Gay marriage vote fails in Maine

[quote name='JolietJake']Problem is though that religion is up to interpretation. Something i have a problem with personally. That's what you have fundamentalists on the extreme side and more moderates on the other.

It's all nonsense to me, but i do understand that not all people of a faith act the same way.[/QUOTE]

People always apply this reasoning to faith and religion though, but just about any criticism you can throw at religion can be almost equally applied to science and other viewpoints that are perceived as being rational and enlightened.

[quote name='JolietJake']Problem is though that science is up to interpretation. Something i have a problem with personally. That's what you have fundamentalists on the extreme side and more moderates on the other.

It's all nonsense to me, but i do understand that not all people of a science act the same way.[/QUOTE]

Remember, some of the most horrible atrocities our world have ever seen were committed by "enlightened" secular societies, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, etc.
 
[quote name='spmahn']People always apply this reasoning to faith and religion though, but just about any criticism you can throw at religion can be almost equally applied to science and other viewpoints that are perceived as being rational and enlightened.



Remember, some of the most horrible atrocities our world have ever seen were committed by "enlightened" secular societies, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, etc.[/QUOTE]

Just being secular or atheist doesn't imply you're going to go crazy with communism, fascism, or w/e. The same is partly true for religious people, but by labeling yourself Christian for example, you're pretty much purporting the bible, which does contain some hefty bigotry. It's often said that many of these regimes mimmicked religion.

There's no secular doctrine, thus the term secular.
 
I'm amazed how close-minded the so-called "open-minded" are. They have no problem labeling people idiots and extremists, if they have the opinion that a homosexual lifestyle, particularly a public one, is something that others may be offended by and don't want to see everywhere. Sexuality is something I'm fine with people hiding, I'd prefer it, straight or not.

Personally, I believe the choice (yes, choice) to be gay is something that doesn't need to be broadcast, and is not akin to a straight marriage or relationship. I understand that my stance is rare on this website, but clearly it's not rare among the voting public.

If someday it gets voted in as legal, that's fine. I'll disagree with the decision, but I'm not going to start calling the people that voted for it a bunch of extremists, wackos, or take shots at their intelligence.

Lame.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I'm amazed how close-minded the so-called "open-minded" are. They have no problem labeling people idiots and extremists, [/quote]

Not the most adult thing in the world to do, no, but complaining about it when you've got the law on your side leveraging your opinion, you really ought to understand you're winning no matter how nasty they verbally assault you. Might as well let them rail away, since you've got the upper hand currently.

But if that ever changes, remember how much you took offense to their attitude toward your mentality.

if they have the opinion that a homosexual lifestyle, particularly a public one, is something that others may be offended by and don't want to see everywhere.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, this strikes me as a "grow up" statement. What makes this any more acceptable than me not having an issue seeing a homosexual couple in public? Why is my tolerance somehow marginalized? Why not extend this to any couple that could be considered "alternative?"

Sexuality is something I'm fine with people hiding, I'd prefer it, straight or not.
Click to expand...

Shutting yourself away from the truth doesn't make it go away. Neither is assuming everyone else should do that at their own expense for your comfort.

Personally, I believe the choice (yes, choice) to be gay is something that doesn't need to be broadcast,
Click to expand...

"Open-minded."

Further, saying it's a choice means you need to back up your heterosexuality in the same manner. You don't get to relegate one thing as a choice - at that point, it ALL is a choice. Instinctual need to reproduce the species becomes negligible. I'm surprised this isn't brought up more often, since it's a clear and easy way to cut this argument to pieces.

and is not akin to a straight marriage or relationship.
Click to expand...

"Open-minded" homerun number two.

I understand that my stance is rare on this website, but clearly it's not rare among the voting public.
Click to expand...

I'd say it might be rare in this particular board, but not on this site in general.

If someday it gets voted in as legal, that's fine. I'll disagree with the decision, but I'm not going to start calling the people that voted for it a bunch of extremists, wackos, or take shots at their intelligence.
Click to expand...

You can disagree with it, but be prepared to back it up. And if your foundation is based on something other people think is ridiculous (i.e. religion), then they get all the right in the world to bicker about it.

Do they HAVE to resort to name calling and insults? No. Is that the best method for handling it? Also no. But it's difficult to get someone to understand why another human would denounce a group of people based on a book written thousands of years ago, which they believe to be infallible word from an omniscient deity. If they don't buy into it, then it's nothing to them, and at that point, the discussion turns to straight objective tenant.

Some people think aliens rape cows in the night. So it's not such a wide stretch to group such things under one umbrella. After all, why would one thing hold more worth than another?

It doesn't help that the Bible had clear examples of marriage not being sanctioned by the church, or that calling marriage a religious institution isn't separating church and state. Marriage, by all accounts, is between two people, and some of them don't think you need an ok from someone they can't be sure is real and can't be seen.

I think I got my point across, but eh.
 
[quote name='Strell']Not the most adult thing in the world to do, no, but complaining about it when you've got the law on your side leveraging your opinion, you really ought to understand you're winning no matter how nasty they verbally assault you. Might as well let them rail away, since you've got the upper hand currently.

But if that ever changes, remember how much you took offense to their attitude toward your mentality.

I'm sorry, this strikes me as a "grow up" statement. What makes this any more acceptable than me not having an issue seeing a homosexual couple in public? Why is my tolerance somehow marginalized? Why not extend this to any couple that could be considered "alternative?"


-Oh I'm quite confident that in my lifetime gay marriage will be legal on a national level. Whether I choose to be vocal in my disagreement with that now, or when it's legal, really has no bearing whatsover.



Shutting yourself away from the truth doesn't make it go away. Neither is assuming everyone else should do that at their own expense for your comfort.

-It's not an issue of shutting myself away from the truth, it's the fact that I don't find it appealing to see (public displays of affection, or people flaunting their sexuality, regardless of what it is), because I don't want to be taking my kids out to lunch, and get hit with the question, why are those two guys kissing? I thinks it's a societal shift towards a lack of decency, and I wish people would leave far more bedroom behavior in the bedroom.


"Open-minded."

Further, saying it's a choice means you need to back up your heterosexuality in the same manner. You don't get to relegate one thing as a choice - at that point, it ALL is a choice. Instinctual need to reproduce the species becomes negligible. I'm surprised this isn't brought up more often, since it's a clear and easy way to cut this argument to pieces.

-And here is where I 100% agree. But you're putting words in my mouth, I never said people don't choose to be straight. I could elect to be gay, but I choose not to. Everyone could choose to fool around with the same sex, it's just for a host of reasons, most people decide they won't. So what does that have to do with anything? To me personally, it's not morally proper to choose to be gay, so therefore if someone has an effeminate personality, but chooses to refrain from being gay, I'm rather impressed with their will power and would commend them for making a decision based on what they think is right.



"Open-minded" homerun number two.



I'd say it might be rare in this particular board, but not on this site in general.



You can disagree with it, but be prepared to back it up. And if your foundation is based on something other people think is ridiculous (i.e. religion), then they get all the right in the world to bicker about it.

Do they HAVE to resort to name calling and insults? No. Is that the best method for handling it? Also no. But it's difficult to get someone to understand why another human would denounce a group of people based on a book written thousands of years ago, which they believe to be infallible word from an omniscient deity. If they don't buy into it, then it's nothing to them, and at that point, the discussion turns to straight objective tenant.

Some people think aliens rape cows in the night. So it's not such a wide stretch to group such things under one umbrella. After all, why would one thing hold more worth than another?

It doesn't help that the Bible had clear examples of marriage not being sanctioned by the church, or that calling marriage a religious institution isn't separating church and state. Marriage, by all accounts, is between two people, and some of them don't think you need an ok from someone they can't be sure is real and can't be seen.

I think I got my point across, but eh.[/QUOTE]

-Then your last point is how people will say the Bible is antiquated, organized religion is a sham, blah, blah blah. I'm not a Christian so I'm not in a position to defend their position, but again, we're just looking at this with different opinions. The difference is, my gut reaction isn't to start talking down to people who believe differently than me.

My real point is that as people jump up and down and claim that anyone who doesn't embrace homosexuality is a bigot and homophobe, or some sort of backwater hillbilly, their close-mindedness is appalling, as they appeal for people to change some very deep rooted personal views. It's the hypocrisy of it that really bugs me.

Maybe it's as I get older, but I find myself far more often than not these days, trying to figure out why someone with an opinion thinks they need to talk down to others about it. Some of the people closest to me hold wildly differing world views. I enjoy that, and I'd never think to label them with a bunch of silly titles and names because they don't think exactly like me. Bleh. /rant.
 
[quote name='berzirk']-Then your last point is how people will say the Bible is antiquated, organized religion is a sham, blah, blah blah. [/quote]

Actually, no. It's merely that you can't ask people who don't subscribe to religious principle to understand that as reason for denying things to people. I wouldn't buy a Scientologist telling me I'm full of bad ribosomes, or whatever the hell it is they believe, were they to bring it up as an argumentative basis. I wouldn't start insulting them, but the point is that their attempt to win the argument is like hitting below the belt in a boxing match - it's unfair tactics and then claiming YOU HAVE TO RESPECT THEM BECAUSE I SAID SO.

The difference is, my gut reaction isn't to start talking down to people who believe differently than me.
Click to expand...

Blocking attempts for them to secure equal rights is a million times worse than a few FUs. I fail to see why they can't just tell you guys to have thicker skin about such things, given that none of your rights are being intruded upon.

My real point is that as people jump up and down and claim that anyone who doesn't embrace homosexuality is a bigot and homophobe, or some sort of backwater hillbilly, their close-mindedness is appalling, as they appeal for people to change some very deep rooted personal views. It's the hypocrisy of it that really bugs me.
Click to expand...

But you just said - a few times, in fact - that homosexuality in public bothers you and that you'd prefer it to be private. You don't even get that you're intruding upon others and then further asking them to be quiet for YOUR sake.

I'm just really surprised at the total lack of empathy. We are dealing with a group of people who have the law on their side and get to be granted certain rights and privilege versus another group who deals with intolerance daily, have less rights, and are actually told that their display of love is revolting/insulting/disallowed/terrible/damaging/etc. I'm amazed they take all of that denigration as well as they do.

I just find it so sad that a group would be told all their lives that one of the primary and central emotions of all human existence - love - should be totally absent from their lives simply because their hookups are identical. Some states have laws against it in the privacy of your own house. Seriously? We deny them marriage and then even private practice? What kind of message is that?

I mean, man. I think I'd lose it if, say, I was denied peanut butter all my life. But love? That's just horrifying.

Maybe it's as I get older, but I find myself far more often than not these days, trying to figure out why someone with an opinion thinks they need to talk down to others about it. Some of the people closest to me hold wildly differing world views. I enjoy that, and I'd never think to label them with a bunch of silly titles and names because they don't think exactly like me. Bleh. /rant.
Click to expand...

You say this as you just got done making posts about how homosexual activity bothers you for reasons little more than "I don't like it." You're already talking down to them just by having that opinion - it's built right into your argument.

You're already doing something you're chiding others for doing.
 
[quote name='spmahn']People always apply this reasoning to faith and religion though, but just about any criticism you can throw at religion can be almost equally applied to science and other viewpoints that are perceived as being rational and enlightened.



Remember, some of the most horrible atrocities our world have ever seen were committed by "enlightened" secular societies, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, etc.[/QUOTE]
Yeah and how many Muslims have the Catholics killed over the years? We can go back and forth over this.

I can criticize religion for believing in a concept that is logically flawed in every aspect, that some supreme being created everything.

Now here is the difference, if a scientific theory has a real flaw, it will be found and corrected some day, will any religion ever denounce that their god was their creator? No, because they will never see that as flawed.
 
[quote name='Strell']Actually, no. It's merely that you can't ask people who don't subscribe to religious principle to understand that as reason for denying things to people. I wouldn't buy a Scientologist telling me I'm full of bad ribosomes, or whatever the hell it is they believe, were they to bring it up as an argumentative basis. I wouldn't start insulting them, but the point is that their attempt to win the argument is like hitting below the belt in a boxing match - it's unfair tactics and then claiming YOU HAVE TO RESPECT THEM BECAUSE I SAID SO.



Blocking attempts for them to secure equal rights is a million times worse than a few FUs. I fail to see why they can't just tell you guys to have thicker skin about such things, given that none of your rights are being intruded upon.



But you just said - a few times, in fact - that homosexuality in public bothers you and that you'd prefer it to be private. You don't even get that you're intruding upon others and then further asking them to be quiet for YOUR sake.

I'm just really surprised at the total lack of empathy. We are dealing with a group of people who have the law on their side and get to be granted certain rights and privilege versus another group who deals with intolerance daily, have less rights, and are actually told that their display of love is revolting/insulting/disallowed/terrible/damaging/etc. I'm amazed they take all of that denigration as well as they do.

I just find it so sad that a group would be told all their lives that one of the primary and central emotions of all human existence - love - should be totally absent from their lives simply because their hookups are identical.

I mean, man. I think I'd lose it if, say, I was denied peanut butter all my life. But love? That's just horrifying.



You say this as you just got done making posts about how homosexual activity bothers you for reasons little more than "I don't like it." You're already talking down to them just by having that opinion - it's built right into your argument.

You're already doing something you're chiding others for doing.[/QUOTE]

K, I suck at multi-quoting, so I'll stick with my miserable formatting, but you're wrong in interpreting some of what I've said:

Blocking attempts for them to secure equal rights is a million times worse than a few FUs. I fail to see why they can't just tell you guys to have thicker skin about such things, given that none of your rights are being intruded upon.

--I've done no such thing. I haven't once voted for or against gay marriage. Also, who's to say that there isn't something in my lifestyle that causes my rights to be intruded upon? The fact of the matter is, there are. I shrug it off.

But you just said - a few times, in fact - that homosexuality in public bothers you and that you'd prefer it to be private. You don't even get that you're intruding upon others and then further asking them to be quiet for YOUR sake.

--Please re-read. I said public affection bothers me, and I wish sexuality would be a private issue that wasn't paraded everywhere. That's hetero or homosexuality. And yes, I'm in part asking them to be decent in public for my sake, children's sake, and the sake of people who don't need to see two people making out on a park bench.

I'm just really surprised at the total lack of empathy. We are dealing with a group of people who have the law on their side and get to be granted certain rights and privilege versus another group who deals with intolerance daily, have less rights, and are actually told that their display of love is revolting/insulting/disallowed/terrible/damaging/etc. I'm amazed they take all of that denigration as well as they do.

I just find it so sad that a group would be told all their lives that one of the primary and central emotions of all human existence - love - should be totally absent from their lives simply because their hookups are identical.

I mean, man. I think I'd lose it if, say, I was denied peanut butter all my life. But love? That's just horrifying.

--Mmm...I do love peanut butter, but the idea of marriage is that we have elected to define it as a man and woman. I'm obviously OK with that. I get how a gay person wouldn't, but I don't think this oppresses gay people. It gets back to my position that gay is a decision and not a trait like skin color or nationality. That's obviously a position that many are very opposed to, which is fine by me. There's little they're going to do to win me over to their position, there's little I'm going to do to win them over. As far-fetched as it sounds, I do wonder if any loopholes are created if the definition is no longer 1 man and 1 woman as marriage. Will it allow polygamy? Could some smart-ass try to marry his dog? I don't know the answer to these things, but I could see it as a possible issue.

I love male friends of mine, but it wouldn't cross my mind to hop in bed with them. Nothing prevents me from loving anybody. The only thing in place right now, would not allow a gay person to marry another gay person they love. For me, that's fine. My marriage certificate didn't all of the sudden mean I loved my wife.

Anyhoo, I'm opposed to gay marriage, you're in favor of it. I still like ya :p
 
I find it odd that you keep boldly asserting that homosexuality is a choice. Where is the proof of that?

I apologize if this comes off as me attacking you(I'm not), but you are sounding somewhat bisexual. Most straight and gay people I know couldn't just choose, even if they desired, to be sexually attracted to the opposite of what they have always and will continue to like.

And that slippery slope arguement is pretty obsolete. I bet there are some oldschool homophobic/racist folk out there that would argue that the prevalence of same-sex marriage in today's world is the result of accepting interracial marriage. The definition of marriage has a history of change for better or worse, so it's going to take more convincing than that. Would polygamy be so bad? Maybe so, maybe no, but it's not the topic at hand.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The choice theme is so common but so strange. There are many people who have experimented with the alternate lifestyle (be it straight or gay) and just couldn't do it - as in no attraction or being turned on.

berzirk - ask yourself if being attracted to someone (or some girl's cleavage) is a choice? You can control how you perceive cuteness of a female? Why is that woman beautiful to you?

The thought process you go through to answer these should raise some flags.

I'll concede that there may be some social aspect to "gayness" and also "straightness" (like peer pressure, media telling us what is sexy, or more opportunity to experiment) but if that it is there it is ridiculously insignificant to what is really going on. So much that trying to get a measure of it would be fruitless (and very frustrating).

EDIT
NOTE: I am not here to attack either. I am genuinely interested in hearing your opinion (and anyone else) on these questions.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Also, who's to say that there isn't something in my lifestyle that causes my rights to be intruded upon? The fact of the matter is, there are. I shrug it off.[/quote]

That's a call for examples if I've ever heard one.

I said public affection bothers me, and I wish sexuality would be a private issue that wasn't paraded everywhere. That's hetero or homosexuality.
Click to expand...

Changing your argument, but I guess that's better than just being anti-homosexuality. It's really not but I'm starting to see I'm getting nowhere because you continue to hide behind this "I'm taking the off hand approach which makes me the nice guy in all of this!" approach, rather than owning up to the fact that your intolerance hurts people.

And yes, I'm in part asking them to be decent in public for my sake, children's sake, and the sake of people who don't need to see two people making out on a park bench.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

the idea of marriage is that we have elected to define it as a man and woman.
Click to expand...

Primarily due to people basing this decision on religious principles for a practice that A) is performed by sanctioned officials and B) never started out as a religious institution. That's why it's so ridiculous to claim homosexual rights are void, because you have to pull in governmental backing in order to enforce something that is supposed to be separated from all state politics.

I don't think this oppresses gay people.
Click to expand...

Pretty easy to say such things when they aren't leveraged against you. It also shows a startling lack of empathy on your part, assuming that if things are ok for and with you, then it should be for them, because gosh, like, they bring it upon themselves, right?

It gets back to my position that gay is a decision and not a trait like skin color or nationality. That's obviously a position that many are very opposed to, which is fine by me.
Click to expand...

So your heterosexuality is a choice then?

I do wonder if any loopholes are created if the definition is no longer 1 man and 1 woman as marriage.
Click to expand...

Only a portion of the public believes this, and thus it could change in the future. What then?

Will it allow polygamy? Could some smart-ass try to marry his dog? I don't know the answer to these things, but I could see it as a possible issue.
Click to expand...

Slippery slope is a fallacy. Might as well argue homosexuals marrying will cause volcanoes to erupt.

The only thing in place right now, would not allow a gay person to marry another gay person they love. For me, that's fine. My marriage certificate didn't all of the sudden mean I loved my wife.
Click to expand...

But you have the right, which grants you certain priviledges in this country, which are then denied to others.

Again, you being ok with this situation speaks volumes, because you are not only saying you don't care for them to have equal rights, but you parade your own above them. And then you turn around and whine when one of them calls you intolerant.

That's not only having your cake and eating it too, it's piling on a pie and ice cream and THEN making people watch you.

Edit: Ok look. I know I probably can't change your mind on this subject. I can live with that. But I can't live with poor arguments that don't hold much water unless they are being discussed with like-minded individuals. Even then, I can back off and say it's a personal thing. But it's just really difficult for me to stand by and look at such things propagate in a community that - simply due to size - can start to affect those outside and around their group, especially when the primary catalyst is due to something not universally agreed upon. Which is to say, "we don't like gays and we win because there's more of us saying it than you arguing against it."

I think marriage - as an act - isn't religious given its history (and ten minutes worth of research will show this as well). And I think laws defining it that are skewed in the favor of one group is terrible, especially when it starts granting people tax breaks and other privileges. And I think it's really terrible that the group in control shows a not only complete disregard, but then complains when the dog in the corner finally snaps at them a few times. You have won, and will continue to win for another generation at the least. Complaining about it when your perspective is still the one in charge just really makes my head hurt. It's no different than bullies in high school going without punishment because they happen to be on the football team.

So, in the end, I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm asking you to examine what you've said, thought, and argued, and hopefully begin to understand that it's not nearly as ironclad as you'd like to think it is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I find it odd that you keep boldly asserting that homosexuality is a choice. Where is the proof of that?
Click to expand...

The jury is still out on this one. There has been a lot of research abou what exactly causes someone to be gay or straight, but as of now its all been inconclusive. If the scientific community cant figure it out, then what hope do any of us have of making an educated judgement?

Within the scope of the gay marriage debate however, the homosexuality as a choice argument is just a red herring. It doesnt matter whether or not it's a choice, that doesnt change the debate at all.
 
[quote name='spmahn']The jury is still out on this one. There has been a lot of research abou what exactly causes someone to be gay or straight, but as of now its all been inconclusive. If the scientific community cant figure it out, then what hope do any of us have of making an educated judgement?

Within the scope of the gay marriage debate however, the homosexuality as a choice argument is just a red herring. It doesnt matter whether or not it's a choice, that doesnt change the debate at all.[/QUOTE]

It's especiallly difficult considering the social climate. Gay people are pressured to be straight, pansexual people to be bisexual, bisexual people pressured to be either gay or straight, and etc..

It's all confusing, and I do agree with your point to a degree, but I have a hard time believing many of my gay friends just freely chose to be gay. Especially considering their claims of numerous accounts of attempted conversion. Not to say gay=bad, but it seems as though it would present the most obstacles, given the state of the country's intolerance to say the least. After all it wasn't until this year that they were considered a protected class of people.
 
[quote name='berzirk']How many muslims do you actually know or have carried a personal conversation with, because every left-handed, lesbian, eskimo I've ever seen on TV seemed so illogical. I'm sure they all are.[/QUOTE]

I was comparing Christianity to Islam. I think both are stupid, but I would argue that Islam is worse because I find its dogma to be even more batshit insane than Christianity's. It was a reaction to the absolutely retarded "well some guy who just converted said his new religion is soooo cooool so I think you all should totally believe him cuz he's nonbiased and he obviously knows better," though I concede that I should have simply responded with "Oh, really? Someone that JUST converted would be more pleased with his new religion than his former? How surprising! Please enlighten us further!" Well, I would've tried to make it more entertaining. There's a better joke in there that I just don't care to think of. :(


Also, way2behomophobic, bro. With people like you around we can surely continue to oppress those whom we disagree with. That's the American way!
 
Jesus it's like I've fallen in to some sort of time loop here. I am not touching anything here. I'm-a let my favourite evangelical do all the work today.

The Associated Press reports:
SAN FRANCISCO — Stunned and angry, national left-handed leaders Wednesday blamed scare-mongering ads — and President Barack Obama's lack of engagement — for a bitter election setback in Maine that could alter the dynamics for both sides in the southpaw-franchise debate.
Conservatives, in contrast, celebrated Maine voters' rejection of a law that would have allowed left-handed people to vote, depicting it as a warning shot that should deter politicians in other states from pushing for sinister suffrage.
"Every time the citizens have voted on the rights of minorities, they have always sided with the majority," said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based Christian legal group. "Maine dramatically illustrates the will of the people, and politicians should wake up and listen."
Left-handed activists were frustrated that Obama, who insists he staunchly supports their overall civil rights agenda, didn't speak out forcefully in defense of Maine's voting law before Tuesday's referendum. The law was repealed in a vote of 53 percent to 47 percent.
"President Obama missed an opportunity to state his position against these discriminatory attacks with the clarity and moral imperative that would have helped in this close fight," said Evan Wolfson of the national advocacy group Freedom to Vote. "The anti-lefty forces are throwing millions of dollars into various unsubtle ads aimed at scaring people, so subtle statements from the White House are not enough."
The White House, asked about the criticism, had no immediate comment.
The left-handed voting debate is simmering in at least a half-dozen states where a bill is pending or where a court ruling or existing law is being eyed by conservatives for possible challenge.
Had Maine's law been upheld by voters, it would have become the sixth state to legalize voting rights for the left-handed — and the first to affirm it by popular vote. In Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Iowa, southpaw suffrage resulted from court decisions or legislation.
California is sure to be a major battleground over the next several years. Last year, conservatives succeeded in winning public approval of Proposition 8, which overturned a state court ruling allowing lefties to vote. Left-handed rights groups want to take the issue back to the voters but are divided on a timetable.
In the aftermath of the Maine vote, some California activists appealed to their supporters for money to help them put a measure on the 2010 ballot. Other activist leaders want to wait until 2012.
"It's never too early to go back to right a fundamental wrong," said Chaz Lowe of Yes! on Equality, who favors shooting for 2010. "A lot of people are angry, a lot of people are upset. It at least has the potential to be a mobilization for the grass roots."
Some California activists said the outcome in Maine strengthened their belief that it will fall to the U.S. Supreme Court — not to right-handed voters — to make the left-handed franchise legal. A federal lawsuit challenging Prop. 8 is scheduled to go to trial in January, the first step in a legal journey that is expected to reach the high court in a few years.
"The results in Maine underscore exactly why we are challenging California's left-handed voting ban," said Chad Griffin, president of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the Los Angeles group spearheading the lawsuit. "The U.S. Constitution guarantees equal rights to every American, and when those rights are violated, it is the role of our courts to protect us, regardless of what the polls say."
​
Meanwhile, Maine voters will return to the polls next month to consider another series of referenda regarding the privilege of rights for minority groups. Proposition 13 considers whether redheads might be allowed to own property, Prop. 42 would permit Mormons to obtain a driver's license. and Prop. 57 would overturn a court ruling allowing Libertarians to dine in public restaurants.
​
Click to expand...
 
berzirk just seems like one of those people who, for some reason, has little to no ability to examine himself or put himself in other people's shoes
 
Lets keep things simple. Why are fat, uglies, uneducated and borderline idiots allowed to get married but two men cant? People should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm themselves or anybody else. Two men or women having a piece of paper and the rights of marriage in state/govt law doesn't harm anybody.
 
[quote name='wildcpac']Two men or women having a piece of paper and the rights of marriage in state/govt law doesn't harm anybody.[/QUOTE]

Uh... erm... uh...
 
I still don't understand the American aversion to public affection. We literally make money hand over fist on the backs of scantily clad girls but two dudes kissing in a park? That's gross. What?

berzirk, you also said you were fine with denying people love and that a marriage certificate doesn't equal love. In these days, why would you marry someone you didn't love? It's like your some sort of robot that came from the 1950's.
 
[quote name='depascal22']In these days, why would you marry someone you didn't love?[/QUOTE]

Are you trying to make some oblique point or did you just not think about this question before you wrote it?
 
[quote name='Magus8472']Are you trying to make some oblique point or did you just not think about this question before you wrote it?[/QUOTE]

That's an honest question. You don't have to marry another person in this country. No one is forcing you. Sometimes money is involved, but I'd say the majority of marriages in this country have some level of love (or even lust).

Doesn't matter either way so let's drop it.

This is about people deciding that other people can't have the same rights because of personal or religious preference.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyone who disagrees with Gay Marriage to simply protect the sanctity that is marriage, I ask you: Why not just ban divorce?

it seems like an issue that always gets avoided. I wonder why? :whistle2:k
 
[quote name='lilboo']Anyone who disagrees with Gay Marriage to simply protect the sanctity that is marriage, I ask you: Why not just ban divorce?[/QUOTE]

It's a funny thing to bandy about, but the practical problems with a return to even fault-based divorce are fairly obvious to the point that abolition of civil divorce clearly becomes a terrible idea.

And hell, some churches do ban divorce.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']It's a funny thing to bandy about, but the practical problems with a return to even fault-based divorce are fairly obvious, I'd think.

And hell, some churches do ban divorce.[/QUOTE]

What are the practical problems? If the sanctity of marriage is important enough to deny gays, why can't two people come up with a reasonable explanation to divorce?

And who cares if a church bans something? They're voluntary associations.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']It's a funny thing to bandy about, but the practical problems with a return to even fault-based divorce are fairly obvious, I'd think.

And hell, some churches do ban divorce.[/QUOTE]

Well I mean, common sense clearly doesn't pay a role in any of this. Some of the points people are against gay marriage is that.. the bible says it's wrong and that having 2 men or 2 men marry, would go against what marriage meant; in the biblical sense. So, if you are going trying to protect this by doing something what the bible says, why not go even further? Divorce ruins what marriage is, not 2 men holding the term "married".

Another thing that is shoved in people's faces is that "gay marriage will be taught in schools!!". I don't understand? What exactly will they be teaching? I am 100% honest when I say I have no idea how to teach anyone about gay marriage.. or just GAYS in general. It's an extremely small topic. "There are people whom love the people of the same gender. These people are homosexuals".. :;ends topic::? I don't even know why a school would even teach that?

I went to a catholic school and I really didn't learn about marriage :rofl:. I mean when we learned about the sacraments, we touched on it. But that was it.

So, to anyone who is against gay marriage, what would they be "teaching" kids in school? I'm serious. Also, don't skip over the banning divorce question.
 
[quote name='depascal22']What are the practical problems? If the sanctity of marriage is important enough to deny gays, why can't two people come up with a reasonable explanation to divorce?[/QUOTE]

You'd be denying divorce in cases of adultery, abuse, an abandonment, and that's just the A's. There are enough people (read: women) in this country trapped in dangerous and unhappy unions without the imposition of a ridiculous roadblock designed to stick it to middle class religious conservatives who generally aren't the ones needing urgent divorces and populating battered women's shelters. The divorce ban is satirical for a reason, and to treat it as some legitimate policy proposal makes you seem naive at best.

EDIT: Even if you carve out exceptions for those you're just going to be left with the same fault-based divorce scheme which was so overrun with fraud in the past. And a solution for the denial of rights is not to deny other people other rights out of spite in order to satisfy some misguided idea of equity. There's a bible verse for that one, too.

[quote name='depascal22']And who cares if a church bans something? They're voluntary associations.[/QUOTE]

I only said that because people tend to have difficulty differentiating between civil and religious marriage to the point where I'm not always sure which they're referring to at any given point.

[quote name='lilboo']Well I mean, common sense clearly doesn't pay a role in any of this. Some of the points people are against gay marriage is that.. the bible says it's wrong and that having 2 men or 2 men marry, would go against what marriage meant; in the biblical sense. So, if you are going trying to protect this by doing something what the bible says, why not go even further? Divorce ruins what marriage is, not 2 men holding the term "married". [/QUOTE]

The bible isn't entirely keen on divorce either. And like I said, lots of churches ban it, so I'm not sure what the inconsistency is, at least vis-a-vis them.

[quote name='lilboo']Another thing that is shoved in people's faces is that "gay marriage will be taught in schools!!". I don't understand? What exactly will they be teaching? I am 100% honest when I say I have no idea how to teach anyone about gay marriage.. or just GAYS in general. It's an extremely small topic. "There are people whom love the people of the same gender. These people are homosexuals".. :;ends topic::? I don't even know why a school would even teach that?

I went to a catholic school and I really didn't learn about marriage :rofl:. I mean when we learned about the sacraments, we touched on it. But that was it.

So, to anyone who is against gay marriage, what would they be "teaching" kids in school? I'm serious. Also, don't skip over the banning divorce question.[/QUOTE]

The whole "they'll teach it in schools" bit is more about generalized fear over the normatization of homosexual marriage. Like you said, I don't think anyone expects there to be "marriage class" in school, but school is certainly one of the classical sources of values education. So, the fear is likely that kids will be "taught" that gay marriage is okay simply via exposure to it/acceptance of it among authority figures.
 
But how? How on earth during any class would the topic of gay marriage be brought up? It's like, they don't want kids to realize gay people exist?...oh, wait! :roll:
 
[quote name='lilboo']But how? How on earth during any class would the topic of gay marriage be brought up? It's like, they don't want kids to realize gay people exist?...oh, wait! :roll:[/QUOTE]

Insofar as schools are meant to be a primary source of "values" education, once acceptance of gay marriage becomes part of those "values," it will therefore be "taught" in schools without anyone having to mention it.

Honestly, focusing on schools is just a way to add a bit of "Won't someone think of the children!?!?!?!" hysteria into the mix. Opponents of gay marriage really just don't want it to be socially acceptable, and they see its bleeding into schools as some sort of necessary corollary to such acceptance.
 
I honestly think, lilboo, that people are more scared of being forced to confront what gay sex/love/physical relationships imply, and instead of growing up and simply relegating it to an alternative form of affection, they'd rather just say EW EW EW EW EW! and shake around like Glenn Beck. Instead of being mature, lots of people just choose to be weirded out by it.

This primarily stems into the whole "think of the children!" argument, which is one of the most ridiculous things to base ANY argument on.

Kids figure shit out, man. And sheltering them from the outside world in order to impose your own set of ideals, judgments, and perspectives just screws them up later. The stereotypical Catholic school girl who becomes a total slut in college and so forth.

But let's stop here, or else the conversation starts going off in a thousand different directions.

I'm mostly just saying that "gay marriage" to someone against it - in their eyes - is nothing but code for BUTTSECKSIN'S.

Remember, most of these people think lesbian porn is fuckIN' HOT, so their logic is special enough to ride the short bus.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Obviously you would still be offended. In general people aren't as hardline against it though, most people would make exceptions for rape, etc. at the very least, and most support Roe v Wade (even if they don't know what was in that decision, just that it "legalized abortion").

And by "free for all" I mean that they probably don't know what Roe v Wade actually said and think women are having third trimester abortions in the thousands every day for no reason or something. I don't mean that's everybody, but plenty are misinformed (probably on both sides anyway).[/QUOTE]

I don't think anybody thinks women have abortions "for no reason." Of course, yes, most people don't know what Roe v Wade did, other than they think it legalized abortion (it didn't really, a least partially; it just took the decision out of states' hands). In general, while a bare majority will tell you that they don't want to see Roe v Wade overturned, if people really understood what that would do I think a majority would agree it should be overturned, since that would merely return the decision to the states and not ban unborn baby-killing.

Sorry this is kind of OT at this point.
 
I think former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum has helped spread the message about gay marriage, and homosexual relationships in general. He really is an exceptional man, and we could all learn a thing or two from him.

I urge everyone to visit Rick Santorum's website and help spread his message:

www.spreadingsantorum.com
 
I watched Milk last night on HBO, man what a sad movie. Some of the shit that is said in it is just mind blowing.The saddest part though is that some people still believe that, decades after the fact.
 
[quote name='spmahn']
Within the scope of the gay marriage debate however, the homosexuality as a choice argument is just a red herring. It doesnt matter whether or not it's a choice, that doesnt change the debate at all.[/QUOTE]

I believe who a person is attracted to may or may not be a choice. I see arguments for both that are pretty valid.
It's how you act on it that is a choice. Sexuality, in it's expressed forms, is a choice - straight or gay. IMO, of course.

[quote name='lilboo']Anyone who disagrees with Gay Marriage to simply protect the sanctity that is marriage, I ask you: Why not just ban divorce?

it seems like an issue that always gets avoided. I wonder why? :whistle2:k[/QUOTE]

You could ban divorce. It wouldn't matter. People would still split up when their marriage stopped being "fun". Just like people will still pair up when it starts being "fun". It's the labels that are the semantics. Are gay people mad about the label of marriage or mad about the government 'perks' associated with it?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
You could ban divorce. It wouldn't matter. People would still split up when their marriage stopped being "fun". Just like people will still pair up when it starts being "fun". It's the labels that are the semantics. Are gay people mad about the label of marriage or mad about the government 'perks' associated with it?[/QUOTE]

I'm not very political and I'm not some angry lesbian whom has all the time in the world to protest everything, so the whole gay marriage thing--to me--just comes down to just being able to legally be with my BF.

Like you said.. we can ban divorce but people will still be together.
We can ban gay marriage, but gays are still going to live a married life together. I have been with my BF for 4 years, and living together for the last 3. We have a joint checking account, we fight about sex & money, and
 
[quote name='lilboo']Whenever this issue comes up it just baffles me about how, for the most part, it's all about the definition of a word. What if a state puts in for vote "Civil Unions for homosexuals: Exactly the same thing as marriage, but without using the word!". Would this pass? If NOT, why?[/QUOTE]

Washington State just did this earlier this week with their "Everything but Marriage" law, and it just *barely* passed. Not only are Christians and conservatives dead set on protecting the term "marriage", but they feel it necessary to protect all the benefits as well, even after their "sanctity of marriage" argument is no longer relevant. Because they're fucking assholes. Oh well, at least it passed!
 
Sure, with respect to the choice, really not interested in a same-sex relationship, but I can understand what appearances would make a person, male or female, attractive. Facial symmetry, among other things. So can I say as a completely straight person that Denzel Washington's a good looking guy? Sure. I think Eva Mendes is good looking too. I could choose to pursue a Denzel look alike, but I elect not to. If I were single, I'd pursue the hell out of an Eva Mendes look alike though! heh, so there it is, two options, I would elect to pursue the female, because to me, there are moral ramifications, and I would much rather be in a relationship with a woman than a man.

Like I said earlier, (and here I go opening a real can of worms) a common argument is, "well, God created the person gay, so you're claiming God made a mistake". Not at all. I'll acknowledge that someone may be created, or have a predisposition to being more effeminate, but there is nothing in their wiring that would require they have sex with a man. They would have to make that choice. I look at it as a moral test that someone would be under.

There are people that share some of my beliefs and genuinly despise gay people. I'm not that kind of person. I've got the few proverbial gay friends, and there's tons of really cool, good folks that choose to be gay. Again, the fact that they want to be with a guy, so be it. I just think that sexuality, and discussions about it, shouldn't be on daytime TV, or all over the place so that young kids are exposed to it before they learn their ABCs.

Anyhoo, there's my rant on choice in sexuality.
 
I wish you could too, lilboo.

I too did the same thing one day.

I sat down on the couch, with all my decorative pillows and a virgin Shirley Temple (I was only 16 at the time), and thought to myself "How can I use my life to fully undermine every core principle of this country, including its values system for social and familial constructs, and also blatantly showcase it in public?"

And then I realized I could only do this by being a foreign extremist of sorts, or to be gay.

And I didn't exactly have the proper skin tone for one of those things, leaving only the other.

So I turned into a foreign extremist.
 
[quote name='DarkSageRK']I was comparing Christianity to Islam. I think both are stupid, but I would argue that Islam is worse because I find its dogma to be even more batshit insane than Christianity's. It was a reaction to the absolutely retarded "well some guy who just converted said his new religion is soooo cooool so I think you all should totally believe him cuz he's nonbiased and he obviously knows better," though I concede that I should have simply responded with "Oh, really? Someone that JUST converted would be more pleased with his new religion than his former? How surprising! Please enlighten us further!" Well, I would've tried to make it more entertaining. There's a better joke in there that I just don't care to think of. :(


Also, way2behomophobic, bro. With people like you around we can surely continue to oppress those whom we disagree with. That's the American way![/QUOTE]

Charming. Please find where I've said oppress anybody. The big kids were having a civil conversation, please go back to the kid's table and compare your favorite boogers so we can continue to have an adult conversation.

[quote name='SpazX']berzirk just seems like one of those people who, for some reason, has little to no ability to examine himself or put himself in other people's shoes[/QUOTE]

heh, nothing could be further from the truth. I have more compassion for people under duress due to things they can't change. Race, nationality, age, etc. To me, sexuality doesn't fall under that category, so it would be like someone complaining about being too cold when they're wearing shorts and a TV shirt to go skiing.

[quote name='Strell']That's a call for examples if I've ever heard one.

-I'm part arab. Was walking through a parking lot once and some guy starts screaming, "Go back to your country, you're killing babies. Baby killer", and threatens to kill me. Cops show up, bruhaha. I'm apparently guilty of trying to fly while arab, which means I get any combination of additional security, interrogation, or other cause for delays because I chose to travel. People automatically make assumptions about my religion, culture, treatment of women, and a host of other things, just based on my appearance. It's a nuisance, but I don't plan on shooting up a mall any time soon in retribution. I just deal with it.



Changing your argument, but I guess that's better than just being anti-homosexuality. It's really not but I'm starting to see I'm getting nowhere because you continue to hide behind this "I'm taking the off hand approach which makes me the nice guy in all of this!" approach, rather than owning up to the fact that your intolerance hurts people.

-Yah, and that's fine. We both have our stances, and probably won't be convincing the other guy to come to our side. I'm 100% fine with that.



*sigh*



Primarily due to people basing this decision on religious principles for a practice that A) is performed by sanctioned officials and B) never started out as a religious institution. That's why it's so ridiculous to claim homosexual rights are void, because you have to pull in governmental backing in order to enforce something that is supposed to be separated from all state politics.

-There are plenty of issues which show glaring examples of the true lack of separation between church and state. I don't know enough about the creation of marriage to make an educated opinion on what the original intent of it was though.



Pretty easy to say such things when they aren't leveraged against you. It also shows a startling lack of empathy on your part, assuming that if things are ok for and with you, then it should be for them, because gosh, like, they bring it upon themselves, right?



So your heterosexuality is a choice then?

-Yes, absolutely. I could choose to be gay, I elect not to.



Only a portion of the public believes this, and thus it could change in the future. What then?



Slippery slope is a fallacy. Might as well argue homosexuals marrying will cause volcanoes to erupt.

-Again, I don't really know enough about marriage laws and how they would be impacted if it was no longer 1 man/1 woman to constitute a marriage.



But you have the right, which grants you certain priviledges in this country, which are then denied to others.

Again, you being ok with this situation speaks volumes, because you are not only saying you don't care for them to have equal rights, but you parade your own above them. And then you turn around and whine when one of them calls you intolerant.

That's not only having your cake and eating it too, it's piling on a pie and ice cream and THEN making people watch you.

-It gets back to the choice concept. If they don't like their treatment as a gay person, then don't be gay. Yah, it sounds mean, but I don't think (haven't really thought about it a lot) marriage is a basic human right. Our county actually pulled an interesting move. For a couple of weeks, gay marriage was allowed. The county felt like it could be a big problem because as expected it was short-lived, so what do they do with these small window marriages, so they just quit issuing marriage licenses to anybody. Fair, and removed them from having to play judge.

Edit: Ok look. I know I probably can't change your mind on this subject. I can live with that. But I can't live with poor arguments that don't hold much water unless they are being discussed with like-minded individuals. Even then, I can back off and say it's a personal thing. But it's just really difficult for me to stand by and look at such things propagate in a community that - simply due to size - can start to affect those outside and around their group, especially when the primary catalyst is due to something not universally agreed upon. Which is to say, "we don't like gays and we win because there's more of us saying it than you arguing against it."

I think marriage - as an act - isn't religious given its history (and ten minutes worth of research will show this as well). And I think laws defining it that are skewed in the favor of one group is terrible, especially when it starts granting people tax breaks and other privileges. And I think it's really terrible that the group in control shows a not only complete disregard, but then complains when the dog in the corner finally snaps at them a few times. You have won, and will continue to win for another generation at the least. Complaining about it when your perspective is still the one in charge just really makes my head hurt. It's no different than bullies in high school going without punishment because they happen to be on the football team.

So, in the end, I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm asking you to examine what you've said, thought, and argued, and hopefully begin to understand that it's not nearly as ironclad as you'd like to think it is.[/QUOTE]

-Dude, I think you're making good, rational arguments, and I appreciate that you have a different view on the whole thing than I do. But we just have different beliefs on this. I could use evidence and make comments that you don't think is true, and in turn you could do the same. Really my initial beef was that people were being so aggressive and rude just because they disagreed with the other opinion, which I thought was rather hypocritical considering the nature of the issue. I sincerely think you're probably a hell of a good guy.

Not sure I have a whole lot more to say on the topic, I'm quite obviously not in favor of supporting gay marriage, and think that sexuality does not need to be crammed down people's throats. If someone chooses to be gay or straight, keep it in the bedroom. That's where sexuality belongs.
 
Fo me that day was when I playing soccer in private school kicking some *ss when i saw a guy on the other team and just knew. That was the day i came out to myself.

Andd about marriage, I think these Christian groups that protest it are full or steaming stinking crap. There things is about protecting the sanity of marraige.

Why arent you doing that for the straight people the screw that to hell. Get married for 2 days then want a divorce. Why do you care if we get married? Its not affecting you, is it? People are just stupid.

I just hope this will get passed and become a thing of the past like, black civil rights and womens right. It just a matter of time before people come to their senses and let us have this one thing. Or is that to much to hope for.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']I'm with berzirk on this one (didn't see that coming), minus the whole "I got mah gay friendz" thing. I'll pass on that.[/QUOTE]

haa haa, pretty cliche, eh? I cringed when I wrote it.
 
So you're attracted to dudes berzirk? And the only difference you see is in morals?

Personally, I don't like men sexually. Or pickles. For the pickles I think it's vinegar, I don't like things that are vinegar-y. For the men it's probably the penis. And the lack of vagina and breasts.

Obviously anyone can choose to have sex with someone of the same sex, or an animal, tree, or hole in the ground. But that doesn't mean you're into it. I could have sex with a man, the mechanics would work, a hole is a hole, and it would get the job done, but that doesn't mean I have any desire to.

So my question to you berzirk: do you have desires to have sex with both men and women and choose only one, or do you have no desire to have sex with either and choose based on something else?
 
[quote name='berzirk']If someone chooses to be gay or straight, keep it in the bedroom. That's where sexuality belongs.[/QUOTE]
You'd find most people here agree with this statement. The problem is that there are legal benefits to being married. Intentionally withholding the ability to contract is not only immoral but in our hyper-capitalist view of the world, probably the most unAmerican thing imaginable.

How someone feels about teh gays or sexuality or whatever should not be a part of the equation of whether consenting adults can legally contract with each other. Period.
 
[quote name='SpazX']So you're attracted to dudes berzirk? And the only difference you see is in morals?

Personally, I don't like men sexually. Or pickles. For the pickles I think it's vinegar, I don't like things that are vinegar-y. For the men it's probably the penis. And the lack of vagina and breasts.

Obviously anyone can choose to have sex with someone of the same sex, or an animal, tree, or hole in the ground. But that doesn't mean you're into it. I could have sex with a man, the mechanics would work, a hole is a hole, and it would get the job done, but that doesn't mean I have any desire to.

So my question to you berzirk: do you have desires to have sex with both men and women and choose only one, or do you have no desire to have sex with either and choose based on something else?[/QUOTE]

Not sexually attracted to dudes. Sorry to disappoint. I can say with complete straightness though, that I understand the facial features of people, man or woman that would be considered handsome/pretty.

So no, I do not have the desire to have sex with a guy. If I did have the desire, I'd choose not act on it.

I have the desire to eat a bunch of really fatty, not good for me food. I choose not to...but I do like dill pickles. Sweet pickles...not so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top