For My Friends In Maine....

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: For My Friends In Maine....

    In Response to Re: For My Friends In Maine....:
    [QUOTE]Michelle Malkin: "the left-wing mafioso in Maine are targeting Americans who oppose gay marriage. Where are all the civility police to decry the climate of hate? Voters on Tuesday repealed the state’s same sex marriage law after an emotionally charged campaign that drew large numbers to the polls and focused national attention on Maine. …"In a defiant speech to several hundred lingering supporters, No on 1 campaign manager Jesse Connolly pledged that his side “will not quit until we know where every single one of these votes lives.”
    Posted by BobinVa[/QUOTE]

    Losing your rights get people upset. Is that really a surprise? But no need for violence or aggressive action, time is on the side of gay rights.  The younger generation sees being gay as just as important as being lefthanded.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from giraffe-77. Show giraffe-77's posts

    Re: For My Friends In Maine....

    In Response to Re: For My Friends In Maine....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: For My Friends In Maine.... : Losing your rights get people upset. Is that really a surprise? But no need for violence or aggressive action, time is on the side of gay rights.  The younger generation sees being gay as just as important as being lefthanded.
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]

    How's this solution?

    Separation of church and state means the government can't favor one religion over another.  Therefore, it's not within the government's scope to qualify one "marriage" over another.  They are there to enforce the legal and contractual side of civil unions - not to judge the validity of these unions.  What if we let the churches marry people in their churches and get the government's nose out of making religious, moralistic judgements?

    That way ALL marriages would be considered "civil unions" by the gov. and "marriages" by the clergy and friends and family?  Seriously.  What's wrong with that?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from s0ftsquash. Show s0ftsquash's posts

    Re: For My Friends In Maine....

    The gay community deserves every loss it's had. The problem isnt about equality, discrimination, or even acceptance of their lifestyle. The English language has a definition for marriage...one man, one woman. Had the gays accepted the civil union definition, they'd have all the legal and societal recognitioin due all free people, but NOOOO, they have to push and push until they lose another battle and they cry about being misrepresented. It's always been about making a loud statement and throwing their agenda into everyones face, thereby creating more resentment. My advice would be for them to accept what they already have, get off the podium, and shut up. I'm not pushing a heterosexual lifestyle on any h0m0s, why do I have to listen to theirs?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from giraffe-77. Show giraffe-77's posts

    Re: For My Friends In Maine....

    In Response to Re: For My Friends In Maine....:
    [QUOTE]The gay community deserves every loss it's had. The problem isnt about equality, discrimination, or even acceptance of their lifestyle. The English language has a definition for marriage...one man, one woman. Had the gays accepted the civil union definition, they'd have all the legal and societal recognitioin due all free people, but NOOOO, they have to push and push until they lose another battle and they cry about being misrepresented. It's always been about making a loud statement and throwing their agenda into everyones face, thereby creating more resentment. My advice would be for them to accept what they already have, get off the podium, and shut up. I'm not pushing a heterosexual lifestyle on any h0m0s, why do I have to listen to theirs?
    Posted by s0ftsquash[/QUOTE]

    The only pushy thing here is when heteros tax h0m0s for benefits they are denied.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: For My Friends In Maine....

    "Losing your rights get people upset. Is that really a surprise?"

    Gay marriage zealots can't convince the voters....So Plan B for these self described loving caring compassionate liberal zealots: threaten and intimidate the voters, that might work...
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: For My Friends In Maine....

    In Response to Re: For My Friends In Maine....:
    [QUOTE]"Losing your rights get people upset. Is that really a surprise?" Gay marriage zealots can't convince the voters....So Plan B for these self described loving caring compassionate liberal zealots: threaten and intimidate the voters, that might work...
    Posted by BobinVa[/QUOTE]

    Still thinking about that rational reason to oppose gay marriage?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: For My Friends In Maine....

    In Response to Re: For My Friends In Maine....:
    [QUOTE]The gay community deserves every loss it's had. The problem isnt about equality, discrimination, or even acceptance of their lifestyle. The English language has a definition for marriage...one man, one woman. Had the gays accepted the civil union definition, they'd have all the legal and societal recognitioin due all free people, but NOOOO, they have to push and push until they lose another battle and they cry about being misrepresented. It's always been about making a loud statement and throwing their agenda into everyones face, thereby creating more resentment. My advice would be for them to accept what they already have, get off the podium, and shut up. I'm not pushing a heterosexual lifestyle on any h0m0s, why do I have to listen to theirs?
    Posted by s0ftsquash[/QUOTE]

    People's rights are not defined by dictionaries.  At one time the legal definition of marriage required a woman to give up all her legal rights to her husband upon marriage.  We outgrew that too.  And "equality" means something as well.  

    By the way, you ARE pushing your hetero lifestyle on gays by calling them h0m0s and telling them to get back in the closet.  You are apparently afraid that you will catch "gayness" through exposure to their "lifestyle".  Look up "bigot" in your dictionary while you are at it.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from giraffe-77. Show giraffe-77's posts

    Re: For My Friends In Maine....

    In Response to Re: For My Friends In Maine....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: For My Friends In Maine.... : Gay "marriage" doesn't harm anyone, straight marriage has the potential to because it's procreative.  Who should be held in higher esteem based on their sexual behavior?  Those who are willing to protect society from the obligation of supporting their offspring are the only ones I can think of.  The bigger problem is our unwillingness to let go of the notion that marital status matters; there's a big difference between providing a level playing field for those who are left out, and using the law to elevate some to "first class".     
    Posted by crzn[/QUOTE]

    That's true.  If 90% are traveling first class, you have to make someone ride Coach to make room for the unwanted children and ensuing social problems.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Charles2008. Show Charles2008's posts

    Re: For My Friends In Maine....

    In Response to Re: For My Friends In Maine....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: For My Friends In Maine.... : Gay "marriage" doesn't harm anyone, straight marriage has the potential to because it's procreative.  Who should be held in higher esteem based on their sexual behavior?  Those who are willing to protect society from the obligation of supporting their offspring are the only ones I can think of.  The bigger problem is our unwillingness to let go of the notion that marital status matters; there's a big difference between providing a level playing field for those who are left out, and using the law to elevate some to "first class".     
    Posted by crzn[/QUOTE]

    crzn,
    You make an interesting argument.  I never looked at this angle, but you are right.  Some parents should have never been allowed to procreate, unfortunately it does not have an easy answer.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Charles2008. Show Charles2008's posts

    Re: For My Friends In Maine....

    In Response to Re: For My Friends In Maine....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: For My Friends In Maine.... : How's this solution? Separation of church and state means the government can't favor one religion over another.  Therefore, it's not within the government's scope to qualify one "marriage" over another.  They are there to enforce the legal and contractual side of civil unions - not to judge the validity of these unions.  What if we let the churches marry people in their churches and get the government's nose out of making religious, moralistic judgements? That way ALL marriages would be considered "civil unions" by the gov. and "marriages" by the clergy and friends and family?  Seriously.  What's wrong with that?
    Posted by giraffe-77[/QUOTE]

    I think this is a sensible argument. Why should the government be involved in anything other than determining rights vis-a-vis laws and regulations. These are all civil matters.

    That would provide a response BobinVA's argument about why just same-sex marriage and not plural marriages.  Because otherwise, BobinVA has a very valid point (at least I did not see the natural counterargument).  If you can extend the definition to be any consulting adult (not just traditional definition), why not more than 2 if they are consenting.  It is not traditional, but it may be argued that it has more basis in historical practices than same-sex marriage.

    I am not arguing for it.  This is just an exercise in logical reasoning.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from giraffe-77. Show giraffe-77's posts

    Re: For My Friends In Maine....

    In Response to Re: For My Friends In Maine....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: For My Friends In Maine.... : I think this is a sensible argument. Why should the government be involved in anything other than determining rights vis-a-vis laws and regulations. These are all civil matters. That would provide a response BobinVA's argument about why just same-sex marriage and not plural marriages.  Because otherwise, BobinVA has a very valid point (at least I did not see the natural counterargument).  If you can extend the definition to be any consulting adult (not just traditional definition), why not more than 2 if they are consenting.  It is not traditional, but it may be argued that it has more basis in historical practices than same-sex marriage. I am not arguing for it.  This is just an exercise in logical reasoning.
    Posted by Charles2008[/QUOTE]

    Thanks.  Now if all the Mormons in Utah want to bring back polygamy (which some of them still practice), they aren't legally married by civil law.  Their local church might bless their unions, but the taxpayer is under no obligation to support the 12 wives of Jethro when he dies.  Only the one he went into a civil union with.  Survivor Soc. Sec. benefits should only apply to ONE of his wives and if she wants to split it 12 ways with his other wives, let her.  And his 50 children can split up the rest.

    The only one who he can "legally divorce" is the one he entered into a gov't civil union with.  The rest have to take it up with the church.

    These problems can be solved.  If I want to marry my toy poodle or my coffee table, that's none of their business to take a religious stance on that.  As a government, they don't have to do anything about it.  It is impossible to enter into a civil union with any animal or object that can't verbally consent to the contract and sign the papers.  My church supports marrying all of my empty beer cans.  So I do.  It doesn't put taxpayers in any unfair disadvantage.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from TeddyffromNH. Show TeddyffromNH's posts

    Re: For My Friends In Maine....

    I support gay marriage.  Doesnt bother me in the least bit.  What does bother me is that all of you cry out that gays are treated as second class citizens, and are not treated equal, but in the next breath you opine that:

    -Progressive taxation is fair, justified and even good.  How are taxpayers treated equally under the law?
    -The second amendment is a mere footnote in American history (2-A is a real right BTW).  My beef with this is that in MA, the police chief can "decide" who is worthy to own a gun. 
    -Hardcore supporters of race quotas, affirmative action, and open borders policies.

    In summary, you support gay marriage "rights", while habitually and enthusiasticly treating others unfairly. 

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: For My Friends In Maine....

    Does it matter that in EVERY state where the gay marriage has hit the ballot that the voters have overwhelmingly voted it down???  All 31 times??

    Gay marriage doesn't really matter to me as long as those who are married have to pay the marriage tax penalty just like I will when Obama reinstates it.  Remember that $2000 annual penalty, any one??  It's coming back when the Bush tax cuts expire.  

    I'm just asking the question.  Does it matter what the voters think in America on this issue???
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from s0ftsquash. Show s0ftsquash's posts

    Re: For My Friends In Maine....

    In Response to Re: For My Friends In Maine....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: For My Friends In Maine.... : People's rights are not defined by dictionaries.  At one time the legal definition of marriage required a woman to give up all her legal rights to her husband upon marriage.  We outgrew that too.  And "equality" means something as well.   By the way, you ARE pushing your hetero lifestyle on gays by calling them h0m0s and telling them to get back in the closet.  You are apparently afraid that you will catch "gayness" through exposure to their "lifestyle".  Look up "bigot" in your dictionary while you are at it.
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]

    In case you forgot Sparky, we have our laws written in English. Each word in a law has a specific definition. If the wrong word is used, it kinda makes it hard to enforce, interpret, and execute. Legal definitons cant nor shouldnt be made out of thin air. I cant call the thing that cuts my lawn a tomato. Its a lawnmower. Nor can I go to the government and ask them to make a law that says I can be married to my lawnmower.
    I never said anything about the h0m0 community going back into the closet. BTW, the slang word h0m0 refers to homosexuals, which also has a specific definition in the English dictionary.
    The homophobe comeback again...of course, how else can you argue the topic? No fear on my part, just fed up with a minority part of the population asking to be elevated above the rest and looking for government endorsement.
    The arrogance is the gay community "forcing" my exposure to its lifestyle when I have no desire to. I dont desire to be exposed to the occult or gangsta rap communities. Who is anyone to force me to?
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from giraffe-77. Show giraffe-77's posts

    Re: For My Friends In Maine....

    In Response to Re: For My Friends In Maine....:
    [QUOTE]Does it matter that in EVERY state where the gay marriage has hit the ballot that the voters have overwhelmingly voted it down???  All 31 times?? Gay marriage doesn't really matter to me as long as those who are married have to pay the marriage tax penalty just like I will when Obama reinstates it.  Remember that $2000 annual penalty, any one??  It's coming back when the Bush tax cuts expire.   I'm just asking the question.  Does it matter what the voters think in America on this issue???
    Posted by macnh1[/QUOTE]

    No.  It doesn't matter that voters don't approve.  There's a reason we live in a Democratic Republic.  The Republic part says that Democracy can't be used to strip anyone of their constitutional rights.  If 60% of people in a community vote Democratically in favor of reviving slavery, the Republican part kicks in and says they can't vote on that.  Plato thought it up.  You should read more.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from s0ftsquash. Show s0ftsquash's posts

    Re: For My Friends In Maine....

    Actually we live in a Constitutional Republic. It may look, taste, and smell like a Democracy, but it really isn't. The document defines our basic inalienable rights.
    Nowhere does it even have the word "Democracy".
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from giraffe-77. Show giraffe-77's posts

    Re: For My Friends In Maine....

    In Response to Re: For My Friends In Maine....:
    [QUOTE]Actually we live in a Constitutional Republic. It may look, taste, and smell like a Democracy, but it really isn't. The document defines our basic inalienable rights. Nowhere does it even have the word "Democracy".
    Posted by s0ftsquash[/QUOTE]

    Let's give up voting then.  You're splitting hairs on semantics.  Did you even pay attention to my point?  It's a common evasion to avoid answering something by pointing out spelling or grammatical errors.

    Do you think the majority vote should over-rule constitutional rights?  That is the question and we could argue all day about the difference between Democratic Republic and Constitutional Republic.  Don't evade the issue.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Charles2008. Show Charles2008's posts

    Re: For My Friends In Maine....

    In Response to Re: For My Friends In Maine....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: For My Friends In Maine.... : Thanks.  Now if all the Mormons in Utah want to bring back polygamy (which some of them still practice), they aren't legally married by civil law.  Their local church might bless their unions, but the taxpayer is under no obligation to support the 12 wives of Jethro when he dies.  Only the one he went into a civil union with.  Survivor Soc. Sec. benefits should only apply to ONE of his wives and if she wants to split it 12 ways with his other wives, let her.  And his 50 children can split up the rest. The only one who he can "legally divorce" is the one he entered into a gov't civil union with.  The rest have to take it up with the church. These problems can be solved.  If I want to marry my toy poodle or my coffee table, that's none of their business to take a religious stance on that.  As a government, they don't have to do anything about it.  It is impossible to enter into a civil union with any animal or object that can't verbally consent to the contract and sign the papers.  My church supports marrying all of my empty beer cans.  So I do.  It doesn't put taxpayers in any unfair disadvantage.
    Posted by giraffe-77[/QUOTE]

    Giraffe,
    Thanks. Great point.  In brings in the discussion SS survivorship benefits. Another point against recognizing polygamy.
     
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: For My Friends In Maine....

    Do you think the majority vote should over-rule constitutional rights?  No.
    Gay marriage is not in the Constitution, it is not a "constitutional right", it is a political issue to be determined by state law....state legislatures and voter initiative petitions.


    If gay marriage is a constitutional right which requires "equality", what about 
    Polygamy? Housing? Health Care? Food? Internet access? Cable TV? 
    Requiring 50% women, 50% men, 12% black and latino hired for every private business?

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: For My Friends In Maine....

    In Response to Re: For My Friends In Maine....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: For My Friends In Maine.... : In case you forgot Sparky, we have our laws written in English. Each word in a law has a specific definition. If the wrong word is used, it kinda makes it hard to enforce, interpret, and execute. Legal definitons cant nor shouldnt be made out of thin air. I cant call the thing that cuts my lawn a tomato. Its a lawnmower. Nor can I go to the government and ask them to make a law that says I can be married to my lawnmower. I never said anything about the h0m0 community going back into the closet. BTW, the slang word h0m0 refers to homosexuals, which also has a specific definition in the English dictionary. The homophobe comeback again...of course, how else can you argue the topic? No fear on my part, just fed up with a minority part of the population asking to be elevated above the rest and looking for government endorsement. The arrogance is the gay community "forcing" my exposure to its lifestyle when I have no desire to. I dont desire to be exposed to the occult or gangsta rap communities. Who is anyone to force me to?
    Posted by s0ftsquash[/QUOTE]

    As you well know, being so versed in dictionaries, the term h0m0 is a slur.  Seems pretty logical to regard you as embracing bigotry because you used the term.

    And no one is forcing you to accept the gay "lifestyle".  They just want to be left alone... with the same rights as any one else.

    And look up "equality" in the dictionary (or better yet legal decisions): that is a fundamental right which a civil institution like marriage has to bend towards, not vice versa.

    Do you really think semantics should govern people's lives?  How about a rational argument instead?  Got one? 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: For My Friends In Maine....

    In Response to Re: For My Friends In Maine....:
    [QUOTE]Do you think the majority vote should over-rule constitutional rights?   No. Gay marriage is not in the Constitution, it is not a "constitutional right", it is a political issue to be determined by state law....state legislatures and voter initiative petitions. If gay marriage is a constitutional right which requires "equality", what about  Polygamy? Housing? Health Care? Food? Internet access? Cable TV?  Requiring 50% women, 50% men, 12% black and latino hired for every private business?
    Posted by BobinVa[/QUOTE]

    Equal Protection can be found in the 14th Amendment.  Due Process rights are in the same place.   Both have been used to affirm that the concept of marriage is protected by the Constitution (Loving v. Virginia).  Whether this view will be extended to "gay marriage" remains to be seen.  The rest of your post is mostly nonsense.  The Constitution focuses on political rights and government action against those rights.  Your hyperbole is not helpful.

    Still thinking about that rational reason to oppose the extension of rights?   Keep trying. 
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Charles2008. Show Charles2008's posts

    Re: For My Friends In Maine....

    In Response to Re: For My Friends In Maine....:
    [QUOTE]I support gay marriage.  Doesnt bother me in the least bit.  What does bother me is that all of you cry out that gays are treated as second class citizens, and are not treated equal, but in the next breath you opine that: -Progressive taxation is fair, justified and even good.  How are taxpayers treated equally under the law? -The second amendment is a mere footnote in American history (2-A is a real right BTW).  My beef with this is that in MA, the police chief can "decide" who is worthy to own a gun.  -Hardcore supporters of race quotas, affirmative action, and open borders policies. In summary, you support gay marriage "rights", while habitually and enthusiasticly treating others unfairly. 
    Posted by TeddyffromNH[/QUOTE]

    Teddy,

    You are making very broad and sweeping statements with very little relevance.

    The argument for or against gay marriage is constitutional (And I still say it is not a settled case, but I see both points).  The whole equal treatment argument is not such an open and shut case.
     
    But, I do not understand how you are equating it to the right to bear arms.  If you carefully read the 2nd amendment, you should be more than happy with the very liberal reading.  It can easily be construed that "a well regulated militia" has the right, and NOT individuals.

    Same for taxation. The 16th does not regulate how. It grants the congress the power to do so.
     
    Race quotas:  I do see who argues for that.

    Affirmative action:  Some argument to be made. Probably your strongest arguemnt.

    Open borders policies:  Regardless of merit, how does that tie in to your equal treatment argument?

    Basically, this has nothing to do with any of the other points you brought up.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Charles2008. Show Charles2008's posts

    Re: For My Friends In Maine....

    In Response to Re: For My Friends In Maine....:
    [QUOTE]Do you think the majority vote should over-rule constitutional rights?   No. Gay marriage is not in the Constitution, it is not a "constitutional right", it is a political issue to be determined by state law....state legislatures and voter initiative petitions. If gay marriage is a constitutional right which requires "equality", what about  Polygamy? Housing? Health Care? Food? Internet access? Cable TV?  Requiring 50% women, 50% men, 12% black and latino hired for every private business?
    Posted by BobinVa[/QUOTE]

    That is not necessary so. It depends on how you derive the reason for state involvement in defining marriage.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from giraffe-77. Show giraffe-77's posts

    Re: For My Friends In Maine....

    In Response to Re: For My Friends In Maine....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: For My Friends In Maine.... : That is not necessary so. It depends on how you derive the reason for state involvement in defining marriage.
    Posted by Charles2008[/QUOTE]

    I'm relatively new to this issue, and I wonder why gays would want to join into the group of "marriage elitists".  But is marriage really a constitutional issue???  I can't find a thing about it there.  Please inform me.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Charles2008. Show Charles2008's posts

    Re: For My Friends In Maine....

    In Response to Re: For My Friends In Maine....:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: For My Friends In Maine.... : I'm relatively new to this issue, and I wonder why gays would want to join into the group of "marriage elitists".  But is marriage really a constitutional issue???  I can't find a thing about it there.  Please inform me.
    Posted by giraffe-77[/QUOTE]

    I am just as new to the issue.  Frankly, I am not in favor at this time.  I just do not like these highly charged divisive issues unless I can see a clear benefit from them.  I am more pragmatic about these things. I prefer going for national civil union rights.  It is harder to argue against it when you can show direct harm in the status quo.  But again, I am not against it either anymore. After it happened in MA, nothing happened. So, it is hard to get too worked up.

    My reference to constitutionality is mainly derived from equal protection clause.  Does it apply?  It depends on how you argue for goverment involvement in marriage in the first place. If the basis for it is something to do with union of a man and a woman, than it is hard to extend it to same sex marriage.  If it is a right to couple for homestead purposes, than how can you exclude same sex couples.  If you include the reasoning to provide guardianship to children, then it gets a lot more grey and more complex. Does it have to do with procreation? How about when no father is involved (traditionally)? Etc. Etc.

    All I am saying is that, for me, all these points are not settle constitutionally. And thus my position is not either.
     
     

Share