• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

aps said:
ridiculousness of, "I don't want marriage to be anything but a man marrying a woman." Why? Why is that? Because somehow it degrades marriage? Nah. Our 50% divorce rate degrades it enough.
Click to expand...

It's all about how you look at it. From where I'm sitting, you're all pounding sand.
 
Navy Pride said:
I don't have to read it DD 31 states put Gay Marriage on the ballot..Gay marriage loses 31 times....that is good enough for me...........
Click to expand...

And what makes you think it won't keep coming to the ballots? People don't just stop wanting to marry the one they love, and people don't just start thinking unfair treatment is okay. Traditional yet arbitrary social rules, on the other hand, have often died slowly but surely.

Blackdog said:
That explains allot. Most I know are not.



I accept homosexuality. This does not mean I want to have the meaning of marraige expanded to include gay couples.

This is the reality you chose to ignore.
Click to expand...

Which makes no sense as immoral people already get married for immoral reasons. I don't believe homosexuality is immoral, but even if I did it would not undermine marriage anymore than it already has been. It should be clear that marriage is a contract between individuals moreso than it is an institution. It is what those within each marriage make of it. If my neighbor married his wife for sex and she married him for money, that would not actually undermine the meaning of my own marriage.

Blackdog said:
Here we go with the interracial marraige thing again. :doh

Not even remotely the same, sorry.

Because Homosexuality to me is wrong, it is a sin. I respect the persons choice as their own and love the person. This does not mean I have to support a lifestyle I see as sinful.
Click to expand...

Not even remotely? lol... yeah right.

Both deny people the "privilege" :)roll:) to marry who they want on the basis that the marriage would be considered sexually deviant and they did not want society to condone sexual deviance by sanctioning sexually deviant marriages. Nearly all of the "arguments" against miscegenation have exact parallels with the arguments against gay marriage. The notion that it would confuse/harm kids. The notion that the traditional and natural forms of marriage must be preserved. It's analogous.

Blackdog said:
No they are not. I said they can have civil unions or whatever you want to call it. My argument is purely religious and based in semantics. So not even remotely the same.
Click to expand...

And what if they had suggested that interracial couples can have civil unions and not marriages? Would that have been okay? Why or why not?

zimmer said:
Let's see... a male and female from different races can procreate, or at least attempt it. They can raise children.

Last I checked homosexual behavior cannot accomplish that.
When they can... then I'll support a change in the law.

And where do you draw the line? Cousins? Sisters? Brothers? Dad and Sis? Mom and son? After all, they have "feelings" too.

.
Click to expand...

Um, cousins can procreate, as could dad and sis if she were sexually developed. So your procreation theory doesn't seem universally applicable. Should we also prevent infertile people from getting married? Procreation is associated with marriage, but not necessary for it. The problem with incest is the higher rates of recessive genetic defects in offspring, so the real problem is the prospect of harming a 3rd party. Since homosexual acts do not lead to offspring, this argument is not applicable to gay marriage (and this is the main place where it does differ from interracial marriage). However, bisexual people who love somebody of the same sex often already have kids and will whether they can marry or not.

The kids issue would be more relevant regarding gay adoption, use of surrogates, and custody battles for bisexuals. We don't allow sex offenders to adopt kids, but we certainly don't disallow them from marrying each other. Why? Because marriage is simply a contract between intimates. And adults have the right to enter into contracts.

Blackdog said:
A ridicules red herring does not an argument make.

Apples and Oranges, does not apply.
Click to expand...

Well the closest you have come to explaining why they are not similar is in mentioning that you are for civil unions. So that wasn't a red herring in any way.

Blackdog said:
How am I poking holes?? It is a sin, so I will not support it.

Please point out the holes?
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand sin then. If you believe homosexuality is a choice, then allowing gay marriage would make not choosing homosexuality a more meaningful choice, and make abstention from it more virtuous. Forced morality is no morality at all. If I avoid killing people only because I'd probably get caught and go to prison, I am not being moral, I am being indirectly forced to be civil. (Incidentally, the same goes for god. If I avoid killing people only to avoid going to hell, I am not doing it out of morality per se). The optimal function of society is not to enforce morals, but to protect people from each other so that they can freely choose how they want to live their lives, sinful or not outside of harm to others.

Blackdog said:
Irrelevant. If they base their morals on something else that is fine. My are because of my religion. So the argument they try to present has no value from a moral standpoint. It basically is saying they have better morals than I do because they come form some place else. Simply put, they disqualify their own argument.
Click to expand...

I don't really believe that. Is your belief in certain fairy tales really the only thing holding you back from hurting people? Your fairy tales do, however, provide a nice way to justify bigotry that makes no logical sense, huh?

This debate has nothing to do with logic so how is that a counter? That would be what we call a cop out where I come form.
Click to expand...

Morality has everything to do with logic.


Jerry said:
It's this easy:

"We cannot find that a right to same-sex marriage is so deeply rooted in the tradition, history and conscience of the people of this state that it ranks as a fundamental right".
~Justice Barry T. Albin, NJ Supreme Court, February 2006.

See? No religion required.
Click to expand...

Impressive three fallacies in one you have there. Appeal to tradition, authority, and ad populum, specifically.
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
I didn't say your arguments were not legitimate. Quite the opposite. I said that there are no legitimate arguments against gay marriage that are not based on religion. I think that people who are against gay marriage for religious reason have plenty of legitimate reasons that fit within their own religious and moral views.
I haven't seen a single legitimate argument, however, that is not based on religion.
Click to expand...
Some of the Maine voters who rejected same sex marriage had what I consider to be a legitimate argument against it. They rejected it based on what they felt was their parental right to reject same sex marriage being taught to their children in Maine schools. For those voters it had nothing to do with religion, which very well could have been the voting block that ended up influencing the outcome as much as the religious groups.

Voters who rejected same sex marriage based on their parental rights is a legitimate reason to say no. IMO.
 
tumbleweed said:
Some of the Maine voters who rejected same sex marriage had what I consider to be a legitimate argument against it. They rejected it based on what they felt was their parental right to reject same sex marriage being taught to their children in Maine schools. For those voters it had nothing to do with religion, which very well could have been the voting block that ended up influencing the outcome as much as the religious groups.

Voters who rejected same sex marriage based on their parental rights is a legitimate reason to say no. IMO.
Click to expand...

There are no parental rights, only the best interests of the children. But in this case, one would wonder why they need to talk about marriage at all in schools, except vaguely in sex ed when they encourage them to not have sex until then.
 
LiveUninhibited said:
There are no parental rights, only the best interests of the children. But in this case, one would wonder why they need to talk about marriage at all in schools, except vaguely in sex ed when they encourage them to not have sex until then.
Click to expand...
If they gay community wants same sex marriage to pass in Maine they will have to convince a lot of voters in Maine that their civil rights trumps any say parents have in what is taught to their children in Maine schools.
 
EpicDude86 said:
It's all about how you look at it. From where I'm sitting, you're all pounding sand.
Click to expand...

Who's pounding sand?

If churches want to define marriage as between a man and a woman, fine. But states should not. There's no justification for it.
 
tumbleweed said:
If they gay community wants same sex marriage to pass in Maine they will have to convince a lot of voters in Maine that their civil rights trumps any say parents have in what is taught to their children in Maine schools.
Click to expand...

Or they could acknowledge that the subject of marriage is more relevant to individual families than schools. Seriously, why talk about it at length in school at all? I don't remember being taught about marriage in the classroom.
 
LiveUninhibited said:
It should be clear that marriage is a contract between individuals moreso than it is an institution. It is what those within each marriage make of it.
Click to expand...

I have asked this question (below) but haven't received an answer, and I understand why. Perhaps you will be the first.

Where do you draw the line?

Sisters marrying each other? Brothers marrying each other? Father and daughter? Father and son? Mother an daughter? Mother and son? Uncle and nephew? Aunt and niece? Aunt and nephew? ...

If they love each other, why not?

Where do you draw the line?

The line has been drawn for thousands of years, and it's obvious why.

So, where is the "New Line" and why?

Anyone?

.
 
LiveUninhibited said:
Or they could acknowledge that the subject of marriage is more relevant to individual families than schools. Seriously, why talk about it at length in school at all? I don't remember being taught about marriage in the classroom.
Click to expand...
I see no reason that it should be taught in schools. I'm not even sure if it would be, but a lot of parents were convinced that either it would be, or that a no vote would eventually lead to it being taught in schools.
 
tumbleweed said:
I see no reason that it should be taught in schools. I'm not even sure if it would be, but a lot of parents were convinced that either it would be, or that a no vote would eventually lead to it being taught in schools.
Click to expand...

They have tried already... not normal marriage, but gay marriage. Heather has two Mommies was being shoved on some primary school kids some 20-years ago.

Kids that could barely count. Hell, with the state of our education system, that could include teenagers.

.
 
zimmer said:
I have asked this question (below) but haven't received an answer, and I understand why. Perhaps you will be the first.

Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

Same place I draw the line on all social issues. Does it harm anybody against their consent?

Sisters marrying each other? Brothers marrying each other? Father and daughter? Father and son? Mother an daughter? Mother and son? Uncle and nephew? Aunt and niece? Aunt and nephew? ...

If they love each other, why not?

Where do you draw the line?
Click to expand...

Though I would personally find it strange, I would have no problem at all with sisters marrying each other. A brother and sister is stickier because of the risk to offspring. If they were infertile or it was okay to abort then maybe. But then what if they, for some sick reason, actually wanted to bring disabled children into the world? Of course we already have this problem with non-related parents who refuse to abort fetuses with hydranencephaly and the like. So effectively it's an issue that is not specific to related persons and can be neutralized given additional conditions, such as the acceptability of abortion.

The additional problem with father and daughter is that there's a high chance there is an exploitative relationship at play. I would have to say that I would allow it if the daughter was an adult and was not dependent upon the father for material support, but there would be reasonable suspicion for abuse and they would have to be willing to speak to mental health professionals to ensure abuse is not taking place.

The line has been drawn for thousands of years, and it's obvious why.

So, where is the "New Line" and why?

Anyone?

.
Click to expand...

I think you need to brush up on your history and/or anthropology. The line has not been in the same place for thousands of years and it has not been the same between cultures. It used to be considered wrong for Blacks to marry Whites. It used to be unacceptable for peasants to marry nobles. And many cultures have sanctioned homosexuality in history.

What is a relatively new phenomenon in OUR culture is marriage for love. Marriage really did used to be about property (which often included the wife) and inheritance for the children that aren't bastards. Traditional marriage is hardly something to be proud of, but I can understand why it was that way. Women in particular did not have the luxury to choose based upon love as they were forced to be dependent. Anyway I'm drifting off-topic a bit:

While not unique to it, anti-homosexuality is largely a tradition of religions descended from Moses, which through genocide and dedicated missionaries came to be dominant religions. But it was just one of many rules, some arbitrary and some not, that Moses and his kind pulled out of their asses.
 
Last edited:
tumbleweed said:
Some of the Maine voters who rejected same sex marriage had what I consider to be a legitimate argument against it. They rejected it based on what they felt was their parental right to reject same sex marriage being taught to their children in Maine schools. For those voters it had nothing to do with religion, which very well could have been the voting block that ended up influencing the outcome as much as the religious groups.

Voters who rejected same sex marriage based on their parental rights is a legitimate reason to say no. IMO.
Click to expand...

Last I knew marriage wasn't taught in schools period. Much less gay marriage.
 
zimmer said:
They have tried already... not normal marriage, but gay marriage. Heather has two Mommies was being shoved on some primary school kids some 20-years ago.

Kids that could barely count. Hell, with the state of our education system, that could include teenagers.

.
Click to expand...

Oh god that was a book that wasn't even written for the schools. But like many other books it ended up in the library. You know...where books are suppose to be found?

Talk about being blown out of proportion.
 
disneydude said:
I didn't say your arguments were not legitimate. Quite the opposite. I said that there are no legitimate arguments against gay marriage that are not based on religion. I think that people who are against gay marriage for religious reason have plenty of legitimate reasons that fit within their own religious and moral views.
I haven't seen a single legitimate argument, however, that is not based on religion.
Click to expand...

There is one argument which I have heard that doesn't rely on religion. And that's biology. I'd explain it but I think I know someone that can explain it better for ya. I'll see if I can't get him to post here in this thread. :)
 
aps said:
And this is supposed to change people's minds? Give me a break. Way back when, when interracial marriage was not accepted, would you have been okay with being told, "If you want to permanently commit to someone other than a black woman, you won't be able to get married." I"m sure that would have been fine with you.
Click to expand...

Again with the race :doh is the same old red herring. This is nothing but fallacy that does not apply.

This also has nothing to do with charging anyone's mind. How stupid is that?

aps said:
I don't understand this ridiculousness of, "I don't want marriage to be anything but a man marrying a woman." Why? Why is that? Because somehow it degrades marriage? Nah. Our 50% divorce rate degrades it enough.
Click to expand...

What part of marraige is between one man and one woman and I don't want to see the definition changed are you missing?

No place did I mention denying Gay's the benefits from the government married couples get. So if they are given civil unions what is the problem? What do you REALLY want?
 
LiveUninhibited said:
Which makes no sense as immoral people already get married for immoral reasons. I don't believe homosexuality is immoral, but even if I did it would not undermine marriage anymore than it already has been. It should be clear that marriage is a contract between individuals moreso than it is an institution. It is what those within each marriage make of it. If my neighbor married his wife for sex and she married him for money, that would not actually undermine the meaning of my own marriage.
Click to expand...

I do not support immoral people getting married either. So your argument is useless.

LiveUninhibited said:
Not even remotely? lol... yeah right.
Click to expand...

No, not even remotely.

LiveUninhibited said:
Both deny people the "privilege" :)roll:) to marry who they want on the basis that the marriage would be considered sexually deviant and they did not want society to condone sexual deviance by sanctioning sexually deviant marriages. Nearly all of the "arguments" against miscegenation have exact parallels with the arguments against gay marriage. The notion that it would confuse/harm kids. The notion that the traditional and natural forms of marriage must be preserved. It's analogous.
Click to expand...

We are not denying anyone anything. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want just like everyone else.

I will not support the lifestyle. It is wrong just like polygamy etc.

LiveUninhibited said:
And what if they had suggested that interracial couples can have civil unions and not marriages? Would that have been okay? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

Because it is not a sin, and it is between a man and a woman. Do I have to repeat it again?

LiveUninhibited said:
Well the closest you have come to explaining why they are not similar is in mentioning that you are for civil unions. So that wasn't a red herring in any way.
Click to expand...

It is a fallacy argument and I have said why.

Not my fault you do not understand what a fallacy is.

LiveUninhibited said:
I don't think you understand sin then. If you believe homosexuality is a choice, then allowing gay marriage would make not choosing homosexuality a more meaningful choice, and make abstention from it more virtuous. Forced morality is no morality at all. If I avoid killing people only because I'd probably get caught and go to prison, I am not being moral, I am being indirectly forced to be civil. (Incidentally, the same goes for god. If I avoid killing people only to avoid going to hell, I am not doing it out of morality per se). The optimal function of society is not to enforce morals, but to protect people from each other so that they can freely choose how they want to live their lives, sinful or not outside of harm to others.
Click to expand...

What part of "it is a sin" and "I will not support it" are you missing?

LiveUninhibited said:
I don't really believe that. Is your belief in certain fairy tales really the only thing holding you back from hurting people? Your fairy tales do, however, provide a nice way to justify bigotry that makes no logical sense, huh?
Click to expand...

Then don't. If you want to remain in the dark about my motives (as if you know me :roll: ) or don't believe what I am saying please don't respond to me with your ridicules rant.

LiveUninhibited said:
Morality has everything to do with logic.
Click to expand...

If that were the case we would not even be having this argument.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Again with the race :doh is the same old red herring. This is nothing but fallacy that does not apply.

This also has nothing to do with charging anyone's mind. How stupid is that?



What part of marraige is between one man and one woman and I don't want to see the definition changed are you missing?

No place did I mention denying Gay's the benefits from the government married couples get. So if they are given civil unions what is the problem? What do you REALLY want?
Click to expand...

If two hman beings want to commit to each other until death, that should be deemed marriage--no matter the sex of the human beings involved. I want all adult human beings treated equally. It's really quite simple.

Blackdog, "But I don't want anyone other than a man and a woman to be able to get married." P A T H E T I C

Call my example stupid. *yawn*
 
aps said:
If two hman beings want to commit to each other until death, that should be deemed marriage--no matter the sex of the human beings involved. I want all adult human beings treated equally. It's really quite simple.
Click to expand...

That's fine. I don't agree, live with it.

aps said:
Blackdog, "But I don't want anyone other than a man and a woman to be able to get married." P A T H E T I C

Call my example stupid. *yawn*
Click to expand...

OK, it is stupid.

And here is why...

You want me to be tolerant, but only when you agree with it.

Typical lib bvll****.
 
Last edited:
aps said:
Honestly, disney, why do you give Navy Pride any attention? When was the last time you saw him post something thoughtful on this subject matter? You can become ungay? Come on, disney. You can spend your time here better. Just saying.
Click to expand...

Eh.....because I think that there is still hope for the guy. I can see a glimmer of humanity somewhere amongst the old gruff frame. Downdeep I know that Navy feels differently...he just cannot allow himself to do so because of his long lifetime of being taught otherwise.
 
Blackdog said:
That's fine. I don't agree, live with it.
Click to expand...

Live with it. Yeah, that's a really mature, thoughtful response, Blackdog.



OK, it is stupid.

And here is why...

You want me to be tolerant, but only when you agree with it.

Typical lib bvll****.
Click to expand...

I'm done with you. See ya.

The ignore function is a beautiful thing. ;)
 
Last edited:
aps said:
Live with it. Yeah, that's a really mature, thoughtful response, Blackdog.





I'm done with you. See ya.

The ignore function is a beautiful thing. ;)
Click to expand...

Thank goodness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom