Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

aps said:

Cassandra, please read through her posts in here. She's obsessed with her disgust towards anal intercourse, which she argues would have been occurring everywhere had gay marriage been given the "yes."

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that straight people are already doing that in Maine, regardless of the law. :shrug:

Catz Part Deux said:

I'm pretty sure that straight people are already doing that in Maine, regardless of the law. :shrug:

Click to expand...

OMG, say it isn't so, Catz! :shock:

The difference is that straight people do it behind closed doors. Gay people want to do in public where everyone can watch. :lol:

disneydude said:

You obviously do not understand civics or the Constitution.

Click to expand...

And you obviously do not understand the very purpose of the existence of a state with all its laws and constitutions. It exists to represent and defend the majority of the citizens.

Elena said:

Hello! Did you miss the second part of the sentence? Let me repeat it for you slowwwwlyyyy: English might not be my first language, but I am quite capable of expressing my thoughts without employing a personal mouthpiece, thank you.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that I am not allowed to draw conclusions based upon your posts? Are you serious? Get a grip.

Elena said:

And you obviously do not understand the very purpose of the existence of a state with all its laws and constitutions. It exists to represent and defend the majority of the citizens.

Click to expand...

Sorry...Elena but you are just wrong. You may want to take a course in Civics...I'm guessing that you are not from this country.

Elena said:

And you obviously do not understand the very purpose of the existence of a state with all its laws and constitutions. It exists to represent and defend the majority of the citizens.

Click to expand...

Following your reasoning: Islamics do not represent the majority of the citizens. Thus, they should have no rights to express their hatred in public.

disneydude said:

What about flaunting "blackness" in public....or "jewish" in public?

Click to expand...

It is part of the same politically correct agenda called "positive discrimination".

disneydude said:

When you put one groups rights to a vote....why restrict it to that?

Click to expand...

Last I remember, Blacks were pretty offended when the gay community started tying themselves to the struggles of AAmericans.


j-mac

j-mac said:

Last I remember, Blacks were pretty offended when the gay community started tying themselves to the struggles of AAmericans.


j-mac

Click to expand...

Some were, some won't. Does that have relevance to the argument? It doesn't matter if blacks are offended if the legal violations of individual rights are the same.

aps said:

Cassandra, please read through her posts in here. She's obsessed with her disgust towards anal intercourse, which she argues would have been occurring everywhere had gay marriage been given the "yes."

Click to expand...

Why don't you concentrate on defending your position on the subject without slipping into a shrill of a vendor in a Turkish marketplace?

I am quite capable of expressing my thoughts without employing a personal mouthpiece, thank you.

Catz Part Deux said:

If Islamic extremists want to flaunt their hate in public, they should accept the right of the public to throw them out, back to the third world they've done such a good job of creating in the Middle East. They've made their beds there, in filth, hatred, and squalor, and they should be left to them.

Click to expand...

Yes, throw Islamic extremists out of your country if they are not a majority there. Your point?

StandUpChuck said:

Second, I recently learned this myself. All gays don't do anal. :naughty So you're perperuating a falicy that has no bearing on the GM issue.

Click to expand...

1) Homosexuals account for less than 10% of the population.
2) Fewer than 50% of homosexuals engage in anal intercourse, because slightly more than 50% of homosexuals are women and because, as you say, not every homosexual male engages in anal intercourse.
3) More than 10% of heterosexual couples surveyed engage in anal intercourse on a regular basis.

Put it together. Heterosexuals engage in more than twice as much anal sex as homosexuals. Makes you wonder what people like Elena are really upset about in the first place.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the gay marriage issue because what most people who are passionate about this issue completely fail to realize is that marriage is not about sex in the first place. Their prurient interest in other peoples' sex lives blinds them to the fact that marriage is a public, social institution that is largely independent of those peoples' private sex lives. Marriage is about family, and homosexuals have families the same as heterosexuals; their families have the same economic and political concerns as everyone else's families and the same compelling interests in forming alliances and securing the smooth transition of property from one generation to the next.

Elena said:

Then why do we have to be subjected to "Gay Pride" marches, gay awareness at schools or quotas for gay people at work?

Click to expand...

Because goddamned liberals have increasingly interpreted Constitutional protections of free speech to include any and every activity that might express an opinion and have thrown out just about every law pertaining to public disturbance and obscenity. This has very little to do with gay activists themselves, who are only taking advantage of laws that were loosened to accommodate the perversions of heterosexuals.

One advantage to legalizing gay marriage is that homosexuals would have less reason to take to the streets looking and acting like deranged perverts, and those of us with any remaining sense of decency would have more justification in turning the dogs and firehoses on the ones that continued to do so.

disneydude said:

What is really sad that in America today....basic human rights are put to a popular vote. To me that is more sad than any outcome.

Click to expand...

Marriage isn't a basic human right. It is a social institution that is subject to specific-- sometimes very specific-- rules in every human culture. If marriage were a basic human right, it could not legally be denied to consenting adults on the basis of consanguinity, affinity, nationality, or prior marriage and it just so happens that every functioning State government not only restricts marriage on some of those grounds, it restricts marriage on all of those grounds.

Marriage is not now and has never been a "basic human right" and Loving v. Virginia did not make it so. It ruled, very specifically, that marriage could not be denied to otherwise legal applicants on the basis of race.

aps said:

I honestly don't see elena getting it. She's blinded by her hatred towards anal intercourse being done in her presence. :rofl

Click to expand...

Can you blame her? Hell, it makes me more than a little tetchy myself.

Well, getting back to Maine...

I listened to a rep from the catholic church discuss the issue. He repeatedly claimed that opposition had nothing to do with religion. I don't believe him. I think it has everything to do with religion... And there are many religious Mainers.

I believe that their should be "marriage" for everyone who is religious and "merige" for everyone who is secular.

The churches want to own the word. I am O.K. with that. My spouse and I would happily recoin the word applied to our legal arrangement and have anyone gay or straight join in the same legal arrangement.

aps said:

Are you saying that I am not allowed to draw conclusions based upon your posts? Are you serious? Get a grip.

Click to expand...

You were not "drawing conclusions", but telling around what I think as if I employed you to do so. Concentrate on expressing your own thoughts.

Elena said:

Yes, throw Islamic extremists out of your country if they are not a majority there. Your point?

Click to expand...

You fail to understand the function of a constitutional republic. It does not work in the same way as a pure democracy. I see that you are essentially unfamiliar with the checks/balances of the U.S. system of government, and your posts illustrate that lack of information.

Catz Part Deux said:

Some were, some won't. Does that have relevance to the argument? It doesn't matter if blacks are offended if the legal violations of individual rights are the same.

Click to expand...

Hey, personally I could care less. part of me thinks let em get married and share in the pain of divorce like the rest of us....:lol: When Juan, takes half of Steve's stuff including money then the tune will change. But I am not opposed to say civil unions. I have known this committed gay couple that I have known for years, and they are as happy as the rest of us. In fact adopted and raised a smart, beautiful, and very straight young lady, that had special needs. They were a god send to that young lady, and I think they did a hell of a job!

So what do I care if gays get married under civil union? I don't.


j-mac

Korimyr the Rat said:

Put it together. Heterosexuals engage in more than twice as much anal sex as homosexuals. Makes you wonder what people like Elena are really upset about in the first place.

Can you blame her? Hell, it makes me more than a little tetchy myself.

Click to expand...

So, is it your contention, then, that banning gay marriage will decrease heterosexual anal intercourse, thus leading people like Elena to greater happiness?

j-mac said:

Hey, personally I could care less. part of me thinks let em get married and share in the pain of divorce like the rest of us....:lol: When Juan, takes half of Steve's stuff including money then the tune will change. But I am not opposed to say civil unions. I have known this committed gay couple that I have known for years, and they are as happy as the rest of us. In fact adopted and raised a smart, beautiful, and very straight young lady, that had special needs. They were a god send to that young lady, and I think they did a hell of a job!

So what do I care if gays get married under civil union? I don't.


j-mac

Click to expand...

I don't believe that gays being allowed to marry will impact me, at all. That's why I have a libertarian stance on the matter. The only people who DO seem to care about it a great deal seem to spend a significant amount of their time fixated on anuses. I find that rather creepy. :shrug:

j-mac said:

But I am not opposed to say civil unions.

Click to expand...

If the law for civil unions ain't the same as it is for marriages, then it's not good enough. If the law is the same, then what's the difference between a civil union between homosexuals and a marriage license between heterosexuals? Is it the word? Are people seriously making this much fuss over what the damn thing is called?

Law ain't going to force anyone's church to perform ceremonies for anyone they don't want to. And the law ain't stopping any churches from performing all manner of non-legally binding marriage ceremonies for whoever they want to.

disneydude said:

Sorry...Elena but you are just wrong. You may want to take a course in Civics...I'm guessing that you are not from this country.

Click to expand...

So, in your opinion its the people who exist to service a state: government institutions and officials (government, courts, police, army) who should empose their will on the said public by means of laws that do not represent the interests of the majority of the society? Is that so? Is that what America is about? Where is democracy coming into play?

Korimyr the Rat said:

If the law for civil unions ain't the same as it is for marriages, then it's not good enough. If the law is the same, then what's the difference between a civil union between homosexuals and a marriage license between heterosexuals? Is it the word? Are people seriously making this much fuss over what the damn thing is called?

Law ain't going to force anyone's church to perform ceremonies for anyone they don't want to. And the law ain't stopping any churches from performing all manner of non-legally binding marriage ceremonies for whoever they want to.

Click to expand...

you know, Good question. It probably is the wording. On both sides of the debate.


j-mac

Elena said:

Why don't you concentrate on defending your position on the subject without slipping into a shrill of a vendor in a Turkish marketplace?

I am quite capable of expressing my thoughts without employing a personal mouthpiece, thank you.

Click to expand...

You are free to ignore me, just as I am free to comment on what I deduce from your posts. Thankyouverymuch. :2wave:

Catz Part Deux said:

Following your reasoning: Islamics do not represent the majority of the citizens. Thus, they should have no rights to express their hatred in public.

Click to expand...

I belive I already answered that. If they do not represent the majority of the society of your country, the society has the right to decide what to do about them. What is your point?

Catz Part Deux said:

So, is it your contention, then, that banning gay marriage will decrease heterosexual anal intercourse, thus leading people like Elena to greater happiness?

Click to expand...

Gay marriage is already illegal and has been for hundreds of years. Elena's still miserable about all of that wanton anal sex. Don't reckon there's much can be done for her about it.

Hell, only thing I want out of the deal is being able to listen to rock music on the radio without hearing about some form of sodomy at least twice an hour. Really don't think that's too much to ask, and I'm not even asking for the law to enforce it. Can we just stop singing about it for a little while, like a decade or so?

31 states have so far rejected Gay Marriage.