Maine Wedding hopes turn to dejection Voters defeat same-sex ma...

Obskeptic wrote:

<quoted text>
I think it was around ten or eleven. My neighbor, who was a couple years older then me was showing me his dad's playboys and i new right then I wanted to play with women who looked like that. It took some more years before I got a taste, but it was worth the wait, and continues to be amazing. My wife is really hot, and I can't believe how beautiful she is naked! Whether you believe we are a creation of God or not, man was engineered to be with women. It is obviously the natural law of human existence.

Well, around the same age I felt the same way you did about women.
Now the problem comes in, I don't know why I was different and why I was not interested in males, even though I had been told I should be. I have always wanted a wife, now I have one...except I can't marry her and take care of her(the 1500+ benefits from the state and federal government) the way you do your wife.
So where is equality between you and I in our lives?

aDoseOfCommonSense wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know how anyone in good conscience can deny this.

I can and I do. My beliefs are not the same and I don't put my Deity in a little box the way you folks do.

manwolf wrote:

<quoted text>
It's not a a matter of "conscience", you f***ing idiot, it has to do with sexual orientation, a conititutional element of our personalities.

There you go again. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

aDoseOfCommonSense wrote:

<quoted text>
If she married a woman THAT would have celebrated her deviant behavior. Did she marry a woman?

A 55-hour marriage isn't deviant? Isn't ANY marriage that ends in divorce deviant?

aDoseOfCommonSense wrote:

<quoted text>
There you go again. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

Whatever words I choose to express are nothing compared to the perverse BIGOTRY you've been parading here for days.

manwolf wrote:

<quoted text>
Whatever words I choose to express are nothing compared to the perverse BIGOTRY you've been parading here for days.

Look, I simply believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman, that's it. If that makes me a bigot, so be it. I have no problem with gays other than the marriage thing.

aDoseOfCommonSense wrote:

<quoted text>
Look, I simply believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman, that's it. If that makes me a bigot, so be it. I have no problem with gays other than the marriage thing.

Then you've got a big problem. You have nothing better to do with your life than concern yourself with other people's marriages? LOSER.

aDoseOfCommonSense wrote:

<quoted text>
A straight man was just fired from a Massachusetts Brookstone store for saying that he is against gay marriage. So much for freedom of speech.

The man in question was a manager who instructed his subordinate to stop discussing her upcoming marriage. That was harassment. Speech intended to threaten or intimidate is not protected.

manwolf wrote:

<quoted text>
That's not making a choice, idiot, that was recognizing what you already felt.

I don't recall calling you an idiot. I was trying to have an adult exchange of opinion, understanding that my opinion is mine, as is yours. I disagree with yours, but there was nothing in your statement that I could have used to determine your intellect and maturity level, until YOU called me an idiot.

Obskeptic wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't recall calling you an idiot. I was trying to have an adult exchange of opinion, understanding that my opinion is mine, as is yours. I disagree with yours, but there was nothing in your statement that I could have used to determine your intellect and maturity level, until YOU called me an idiot.

If you had intellect and maturity, you'd understand human sexuality better than a 10-year-old. Based on your views, you are either an idiot or a bigot. Maybe both. Which is it?

PDupont wrote:

<quoted text>
The man in question was a manager who instructed his subordinate to stop discussing her upcoming marriage. That was harassment. Speech intended to threaten or intimidate is not protected.

Was her upcoming marriage work related? Looks like she played the gay card and quite successfully.

aDoseOfCommonSense wrote:

<quoted text>
Was her upcoming marriage work related? Looks like she played the gay card and quite successfully.

I hear people referring to their (hetero-) marriages frequently while on the job, but no one harrasses them over it. Apparently, some people think they're entitled to bully gays. Yet another "special right" you're demanding?

Gryph wrote:

<quoted text>
So when do I get to vote on what civil rights you get to have?

No need, you already have the exact, identical civil rights that I do. All citizens share the same rights.

manwolf wrote:

<quoted text>
If you had intellect and maturity, you'd understand human sexuality better than a 10-year-old. Based on your views, you are either an idiot or a bigot. Maybe both. Which is it?

Why resort to name calling? You think that helps make your case? It doesn't.

Peppy wrote:

<quoted text>
Why resort to name calling? You think that helps make your case? It doesn't.

You think being an ignorant bigot hurling anti-gay epithets helps yours?

Peppy wrote:

<quoted text>
Why resort to name calling?

Aren't you the same idiot bigot who -- despite calling gays "meaningless" and "deviant", and calling for "genetic engineering" to "cure homosexuality" -- actually proclaimed yourself "not anti-gay"?

aDoseOfCommonSense wrote:

<quoted text>
Was her upcoming marriage work related? Looks like she played the gay card and quite successfully.

It’s totally irrelevant as to whether the conversation was work related or not. I would say that about three quarters of any conversations in the workplace are not job related. Would this manager have raised this issue if she was marrying a man? I don’t think so. He stated very clearly that he disapproved of her same sex relationship.

Peppy wrote:

<quoted text>
No need, you already have the exact, identical civil rights that I do. All citizens share the same rights.

Not really Peppy. Except in a handful of states gays and lesbians do not have the right to enter into a legal marriage to the partner of their choice. Even if they can legally marry in their state, that marriage is not recognized by other states or the federal government. This would seem to be in violation of article IV of the Constitution which reads.
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

manwolf wrote:

<quoted text>
Aren't you the same idiot bigot who -- despite calling gays "meaningless" and "deviant", and calling for "genetic engineering" to "cure homosexuality" -- actually proclaimed yourself "not anti-gay"?

I'm surprised you desire to have a single partner for life, ManWolf. Homosexuality is typically a very promiscuous lifestyle. Congratulations on finding the love of your life. I can only hope you are never in disagreement with your partner for your partner's sake though. Calling your spouse an idiot or a bigot, or any other classless insult does not bring you closer together. A friendly bit of advice from someone who has been happily married with two children for twenty three years now. I must say, as tolerant as you sound, I'm sure it will work out just fine for the both of you. Best of luck.

Obskeptic wrote: Homosexuality is typically a very promiscuous lifestyle.
__________

Using the same logic... heterosexuals are typically stupid.