150): We also have a Constitution to guide us in what laws we can pass.
Indeed, and its also a living document that can be adjusted by the people. I suppose maybe one day if pushed enough 2/3 states approve formal amendment barring same-sex marriage.
But yes I agree ultimately this needs to end up in the Supreme Court. The stakes would be high however, and any loss by the same-sex marriage camp could be fatal for decades to come which is why I believe many have prefered to fight things on local level and not directly on Federal charges.
Quoting Mir (Reply 150): Ironic you should say that when your own arguments in this thread contained a "like it or not" statement to support shoving something down society.
You better re-read my comments. Both times I used "like it or not" was about same-sex marriage viewpoint being shoved down onto greater society by what is frankly a special interest group.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Mir From United States, joined Jan 2004, 13225 posts, RR: 65 Reply 156, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1674 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 155): You and I both know, sooner of later some church or another will end up in court for refusing to marry someone.
Perhaps. And in that case the church should win the argument. Plain and simple.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 155): Indeed, and its also a living document that can be adjusted by the people. I suppose maybe one day if pushed enough 2/3 states approve formal amendment barring same-sex marriage.
Keep dreaming, because when a president firmly in the corner of the religious right and a GOP-controlled Congress waiting on him hand and foot can't get that ball rolling, you can pretty much rule it out as a viable option.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 155): Both times I used "like it or not" was about same-sex marriage viewpoint being shoved down onto greater society by what is frankly a special interest group.
The Maine vote was 53-47. You're seriously going to call 47% of the people of a state a "special interest group"?
JRDC930 From United States, joined Jan 2007, 957 posts, RR: 0 Reply 157, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1676 times:
I agree with Maine, and with California. To avoid the inevitable flame war, that is all i have to say. I know on Anet i will be in the minority who feels this way, so im not saying anything more.
U.S. Legacy carriers,STILL leaders in lowering industry standards...
JpetekYXMD80 From United States, joined Jul 2003, 3463 posts, RR: 38 Reply 158, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1654 times:
Quoting JRDC930 (Reply 157): I agree with Maine, and with California. To avoid the inevitable flame war, that is all i have to say. I know on Anet i will be in the minority who feels this way, so im not saying anything more.
If you're not going to say why you feel that way, why bother coming here at all? That goes for anyone.
LAXintl From United States, joined May 2000, 12217 posts, RR: 22 Reply 159, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1636 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 156): Keep dreaming, because when a president firmly in the corner of the religious right and a GOP-controlled Congress waiting on him hand and foot can't get that ball rolling, you can pretty much rule it out as a viable option.
Maybe, maybe not. But as the same-sex marriage camp has pushed their agenda, much of America has woken up and now 31 states quite rapidly have passed various laws or constitutional amendments.
So the more oneside pushes and insist on redefining marriage, the other side rightfully stands up and defends what they perceive is right and moral.
So what might happen in 5, 10 or 20 years with this issue is hard to say for any of us, but what might seem improbable today might be very desirous tomorrow for State Legislatures and Congress.
Quoting Mir (Reply 156): The Maine vote was 53-47. You're seriously going to call 47% of the people of a state a "special interest group"?
The special interest group is the 5% someone else proffered as the gay population. The rest are along for the vote.
Just like gun rights. The special interest NRA does not make up 60% of the population, but instead only about 4mil members and just under 30% of Americans own guns but overall they tend to receive over 60% voter support on gun issues. People have to vote one way or the other.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Mir From United States, joined Jan 2004, 13225 posts, RR: 65 Reply 160, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days ago) and read 1628 times:
Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 158): If you're not going to say why you feel that way, why bother coming here at all? That goes for anyone.
This is generally the sign that people don't have rational reasons for their positions.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 159): The special interest group is the 5% someone else proffered as the gay population. The rest are along for the vote.
And none of the 53% were just "along for the vote", right?
It's not just the gay population who is in support of gay marriage, mind you. I'm not gay myself, but you can bet that if my state had a measure on the ballot regarding gay marriage, I would not just be "along for the vote". And I'm not alone.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 159): People have to vote one way or the other.
People don't have to vote on specific issues. Don't care about a measure on the ballot? Don't vote on it.
LAXintl From United States, joined May 2000, 12217 posts, RR: 22 Reply 161, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days ago) and read 1625 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 160): And none of the 53% were just "along for the vote", right?
It's not just the gay population who is in support of gay marriage, mind you. I'm not gay myself, but you can bet that if my state had a measure on the ballot regarding gay marriage, I would not just be "along for the vote". And I'm not alone.
Sure some of the 53%, just went along one side or the other. I'm sure there was a core group of die-hards on both sides, with the vast majority of voters in the middle and were swayed one way or the other.
And yes to get things on ballots its rather simple thing by a special interest groups. All its takes in most places is a percentage of voter signatures.
I mean here in California we even had a statewide vote driven by animal activist about confinement of farm animals.
So yes a small group of pro or anti same-sex activist, or whatever topic you can think of can bring measures infront of huge audiances that might not have any specific direct interest about the topic for a general vote.
Quoting Mir (Reply 160): People don't have to vote on specific issues. Don't care about a measure on the ballot? Don't vote on it.
Sure you don't have to. But generally people do end up voting at the end even if they dont have a huge interest eitherway.
For instance here in Los Angeles County, if one leaves a blank on your ballot, the scanner spits it back out and you either have to confirm you yes intended to leave something blank, or go back an finish voting.
[Edited 2009-11-05 20:53:39 by laxintl]
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Airstud From United States, joined Nov 2000, 469 posts, RR: 0 Reply 162, posted (1 month 1 week 2 days ago) and read 1611 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 156): Keep dreaming, because when a president firmly in the corner of the religious right and a GOP-controlled Congress waiting on him hand and foot can't get that ball rolling, you can pretty much rule it out as a viable option.
Well actually a Constitutional amendment never goes to the President. Once it's passed by 2/3 of each house of Congress; it goes to the State legislatures (and, as you know, ¾ of the States need to ratify it).
The mere fact that Congress was controlled by the GOP, by a less-than-two-thirds majority, and that the procedurally irrelevant President was anti-gay-marriage, doesn't prove the amendment to be unviable; especially with the State legislatures left out of your equation.
That said, I don't think such an amendment ever would pass and I don't think it's a good idea either. It's one of the biggest hypocrisies from the Republican party: the cry for States' rights and less Federal intervention, and a push to take away from the States the rights to legalize gay marriage if they want to.
N104UA From United States, joined Dec 2007, 813 posts, RR: 0 Reply 164, posted (1 month 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1577 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 139): Quoting DocLightning (Reply 134):
If gay marriage is legal, nobody is forcing YOU to accept it. You can reject it. It has no impact on your life or anything that you do.
By defacto we would have to accept it. So would churches and such. It becomes the law of the land.
In essance a small special interest group tells the rest of society how its must view, act and condone the actions of that group.
Read the Establishment clause of the constitution, and nothing will be forced on your church
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 139): Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 136):
And if that barrier of misunderstaning is broken, I think more citizens in this country would be okay with the concept of gay marriage, and I say this because as I've said, I'm one of the ones who has come around on gay marriage for pushing through that barrier.
Maybe, and that change needs to come from within the GLBT community. Seeing billboard adds for Gay Cruises, colored flag banners, etc works to make the community stand out in negative light in my view. Almost elitist in a way I suppose.
Yes because I did not hear a radio ad today telling me to accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, and I do not get flyers in the mail from a local church with quotes like "Got Jesus," "Missing something in your life," I just see this as good marketing in California there are a lot of Gays so it makes good marketing sense to post them there, just like I live in a big christian area so I see it as the free market working
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 155): Quoting Mir (Reply 150):
As far as churches go, they shouldn't be compelled to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples if they don't want to. But if they do want to, then they should be able to.
Yes it would be great if churches could opt out, but for example here in California our Attorney General admitted in his opinions on Prop-8, that it could be a slippery slope for churches that openly deny marriage services based on same-sex.
You and I both know, sooner of later some church or another will end up in court for refusing to marry someone. So while the principle of freedom of religion is strong in the US, how it may fare and the collateral damage from being opposed to other existing law could be yet another costly can of worms by allowing same-sex marriage.
Along with churches, I also believe private schools should have the right to also continue teaching what they feel is moral or immorality including statements on same-sex marriage.
Again read the establishment clause, and private schools will not be required to teach how gay sex happens just like many schools don't say anything about sex, so I see it as them keeping it business as usual.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 155):
But yes I agree ultimately this needs to end up in the Supreme Court. The stakes would be high however, and any loss by the same-sex marriage camp could be fatal for decades to come which is why I believe many have prefered to fight things on local level and not directly on Federal charges.
I agree this does need to end up in the Supreme Court because if they read the law and constitution, they will come up with the same decision as state courts have, because with out a amendment to the constitution defining marriage, the rest of the laws on the books against denying someone something because of who they are.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 159): Maybe, maybe not. But as the same-sex marriage camp has pushed their agenda, much of America has woken up and now 31 states quite rapidly have passed various laws or constitutional amendments.
So the more oneside pushes and insist on redefining marriage, the other side rightfully stands up and defends what they perceive is right and moral.
Again how can the majority tell the minority what can happen, and remember we have redefined marriage before so it will happen again
"Forget regret or life is yours to miss...no other road no other way no day but today"
RussianJet From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 3646 posts, RR: 16 Reply 165, posted (1 month 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1574 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 137): Among those things falls the issue of civil rights. Women did not gain their rights through the popular vote. Nor did Blacks. Nor did people under 21. In fact, no civil right has ever been granted to a group by popular vote. Ever. Not once. And marriage is, accordiing to Loving v. Virginia, a "fundamental right."
I take your point, but on other matters (and I hear what you say about civil rights) that is effectively what happens.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 137): Or if someone floated a proposal right after 9/11 to put all Arabs, Muslims, and anyone who looked like they might be of Mid-Eastern descent into concentration camps
Wait, albeit without a vote, I thought that happened anyway??
Pellegrine From United States, joined Mar 2007, 1212 posts, RR: 1 Reply 166, posted (1 month 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1562 times:
Those people who discriminate based on race, sex, sex orientation, religion, nationality, eugenic, intellectual level, physical measurement, education or any other basal categorization of human existence which we separate ourselves into...they are far beneath, far far beneath. Just because these people are in the majority does not make them right. And they are bigots, they are full of discrimination. Perhaps I am guilty of calling a spade a spade. It confused me when bigots, racists, homophobes, and discriminators do not like to be called exactly that. They are "shadow" or "in the closet" biggots and discriminators. I don't care about their self-proported religious/spiritual/ethical beliefs. Your belief is just that. You never have the human capacity to project that onto someone else. Just because the inane legislature of a country's legal or political system gives you that power does not make it right nor just in terms of the rights of any human.
That said, I don't really have time for any of these "thousand-year-old" religions with outdated views. Although I recognize the right for any person to celebrate their belief in their home or place of worship. But especially some of the cult-like sects of these religions, full of discrimination and hate for "outsiders and miscreants". They create villains, evil, and "sinners" out of everyday people just trying to go about their lives. This villain-creating distracts from real issues that affect us all as humanity, not as white, or black, or Hispanic, or gay, or transgender, or queeny-acting-crossdressing-teenage-boy, or Argentinian, or Swiss, or Nigerian, or Nepanlese, or Eritrean, or Luxemburger. But such people are among us today. And we have do deal with pleasing the pedestrian proletariat, with their voting "power"...those who are ruled.
Non-Farm Payroll = time to gain or lose 100+ pips on my P/L ehh...
San747 From United States, joined Dec 2004, 3932 posts, RR: 13 Reply 167, posted (1 month 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1543 times:
Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 166): You never have the human capacity to project that onto someone else. Just because the inane legislature of a country's legal or political system gives you that power does not make it right nor just in terms of the rights of any human.
Luckily, the American legal/political system is designed to prevent exactly what you described... which is why I'm still flabbergasted about why this issue is being put up to a popular vote in various states. This is not an issue the people have the right to decide.
Aaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 4555 posts, RR: 22 Reply 168, posted (1 month 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1523 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 130): To me, I could really care less what one does in their home
Given your strong stance on the issue, I have deep doubts about that. Ostensibly what a gay person does in their home is no different from what you or I do, except that you think it's abnormal, unnatural or something to that effect thus legally recognizing their love should remain illegal. It's a preposterous leap of logic.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 130): Thats one of the big issues here -- The mainstream is being forced to accept the alternate lifestyle and actions(same sex marriage in this case) as being normal and acceptable behavior by codifying it and stamping approval with a marriage license.
It's not an alternative lifestyle simply because you deem it as such. It's a daily living breathing reality for LGBT individuals the world over. But sorry, I should know better than to bring simple truths into this kind of discussion.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 139): But to be legal it needs society input, and like it or not we legislate very much based on our morals and assumptions of right and wrong.
Society's input is not always fair or correct...miscegenation laws for starters.
"Sentimentality plays with sweet intentions in place of good sense." - Jane Jacobs
Mir From United States, joined Jan 2004, 13225 posts, RR: 65 Reply 169, posted (1 month 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1500 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 161): Sure some of the 53%, just went along one side or the other. I'm sure there was a core group of die-hards on both sides, with the vast majority of voters in the middle and were swayed one way or the other.
In other words, you can't prove this:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 155): Both times I used "like it or not" was about same-sex marriage viewpoint being shoved down onto greater society by what is frankly a special interest group.
because we have no idea what percentage of either side was a special interest group.
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.
Yet your States elected Officials are With holding the Rights enshrined in Americas Declaration of Independence.
So basically they are Braking the United States founding fathers wishes by Denying gay people the happiness of a life together and the Liberty to be them selves So they end up with a Stigma and no real life at all!
RussianJet From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 3646 posts, RR: 16 Reply 171, posted (1 month 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1490 times:
Quoting BlackProjects (Reply 170): So your States are Braking the Letter or the United States 1st Law.
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.
Yet your States elected Officials are With holding the Rights enshrined in Americas Declaration of Independence.
So basically they are Braking the United States founding fathers wishes by Denying gay people the happiness of a life together and the Liberty to be them selves So they end up with a Stigma and no real life at all!
Who said gay people were to be denied a life together? A life together is certainly permitted. No real life at all? That's a little dramatic, and the gay people I know in the UK would certainly not agree that they aren't allowed a 'real life' just because their union is not called marriage. To say that anyone is BREAKING anything of the sort as you describe is quite a stretch.
AM744 From Mexico, joined Jun 2001, 1267 posts, RR: 0 Reply 173, posted (1 month 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1456 times:
Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 153): A marriage can just as easily NOT involve children.
And more importantly, there are plenty of unmarried people who have children. If we're going to talk about being raised by two dads or two moms, shouldn't we deal with that too?
Even a heterosexual couple can present an incomplete picture of human behavior to their child. At a certain point, you have to let the parents have responsibility for that. We can't legislate everything that has to be presented to a child by their parents.
Quoting N229NW (Reply 154): Well every single parent family already does this.
I gave it some thought yesterday and arrived to the exact same conclusion. There are lots of succesful single dad or mom families. So I fail to see any other argument against gay marriage.
N104UA From United States, joined Dec 2007, 813 posts, RR: 0 Reply 174, posted (1 month 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1420 times:
Quoting San747 (Reply 167): Luckily, the American legal/political system is designed to prevent exactly what you described... which is why I'm still flabbergasted about why this issue is being put up to a popular vote in various states. This is not an issue the people have the right to decide.
oh I know
and to all of those Christians here that still think Gay Marriage is wrong
""Love is Patient and Kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love never fails."
That is from you Bible it is 1 Corinthians 13 and LOVE NEVER FAILS, love will always win in the end hate will die out, and just think of what Jesus would say about you being so mean to a group of people
"Forget regret or life is yours to miss...no other road no other way no day but today"
Vikkyvik From United States, joined Jul 2003, 3829 posts, RR: 26 Reply 175, posted (1 month 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1379 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 161): For instance here in Los Angeles County, if one leaves a blank on your ballot, the scanner spits it back out and you either have to confirm you yes intended to leave something blank, or go back an finish voting.
Not saying you're intentionally misleading, but that certainly has never happened to me. And I've certainly left blanks on my ballots.
The spirit of Massachusetts is the spirit of America!
LAXintl From United States, joined May 2000, 12217 posts, RR: 22 Reply 176, posted (1 month 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1346 times:
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 168): Given your strong stance on the issue, I have deep doubts about that.
You dont know me and I dont expect you to. But I have a very diverse social circle. Might even surprise you to know I've even been a big brother and tutored a black gay adolesence for several years.
But regardless my view of same-sex marriage is what it is.
Sure its an alternative lifestyle. Being gay is not the normal mainstream lifestyle for general society.
As someone else posted gay population represents what maybe 5% of the total?
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 168): Society's input is not always fair or correct...miscegenation laws for starters.
Society might be right or wrong on many things, but it is us humans that afterall have to make laws.
And rightly and wrongly, things like morality and our conviction guide mankind as he develops and inerprets these laws.
Quoting Mir (Reply 169): In other words, you can't prove this:
Quoting Mir (Reply 169): because we have no idea what percentage of either side was a special interest group.
And neither do you unless if you wish to go conduct a field poll.
In the California farm animals measure I mentioned earlier, I seriously doubt most folks cared or even had a clue either way, but when it came down to voting some 12.9mil people placed a vote one way or the other.
Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 175): Not saying you're intentionally misleading, but that certainly has never happened to me. And I've certainly left blanks on my ballots.
Well for for the last two elections, at my polling station the card ballots were scanned by a big blue machine machine manned by a clerk that would spit it back out with a warning if a bubble was selected somewhere.
It actually happened to the woman in front me me whom promptly went back and completed voting.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Dec 2007, 813 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 494 posts, 
From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Jun 2006, 2328 posts, 
From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 4555 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 1492 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2005, 754 posts, 
From Bouvet Island, joined May 1999, 4036 posts, 
From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 3646 posts, 
.
As San747 said, doesn't hurt others or deprive anyone of their rights. 
From Mexico, joined Jun 2001, 1267 posts, 
Wait, albeit without a vote, I thought that happened anyway??