Maine votes down gay marriage
Socially liberal Maine rejects a gay marriage initiative — making it the 31st time (out of 31 tries) that voters have torpedoed such proposals.
How long until gay marriage proponents start decrying America’s “climate of hate?”
Maine voters have torpedoed a state law that would have allowed gay couples to marry.
With 84 percent of the precincts reporting, gay-marriage foes had 53 percent of the vote Tuesday.
The outcome amounts to a heartbreaking defeat for the gay rights movement — particularly since it occurred in New England, the corner of the country most supportive of gay marriage.
At issue was a law passed by the Maine Legislature last spring that would have legalized same-sex marriage. The law was put on hold after conservatives launched a petition drive to repeal it in a referendum.
Gay marriage has now lost in every single state — 31 in all — in which it has been put to a popular vote. Gay-rights activists had hoped to buck that trend in Maine.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Bigoted anti-bigots: How the gay-marriage mob slimed Manny Pacquiao
May 18, 2012 08:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
116 CommentsDocument drop: Lib 9th circuit panel rules Proposition 8 unconstitutional
February 7, 2012 01:09 PM by Michelle Malkin
152 CommentsStop the hate campaign against law-abiding American businesses
February 2, 2011 04:03 AM by Michelle Malkin
244 CommentsCalif. judge overturns voter-approved Prop. 8 gay marriage ban
August 4, 2010 04:51 PM by Michelle Malkin
955 Comments
Dear Cindy & Meghan: Let’s talk about who’s really being silenced over Prop. 8
January 25, 2010 11:36 AM by Michelle Malkin
126 Comments
Supreme Court blocks Prop. 8 show trial plan
January 11, 2010 11:31 AM by Michelle Malkin
34 Comments
Climate of hate: More threats from the gay marriage mob
November 10, 2009 05:24 PM by Michelle Malkin
49 Comments
Left-wing thug of the day
November 5, 2009 01:18 PM by Michelle Malkin
78 Comments
Categories: Proposition 8
Nice Deb
» Uncovered Ad Shows Obama Appeared At 1996 Event Hosted By Democratic Socialists of AmericaNice Deb
» Uncovered Ad Shows Obama Appeared At 1996 Event Hosted By Democratic Socialists of AmericaNewsBusters.org
» Reuters's Freeland: 'Anorexic' Americans Think Tax Bite Too Heavy When In Fact It's Dangerously Thin
What law is being implemented?
The notion of aborting a fetus because it may (or may not, but for argument’s sake, let’s assume that it may) have a congenital birth defect/disease is monstrous. However, as I am not said parent(s) in this hypothetical scenario, it is not for me to tell them “No” (because in this case we are assuming that abortion is still legal) because the law allows them to do so. That decision is between them, their deity of choice (if one is pertinent) and their unborn child.
exactly what I would expect. Using your logic, then, you will understand that the decision many of us who voted Yes on 1 here in Maine made was made in the same regard. The law allwed us to vote that way, the decision is between us, our deity, and our moral code. Just because many people think the decision to do so is “monstrous“, the decision was ours to make. That it may, potentially, deny a “right” to another human being is moot. It was a legally granted right that we exercised. Good night.
I cant say that I agree that your equating voting against gay marriage to electing to abort an unborn child because said child may have a congenital birth defect/disease is valid, but I do suppose that I understand the larger point that you’re trying to make.
400+ comments and I seem to be the only [openly] homodude responding to this discussion.
So lonely. =[
OK, I had to catch up, Junior is asleep and so is Mommy. Also, I read the other interesting things I wanted to read first. Anyhow, here goes:
englishqueen01:
So, you are saying that we should protect the “rights” of those who want to discriminate? Actually, we do. If you want to be a racist and exercise your free speach to say racist things (for example) you can. Just don’t expect your racist church to get tax breaks or government aid. Also, don’t expect that your employer won’t find some reason to fire you. Honestly, think about what you are saying, I have no doubt that some people in the past tried to say that their “right” to resist interracial marriage was being infringed upon.
Showard:
You posed the question to Chap, but I’ll answer too It is my feeling that the state should be out of marriage, period. However, if it must get involved (and there are arguments about why it should) it should call all unions, civil unions, and leave the word “marriage” alone completely.
Emjem24:
It is a matter of fairness. Everything you said about majority rule could be applied to interracial marriage. Cultural and societal mores mean absolutely nothing when two consenting adults who love one another are not afforded the same rights that you are. It’s that simple.
Can someone put forth a coherent argument as to what harm this will do? The reason why it is against social mores is mainly because of religion. (Religion also has a problem with heterosexual sex that isn’t vaginal)
Danceswithdachshunds:
It doesn’t matter that it is “unnatural.” Oral sex is too.
jsmiddleton4:
Evidence?
Maniah:
Just so you know, I would be OK with it if my wife chose to abort a child that science could tell us is gay, I would vastly prefer gene therapy to correct it though. Being gay is tough (thanks to society), and if it could be “corrected,” (there is a reason that is in quotes) that’s fine by me. I am also OK with tinkering to make a child stronger or smarter or cure Tay Sachs.
That still doesn’t mean I think it’s OK to deny marriage to the ones that are alive. The problem with your analogy to Jeddite is that fetuses are not conscious, thinking beings that are capable of consent (among other things). You are comparing apples and oranges.
Zero, I hope I am not the only one horrified by your thought. At the same time, I know that you are always very honest, even when you know it will cause the wrath of others.
I do not believe that homosexuals should be aborted, ever, or that we should have the right to abort them. Interestingly, here in maine a few years ago, some legislator brought up the very same issue, somewhat tongue in cheek. He was making a point, I suppose. He wanted to legislate what we could do with genetic information that revealed a “gay gene” if such a gene was ever found. The uproar was likely heard in california.
If we abort every human being whose existence would be difficult, then we are going to need more abortionists. Being gay Is tough, thanks to society. Being mentally retarded is tough too, thanks to society. Changing society so that it reflects respect for every type of human being is the key, not destroying the human beings who break the molds.
As for comparing apples to oranges, that is where we differ. I have no doubt whatsoever that human babies prebirth feel plenty and think just fine before birth. Three yr olds are not capable of consent, either, by the way.
Ok, now where is my taco? I need sleep. Nite all. And Jed? Thank you for your honest answers.
Maniah:
Yes.
I would say that I wouldn’t have to abort (or want to) if society was different. There is a clear difference between mental retardation and gayness. In a society completely accepting of gays the quality of life for those gays will be equal to those that are straight. In a similiar society completely accepting of folks with mental retardation, the same cannot be said. They will always recognize themselves that they just aren’t as smart as other people. They will always be “less able.” That is another reason why your analogy fails.
Changing society is key, abortion is not equal to destroying a human being per the following.
The evidence just does not support this. Furthermore, it should be self-evident that there is a continuum between, “no brain” (blastocyst), and fully developed brain.
Yeah, but there’s only a few of us commenting. We each probably have an average of 25 comments.
Why? Aren’t we good company?
Ya got a twofer tonite, ZA – abortion and homosexuality. I’ll up the ante to three and see if y’all can make it to the 1000 comment finish line!
corkie:
I am curious what that “us” refers to. Please elaborate.
homodude….
I’m thinking only a homo could get away with that.
“Just don’t expect your racist church to get tax breaks or government aid.”
Unless its a black church with a black pastor. Then having racist views will have nothing to do with your non-profit status.
I disagree. Please don’t lump me with the far left. I think those churches should have the rug pulled out from under them too. Militant black churches are espeically guilty and they get a PC pass. It’s nonsense.
Meh.
Maniah:
I just wanted to clarify something real quick, If our society was one that demonized people with green eyes and basically treated them with derision and disdain, I would elect to abort a green eyed fetus as well. However, this should only be done in the 1st trimester.
“I have no doubt whatsoever that human babies prebirth feel plenty and think just fine before birth.”
“The evidence just does not support this.”
What evidence does not support it? All kinds of evidence support it including what doctors who are doing surgery on fetuses to fix heart birth defects, etc., have discovered about the ability of the unborn to feel.
There is no debate that a human being develops from a “single” cell if you will to a bazillion cell organism. The issue is and will always be who has the ability to determine along the continuum of early development that “life” has begun. Do you? Even a definition of when the fetus is viable continues to be a moving target with advancements in premature infant care and survival rates.
The only place that is comfortable for me is at conception. Every other place along that developmental continuum is a guess. Educated guess? Sure. But a guess none-the-less.
Life deserves the most clear answer to when life begins if we then think we are capable of acting on that information and ending life.
With life beginning at conception then abortion is murder and is no longer about someone’s right to choose. I do not have the right to choose to take another’s life.
So unless there is some compelling reason to conduct one, abortion is problematic until the question of when does life begin be answered clearly and consistently.
One has to wonder how we’d enforce lots of other laws if those laws allowed for such fuzzy definitions as abortion advocates toss around regarding when life begins.
Gotta wonder why some lawyer hasn’t taken the laws that convict a person of two violent crimes when the offender does harm to a pregnant woman. How can one commit a crime against a fetus if that fetus has no standing as a human being?
Whenever someone uses the term “gay” or gays” I wonder how they define the term, ZA.
How would you define the term?
“I disagree.”
With what zero? Your post reads as if you agree.
jsmiddleton:
I was refering to evidence concerning very early development.
Why not the point where the first neuron differentiates?
The issue is analog, not digital, as such it will never be nailed down 100% and there will always be grey areas.
I am not prepared to give up culling during IVF, IUDs, and ESC harvesting (to name a few).
jsmiddleton:
I disagree that militant black churches should be allowed to keep tax emept status. That is, I agree with you that it is wrong and a double standard.
purplepeep:
It’s just shorter to write gays then homosexual, I include lesbians. I was being lazy.
“Why not the point where the first neuron differentiates?
The issue is analog, not digital, as such it will never be nailed down 100% and there will always be grey areas.”
Because its when sperm successfully fertilizes an egg. Not whena neuron differentiates.
Yes it is a gray area. Gray enough that I am unwilling to take a life. Its okay to take a life when its gray? Not to me.
These debates always go the same… let’s just cut this short:
I don’t believe in a soul and god doesn’t exist.
jsmiddleton:
A blastocyst does not have a brain, it cannot think, feel, or anything. It’s as alive as my skin cell (something that also has, via nucleus transfer, potential)
Then I’d ask what the term “homosexual” means to you, ZA.
I think one of the things that makes this topic (and others) so heated is the precise concept that folks have in mind. e.g. if the definition means “shameful, filthy” to someone that’s the concept the person will have as a mental base.
I like to strip definitions down to the purest subjective form that a person has in mind. Otherwise I think it’s like Chinese folk say of Mandarin and Cantonese “It’s like a chicken talking to a duck”. The written term is the same, but the internal language is different.
As much as possible I like to apply logic. Spock ain’t got nothin’ on me.
By the way, it was likely asked in the prev 400+ comments, so excuse if this is a repeat question – How’s your little one doing this eve?
purplepeep:
I define homosexual as those that prefer homosexual sex. Granted there are various degrees of bisexulaity, but I’m going with a general defintion here.
Junior and Mommy are sleeping. Junior is still sick and I am going to take a day off tommorow to stay home with him since he can’t goto daycare.
“I don’t believe in a soul and god doesn’t exist.”
So? What does that have to do with when life begins? You do believe in life I hope. Or because you are what an atheist you have no morality?
So we can kill atheist and its not murder?
I’m also thinking a fetus doesn’t “believe” in God and has no idea about a soul.
jsmiddleton4:
Oh god please don’t start this again.
A blastocyst has no brain, no mind, it cannot think and it cannot feel. The reason why the idea of a soul is relevant is because people that believe a soul exists would argue that a blastocyst’s soul does those things without a brain.
jsmiddleton:
The continuum starts after at least two neurons have formed and there is at least one synapse.
No doubt you religious people imagine that there are aborted souls in heaven lamenting the loss of their chance at life. What language or expereinces they use to communicate this loss to other souls in anyone’s guess.
…weren’t we talking about teh gays?
Thanks for your definition,ZA. At least that far I agree with you.
I believe with emotionally charged questions it’s helpful for folks to have clear personal definitions in mind.
I think it’s also helpful in swaying minds one way or the other. Someone arguing from the bible, for example, would mean little or nothing to you.
But I suspect you’re open to rational, logical argument (which may or may not jive with biblical injunctions) and like most of us who’ve been around awhile you know there are always points to consider, though the overall conclusion of others might not be to our approval.
Sleeping is good – at least it’s not crying. Ear infections are among the worst for the little ones and their parents to deal with. I’ve walked a few with that problem until they fell asleep. I expect your Jr. will mend in a few days, but it’s difficult for both him & y’all til then.
purplepeep:
Absolutely. Paint me a clear picture of how gay marriage is going to destroy the nation and lead to everyone (for example) getting a$$-raped (literally) and I will side with you. As far as I see it, the growing pains associated with getting past ancient taboos do not outwiegh the fact that consenting adults that love one another aren’t afforded the same treatment as other similiar adults.
Junior is on anti-biotics. Hopfully this will go away soon. I only have so much vacation to burn up and Mommy just started work and can’t take off.
purplepeep:
I will submit that religious nonsense is often times based in real societal concerns. I have no doubt that ancient societies regarded homosexual behavior as evil because it was one less person breeding and therefore one less person pulling his or her weight in the game of out producing your enemies in manpower and influence. As with all things, religion incorporated this. Some also incorporated the idea that anything other than vaginal sex is wrong for likely the same reasons.
The problem is today, that line of thinking is outdated.
“that there are aborted souls in heaven lamenting the loss of their chance at life.”
Not sure what that adds to the discussion but if a soul is in Heaven its not lamenting life not lived on the earth I can assure you.
“The problem is today, that line of thinking is outdated.”
I agree. The line of thinking that considered what was good for a culture and a society has long gone out of fashion and is quite outdated.
jsmiddleton4:
Of course you can assure me because you know what happens after you die. Just because people took this nonsense at face value for years and years (and might have been killed if they disagreed) doesn’t mean we have to today.
You have absolutely zero evidence for this claim. You might as well say, “Of course Gold Dragons can shape shift and cast spells!”
In any case, I already spelled out how the idea of duality wrt brain/mind is relevant.
zeroangel:
You just proved my point. The First Amendment allows for free expression of religion – including what you classify as “discrimination.” By saying that people who don’t accept gay marriage will be financially penalized is just this side of saying they should be thrown in jail. And it’s a violation of the First Amendment rights of those who believe marriage between one man and one woman is the ideal and best situation for society. First Amendment rights are not conditional on what is/isn’t politically correct nor whether or not people think certain lines of thinking are “outdated” (which, obviously, they aren’t if gay marriage has been voted down in 31 states).
The fact of the matter is this: if you think the only people voting against gay marriage are blue-haired octogenarians wielding Rosaries, you’re woefully mistaken. For this ballot measures to pass as they have – including in heavily blue states – a wide swath of voters, from all demographics, are still believing (as other cultures have done for centuries) that marriage should be between one man, one woman.
I won’t even touch on race because racism has nothing to do with the debate on gay marriage. In fact, given that black voters were one of the largest voting blocs in California to vote on Prop 8, I think gay marriage proponents ought to consider that equating gay marriage to the Civil Rights movement of the 60s may do more harm than good.
Englishqueen:
That is utter bullsh|t. You don’t have a right to get tax breaks anymore than Scientologists do. In my mind, you are equal. IIRC, the Scientologist also were against gay marriage.
Should I continue?
The Fisrt Amendment does not give you the right to tax breaks. Sorry!
Strawman. I never said this and it doesn’t matter. Anyone is capable of discrimination. I have stated this several times in this thread.
…Jesus H. Christ getting swallowed by a whale and spit out again (or was that Jonah? NVM)
I can’t believe you tried to say that financial penalization is equal to jail! That sounds like something some radical communist hippie might say.
The First Amendment gives you the right to say that blacks are inferior it doesnt give you the right to treat them as such under the law. The same goes for homosexuals.
Honestly, I could care less. I am not so much overly concerned with anyone’s “movement” that I will tread carefully in regards to what I think. There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that my tiny voice on MM is not going to change anything.
I am, however, concerned with being right. There are clear similarities between the two things in question.
OK, I am making multiple posts now, that means I am getting lazy, tired, exaperated, or a combination thereof.
But that would be neither a rational or logical argument – it would be emotive. And I imagine you can see the emotive nature of your quote above when you step back a bit. It seems you’re doing battle with a few strawmen yourself there. I don’t say that to be snide, but just to point out how the different sides often slip into subjective preconceptions, even unknowingly.
From personal experience I know it’s not always easy to move away from subjectives and into detached objectives, but I think it’s worth the time on questions that often easily lead to heated, waste of time exchanges.
(Not an admonition to you there, ZA – just some ramblin’ thoughts.)
purplepeep:
Well, OK, you would first have to establish that people don’t want to get a$$-raped. If you agree upon what results are “undesireble” then you could certianly make a logical argument invoking evidence that gay marriage could lead to that state.
Point out my strawman please.
Both serve the same purpose: to intimidate people into accepting something they find morally objectionable.
Either the First Amendment means something – even if you find it disagreeable – or it means nothing. It is not conditional.
And I said financial penalties are “just this side” of jail. Not equitable to jail, only the step preceding imprisonment. Earlier, I posted on a woman in the UK who was investigated for writing a letter about a gay pride parade in her town. Rev. Stephen Boission can no longer practice his faith because of a letter he wrote to an editor. In Canada, keeping your children home from school on days when lessons about homosexual behavior are taught is also a hate crime.
Hate crimes tribunals and financial penalties are the start. Prison is the next step when people refuse to embrace goodthink, and I don’t think that’s an irrational conclusion to draw. Because everyone insisted people’s free speech rights wouldn’t be threatened, churches wouldn’t be threatened, blah, blah, blah…but I have stories of people being discriminated against for defending marriage that contradict those assertions that prove the “gay marriage doesn’t affect you” line is hogwash. It is not irrational to think prison time is the next step. Hell, the president just signed the Matthew Shepherd bill into law; if a gay marriage opponent accidentally runs over someone who happens to be gay they’re screwed because it’ll be a “hate crime.”
You know as well as I that many churches – which care for the poor and indigent and do lots of charitable mission work around the globe – the loss of tax-exempt status would cripple them. It is a threat. And there are several tax exempt organizations that engage in egregious partisan politics yet don’t receive the same scrutiny as churches. And the point of such laws is to stifle the church to make it a non-entity in society, prevent it from engaging in charitable work, call it a pariah on the country, and then shut it down.
I’m not budging on this issue. I don’t have to approve or tolerate something I find immoral, or something that threatens my right – and the rights of others – to express dissent. And I don’t have to slink off into a corner because YOU think it’s discriminatory.
No one is telling gays they can’t live with whom they choose, love whom they choose. I, frankly, don’t care. And many places have tried to make civil unions or domestic partnership laws to cover the legal issues of equality.
But that’s not enough. It’s about MARRIAGE because it will force those who believe marriage is a special institution to accept something that contradicts that belief.
And, time and again, you prove me right.
Disagree with gay marriage and your First Amendment rights are gone.
What’s RIGHT is standing up for the institution that’s most beneficial to men, women, and children – heterosexual marriage.
Englishqueen:
Does it even occur to you that the exact same arguments you use against gay marriage were used against interracial marriage?
It’s not good for society.
The voters don’t want it.
I don’t care what they do in the UK or Canada and I don’t agree with hate crime legislation. I just care about two consenting adults being treated like other consenting adults. That’s it! Get it?
Revoking tax breaks is not the same thing as punishment. Besides, I really don’t think religion deserves any tax breaks, but that’s another issue.
Also, spare me the nonsense about religion and charitable works. The day the pope sells the vatacian and donates the money to charity is the day I’ll buy that arguement.
You dont have to slink away. By all means shout your discriminatory views as loud as you can so more can hear how absurd they really sound.
As for Civil Unions… seperate but equal, right?
Delightful hyperbole, I commend you. =]
And just think, what if it was in an SUV?
…yah seriously. Touche Jeddite. Honestly Englishqueen that was absurd. I remember you being a lot more rational than that.
That is, unless of course you are talking about an existing family that happens to be a child and a homosexual couple. In that case, F them. The child will have to live with only having one legal “parent.”
Lessee here, ZA:
“gay marriage is going to destroy the nation”
Unless the terms are quantified in specifics, my take is that you’re offering a parody of some argument that you heard. I’m sure you’ve expressed an opinion with which someone disagreed with at some time or another and where someone did a simplistic or sarcastic version of your position in response, no?
I’ve really never heard that argument, ZA. I’m assuming it’s your interpretation of something someone said.
If anyone has made those very arguments verbatim then they argued quite stupidly.
I’m having a flashback to the 70s here, Far-Out! There used to be an exercize in communications wherein one person would make a statement to another person and the other person (#2) would repeat what they perceived was said. If their interpretation, in their own words, was correct the exercize was over. If not, the first person would restate his statement in an attempt to be more clear with person # 2. Then #2 would would re-state the position in their own terms. This could go on for a long time, lol. The basic idea was to achieve a clarity of understanding so that both were on the same page but just expressing the same concept/thought differently.
OK, the brown acid is wearing off now, it’s back to the 2000s…
I believe you are making a connection that doesn’t quite work there, ZA.
purplepeep:
The word “destory” is subjective. Obviously, more than a few here have suggested that gay marriage will be harmful to the nation as a whole. R4L certainly said so. It’s not a strawman, I’ll bet you R4L would use the word “destroy” himself (perhaps in an unguarded moment).
purplepeep:
How? The same arguments were used. They are both discrimatory. What makes them different?
purplepeep:
OK, the a$$-rape thing was hyperbole, it was also kind of a joke. (Obviously)
purplepeep:
The point is, let’s hear a logical and rational argument about how gay marriage will lead to things that we would agree are bad for our nation collectively.
ZA, just between you and me, I hope you know enough to giggle at 99.9999% of anything R2L says.
Yeah, I get the hyperboly. But there are people stupid enough to assert something along that line that might give you reason to parody the line.
First, I’d have to note – and I think you may agree – that discrimination is not always bad. We discriminate every day – even in such areas as which tomatoes we buy. Our very laws are based on discrimination of certain activities.
That’s kind of a side trip, but I think that point should be made.
As to your core question, ZA. I think we were on the same page in agreeing that homosexuality (“gay”) is defined by one’s sexual preferences.
“Gay” is defined as sexual acts that a person chooses to engage in. Contrarily, re:race, someone is not determined as “black” because s/he does “black things”. (Well, maybe Obama does when nobody’s looking, but I digress).
Two very different animals there, ZA; one is not like the other.
purplepeep:
That is not how I defined “gay.”
I said:
Preference is not about what you choose. I may prefer steak, but always choose to eat chicken.
Preference is innate, like race. It is not differnet.
Junior is up , goodnight.
Since I cannot legally wed this delicious grilled cheese sandwich [yet], I will have to settle for eating
ithim instead.nom nom nom nom
I think we might still be in somewhat agreement, ZA. To be more accurate I should have used the word “activities” rather “acts” since sodomy is mot limited to the homosexual realm.
“Activities” is more encompassing, including the specific same-sex factor.
I think the statement “preference is innate” is incorrect, ZA. DNA has been explored to the hilt and no one has yet found a “gay gene”. My personal take is that homosexuality is due to a “reaction formation” of sorts, i.e. cumulative psychological influences.
But you can take a pre-natal DNA sample and determine the race of an unborn child.
Haha – I was just thinking if you figured you might get some extra sack time you’re deluding yourself when even a healthy baby is factored in!
At any rate, I suspect that somehow there will be other times to sfinally olve this question and other great issues bewitching the populace.
So G’nite and I hope your little one is in Bristol Fashion before you know it.
I have a image somewhere titled “a SILF”. Dagwood all the way.
I never used the word ‘unnatural’. I can only assume you’re replying to: ?
Oral sex is also irrelevant to the purpose of having two genders but it is nonetheless as natural as air, apple pie, homosexuality, cancer, etc.
Food HAS TO taste good or we wouldn’t be here just as sex HAS TO feel good or we wouldn’t be here. Living things are programmed to enjoy doing the things they must do to stay alive but aren’t limited to doing them only for that purpose; (many animals do things for fun.) Humans just have this knack for exploiting things to the nth degree.
Homosexuality is a sexual behavioral dysfunction, (as much as impotence is a physical sexual dysfunction), but there’s certainly no reason for them to not enjoy sexual gratification. Color blind people can still read.
SILF? Proving that this thread is well on its way….
As I said before…any way you please.
Or enforced. A law saying marriage is between a man and a woman is the same as one saying two men cannot marry.
Now stop tippy toeing and tell me what you think the compelling state interest is in disallowing gay marriage.
Or if you are not interested in engaging the substance we can stop here. I am fine with that too.
Oh, and getting back to r4l, Massachusetts, along with having one of the lowest divorce rates in the country, also has one of the lowest percentages of children married to unwed mothers, which while increasing, has increased exactly as much as the national average. It also has by far one of the lowest teen birth rates in the country, a percentage which has dropped far more precipitously in MA than it has on average for the rest of the country.
I didn’t look as closely at the states that have civil unions, but the trend seems to hold there as well.
link
Of course, leading (so to speak) in all of these categories are red states.
Huh, Chap – you’re still up at this hour lookin’ for debate?
I think you’re confused about burden of proof.
Why would you lower the bar to . . . nothing . . . and then allow me state an example?
zeroangle stated a “compelling” justification to abort all fetuses that are gay. Surely, you can contemplate a compelling state interest in disallowing gay marriage if the word “compelling” is basically meaningless.
Not to be an uber-picky grammar cop, Corkie, but it’s “angel”, not “angle”.
I’d usually give it a pass but so mamy many intelligent folks make the same error and that’s one reason why I use just “ZA”!
Sigh. What does it even matter to you? You say the same thing to us but I’ve actually met gay people who don’t give a sh!t. They just don’t. They’d rather just be accepted and not have rabid activists make life more difficult for them.
It isn’t a matter of fairness. That’s YOUR opinion. Not based on anything but emotional, guilt-tripping hyperbole. In places like the Netherlands, cultural and societal mores played a role in legalizing gay marriage. Then the legislature stepped in and did it. The Dutch may be comfortable with that, but I’m not. Then again, these are the same people who voted down the EU constitution. Go figure.
Let’s be frank: the majority of families are either two HETEROSEXUAL parents with children or a single HETEROSEXUAL parent with child. I’ve seen it as a teacher. Our society is more invested in these families and not the homosexual ones. As I’ve said before, homosexual couples are ALREADY covered by civil unions. What’s the big diff between a civil union and a marriage ceremony? The manner in which the couple is “joined?” That’s a specious argument.
For someone who is saying that he recognizes that not just religious people don’t support gay marriage, you’re certainly harping on religious people A LOT. Religious people are the ones that have to make ALL the accommodations here, and not the other way around. Religious people are told they can’t pray ANYWHERE, they can’t speak out, and that they don’t MATTER. Where’s all the accommodations on the pro-gay marriage side? I’m not seeing any. The only one I’m seeing is the civil union approach. This seems hypocritical to me and something you either have failed to notice, don’t care about, or would rather not comment on.
Here are some of my ideas as to the harm that gay marriage will present:
1. Further deterioration of the marriage state. If gays can marry, then ANYBODY can. Leads to chaos. Any society has a right to encourage healthy, proportionate relationships that benefit society. How does gay marriage benefit society? Nobody ever explains this to me.
2. The gay agenda as part of public school curricula. It’s already happening in Massachussetts and California. Unintended consequences.
3. The confusion for children. Children already have a hard time with divorce and other social issues such as sexuality way before they should have to deal with them.
4. Another protected, special minority group. We’re a country where our laws cover EVERYBODY. With gay marriage, what we’re seeing is that hurt feelings and guilt trips win the day, not actual legal review or procedure.
5. Usurpation of the Republican system. Laws and issues like gay marriage work over time. If it’s truly meant to be it will be reconsidered by THE PEOPLE, not the state legislatures or Federal government. Our country was created on popular input, not a tyrannical judiciary or Federal system pushing laws down our throat. We’re not Europe which does this ALL the time.
6. Further moral and social decay. I actually don’t blame this on gays per se, but our country is still based on a traditional, one man-one woman marriage concept. We need order and we need structure. It’s how we, as humans, continue to thrive and survive. This may not be a concern of yours but it is of mine.
7. Persecution of religious people. You continue to harp on religious people and I just don’t get it. You want to get these people on your side not continue to deride them like you and other pro-gay marriage folks do. Religious people are being persecuted for what THEY believe by gay activists and those who support gay marriage. Do you find this acceptable? Because I don’t.
8. Legal backlog. Isn’t the legal system bogged down with more important matters than the legal challenges of dissatisfied gay activists? How ’bout the inevitable fallout of the dissolution of gay marriages? So, on top of the heterosexual divorce proceedings, courts will have to deal with homosexual dissolutions as well. Great boon for the lawyers I’m sure. For larger society and our court system already under strain.? Not so much.
I will give you some perspective on why I feel the way I do. I grew up in a college town where marijuana ABUSE (not use) and an anything goes sort of feeling pervaded my town. Where kids were up at all hours of the night until curfew was instituted and enforced. Where gay people were (and continue to be) treated like the community pet cause with special treatment and attention. When you have to be treated to continued gay pep rallies on college campus deriding religious and conservative people (which I saw first hand) it gets a little old. I found it freakin’ hysterical and a bit sad that the only way gays can “marry” is to abuse religious people, and manipulate the legal system for their personal purposes. Religious people and conservative people have to “suck it up.”
You act like it’s an all or nothing proposition and that this is like the 60′s civil rights movement all over again. It’s not. Gay people, as I’ve said before, can DATE who they want, WORK where they want, LIVE where they want, and LOVE who they want. They’ve been granted legal protections.
Sometimes, life is more about how you get the brass ring than the actual brass ring itself.
I would say that is a valid argumnent, emjem, since the core, important argument here is about un-defining marriage.
Purplepeep:
I think it’s best to air on the side of caution. Whatever the case, it seems clear that people can’t change their sexual preference.
Dancewithdachshunds:
This was the analogy you used:
So what are you trying to say? That gays and gay marriage scares the crap out of people? FAIL.
Corkie:
Honestly, you can do better. This would probably be the 500th time I’ve seen that one.
Emjem24:
What does it matter to me? I don’t know, I give a sh|t about fairness? I guess I can sympathize to some degree because even in today’s society in some places my interracial marriage is not so acceptable. I don’t care that some blacks, Asians, or otherwise might agree with the racists (and likely be racists themselves).
It’s my OPINION that it’s fair? LOL. I’ll bet the same thing was said about interracial marriage. You have two consenting adults! WTF?
As far as typical families, So what? Are you honestly telling me there exists no such homosexual couple with children that are getting screwed?
That is total lie. You can barely walk down the street without tripping over religious advertisements in certain parts of the US. You can also pray anywhere you want. You just can’t force children to join you.
LOL! …and yet Presidential candidates fall all over themselves to show how religious they are. This is more total nonsense. Religion is a very big deal in America and has massive power.
Civil union? Again, separate but equal.
As for the rest of your post:
1. Slippery slope, weak. How does it benefit society? Were you even paying attention ref. the aforementioned homosexual couple with children? Deterioration of marriage? Are you serious? How is gay marriage going to hurt (for example) your marriage?
2. Separate issue. Non sequitur
3. Same as above. I am not saying teach it in schools.
4. What’s wrong with protecting minorities?
5. You talk as though you think the judicial branch shouldn’t exist or at least have severely restricted power. Tell me, how did you feel about their decision on the DC handgun ban?
6. Sorry, homosexual families will exist with or without gay marriage. Besides, what exactly is immoral about what two consenting adults do?
7. LOL! Again, religious people have far more power than they deserve. Honestly, it’s amazing that (for example) the pope can say condoms are bad and don’t stop the spread of AIDS and some people actually take him seriously. The fact that the Bible says gays should be killed no doubt weighs heavily on the idea that religious people think homosexuality is immoral.
8. *yawn* Yes, court backlogs and lawyers concern me more than the rights of homosexuals.
OK, so you got jaded with the way young people behaved in your college town and now you are bitter? So, because of that, you want to make adults who want to have a monogamous relationship suffer?
None of your reasons are really severe enough that two consenting adults should be treated any different than two other consenting adults. Will there be growing pains? Sure. Will some people get all spastic and go a little crazy? Sure. So what? I once met a guy in college (only about 13 years ago) that said he would never marry interracially because he wouldn’t want to put a child through that. WTF? I guarantee that in today’s world some people still look at my wife and I and think our relationship is immoral and will somehow hurt society. F them. Honestly.
Oh, and good morning everyone.
corkie:
The compelling reason being that the fetus’s life will ultimately be very, very difficult. In time, this will change and that reason will dissolve. Gay marriage is a step in that direction.
emjem24:
…and if you are gay, no brass ring. Sorry. You get the plastic one because you are different, but hey, it’s just as good and even as shiny!
emjem24:
Poor religious people and social “conservatives!” It must be terribly annoying for them when other people point out that their holy text is horribly cruel and unjust by modern standards. I am glad that you have managed to work out that gays shouldn’t be murdered, now how about that brass ring?
Emjem24:
It bears mentioning that there are plenty of people that don’t even want to give gays a separate but equal arrangement such as the one you are putting forth. This isn’t just over the word “marriage.”
The Onion reports on a new study (by Stanford University) that shows evolutionary gayness could eventually be traced from the animal kingdom into the plant kingdom.
Also of recent note, the military is gearing up to institute a new “don’t tell, let me guess” policy.
The Onion is awesome. Anyhow, I am going to be a prick and point out:
…that is not at all what the fictional article said. If you can’t even read fiction correctly how are you going to get the facts straight (no pun intended)?
I didn’t say it was meaningless. I said I would let you give it whatever meaning you wanted. Assuming you are debating in good faith, that should not be any sort of bar to discussion and at least gives us a starting point.
Chap:
Morning, how’s things? I’m at home again today with Junior taking time off from work since he is sick.
I am quite certain I am not. I don’t need to prove allowing gay marriage is good for a discriminatory law to be declared unconstitutional. The other side has to establish the reason it is bad.
If I can finish some stuff up here, I am heading down to the Capitol this morning to check out the health care protest and that hot mess that is Michele Bachmann.
Keeping to my anaology, we take away the license of drunk drivers do we not? In particular, we take away the license of a drunk driver even though they have not harmed anyone or themselves. You would advocate the opposite that the good drivers on the road should just suck it up and endure the added risk of allowing a drunk to keep driving on the road? Splain the difference…?
The word/concept of ‘marriage’ is defined as and has always been defined for thousands of years to be within the bounds of a HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP.
A FACT that I keep repeating that you simply CANNOT get around is that there are TWO genders and there is only one possible complimentary combination of them – one man and one woman per nature’s design. Marriage is therefore UNIQUE in that regard and I summarily refuse to allow subversives to re-define it into something it is NOT. If homosexuals want to have some sort of legal definition of their redundant pairings like ‘civil union’, (and why stop at 2? why not 3 or 4 or 5? – they’re all equally redundant so I doubt many heterosexuals would object to homosexuals expanding ‘civil union’ to include everyone they invite to their STD orgies – let’s party!), then they can damn well come up with their OWN WORD FOR IT because the word ‘marriage’ is already taken and they will NOT have it.
And it bears mentioning that you avoided answering the direct question. What is the BIG difference, this HUGE inequality to affording a homosexuals their very own definition for their homosexual relationship that really IS in fact different than a heterosexual relationship?
Don’t try to say there’s no difference because gender does indeed EXIST and EXIST FOR A NATURAL PURPOSE per my statement above.
Keep the word ‘gay’, have your little rainbow flags, but caterwaul all you like – you AIN’T getting the word ‘marriage’.
Frankly, I could not care less about merely upsetting a definition.
I really don’t understand how people think that is a winning argument.
What slippery slope?
Chap – Let’s redefine the word ‘ownership’? Okay, now your house belongs to the state; now what? Or how about the word ‘vote’, let’s redefine that and, while we’re at it, redefine colors – the sky is green and the word ‘blue’ is now what used to be ‘yellow’. But then there’s that word ‘babble’, maybe we should leave that one alone huh?
Danceswithdachshunds:
Now gay marriage is like drunk driving? I’m sorry, how is gay marriage going to KILL people? WTF are you talking about? Why do I even have to point out this nonsense?
As for polygamy and civil unions, I’ve already addressed them several times now. Polygamy is going to happen whether you like it or not, not recognizing it only hurts the 2nd wives (for example) and their children. Civil unions are separate but…
SO WHAT?
Right… because that’s what (for example) 60 year old lesbian couples like to do.
For the 10th time, separate but equal. In any case, I advocate leaving the word “marriage” completely out of government. Everyone’s union should be called a civil union by the government. Once again, I am repeating myself.
Yah, that’s not the least bit dripping with condescending sarcasm.
Oh for F*cks sake! Horses CAN’T consent! Furthermore, redefining words like “vote” to include blacks and women is fine by me. Oh wait, we did that already, NVM.
If a redefinition would have actual real life negative consequences, that is a different story. But you can see how that is different than clinging to a “traditional” definition merely for the sake of preserving that definition, no?
“Of course you can assure me because you know what happens after you die. ”
Well sorta. But only a hint of it. You see someone who has demonstrated they are trustworthy and reliable has died and come back to life and has reported He has gone ahead of me making a home for me in His presence.
I can assure you anyone in Heaven is not lamenting not having lived their lives longer on the earth as in its current fallen state.
STD’s Homosexuals have a MUCH higher chance of contracting an STD and some DO spread those into the heterosexual community. Like drunk driving behavior is illegal based on increased RISK – explain why the increased risk of STD from homosexual behavior is any different?
Dave.
Just making sure that you are aware that The Onion is a total joke. Quite funny site actually.
The “gay” people are whining and all upset over this “terrible homophobic attack”.They are In the Street in LA. The little fagots are fun to watch.
jsmiddleton4:
I’m sorry, but that’s nonsense. The possibility that someone could have a vivid dream as thier brain shuts down is a hint of precisely nothing. The idea that you try and claim some kind of special knowledge about the exsistence of an afterlife and it’s properties is absurd and can be offensive. There is no way you can assure me of anything about this, stop pretending.
“Everyone’s union should be called a civil union by the government.”
That might work. And if you want to be “married”, something that demonstrates your value system and belief system, it is a religious ceremony in your church, out in the field, etc.
But the legal aspect of the relationship is all taken care of by the civil union laws as defined by the State.
Yep, that might work.
Danceswithdachshunds:
Oh OK, let’s ban anal sex. Hell, let’s ban all unprotected sex. Don’t be an idiot, they are going to have sex with or without being married.
For the 11th time, it is NOT equal. The only COMPLIMEANTARY pairing possible is one man and one woman. NOTHING else can match that – NOTHING! It’s is unique and you cannot get around it.
“The idea that you try and claim some kind of special knowledge about the exsistence of an afterlife and it’s properties is absurd.”
Didn’t claim I had it. Claimed someone else experienced it, came back to life, and has reported regarding it.
That the person doing so is trustworthy and reliable and His reporting of it has been preserved enough that the reporting of it is also trustworthy enough.
jsmiddleton4:
I am glad you and I agree ref. civil unions. I do think it’s a fine plan, however I’ve met plenty of people in person that object to it on the grounds that they don’t want to be on even terms with gays.
Danceswithdachshunds:
SO F*CKING WHAT? What if two sterile people want to marry?