Same-sex marriage banned in Maine

Saturos said:
What the hell are we supposed to tell our sons and nephews if they ask us why two dudes are french kissing intimately? Alot of parents don't want their kids around this kind of stuff in the US.
Click to expand...

What do you tell them when you see a man and a woman french kissing intimately?

Saturos said:
Isn't that how voting in a democracy is supposed to work? The majority won. :|
Click to expand...

Yes, let us bow to the whims of stupidity and ignorance - after all, it is the majority.
 
when I look at the thread in the forum index I see

200xtw2.jpg


har har
 
sex with a moose is still legal, however
 
Mr Stabby said:
You can't democratically vote on other peoples freedoms.

As BEnjamin Franklin once said "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Click to expand...
That's how I feel. You shouldn't have to ask 350,000+ people for permission to get married.

Just to let you guys know, there is hope.

I was at a Protect Maine Equality party in Portland, and there were over 1000 people there. The Stand for Marriage Maine party had only 40.

Even though we lost, this has been a historical fight, and it brings us even closer to the day when everyone in Maine has the right to marry.

For those who live in states where gay marriage is legal, especially Iowa, please watch out! The National Organization for Marriage will be shifting its focus to those states in hopes of repealing gay marriage there.

The trend must stop with Maine.
 
one step forward, two steps backwards. get with the ****ing times already. how non christians allow their laws to be dictated by christian conservatives is beyond me. I guess it's not that big a deal that a religious group dictates who can and cant have basic human rights. way to go Maine you're ruled by a bunh of idiotic moral ninnies who think they know what's best for everybody in the state. anyone who says this was the "will of the people" is delusional. this was clearly a mobalization by anti-same sex proponents. anyways, it's a moot point because you dont vote on rights. no one should have that sort of power over another group
 
Another Maine resident here.

Couldn't vote because I'm not a US Citizen, but I'm pretty ashamed of just over half of the people in this state right now. Dumbass hicks.
 
A completely ridiculous result.

****ing homophobes.
 
The only reason I came into this thread was to say that I love our new emoticons for threads. That little red dick sucking devil dragged me in here.

On a side note, personally, I think regardless of your orientation, you should be allowed to marry the person you want. Whether it is a male or female, it's your choice. It's your life. You shouldn't have to hide who you are/what you are unless you're Dexter, but in that case, it's completely all right. Anyway, this isn't the middle ages, this isn't the 50s. We've moved on passed so much that same-sex marriage is still considered unholy.

Regardless of who you are as a person, you should be accepting of others regardless of how they are. Gays as well as non-gays are humans just like everyone else. They just have a different personal opinion/preference about something that you completely disagree with. It's not all right to attack a person's opinion just to force your own on them. It's not all right to ban what someone believes in just because you think of it as unholy or against every 'rule' you've followed in your Baptist life.

And that's the way the cookie crumbles.
 
Viperidae said:
Please, please do research before you talk.

That goes to all of you.
Click to expand...

Sorry, sorry. I just threw out the first era that popped in me head. I'll retract that statement, but regardless, what I've typed still stands. Writing one thing incorrectly doesn't detract from anything I've said. And also, you know exactly where I was coming from when I typed that. Yes, I put down a wrong time, but does it make what I wrote mean any less? If it does, then you're a fascist pig who needs their feet dismembered from your body because logically, everything I typed makes perfect sense, and it's still in my opinion. Anyways, you're an ass for even pointing that out and trying to say 'do research.' That one tiny fragment of my statement has zero impact on what I typed.

TL;DR: I hope you choke.
 
I wasn't suggesting it did. I'm pointing out that in a discussion on morality in Western societies you mentioned the one that had perhaps the highest tolerance of homosexuality (post-Greek, of course).
 
Viperidae said:
I wasn't suggesting it did. I'm pointing out that in a discussion on morality in Western societies you mentioned the one that had perhaps the highest tolerance of homosexuality (post-Greek, of course).
Click to expand...

All right. Fair enough. This is how me brain worked there: I already had a track of thoughts and everything to write that I just wrote down whatever popped out regardless of coherence. Come to think of it, I knew that about the middle ages, but I had a slip of memory there. I want to offer you me apologies for being rude to you in me previous post.

Anyway, I love you is what I'm getting at. :)
 
If you love him so much why don't you marry him?


Oh wait...
 
I'm glad that the laws were finally reverted back to their appropriate condition. For a while myself and others were worried about our God given rights being violated if homosexuals continued to marry. If we allow same sex marriage they will teach about homosexuality in grade schools and how it's okay to do all sorts of deviant sexual behavior.
Also, if we continued to allow homosexual marriage, people would want rights to marry their brothers and sisters, and even animals! I'm glad that our state has come to it's senses, and I think we all feel our freedoms are safer now.
 
I think we should ban divorce as well, as dictated in the Bible. I'm sure Evangelists are hard at work on that bill.
 
we should just ban banning that way everyone is happy
 
What I don't understand about these hypocrite christian ****s is that even assuming that hell is real, and that gays are going there for some obscure reason, why does it matter to you? Let them get married, and if they die and go to hell, it doesn't affect you at all.
 
Thank you zombieturtle for having some morals.

I also applaud Maine for making this difficult but correct decision.
 
Quixoticism said:
Thank you zombieturtle for having some morals.

I also applaud Maine for making this difficult but correct decision.
Click to expand...

and now you'll explain why it's the "correct decision". you should start with providing evidence as to why homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals and why exactly they shouldnt be married. mind you, you're going to have to leave religious reasons out of this because a. marriage is not exclusive to any one religion and b. no legislation can be enacted to force religious groups to marry the gays, therefore why would they care if someone gets married outside of their religion? it has nothing to do with them
 
I knew about ZT but this Don Quixote character threw me for a loop ..or the more plausible explanation is that I want some religious zealot to walk in here so we can tear him a new hole .....I'm bored
 
Samon said:
What do you tell them when you see a man and a woman french kissing intimately?
Click to expand...

That it's like a mother bird feeding her young by regurgitating food into its mouth. That obviously doesn't work for two men because a man can't be a mother bird!
 
Good, the thought of same sex marriage sickens me.
 
Saturos said:
What the hell are we supposed to tell our sons and nephews if they ask us why two dudes are french kissing intimately?
Click to expand...
People don't need to be married to french kiss.

Saturos said:
Alot of parents don't want their kids around this kind of stuff in the US.
Click to expand...
I've never seen men kissing in my entire life, so I've never worried about something so stupid.

To anyone who thinks that way, I think you might want to monitor what your kids are watching on TV and on the internet, because there are worse things than men kissing, you know...
 
Come on Saturos, just tell that you're against same-sex marriage because you hate the idea of individual liberty and love oppression of minority groups, just like me. :p





Seriously, that's the only reason I'm against same-sex marriage.
 
What if everyone was forced into a gay marriage?
 
Looks like the fundies have another fun ballot initiative set up for next year in Maine:
An Act to Remove Protections Based on Sexual Orientation from the Maine Human Rights Act, Eliminate Funding of Civil Rights Teams in Public Schools, Prohibit Adoptions by Unmarried Couples, Add a Definition of Marriage, and Declare Civil Unions Unlawful
Click to expand...
http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/pets02/prosexorient.htm

Just to make things clear, the guy who proposed this is CRAZY. Even the Stand for Marriage Maine campaign kept their distance from him in this recent election.
 
another reason why massachusetts owns new england. we got the weed decriminalization and same sex marriage recognition.
 
The point of democracy is not only that to let the majority decide, it also protects the rights of the minorities.

If it cannot protect it's minorities and secure basic rights for every individual (such as freedom of speech, the right to property etc.) it has failed as a democracy.

Now, these antihomosexual people believe that homosexuality is unnatural and cureable, and thus isn't a right that should be protected.
 
I have a solution. The most people don't want homosexuals to get married because they think Marriage is a holly institution between a man and a woman ordained by the church.... So lets give the marriage. extend the right to all couples to enter into a civil union (basically the whole package of marital rights: visitation, joint custody of children, joint tax returns exe) This would be for all couples regardless of gender combination. So anyone who want to can become "one" under the law at any courthouse. The marriage would be a ceremony preformed by the a priest. This would be left a holy matter, but any marriage preformed by a recognized religion would be granted the Civil union rights by default. And Churches would have the right to pick who they allow to marry. That way, in the eyes of the government there would be no marriage, only civil unions. This would allow the "holiness" to be controlled but the individual churches. Gays can then have civil unions at courthouses or get married at churches that allow it. It would be entirely up to the couples and churches.
 
lord_raken said:
I have a solution. The most people don't want homosexuals to get married because they think Marriage is a holly institution between a man and a woman ordained by the church.... So lets give the marriage. extend the right to all couples to enter into a civil union (basically the whole package of marital rights: visitation, joint custody of children, joint tax returns exe) This would be for all couples regardless of gender combination. So anyone who want to can become "one" under the law at any courthouse. The marriage would be a ceremony preformed by the a priest. This would be left a holy matter, but any marriage preformed by a recognized religion would be granted the Civil union rights by default. And Churches would have the right to pick who they allow to marry. That way, in the eyes of the government there would be no marriage, only civil unions. This would allow the "holiness" to be controlled but the individual churches. Gays can then have civil unions at courthouses or get married at churches that allow it. It would be entirely up to the couples and churches.
Click to expand...



no


why should they get ownership over a word they dont even own? marriage is not exclusive to any one church or to religion as a whole. Sea captains and justices of the peace have been "marrying" people for years. and what about all the people already married? will those not married in a church have their marriages anulled? (does a mosque count? what about a synagoge? some churches are out doors, should that be covered as well? ..what about religious people? should a scientologist have as much "marriage" powers as a christian priest? why not? what about Raelians? they're a recognised religion worldwide ..they also believe aliens put us here and as soon as they get an embassy in israel the aliens will return ..should they have exclusivity over marriage?)

you really want to give exclusivity to groups that believe in sky wizards and boogey men? they should be institutionalised just like how we institutionalise people who actively believe in santa claus and the freakin tooth fairy

they deserve NOTHING in my book. NO concessions whatsoever. you dont negotiate human rights especially with people who have no say in what other people do with their lives


I dont see why this is a poblem exclusive to the US. every other country that has legalised same sex marriage has done so without resorting to half measures such as what you (and many americans) are proposing
 
I thought it was a pretty reasonable suggestion actually. You're not going to win anyone over with your attitude, Stern.

They already have "ownership". Certainly they feel entitlement to the word. So why not just redefine the law as he says. It's a step in the right direction, and they can't fight it as effectively. People in civil partnerships under that system would still just call it a marriage anyway and it would be difficult to fight common language in the courts.
 
Farrowlesparrow said:
I thought it was a pretty reasonable suggestion actually. You're not going to win anyone over with your attitude, Stern.

They already have "ownership". Certainly they feel entitlement to the word. So why not just redefine the law as he says. It's a step in the right direction, and they can't fight it as effectively. People in civil partnerships under that system would still just call it a marriage anyway and it would be difficult to fight common language in the courts.
Click to expand...

they dont have ownership. there is no difference between a church marriage and one in front of a judge. the term is exactly the same

it's not a reasonable suggestion because that assumes that they have exclusivity over the term. it's a concession. there's a big difference. Canada didnt give concessions to religious groups because you dont put conditions on human rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Marc Laidlaw releases Half-Life 2: Episode Three's plot
Replies
32
Views
39K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
B
Gabe Newell's AMA summary (January 17, 2017)
Replies
1
Views
24K
Gerzowktz
Gerzowktz
B
The cut missions of Half-Life: Decay
Replies
2
Views
21K
Evo
Evo
Back
Top