Maine's referendum on gay marriage law is too close to call

Judged:

4

4

2

ActsOfBeauty wrote:

<quoted text>
We do? Oh, do tell.

Judged:

3

3

2

ADH wrote:

<quoted text>
Homosexuals do have the same rights, with the same restrictions, as everybody else. They have the right to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to due process in court, to vote, buy property, make contracts, and many other rights. What they don't have, and what they are after, is special rights and protections.
We all have these rights because we are human, not because of our behaviors. So, all behaviors and behaviors that go against our legal and moral traditions of "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", as the Declaration of Independence states, are not included in these rights.
Homosexuals have not been denied basic civil rights and are not being oppressed by society. They are seeking to force acceptance of a lifestyle that many people disagree with.
Homosexuals do not suffer from economic deprivation, political powerlessness and do not share an immutable characteristic like race, disability, etc. Therefore, they are not a true minority group.

Judged:

4

2

2

Rob wrote:

<quoted text>
You are absolutely wrong. Gays are not allowed to marry the one that they love. They aren't allowed to be next of kin for the one they love, thus they are excluded from the most important decisions and events of their partner's and their children's lives. A Christian God, if we must bring religion into this, would not approve of your exclusions of gays' right to equal representation under the law and neither would the founding documents. Just substitute Jew or Irishman for your above statements and you'll see how ignorant and bigoted you are.

Judged:

2

2

2

ADH wrote:

<quoted text>
Homosexuals do have the same rights, with the same restrictions, as everybody else. They have the right to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to due process in court, to vote, buy property, make contracts, and many other rights. What they don't have, and what they are after, is special rights and protections.
We all have these rights because we are human, not because of our behaviors. So, all behaviors and behaviors that go against our legal and moral traditions of "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", as the Declaration of Independence states, are not included in these rights.

Homosexuals have not been denied basic civil rights and are not being oppressed by society. They are seeking to force acceptance of a lifestyle that many people disagree with.

Homosexuals do not suffer from economic deprivation, political powerlessness and do not share an immutable characteristic like race, disability, etc. Therefore, they are not a true minority group.

Judged:

1

1

1

On The Contrary wrote:

<quoted text>
I get the feeling you don't approve of my lifestyle, that is very intolerant of you. Because I don't live my life like you, you classify me as a "sick, twisted person", interesting how that works, isn't it?
It's actually hilarious how much of a complete fraud you are- come on these discussion boards, saying "equality, equality", "accept me, aceept me" and when someone else challenges you or offers a differing view, you respond by calling that person sick and twisted.
Nice work, you feel good?
Hilarious.

Judged:

3

2

1

ADH wrote:

<quoted text>
Nobody is allowed to marry anyone they want to marry just because they love that person. You can't marry someone who's already married or a first cousin or a child. You have the same exact restrictions as everyone else.
As I said earlier, nothing prevents homosexuals from signing contracts. So, draw up a legal document listing your partner as next of kin. That's no more arduous than getting a marriage license. Have a will drawn up to ensure your partner inherits your estate. Heterosexual couples also have wills. If crazy old women can leave millions of dollars to their pets, I'm sure you can leave money to your partner.
I also don't understand why anyone who disagrees with gay marriage is automatically ignorant and bigoted. I understand the situation but I disagree that gay marriage is a good idea for society. I don't have hateful or angry feelings toward gay people. I know quite a few gay people and they're all fine people.
I do have a problem with the fact that members of the gay community want so desperately to force acceptance of their lives on others and think that changing the definition of what marriage really is will magically do that.

Judged:

2

2

1

Craig in OKC wrote:

<quoted text> Oh, you have me so wrong. I have always stood up for people having the right to their views, especially religous views. I think churches should have every right to decide who they will marry (as they already do). And my posts on Topix support the fact that I feel this way.
The difference in my disagreeing with some of those beliefs is that I don't try to take those rights to believe and practice them away. But, many people want to FORCE me to live my life by their beliefs.
I could care less, and even think it is their right, if somebody wants to hold any type of ritual they want in their religous beliefs. The only criteria I have is it cannot have any victims (such as a church here in Oklahoma that has allowed children to suffer and die because they won't get medical care). But, no victims, no foul.
What I hear over and over is that I am pushing my "lifestyle" on everybody else. I'm still not clear how that is happening. Am I forcing them to be gay? Nope. Am I forcing them to marry the same-sex? Nope. I am no more pushing my lifestyle than anybody else pushes their's. But, many can't see that.
As for my post above, I will call anybody out when I think they are being a hypocrite. And claiming to be moral without caring about other individuals is what this poster was doing. That's being hypocritical and I stand by my statements about him. But, he's very free to feel that way. I would never force him to show compassion to his fellow humans. I just think it's disgusting that he doesn't. But, I'm not looking to invalidate him, his views, his marriage etc.

Judged:

3

3

3

ADH wrote:

<quoted text>
That's your main problem. Marriage, by definition in our society and the Bible. is between a man and a woman. Your goal is not equal rights, but to fundamentally change the fabric of our society. Leave marriage alone.
...

Judged:

2

2

2

tired of whiners wrote:

<quoted text>
So, you don't live the way I feel is appropriate and I'm okay to call you sick, twisted and disgusting?
Also, anyone can plainly see you are, by far, the most hypocritical poster on this board, not even close.

Judged:

1

1

1

Madaman wrote:

<quoted text>
I certainly don't find the drive for homosexual rights a Peril, but it certainly seems like the Christian Right finds it a Great Peril to heterosexual marriages, Marriage as an Institution, our Morals, and the American Way of Life in general.

Judged:

1

1

1

Rob wrote:

<quoted text>
My God!

Rob wrote:

Your speech is full of condescension and implied hatred for people who love each other.

Rob wrote:

Why do you even give one iota what goes on behind closed doors?

Rob wrote:

I don't want to know what you or anyone else does as long as there is a mutually caring, adult relationship. You catholics, along with the other conservative religious nut bags around the world want everyone to adhere to your narrowly defined version of what "God" wants, whatever he/she/it might be.

Rob wrote:

That's how we got 911. I'm glad you feel that your direct connection to all that is morally right is infallible, or where would I go for entertainment?

Judged:

1

1

1

ADH wrote:

<quoted text>
Homosexuals do have the same rights, with the same restrictions, as everybody else. They have the right to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to due process in court, to vote, buy property, make contracts, and many other rights. What they don't have, and what they are after, is special rights and protections.
We all have these rights because we are human, not because of our behaviors. So, all behaviors and behaviors that go against our legal and moral traditions of "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", as the Declaration of Independence states, are not included in these rights.
Homosexuals have not been denied basic civil rights and are not being oppressed by society. They are seeking to force acceptance of a lifestyle that many people disagree with.
Homosexuals do not suffer from economic deprivation, political powerlessness and do not share an immutable characteristic like race, disability, etc. Therefore, they are not a true minority group.

Judged:

1

1

1

Rob wrote:

<quoted text>
You are absolutely wrong. Gays are not allowed to marry the one that they love. They aren't allowed to be next of kin for the one they love, thus they are excluded from the most important decisions and events of their partner's and their children's lives. A Christian God, if we must bring religion into this, would not approve of your exclusions of gays' right to equal representation under the law and neither would the founding documents. Just substitute Jew or Irishman for your above statements and you'll see how ignorant and bigoted you are.

Judged:

1

1

1

ActsOfBeauty wrote:

<quoted text>
Currently, gays cannot serve openly in our armed forces- whereas, heterosexuals can.

ActsOfBeauty wrote:

In many states, employers can fire an employee at will for simply being gay, or transgendered.

ActsOfBeauty wrote:

Reread your statement, please. You state that gays are not being denied civil rights, yet you also believe we are "seeking to force acceptance..." Why would we seek such a thing if we were not being denied basic rights?

ActsOfBeauty wrote:

We pay more in taxes, and being gay is inherent. Sexual orientation is not a choice, just ask any medical professional. And yes, we are a minority group- stop being dense.

Judged:

1

1

1

Craig in OKC wrote:

<quoted text> Way to take my post out of context. If you'll go back and re-read it, I was basically calling you out because you stated you were happy with your rights and you didn't have to prove anything. You implied with that statement that you didn't care about anybody else. I made no reference to your "chosen lifestyle".
And, if you'll also go back and re-read, I've answered questions from you - in depth. I've shared personal history with you - in depth. And, you basically just come back and say I'm wrong because you said so. So, I basically said there was no point in discussing with you.
I may have said you were wrong for trying to force ME to live by your beliefs - but I have never required you to change your beliefs or live your life according to mine.

Judged:

1

1

1

Rob wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm blaming conservative religious fruitcakes for 911, a category into which you fall. If you wanna be like al Qaeda or the Taliban that's your choice. The parallels are stark and frightening.

Rob wrote:

And the daughter rape statement is a perfect example of the escalatory rhetoric that conservative Christians use to spread poisonous lies about the minorities they inexplicably hate, given their supposed founder's philosophy of life.
Sinful ways are extremely subjective, Thomas, but you seem to think you have the corner on the universal definitions of sin. Another parallel with Islamic extremists. My God, Thomas, My god!

Judged:

1

1

1

Thomas F Schraad wrote:

<quoted text>
Marriage is defined as a union between man and a women.
If marriage is going to be redefined,and the homosexuals want to call their relationship a "marriage", why not the relationship between a brother and sister or between first cousins, or between to heterosexuals that just want to shack up, or between a son and a mother for "marriage benefits only", how about a marriage between a three some, forsome? etc., how about polygamy marriage,
See, Madaman, once you get away from what marriage is know as, it can get so watered down that it is meanlinless.
I can not see any benefit to the common good to call any of these senarios, a marriage.

Judged:

2

2

2

Madaman wrote:

<quoted text>
I have no dog in this fight -- I am a straight male, who just married a lovely lady and is enjoying connubial bliss. I tire of the illogical and sometimes bigoted rhetoric directed at my gay and lesbian friends. Here are the problems I have with your sentiments:
The definition of Marriage is subject to change, just as the definition of Voter changed with suffrage, and just as the definition of lunch counter customer changed with the Civil Rights Act. There is nothing intrinsic and unmalleable about the definition of Marriage. Don't forget how that changed from not allowing mixed-race marriages.
It is of no use to use the Bible as a source of authority here. There are Jewish and Christian churches who recognize and perform same-sex marriages, as well as many that do not. Since we live in a democracy -- not a theocracy -- there is no Christian equivalent of sharia law here. Thank God!
Frankly, I don't see how same-sex marriages will "...fundamentally change the fabric of our society." There are already thousands of same-sex couples living together, with some raising adopted children, right now. How will their obtaining the rights of next-of-kin, insurance benefits, and survivors' rights have a cataclysmic impact on our society? If the same-sex couple across the street or next door suddenly has a marriage certificate to hang on their wall -- how does that impact you or your neighborhood? They have been there for years, already doing what they do without causing any problems -- what about that would shift for the worse? How would you even know?
If a heterosexual couple moves in next door, does it make any difference to the neighborhood if they are married, or simply co-habiting? How would you know unless you asked them and they chose to discuss it with you? It is really none of your business. Why does it suddenly become your business if it is a same-sex couple? Why is your approval suddenly required for them to enjoy their lives together?
My request of all those who oppose same-sex marriage: Don't enter into one. Mind your own business. Butt out! Isn't that what true Conservatism is all about?

Judged:

1

1

1

Madaman wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, pleez! This is a textbook example of the logical fallacy titled Reductio ad Absurdum. Gosh, when we refined the definition of American Voter to include women, we didn't slide down that so-called slippery slope and enfranchise children, domestic animals, and hummingbirds! We simply included women. Period.
We can and will do it again. We will redefine Marriage to include those of the same-sex orientation, and will find the strength not to include immediate family, pets, and livestock. You will notice that proponents are NOT calling for these inclusions -- only the opponents continue to raise this fallacious point.
You know better, Thomas!

ZenBirdist wrote:

<quoted text>
Very well said, all of it.