Gay marriage Rejected by Maine voters

[InternetHero]

Originally Posted by USAMMAFAN

ur right.

lets just go back to jim crow, you know, "states rights" to be a bigoted society.

Directly comparing race to homosexuality, and Jim Crow laws to a marriage prohibition is a remarkably sweeping set of incompatible fallacies.

[handbannana]

I'm not surprised about Internet Hero posting in a thread about queerosexuals.

[kflo]

Originally Posted by TheComebackKid

Hahaha, are you denying that penises are designed to go into vaginas as opposed to asses? Do babies get created through anal sex? Are you most likely to get an std by traditional(ie natural) sex or ripping apart another dudes ass so now you have a mixture of open sores, rips, blood, seman, and shit juice?

what's your view of oral sex? is that unnatural? handjobs? are you more likely to get an std through intercourse or lesbian or gay oral sex? who decides what is "natural"? more copouts.

[kflo]

Originally Posted by TheComebackKid

You guys do realize that by definition a gay couple can't get married right? No matter what language you say it in, no matter what time period, no matter what part of the world, no matter what religion or tradition...anytime you say "marriage" that person will think you're talking about a man and a woman. The reason being is because the tradition of marriage has always been this way for all people.

So if you say, "gay couples can marry", what you really are doing is inventing a new tradition and hijacking the name of the historical tradition that is marriage. If gay couples if they are going to be inventing a new tradition why don't they give their new tradition it's own name, like say civil unions?

yeah, a new tradition based on lifelong commitment and love in the context of family? how new.

[feedmelies]

The problem here is that we are letting religious practices dictate what the law says. We need to outright separate religion from the way the government recognizes comitted couples. I have no intention of making churches run ceremonies they are against. However, I do believe it is wrong that gay couples are not getting the same rights as heterosexual couples.

I think that we should remove the notion of marriage entirely from the legal system. We should just leave it to the religious bigots, just as do with all the other religious ceremonies. Then, couples that wish to be recognized legally, by the government, should get civil unions (or whatever legal mumbo jumbo would suffice), which will grant all the legal benefits that marriage currently offers. And these civil unions should not discriminate against gays, nor would they be able to (I should think) without the ability to point at the bible and say, "Nuh uhhh!"

Originally Posted by Charles Brown

It's not discriminatory at all. No man can marry another man. No woman can marry another woman. It isn't the case that only gay men and gay women are precluded from same-sex marriage. Everybody is. Therefore, it is not discriminatory. Look, I am all for allowing gays to marry, but the arguments being put forth are lacking in substance. As far as Maine is concerned, if the state did anything other than to acknowledge the wishes of the voters, it would indeed be time for a revolution.

It's not discriminatory at all. No black can marry a white. No white can marry a black. It isn't the case that only black men and black women are precluded from interracial marriage. Everybody is. Therefore, it is not discriminatory. Look, I am all for allowing blacks to marry whites, but the arguments being put forth are lacking in substance. As far as Maine is concerned, if the state did anything other than to acknowledge the wishes of the voters, it would indeed be time for a revolution.

Originally Posted by Charles Brown

You are wrong. Homosexual men can marry women if they choose to. They cannot marry other men. But, straight men cannot marry other men either. Therefore, there is no discrimination. You are talking about preferences, not rights. I might prefer to marry a man, but I cannot. I can marry a woman if I choose to. You are also flawed by thinking that the state considers sexual preference as a factor in marriage. They do not. The state doesn't care whom you are sexually attracted to and makes no laws pertaining to your sexual attraction. They only make laws pertaining to whom you can marry.

You are wrong. Black men can marry black women if they choose to. They cannot marry other races. But, white men cannot marry other races either. Therefore, there is no discrimination. You are talking about preferences, not rights. I might prefer to marry a black, but I cannot. I can marry a white woman if I choose to. You are also flawed by thinking that the state considers race as a factor in marriage. They do not. The state doesn't care whom you are sexually attracted to and makes no laws pertaining to your sexual attraction. They only make laws pertaining to whom you can marry.

Originally Posted by Charles Brown

And the states and federal government already confer the same benefits to "civil unions". So, again, a man is not denied a "right" when he is denied the ability to "marry" a person of the same sex.

The federal government denies many benefits to gay couples in civil unions that married couples get.

Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by JoelThomas

So, what exactly are gays being denied by not being allowed to marry?

See the above link.

Originally Posted by Charles Brown

DEMOCRACY NOW!

Unless democracy fails to deliver the outcomes that I desire.

Slavery was widely accepted when it was outlawed. Just because a majority believes something is right doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by Seano

I don't know all the particulars, but gays had the option to all the rights of a married couple with civil unions here. It wasn't good enough because the initiative specifically stated that it could not be called marriage.

Its not about the rights, its about forcing acceptance from everyone in every aspect of their lives. Mainers will accept anyone but we won't change our beliefs and values, especially with a vote. Thats wrong. Thats why this failed in Maine, not because people hate gays.

You are wrong.

Originally Posted by TheComebackKid

Because, a gay union and a hetero union are completely different both physically and conceptually and most people do not want to be forced to pretend that they aren't. Just like oranges and apples, two different fruits, have their own terms, so do two different types of unions.

The question is why are you guys trying to force people to view them as equivalent when they are so obviously not.

The problem is that gay couples who are committed and wish to have their relationships recognized by the government do not get the same rights as heterosexuals in the same category.

Originally Posted by TheComebackKid

The concept of a hetero union involves naturally mating as opposed to forced mating that you get when you shove a d*ck into someones ass. The concept also involves creating other human beings, forming a family, and continuing the cycle of life. Sometimes theres love involved.

For gay unions, you have love and forced mating....no concept of creating other human beings , no adding to the cycle of life, and nothing natural about it.

I guess heterosexual couples who don't want to have kids or who are incapable of having kids shouldn't be allowed to get married then.

Originally Posted by TheComebackKid

Hahaha, are you denying that penises are designed to go into vaginas as opposed to asses? Do babies get created through anal sex? Are you most likely to get an std by traditional(ie natural) sex or ripping apart another dudes ass so now you have a mixture of open sores, rips, blood, seman, and shit juice?

Were you "designed" to drive in a car? Is that natural?

[TheComebackKid]

Originally Posted by kflo

what's your view of oral sex? is that unnatural? handjobs? are you more likely to get an std through intercourse or lesbian or gay oral sex? who decides what is "natural"? more copouts.

Dude, c'mon...a penis is built to go into a vagina, if you can't see that than I don't kwno what to tell you. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with oral sex, anal sex, hand jobs and whatever else. I'm simply saying that is not how our bodies were built to interact as evidenced by a higher risk of disease and injury.

[TheComebackKid]

Originally Posted by kflo

yeah, a new tradition based on lifelong commitment and love in the context of family? how new.

The context of family? When I think of family I think of offspring. Gay unions do not produce offspring, huge difference.

[TheComebackKid]

Originally Posted by feedmelies

The problem here is that we are letting religious practices dictate what the law says. We need to outright separate religion from the way the government recognizes comitted couples. I have no intention of making churches run ceremonies they are against. However, I do believe it is wrong that gay couples are not getting the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Marriage is not only a religious tradition, it's a universal tradition. You guys want to change up the tradition instead of just making your own. I think people should be able to legally combine their lives in any way they choose. If they want to combine their assests, leave each other everything when they die, be awarded visiting rights and recognition having relation thats fine, but it by definition isn't a marriage.

Originally Posted by feedmelies

We should just leave it to the religious bigots, just as do with all the other religious ceremonies. Then, couples that wish to be recognized legally, by the government, should get civil unions (or whatever legal mumbo jumbo would suffice), which will grant all the legal benefits that marriage currently offers. And these civil unions should not discriminate against gays, nor would they be able to (I should think) without the ability to point at the bible and say, "Nuh uhhh!"

You're ignorant man. Instead of just throwing out things like "bigots" or "discrimination" why don't you address the actual point of contention. That being that marriage is a universal tradition throughout the history of the world where the complete and total premise rests on the idea of a man and woman forming a union, do you disagree? Nevermind, I'm sure you will but most sane individuals would not and thus the question becomes is it even possible for two men or two women to engage in the tradition of marriage? By definition no.

Originally Posted by feedmelies

The problem is that gay couples who are committed and wish to have their relationships recognized by the government do not get the same rights as heterosexuals in the same category.

Well, now I think a civil union and a marriage should get for the most part the same rights except for maybe adopting kids. So in situations where this is true, I agree, that shouldn't happen.

Originally Posted by feedmelies

I guess heterosexual couples who don't want to have kids or who are incapable of having kids shouldn't be allowed to get married then

I had a feeling you were going to respond with this juvenile argument. Notice I said "conceptually" not "100% true in all instances of real world application".

Originally Posted by feedmelies

Were you "designed" to drive in a car? Is that natural?

Man, this is just stupid. The whole basis of continued life for humans or any specie is reproduction which occurs in a mating process. There is one process where life is created and then there is another where life is not and on top of that it can be extremely damaging to your health as well.

A couple can have "natural" sex everyday for months and have no physical problems whatsoever. Why? Because it's a natural process our bodies are designed for. Now, let two dudes have sex for 2 months straight, I guarantee you one of those guys is going to have some problems holding in his feces.

[feedmelies]

Originally Posted by TheComebackKid

Marriage is not only a religious tradition, it's a universal tradition. You guys want to change up the tradition instead of just making your own. I think people should be able to legally combine their lives in any way they choose. If they want to combine their assests, leave each other everything when they die, be awarded visiting rights and recognition having relation thats fine, but it by definition isn't a marriage.

If you read what I typed, you'd realize that I have no intention of changing your "tradition." But if I remember correctly, marriage occurred far before the bible was created.

You're ignorant man. Instead of just throwing out things like "bigots" or "discrimination" why don't you address the actual point of contention. That being that marriage is a universal tradition throughout the history of the world where the complete and total premise rests on the idea of a man and woman forming a union, do you disagree? Nevermind, I'm sure you will but most sane individuals would not and thus the question becomes is it even possible for two men or two women to engage in the tradition of marriage? By definition no.

I used the word bigot because, in addition to passionately forbidding gays to marry, some intensively religious folks like to insult and degrade gays in anyway they can, looking down on them as complete inferiors. It seems like you may fit in that group.

Well, now I think a civil union and a marriage should get for the most part the same rights except for maybe adopting kids. So in situations where this is true, I agree, that shouldn't happen.

LOL. Why shouldn't gay couples be able to adopt kids? And don't make up some BS either. There are studies on this you know. Also, it's not like we have a shortage of kids who need to be adopted.

I had a feeling you were going to respond with this juvenile argument. Notice I said "conceptually" not "100% true in all instances of real world application".

You never said that. You offered a stance and I blasted a hole through it. You said that heterosexual couples are "natural" and okay because they mate, and that homosexual couples are not okay because they cannot create human beings. What am I missing here?

Also, do you think oral and anal sex within heterosexual relationships are not okay?

Man, this is just stupid. The whole basis of continued life for humans or any specie is reproduction which occurs in a mating process. There is one process where life is created and then there is another where life is not and on top of that it can be extremely damaging to your health as well.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Can you be any more vague?

A couple can have "natural" sex everyday for months and have no physical problems whatsoever. Why? Because it's a natural process our bodies are designed for. Now, let two dudes have sex for 2 months straight, I guarantee you one of those guys is going to have some problems holding in his feces.

It seems to me that you are making quite a few assumptions here. How do you know what gay couples like to do in their bedrooms? What's the difference between a male having anal sex and a woman having anal sex? Plenty of women do the act on a constant basis. And how do you know how gays react to the sex they have?

BTW, your argument was that gay relationships are wrong because sex in those relationships isn't "natural." So if it's not natural, it's not okay. Again, what am I missing?

[CJF]

Originally Posted by TheComebackKid

Dude, c'mon...a penis is built to go into a vagina, if you can't see that than I don't kwno what to tell you. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with oral sex, anal sex, hand jobs and whatever else. I'm simply saying that is not how our bodies were built to interact as evidenced by a higher risk of disease and injury.

As humans, we're not meant to be monogamous either. Marriage is created by the laws of civilization, not evolution.