• 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

Why do you believe that some people are entitled to certain rights and privileges while feeling justified in denying those same rights and privileges to others?

Marraige is not a right. And in allot of states they get exactly the same benefits as heterosexual couples. So no one is denying anything.

Saying "I don't think it is marriage" is fine for an opinion.....which you are certainly entitled to have. It doesn't however mean that it is correct.

Since it is indeed subjective, it most certainly does make it correct.
 
I don't see how that would have solved anything. There's absolutely no reason why same sex couples shouldn't have the same legal rights that heterosexual couples do.

They do in states like California, and yet they still push for it being recognized as marraige.

So tell me what is it really about then? Social engineering? Hmmmm.

It's incredibly easy to be unsympathetic to an issue when you aren't in it yourself or don't have loved ones who experience it. The current system is incredibly discriminatory and it should be changed to at least allow civil unions.

I have plenty of family and friends who ARE affected. So you can take the appeal to emotion and file it under fallacy.
 
The fact it was a law and got voted down says allot.

I agree it is changing, but not as rapidly as you like to think. The number in recent elections bears this out.

Welcome to a reality check.

Reality check? Have you followed the polls over the last 10 decades. The shift in attitudes has been exponential.
If you had asked even the most optimistic gay rights advocate 10 years ago if and when gay marriage might be legal, I guarantee that they would have a different answer today.
That doesn't even speak to the changing demographics...the older conservative voters are dying off and the younger generation has a much more tolerant acceptance of gays and gay marriage.
 
No. Because they may or may not be fertile and if they adopt, they still will be capable to bring up a balanced individual, while gay couples are incapble of it by definition.

And before you will come up with "adoption", the very person who first thought up to give kids to gay couples should be sectioned.

"My mother who is also my father who is a man, but was a woman gave birth to me" -- what that can do to a child's psychological development?

But of course, it's your society, if you as a society decide to turn yourselves into a collection of psychologically damaged individuals with no idea of a family where mental health is guarded by balanced input from male and female psyche, -- it's your choice, your funeral...
Haven't followed the thread but I agree with Comrade Elena's general take. Now that is shock and awe.

Where do we draw the line? Cousins? Mothers and sons? Fathers and daughters? Sisters? Brothers? Why not reintroduce polygamy? If I can support 6 babes... and we all love each other... why not? Where is the line drawn? If they/we love each other... then it should be allowed. Why not?

Let's face it... a lot of this isn't about marriage, it is about destroying the institution of marriage.

Here is another perversion. These people talk about being denied "benefits". This is yet another reason why the government shouldn't be taking candy and redistributing it.

Next thing they'll be introducing primary schoolers to books like Why Sarah has Two Mommies... Oh SNAP! They've already tried that.

Perhaps NAMBLA shouldn't be denied either... after all... if it's love... anything goes.

.
 
Last edited:
Haven't followed the thread but I agree with Elena's general take. Now that is shock and awe.

Where do we draw the line? Cousins? Mothers and sons? Fathers and daughters? Sisters? Brothers? Why not reintroduce polygamy? If I can support 6 babes... and we all love each other... why not? Where is the line drawn? If they/we love each other... then it should be allowed. Why not?

Let's face it... a lot of this isn't about marriage, it is about destroying the institution of marriage.

Here is another perversion. These people talk about being denied "benefits". This is yet another reason why the government shouldn't be taking candy and redistributing it.

Next thing they'll be introducing primary schoolers to books like Why Sarah has Two Mommies... Oh SNAP! They've already tried that.

Perhaps NAMBLA shouldn't be denied either... after all... if it's love... anything goes.

.

Yeah.....perhaps we should have stopped before inter-racial marriage and allowing the mixing of the races....
An even better idea....lets restrict marriage to only white Christians. Who decided to allow marriage to minorities, jews and other heathens.
 
Reality check? Have you followed the polls over the last 10 decades. The shift in attitudes has been exponential.

No I have not followed them for the last 100 years. :roll:

If you had asked even the most optimistic gay rights advocate 10 years ago if and when gay marriage might be legal, I guarantee that they would have a different answer today.

I lived in Santa Rosa CA back in 87. I can say for a fact that is not true. Some were saying the exact same things as they do today, period.

The more things change...

That doesn't even speak to the changing demographics...the older conservative voters are dying off and the younger generation has a much more tolerant acceptance of gays and gay marriage.

And it is also a fact as people get older they they tend become more conservative. Not all, but a large portion. How many former hippies are now staunch Republicans, or someplace in the middle like most. Call it being jaded or whatever, but it happens.

So your demographics mean little for the time being.
 
Last edited:
No I have not followed them for the last 100 years. :roll:

Also who said anything about a reality check? I said welcome to reality.



I lived in Santa Rosa CA back in 87. I can say for a fact that is not true. Some were saying the exact same things as they do today, period.

The more things change...



And it is also a fact as people get older they they tend become more conservative. Not all, but a large portion. How many former hippies are now staunch Republicans, or someplace in the middle like most. Call it being jaded or whatever, but it happens.

So your demographics mean little for the time being.
LOL...I don't know how many "hippies" you know.....but pretty much everyone I know still share the same beliefs and ideals that they did in their youth.

The reality is....homosexuality is much more accepted in the younger generation and that is unlikely to change.
 
LOL...I don't know how many "hippies" you know.....but pretty much everyone I know still share the same beliefs and ideals that they did in their youth.

That explains allot. Most I know are not.

The reality is....homosexuality is much more accepted in the younger generation and that is unlikely to change.

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.
 
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.

And that's fine....I just think most other people are coming around...and the polls seem to indicate it as well. You cannot deny that the numbers against gay marriage are shrinking everytime this issue comes up.
 
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.

BTW....what is so sacred about a word that it cannot be expanded to include gay couples?
Don't you think people felt the same way about inter-racial marriage as well?
 
And that's fine....I just think most other people are coming around...and the polls seem to indicate it as well. You cannot deny that the numbers against gay marriage are shrinking everytime this issue comes up.

I agree. I just think it is going to take longer than you think.
 
I agree. I just think it is going to take longer than you think.

Perhaps...but I am much more optimistic than I was 5 years ago.

My hope was to see it before I died. Now....I expect to see it well within the next decade (and I'm still a young guy).
 
BTW....what is so sacred about a word that it cannot be expanded to include gay couples?
Don't you think people felt the same way about inter-racial marriage as well?

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.
 
Last edited:
Here we go with the interracial marraige thing again. :doh

Not even remotely the same, sorry.

Because H

Its not the same thing....but the issue is the same. Many people felt justified in wanting to keep marriage between the same races. Aren't their feelings just as valid as yours?
 
Its not the same thing....but the issue is the same. Many people felt justified in wanting to keep marriage between the same races. Aren't their feelings just as valid as yours?

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.
 
Its not the same thing....but the issue is the same. Many people felt justified in wanting to keep marriage between the same races. Aren't their feelings just as valid as yours?

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.

.
 
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.

Would you be ok with a law that said inter-racial couples can no longer marry. The can only civilly unionize?
 
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.

.

Lesbians can...artificially. And there's nothing from stopping two dudes from 'attempting' lol
 
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.

.

So you'd be fine with a contract that restricts marriage to fertile couples and requires them to sign a contract requiring them to have a child within a certain period of time or the marriage is annulled. Right?
 
Back
Top Bottom