DescentBB

CNN wrote:With 87 percent of the vote counted early Wednesday, the same-sex marriage law was rejected 53 percent to 47 percent, according to the Bangor Daily News Web site.

Same sex marriage was rejected again. But on this issue, I have always felt that same sex marriage being allowed is just a matter of time.

My first inclination on why I view this as just a matter of time, was that I just view this as a fundamental relationship of equality. "The arc of history bends towards justice." So eventually, all states will allow it. However, those whom disagree with me, would not think this is correct for this reason.

So, I'm curious what those on the other side feel about the issue. Even if you don't support gay marriage, do you still think it will happen some day? (Nation-wide gay marriage -- well, maybe with the exception of Texas)

Where was this at Goob?

Sorry, forgot the link: it was in Maine.

link

Oh great…another gay marriage thread.

Marriage was invented by heterosexuals, to serve a purpose in the heterosexual community, so why don’t the gays go and invent something that serves their community, and get on with it.

I’m really getting tired of gays saying “I” should get used to them being gay, then turning around and trying to be just like everyone else.

You’re gay…embrace it!

………………………………................

And yea, I’m sure someday everyone will be able to get married to whoever they choose…but it won’t have anything to do with “justice”…lol.

The sky didn't fall when gay marriage was passed in Massachusetts, did it? What are they afraid of, humanizing gay people? Ooooooooooooooh, look out for those nasty gay people having the right to get married, raise a family and have all the other bennies that 'normies' take for granted!

So why are a minority group's civil rights put to a vote anyway? Gay people should be afforded equal protection under the Constitution. When civil rights are determined by the voters or the courts, someone loses out. Just look at the Plessy Decision and what it did for blacks. Tyranny of the majority, even in the courts.

Plessy v Ferguson

That's what 'domestic partnerships' are, 'separate but equal'. But wait! In Washington State, Referendum 71 was put on the ballot to uphold or overturn an existing state domestic partnerships law! So far, the tally seems to be upholding domestic partnerships by a slim margin, 51% 'yes' to 48% 'no'. But the Christian groups are an unhappy lot, they NOW want to try AGAIN and put it on a future ballot in hopes of suckering more people into finally killing ALL partnership rights!

TC, that's a bit extreme. I predict this thread disentigrating into random insults fairly quickly, but I'll give my take on it.

On whether gay marraige is moral or not, I can clearly see both sides. But I don't see all the opponents as 'christian wackos' and all the proponents as 'wimpy homosexuals', I think both sides have their merits. Personally, I'm not sure where I stand.

But I agree that it is inevitable. Public sentiment toward it is growing, and the christian wacko label is becoming more commonplace. Once a vote is accepted for it, it's never going to be reversed, similar to how people can debate abortion all they want, but it won't change anything. I think it has little to do with any 'ark of freedom', it's just the way the world goes.

It's human evolution. We will have no say but to accept it. It's part of growing as a race. Wether you accept/agree with it is of no consequence. It will happen.

Perhaps it will be inevitable, but Obama and the DNC are sure avoiding the issue like the plague. The supporters of Maine's Question 1 and Washington's Referendum 71 discovered to their chagrin that neither Obama nor the DNC would give ANY support in ANY form publicly. They received nothing but dead silence for their queries.

Obama's playing by the Clinton play book and is burying some of his not-so-convenient supporters in the process. Clinton got burned by the gay issue back back when he was president and a lot of those same dipsh*t advisers that now work for Obama are still gun shy and timid. If he keeps on throwing his supporters under the bus and not showing any backbone, the Republicans may just get what they want, Obama out of office in 2012 due to liberal voter apathy. Why vote for your party when they don't deliver what they promise.

I'm not touching this topic.

AlphaDoG wrote:I'm not touching this topic.

You just did.

No, it will never be here to stay, only in little bursts now and then. Why? Marriage is for heterosexuals. It is the foundation of a family, which homosexuals can't have and shouldn't be able to raise families. Homosexual couples that adopt children sicken me just as much as heterosexual people that decide to have children and aren't together. You miss the key element in raising a child, male and female, and the distinction of which, and the roles that each must play.

I voted against it when I stayed in Cali for a few.

@SilverFJ - Im with you on that

This is how I feel about marriage...

CDN_Merlin wrote:

AlphaDoG wrote:I'm not touching this topic.

You just did.

Ok seems I have, with that

God created Adam and Eve, not, Adam and Steve!

SilverFJ wrote:No, it will never be here to stay, only in little bursts now and then. Why? Marriage is for heterosexuals. It is the foundation of a family, which homosexuals can't have and shouldn't be able to raise families. Homosexual couples that adopt children sicken me just as much as heterosexual people that decide to have children and aren't together. You miss the key element in raising a child, male and female, and the distinction of which, and the roles that each must play.

I voted against it when I stayed in Cali for a few.

I tried to think of something clever to respond to this, but I couldn't. You're just a douche-bag.

Grendel wrote:

SilverFJ wrote:No, it will never be here to stay, only in little bursts now and then. Why? Marriage is for heterosexuals. It is the foundation of a family, which homosexuals can't have and shouldn't be able to raise families. Homosexual couples that adopt children sicken me just as much as heterosexual people that decide to have children and aren't together. You miss the key element in raising a child, male and female, and the distinction of which, and the roles that each must play.

I voted against it when I stayed in Cali for a few.

I tried to think of something clever to respond to this, but I couldn't. You're just a douche-bag.

I'm not agreeing with you or SilverFJ, but wait wait wait. Before we sling names around, isn't SilverFJ entitled to his opinion and vote? It's apparent that you disagree with him, but can you explain why that makes him a douche-bag?

Sniper wrote:

Grendel wrote:

SilverFJ wrote:No, it will never be here to stay, only in little bursts now and then. Why? Marriage is for heterosexuals. It is the foundation of a family, which homosexuals can't have and shouldn't be able to raise families. Homosexual couples that adopt children sicken me just as much as heterosexual people that decide to have children and aren't together. You miss the key element in raising a child, male and female, and the distinction of which, and the roles that each must play.

I voted against it when I stayed in Cali for a few.

I tried to think of something clever to respond to this, but I couldn't. You're just a douche-bag.

I'm not agreeing with you or SilverFJ, but wait wait wait. Before we sling names around, isn't SilverFJ entitled to his opinion and vote? It's apparent that you disagree with him, but can you explain why that makes him a douche-bag?

Your only entitled to your opinion if your a Lib

“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

William F. Buckley

Sniper wrote:It's apparent that you disagree with him, but can you explain why that makes him a douche-bag?

Sniper, look farther up the thread. He's echoing SilverFJ's earlier attack word-for-word:

SilverFJ [quoting one of Grendel's posts] wrote:I tried to think of something clever to respond to this, but I couldn't. You're just a douche-bag.

Grendel [quoting one of SilverFJ's posts] wrote:I tried to think of something clever to respond to this, but I couldn't. You're just a douche-bag.

Come on, guys. This is inappropriate for the E&C in either case. SilverFJ, Grendel, you guys ought to take it to NHB.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. I think this bad tooth is giving me a brain infection.

Ahhhhhhhhhh........nope. Not going to say it.

S13driftAZ wrote:@SilverFJ - Im with you on that

This is how I feel about marriage...

Both are screwed?

you know what else would be nice?

for the normal married couples not to get divorced so much. and for the 'normal' people not to worry that gay marriage 'MIGHT' be a problem. Until the one house cleans up it's own mess, it has no right pointing fingers at the other house.



there really is no such thing as 'sanctity of marriage' with the way the regular couples treat it.

Sniper wrote:Both are screwed?

hahaha speaking of screwed, I dont think the human body was designed for a potato in the exhaust if you catch my drift...

Well since im posting I might as well get this out too, my mother was in one of those psychiatric wards for abuse that her father had been responsible for, and she learned there that when a child is sexually abused, the mind somehow in one way or another, potentially can turn gay or lesbian.

Ferno wrote:Until the one house cleans up it's own mess, it has no right pointing fingers at the other house.

SO since I've been married for 28 years and have a great marriage, and have raised 8 children who have never been involved with Drugs, the Law, or Alcohol, and the 3 that are married also have good marriages. Essentially I have my house in order, does that then give me the right in your Eyes to criticize those that have issues in their Marriage or those that have problems disciplining their children????

another religion vs the worldview subject..

Codex Theodosianus

I'm not trying to make this religion VS secular, I'm interested to see what Ferno will say \"IF\" I start criticizing other people's marriages or children.

BUBBALOU wrote:another religion vs the worldview subject..

What makes you say that?

Gooberman wrote:"The arc of history bends towards justice." So eventually, all states will allow it. However, those whom disagree with me, would not think this is correct for this reason.

Exactly. While I would also espouse that arc of history view, the opposition's interpretation of history's direction is the opposite, seeing the world as becoming increasingly immoral, building up to some kind of apocalypse. I guess that identifying with one of those two world views is a pretty good indicator as to whether someone is predominantly liberal or predominantly conservative.

When did we give the government control of 'what is marriage' anyway? They're just in it for the money and control, it's not like they ever did anything to improve upon it....
Go to a gay church and get a gay marriage just like the hetero's do in hetero churches and we could all tell the government to piss off and stay out of our marriages!

BUBBALOU wrote:another religion vs the worldview subject..

Jeff250 wrote:“Exactly. While I would also espouse that arc of history view, the opposition's interpretation of history's direction is the opposite, seeing the world as becoming increasingly immoral, building up to some kind of apocalypse. I guess that identifying with one of those two world views is a pretty good indicator as to whether someone is predominantly liberal or predominantly conservative.”

Lol…my views towards marriage have nothing to do with Politics or Religion.

Will Robinson wrote:When did we give the government control of 'what is marriage' anyway? They're just in it for the money and control, it's not like they ever did anything to improve upon it....
Go to a gay church and get a gay marriage just like the hetero's do in hetero churches and we could all tell the government to piss off and stay out of our marriages!

Ok…another Lol…

Keep your Religion out of my marriage.

In fact the state must sanction marriage…if not…how would non religious people get married? Only the body that represents “all” people can sanction something like marriage.

And BTW…Religion (or god) did not invent marriage.

tunnelcat wrote:In Washington State, Referendum 71 was put on the ballot to uphold or overturn an existing state domestic partnerships law! So far, the tally seems to be upholding domestic partnerships by a slim margin, 51% 'yes' to 48% 'no'.

The Referendum was put on the ballot to uphold or overturn a BRAND NEW law passed during the last legislative session, which was suspended due to the referendum process. Calling it an "existing" law is misleading; the law never took effect because the voters wanted a say in it.

The law, in a nutshell, granted both same-sex domestic partners and opposite-sex senior domestic partners EVERY benefit given to married couples in Washington State, but did not call their relationships "marriage". In other words, it grants completely equal rights, but does not attempt to change the lexicon or force other states to recognize the relationships. Supporters called it the "everything but marriage" law.

My wife and I both voted for it. It's a good law -- let anyone who wants to be "partners" be partners with the exact same benefits (regardless of whether they're "married" or something else), and stop trying to mess with the definition of marriage.

And yeah, there are going to be endless challenges and attempts to get the law suspended again. But I suspect it's here to stay, and I suspect this is what society will eventually settle on -- we'll let any adult couple have the same set of rights, but will allow people to retain their religious, political, or other opinions regarding what they think qualifies as "marriage".