Gay marriage backers vow to renew fight

(sorry about the double post, it either sounded too good or it was a Freudian slip)

I have heard that phrase before but not in this comments OPPS

estanson wrote:

<quoted text>
marriage is now just a legal contract?
yup thats killing it!
a perfect example thank you!
how about civil unions just be a legal contract with all the rights of marriages?

Of course it is a legal contract, that is why you have to file papers with the court. If you want civil union to be the term for that contract then change it for everyone. Civil marriage and religious marriage are two separate things.

conan wrote:

how/why are you a bigot if you're against gay marriage ? if I still believe marriage should only be granted to a man/woman why would you call me a bigot? keep in mind, what is it, 31 states where this issue has gone to vote - voters all voted against it. so - i guess based on your theory over half of the voters of this country are biggots. correct?
btw - there is a huge difference between slavery and being gay. please stop using this analogy. slaves had zero rights, I REPEAT, zero rights - because of their skin color.
gay people have EVERY right except 1 - legal marriage. however, with a civil union - they still have 99% more rights than a slave ever had. soooo please stop with that comparison.

In our country until we had voting on gay marriage there were not instances where the majority voted to take away a minority's rights. So the general population weren't given a vote on civil rights back in the 60's and it wasn't given over to state control. Do you think that a lot of southern states would have voted for civil rights laws?

Yes - it is bigotry where people have voted to take away gay marriage rights when they had been granted. So please - call it what it is - bigotry - plain and simple. Give everybody a break here - you don't think that it's bigotry when gay marriage doesn't hurt anybody but still is not allowed.

Religions that don't believe in gay marriage aren't forced to perform these ceremonies. So if it isn't bigotry why would people like you care when ceremonies are performed by groups that agree with performing the ceremony.

Own up to it - whatever your reason for believing gay people shouldn't marry (religious beliefs, homophobia)- it is bigotry. Denying one group the rights that other people have is just that.

It's no different than the fact the mixed race couples couldn't marry in a lot of places until laws were changed. But I guess that wasn't bigotry either according to your defintion. Do you think that would have passed a vote in some places?

Gay people didn't have any rights - zero rights - in quite a few states. Homosexual relations were illegal in quite a few states - so yeah - the comparison to slavery does hold up.

If you don't want to be called a bigot then stay out of other people's lives and bedrooms when they're not hurting anyone.

i think its funny that everyone is arguing as if gays are persecuted because they cant have a name "marriage", yet none respond to my suggestion that civil unions have the same exzact rights as marriage...how would that be persecution...

I know what you will say, separarte is inherently unequal which you know is bunk since that applies to facilites like schools and their staff...not names...if tyhat were true we would nto call men and women different names...

now instead of attempting to argue their case, all "marriage equality" proponents have decided that anyone who wishes to keep the definition of marriage from the last 2000 years plus is somehow doing it out of hate...we are all bigots now...(name calling...what you do when logic fails you)

gays are not persectued like racial persecution and its offensive that they believe there is any similarity!

its funny liberals dont mind goverment intrusion into education, healthcare and almost every other facet but here its all about idividuals rights...

in the end, I dont have once ounce of hate towards anybody...but I do believe that marriage is intended to be the building block of family and society meaning it does relate to procreation and always has...this is not about equality but a bare attempt to take the family out of "family". Apparently, based upon the vote, I am not the only one who thinks so, so I guess gays should stay out of Maine since its a majority of bigots!

estanson wrote:

i think its funny that everyone is arguing as if gays are persecuted because they cant have a name "marriage", yet none respond to my suggestion that civil unions have the same exzact rights as marriage...how would that be persecution...
I know what you will say, separarte is inherently unequal which you know is bunk since that applies to facilites like schools and their staff...not names...if tyhat were true we would nto call men and women different names...
now instead of attempting to argue their case, all "marriage equality" proponents have decided that anyone who wishes to keep the definition of marriage from the last 2000 years plus is somehow doing it out of hate...we are all bigots now...(name calling...what you do when logic fails you)
gays are not persectued like racial persecution and its offensive that they believe there is any similarity!
its funny liberals dont mind goverment intrusion into education, healthcare and almost every other facet but here its all about idividuals rights...
in the end, I dont have once ounce of hate towards anybody...but I do believe that marriage is intended to be the building block of family and society meaning it does relate to procreation and always has...this is not about equality but a bare attempt to take the family out of "family". Apparently, based upon the vote, I am not the only one who thinks so, so I guess gays should stay out of Maine since its a majority of bigots!

With a comment like - "gays should stay out of Maine since it's a majority of bigots" - I think that people who want to stay out of people's bedrooms can rest their case. Oh and of course you've added the "necessary" liberal comment.
Have you ever given any thought to the fact that quite a few of us married our heterosexual partners - not to procreate - but because we loved them and wanted to be together. When we got married 29 years ago - we didn't say - Oh - let's get married so we can procreate.

2,000 years of anything doesn't always make it right - people and ideas evolve all the time - that's what being human is all about.

Since the vote in Maine had 47% in favor the time is coming when the bigoted dinosaurs hiding behind "tradition" will be in the minority. And that will be a good thing.

BLocal wrote:

<quoted text>

Have you ever given any thought to the fact that quite a few of us married our heterosexual partners - not to procreate - but because we loved them and wanted to be together. When we got married 29 years ago - we didn't say - Oh - let's get married so we can procreate.
2,000 years of anything doesn't always make it right - people and ideas evolve all the time - that's what being human is all about.
Since the vote in Maine had 47% in favor the time is coming when the bigoted dinosaurs hiding behind "tradition" will be in the minority. And that will be a good thing.

I notice you respond to me but not my question of why a civil union with exactly the same rights is unacceptable?

i think marriage is about procreation...and that you think falsely that we have "evolved" from that... most marry to have kids, you are trying to make the exception into the rule by taking that part of the relationship out...

while you misread sarcasm...I have no angst whatsoever...I am being defensive because I am being told that what we have known forever is now wrong (against my natural intuition) because YOU say so...

Here's a wacky but on point analogy...take a baseball club...exclusive to those who like the sport basball...but say more men like baseball than women, so the club would become majority men....well that looks bad so we must add women, but say those women like to watch the way the players look in tight pants, but dont like the sport...soon enough the club becomes popular for looking at men in pants...now why would I want to stay a member of that club...the new joiners have changed the club so they can be involved (telling me all the while baseball is more about watching men in pants than sport) and now I belong to a club that thinks watching men in tight pants is better than baseball!
I know its a silly analogy but the point is there...

you've taken something that has existed forever and changed it to suit YOUR belief in spite of all others beliefs...when the simple and unselfish thing to do on your part wopuld be to make a civil union into all that YOU think marirage is legally and culturally...

estanson wrote:

<quoted text>
I notice you respond to me but not my question of why a civil union with exactly the same rights is unacceptable?
i think marriage is about procreation...and that you think falsely that we have "evolved" from that... most marry to have kids, you are trying to make the exception into the rule by taking that part of the relationship out...
while you misread sarcasm...I have no angst whatsoever...I am being defensive because I am being told that what we have known forever is now wrong (against my natural intuition) because YOU say so...
Here's a wacky but on point analogy...take a baseball club...exclusive to those who like the sport basball...but say more men like baseball than women, so the club would become majority men....well that looks bad so we must add women, but say those women like to watch the way the players look in tight pants, but dont like the sport...soon enough the club becomes popular for looking at men in pants...now why would I want to stay a member of that club...the new joiners have changed the club so they can be involved (telling me all the while baseball is more about watching men in pants than sport) and now I belong to a club that thinks watching men in tight pants is better than baseball!
I know its a silly analogy but the point is there...
you've taken something that has existed forever and changed it to suit YOUR belief in spite of all others beliefs...when the simple and unselfish thing to do on your part wopuld be to make a civil union into all that YOU think marirage is legally and culturally...

So by your logic, women beyond reproductive age should be prohibited from marrying, as well as any adults with fertility problems;

Couples who pass reproductive age without having kids should have their marriage licenses revoked and be issued a civil union instead.

Sorry for the overt sarcasm, but it's just so easy to laugh at someone with such backward viewpoints like 'marriage is only or procreation' or 'whatever has existed for 1000 years must be right.' You're priceless!

New Clear Waste wrote:

<quoted text>
Pardon me, I don't mean to engage in name-calling, but you have just exposed yourself as a gay-bashing bigot.
You should ask yourself what issues you have that make you hate your fellow Americans and want to deprive them of the same rights that you enjoy. Is that christian?

LIAR! You are a liar liar pants on fire!!! When haven't you called someone a name? Now go to confession and say your Hail Mary!

New Clear Waste wrote:

<quoted text>
So by your logic, women beyond reproductive age should be prohibited from marrying, as well as any adults with fertility problems;

again, you are turning an exception into the rule...
AGAIN...if civil unions had the same exact rights as married couples...why isnt that acceptable?
your laughable because you wont answer like everyone else...just condemn other people's 1000 year old beliefs while demanding everyone accept your new one...you are the intolerant one!

Wow, it's got to be rough to be perfect in your own mind. In the real world, mom and dad make baby thus a family is born... anything else is just odd..

Render unto God what is Gods and unto Caesar what is Caesars.

Steve wrote:

Wow, it's got to be rough to be perfect in your own mind. In the real world, mom and dad make baby thus a family is born... anything else is just odd..

Wow.

So, you don't think that any couple with adopted children can be a real family?

No couple without children can be a family?

And you actually believe that any opposite sex couple who have sex and create a baby actually are "family"?

You have some odd standards.

estanson wrote:

<quoted text>
again, you are turning an exception into the rule...
AGAIN...if civil unions had the same exact rights as married couples...why isnt that acceptable?
your laughable because you wont answer like everyone else...just condemn other people's 1000 year old beliefs while demanding everyone accept your new one...you are the intolerant one!

When has separate ever been equal?

If a civil union would hold ALL of the same benefits, protections, and societal recognition of marriage, why would another name be necessary?

Hmmm, perhaps because it would still be the lesser instution--a way to say that some folks relationships just aren't worthy of the word Marriage.

And that, by definition, shows that the two institutions would never be equal.

Tamarac wrote:

Now go to confession and say your Hail Mary!

Haha! How about abra cadabra? Or hocus pocus?

-NCW

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
When has separate ever been equal?
If a civil union would hold ALL of the same benefits, protections, and societal recognition of marriage, why would another name be necessary?
Hmmm, perhaps because it would still be the lesser instution--a way to say that some folks relationships just aren't worthy of the word Marriage.
And that, by definition, shows that the two institutions would never be equal.

no, it shows that CU's and marriage are not and will never be the same...
like MEN and WOMEN...
like young and old...
like northerner and southerner
like easterner or westerner...
they are names to denote different things...they are no less equal due to their difference...
are you trying to say there is no difference between a man and a woman? are you arguing that one is better than the other...or take apple and orange..is one inferior?

and is one men and one woman together the same as two men or two women?
now THAT would be odd....

now opening a can of workms...do you belive that a family with both a mother and father is not optimum?Please sdpare me the comparison of bad hetero couples with good same sex...all things being equal isnt the presence of FEMALE AND MALE preferable...the "new belief" that the answert to this is no is just ridiculous...

you are close though...its not about equality but normalization......if it has the same name...CU's can feel normal, but the name wont help! it will ALWAYS be modified to add same sex because it is different...like if you needed to call apples and oranges the same name...we would have to call one...an orange colored apple...

New Clear Waste wrote:

Gay couples raise their children. Get used to it. If you really did have gay friends, you would know that. There are different ways that gay couples get children, but they have them, and there is nothing you can do about it. And those children deserve a married household as much as anyone.
Your diatribe against non-biological parenting is absurd; it attacks adoption and step-parenting as well as IV fertilization. Who do you think you are?!
If you enjoy your hetero marriage, great - continue doing so. Other people's marriages are none of your business, and they in no way impact yours. Stop being such a busy-body and telling others how to conduct their private lives, jeez!
Gay couples have been getting married for several years now, and no hetero couples are any less married because of it. That argument is so much mouth-farting.
As long as you continue this behavior, I will continue to consider you a non-female person; you do not deserve the name of "man".

well this is all about gay rights its not even about the marriage thing that much. gays just want more rights. i have gay friends, me and my wife,and some of them dont like what other gays are doing. here is a comment about children. do thay have a choice no,will thay get teased in school and play grounds and friends that thay have ,i bet you didnt even consider this. the other thing dont be downing cristians weve been at it since the beggingof time. this earth was built with faith and hard work. do you wont to dye in constant agornising pain in the eternal fire day after day pain just to have a moment of pleasure.its not that christians hate the individual thay dont like the gay acts,thats why me and others pray for you so you realise that god doesnt aprove of gays and we want to help you realise this,but in closing its up to you, i hope you pick the right one.

Merry Crispness wrote:

<quoted text>
Haha! How about abra cadabra? Or hocus pocus?
-NCW

I didn't ask for your opinion.

pgw595 wrote:

<quoted text>well this is all about gay rights its not even about the marriage thing that much. gays just want more rights. i have gay friends, me and my wife,and some of them dont like what other gays are doing. here is a comment about children. do thay have a choice no,will thay get teased in school and play grounds and friends that thay have ,i bet you didnt even consider this. the other thing dont be downing cristians weve been at it since the beggingof time. this earth was built with faith and hard work. do you wont to dye in constant agornising pain in the eternal fire day after day pain just to have a moment of pleasure.its not that christians hate the individual thay dont like the gay acts,thats why me and others pray for you so you realise that god doesnt aprove of gays and we want to help you realise this,but in closing its up to you, i hope you pick the right one.

Sad but true is that most children have lived with a parade of men or women sleeping in their homes. Few Children understand the commitment of marriage and family. They know nothing of a nuclear family, it is not a part of their world. So teasing is the least of any of these children's problems. The threat of strangers in and out of their lives is the bigger threat. How are our children to learn about love, commitment, conflict resolution, responsibility, family, stability, values, safe relationships and trust if we refuse to offer them the chance to be brough up with 2 adults who love each other and the children? What gender the adults are in that family is the least concern to these children.

I see the word bigot is being thrown around.

It's old. Really.