Gay Marriage in Maine

[uncon]

Today, Maine goes to vote.

Four months ago same sex marriage was declared legal. An opposing group has forced a vote to repeal it.

If the law is upheld, Maine will be only the sixth state to ratify this. Naturally the forces behind Prop 8 have been channeling everything they have got down there. I also note that the Huffington Post has swung it's support behind the existing law.

So what do you think the result will be?

[Barry]

Same sex marriage is an oxymoron.
Marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Why can't they think of another word, such as "homosexual partnership".

Knowing the path America is taking, I feel sure that it will receive approval.

[DTE]

Same sex marriage is an oxymoron.
Marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Why can't they think of another word, such as "homosexual partnership".

Knowing the path America is taking, I feel sure that it will receive approval.

Why does two men getting married undermine anyone else's marriage? Don't get into that "its a religious ceremony" crap, because people get married in registry offices and in Vegas by Elvis and thats allowed to be called marriage. I don't see why its any different for two men, or two women, two catipillars, heteros don't own the word.

[Tantal]

Why does two men getting married undermine anyone else's marriage? Don't get into that "its a religious ceremony" crap, because people get married in registry offices and in Vegas by Elvis and thats allowed to be called marriage.

Because it IS a religious ceremony. If not for the religious element, it's simply a civil contract agreeing to cohabitate and share property. Marriage was created BY GOD for the good of mankind. God would never recognise a 'marriage' between two people of the same sex, regardless of what the State thinks. Then again, most lefties think that the State IS God, so State approval is all they want anyway. Further, this actually has absolutely nothing to do with love. This is all about 'benefits'. Tax breaks, insurance, pensions, etc.

I don't see why its any different for two men, or two women, two catipillars, heteros don't own the word.

Because, once Pandora's Box is opened, it'll eventually be a man and a caterpillar, a man, a woman AND a caterpillar, etc. Where does it stop?

Back to the original question, yes, I think that Maine will eventually allow same-sex cohabitation, buggery, and combining of property. The only problem I have is that eventually the Feds are going to try to force the same values on states like mine that don't want it.

[DTE]

Ah Tantal, its been a while....

Because it IS a religious ceremony. If not for the religious element, it's simply a civil contract agreeing to cohabitate and share property.

So what about civil ceremonys? (still called marriage BTW) between a man and a woman. Should they not be allowed too? Maybe we coud pass legislation to call them "Heathen joining rituals", would that be better? An extention of that logic suggests that marriage should only be allowed to those of the JudeoChristian faith, surely no one else qualifies right? I mean, it wasn't their God that created it was it?

Marriage was created BY GOD for the good of mankind. God would never recognise a 'marriage' between two people of the same sex, regardless of what the State thinks. Then again, most lefties think that the State IS God, so State approval is all they want anyway. Further, this actually has absolutely nothing to do with love. This is all about 'benefits'. Tax breaks, insurance, pensions, etc. Because, once Pandora's Box is opened, it'll eventually be a man and a caterpillar, a man, a woman AND a caterpillar, etc. Where does it stop?

Actually most lefties are for the seperation of God and State completely, a concept most right wingers have trouble with. Why should two gays be denied the tax breaks available to heterosexual couples? Because their partnership is less valid? Seems to me you're the one obsessed with the state's approval, scared of the fact that allowing gay people the same rights as straight people may somehow endorse the lifestyle..."how dare we suggest gays could be state approved, then everyone'll be doing it".

Back to the original question, yes, I think that Maine will eventually allow same-sex cohabitation, buggery, and combining of property. The only problem I have is that eventually the Feds are going to try to force the same values on states like mine that don't want it.

I ask again, how does a gay couple affect in any way whatsoever the marriage of anyone else? Why do the right think their marriages will somehow be weakened by allowing gays to use the word? Am I missing something here? How is that their problem?

[Tantal]

Maybe we coud pass legislation to call them "Heathen joining rituals", would that be better?

That seems like an apt description. Done.

An extention of that logic suggests that marriage should only be allowed to those of the JudeoChristian faith, surely no one else qualifies right? I mean, it wasn't their God that created it was it?

Well, the Muslims would qualify. Even though Mohammed was a pedophlie and likely schizophrenic, the religion itself still, theoretically, stems from the same God, the God of Abraham. As for the other heathens, they can stick with the one man, one woman principle. That way, when they do find God, they'll be a step ahead of the game.

Actually most lefties are for the seperation of God and State completely

I'll remember that the next time the lefties come at me from the "Render unto Obama what is Obama's angle."

Why should two gays be denied the tax breaks available to heterosexual couples?

Here's an idea....tax breaks for EVERYBODY!

Because their partnership is less valid?

Yes.

Seems to me you're the one obsessed with the state's approval, scared of the fact that allowing gay people the same rights as straight people may somehow endorse the lifestyle.

The state has already endorsed the lifestyle. The world is slowly turning into a moral cesspool, this being just one of the issues involved.

I ask again, how does a gay couple affect in any way whatsoever the marriage of anyone else? Why do the right think their marriages will somehow be weakened by allowing gays to use the word?

I think that this is all an attempt to undermine the institutions that are the foundations of our societies. The two most important of those institutions being the family (marriage) and the church. If the left can pervert those things, they can effectively undo our societies and rebuild them in their leftist image.....which I think is their current plan.

[DTE]

I'll reply to these points using the same level of depth and insight as they were originally written with.

That seems like an apt description. Done.

Well, the Muslims would qualify. Even though Mohammed was a pedophlie and likely schizophrenic, the religion itself still, theoretically, stems from the same God, the God of Abraham.

As for the other heathens, they can stick with the one man, one woman principle. That way, when they do find God, they'll be a step ahead of the game.

I'll remember that the next time the lefties come at me from the "Render unto Obama what is Obama's angle." Here's an idea....tax breaks for EVERYBODY! Yes. The state has already endorsed the lifestyle. The world is slowly turning into a moral cesspool, this being just one of the issues involved.

I think that this is all an attempt to undermine the institutions that are the foundations of our societies. The two most important of those institutions being the family (marriage) and the church. If the left can pervert those things, they can effectively undo our societies and rebuild them in their leftist image.....which I think is their current plan.

There. So in answer to my previous post then, the reason two gays getting married undermines straight marriage is because 'its all part of giant leftist conspiracy'. Glad we cleared that one up.

[Barry]

If Doctor the Evidence had replied to one of my posts in that fashion, I would consider it a surrender.
Good points, well made, Tantal, and certainly not off topic.

It is the bastardisation of the true meaning of marriage which I dislike immensely.

Homosexual unions or partnerships are not marriages in the accepted sense of the word.
They are a serious perversion of marriage.

[Kiwi 1691]

If Doctor the Evidence had replied to one of my posts in that fashion, I would consider it a surrender.
Good points, well made, Tantal, and certainly not off topic.

It is the bastardisation of the true meaning of marriage which I dislike immensely.

Homosexual unions or partnerships are not marriages in the accepted sense of the word.
They are a serious perversion of marriage.

marriage is the legal union between to consenting adults. Whether they be straight or gay.

Your arguments show just how archaic religion is.

[DTE]

If Doctor the Evidence had replied to one of my posts in that fashion, I would consider it a surrender.

Yeah I guess you could interpret it like that I suppose. You'd be wrong of course. But then again, you and Tantal have been wrong about everything else on this thread so far, so its not exactly suprising.

Good points, well made, Tantal, and certainly not off topic.

Which one was the good point? The one about marriage is only for Jews Christians and Muslims, was it that one? Or the one about the perversion of society and the moral cesspool?

It is the bastardisation of the true meaning of marriage which I dislike immensely.

Is divorce not equally as valid a "bastardisation" of marriage? I mean thats against God's will as well right? Or is it okay because your feelings on divorce aren't based on misplaced moral certainty over gay people being perverted?

Homosexual unions or partnerships are not marriages in the accepted sense of the word.

They are in Maine. And in more places year by year. Wooh scary isn't it?

They are a serious perversion of marriage.

You're a serious perversion of logic. Now please, will someone, anyone, please answer my question...why does two gay people using the word marriage demean, belittle, weaken or in any way affect the sanctity of the marriage between two straight people?

[JacquesMagique]

Always amuses me how 'libertarians', who seem so obsessed with notgiving the state an inch when it comes to gun control and tax,are so quick to impose their moral absolutism on everyone who the deem 'morally inferior'.

[Tantal]

Always amuses me how 'libertarians', who seem so obsessed with notgiving the state an inch when it comes to gun control and tax,are so quick to impose their moral absolutism on everyone who the deem 'morally inferior'.

I don't really care if the pillow-biters want to have their Heathen Joining Ritual as DTE suggested. Since I'm all-for private property rights, which is what we're really talking about here (insurance, pensions, etc.), let them join their property. What we're discussing here is 'marriage'. Regardless of what the State calls it, it is still an abomination in the eyes of God and, thus, NOT a marriage.

[Tantal]

marriage is the legal union between to consenting adults. Whether they be straight or gay.

No, a marriage is a covenant between a consenting man and a consenting woman that is ordained by God. What you're referring to is simply a civil contract recognized by the state and the courts.

Your arguments show just how archaic religion is.

Then why are the gays so hell bent on partaking in such an archaic religious ceremony?

[JacquesMagique]

I don't really care if the pillow-biters want to have their Heathen Joining Ritual as DTE suggested. Since I'm all-for private property rights, which is what we're really talking about here (insurance, pensions, etc.), let them join their property. What we're discussing here is 'marriage'. Regardless of what the State calls it, it is still an abomination in the eyes of God and, thus, NOT a marriage.

But what I'm saying is, do you really disagree with the state legalizing it?

[Tantal]

But what I'm saying is, do you really disagree with the state legalizing it?

Acually, I'm torn on the issue. The libertarian in me says 'who cares'. Although, it would still be a 'civil union', not a 'marriage'. The conservative in me sees the horrible damage that it could do. For instance, once these couples are 'married', what about the kids? Surely, you couldn't discriminate against a same-sex couple for the purposes of adoption, could you? No. So then we'd see same-sex parents adopting kids, which is a huge mistake. I know, you're going to get all preachy with the "as long as they love each other and love the kid, blah, blah, blah" crap, but there's a reason we were designed the way we were. Mothers and fathers bring completely different dynamics and skill sets into parenting, and it takes BOTH. I think that depriving a child of either one does them a great disservice. Sure, a child can be deprived of those things anyway due to one parent being irresponsible or dying, but the state should not be actively pursuing a policy of allowing same-sex couples to raise children.

[JacquesMagique]

Acually, I'm torn on the issue. The libertarian in me says 'who cares'. Although, it would still be a 'civil union', not a 'marriage'. The conservative in me sees the horrible damage that it could do. For instance, once these couples are 'married', what about the kids. Surely, you couldn't discriminate against a same-sex couple for the purposes of adoption, could you? No. So then we'd see same-sex parents adopting kids, which is a huge mistake. I know, you're going to get all preachy with the "as long as they love each other and love the kid, blah, blah, blah" crap, but there's a reason we were designed the way we were. Mothers and fathers bring completely different dynamics and skill sets into parenting, and it takes BOTH. I think that depriving a child of either one does them a great disservice. Sure, a child can be deprived of those things anyway due to one parent being irresponsible or dying, but the state should not be actively pursuing a policy of allowing same-sex couples to raise children.

Actually this is an issue on which I wouldn't be preachey at all. I think there is merit to both for and against arguments for same-sex couple adoption. The issue of children tends to be what messes up my civil libertarian radar (for example where it comes to passive smoking, or seatbelts).

[Barry]

marriage is the legal union between to consenting adults. Whether they be straight or gay.

Not in my dictionary it isn't:
"The legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together and often to have children"
Oxford Compact English Dictionary

Your arguments show just how archaic religion is.

Just because some thing is old, does not make it invalid.

Just because something is legalised by the state, does not make it suddenly become moral. Morality is defined by a higher authority than governments.

[Balthazar]

I favour subverting, undermining and generally poking with a stick Tantal's vision of society. If he had his way we'd all be sitting in segregated churches packing concealed weapons while listening to some barking mad clergyman - who turns out to be a fraudster and a sexual pervert - tell lies about a non-existent entity. It's the stuff of witch burnings and normal, decent people scarred for life by religious bigots and hypocrites.

Good luck to the Maine gays. They're in the front line against conservative America. It's their job to make Tantal weep into his grits and feel the moral tectonic plates of 21st century US society shift under his feet.

I just hope he doesn't snap and launch himself into a gay marriage ceremony and spray a lot of nice San Francisco shirt-lifters with automatic gunfire. It's bound to happen sooner or later. Presumably the Men in Black are keeping an eye on him. They should certainly confiscate his popguns until things settle down.

[Tantal]

I just hope he doesn't snap and launch himself into a gay marriage ceremony and spray a lot of nice San Francisco shirt-lifters with automatic gunfire.

Unlike the Muslims, I don't believe murder to be God's will, so don't hold your breath.

It's bound to happen sooner or later.

Doubtful.

Presumably the Men in Black are keeping an eye on him.

Perhaps you've forgotten what I do for a living. I AM the Men in Black.

They should certainly confiscate his popguns until things settle down.

Under what authority? The fact that I have moral objections to gay 'marriage'? So, you support denial or suspension of a citizen's rights based on their moral or political beliefs? This is why leftists can't be trusted with power, yourself included.

[Midas]

I have to agree with Barry and Tantal on this. Certainly not for any religious reasons, as far as I'm concerned they can be consigned back to the dark ages, but marriage is "The legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together and often to have children", not "The legal union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman in order to satisfy yet another clamorous minority group"!

[Balthazar]

Doubtful.

If right-wing religious nutters can shoot abortionists they can certainly rub out a gay marriage ceremony. It's such an obvious target. I mean d'oh!

Perhaps you've forgotten what I do for a living. I AM the Men in Black.

Only in America....

Under what authority?

On the basis that, depending on the level of irrational religious rage in the Tantal bosom, you might do a Timothy McVeigh on the wretched shirt-lifters. OK, Flash is a more extreme right-wing anarchist than you, but better safe than sorry. You can both give up your pop guns and take up origami or screen printing or some other manly pursuit.

Why should gays going about their lawful business live in fear of a massacre by a religious maniac? You talk a lot about your freedom. I say gays have rights in that area too.

[Opinionated]

I have to agree with Barry and Tantal on this. Certainly not for any religious reasons, as far as I'm concerned they can be consigned back to the dark ages, but marriage is "The legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together and often to have children", not "The legal union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman in order to satisfy yet another clamorous minority group"!

Why? Are you arguing that because marriage traditionally only applies to a male/female coupling it should always be so? If so, why should it?

[Kiwi 1691]

Just because some thing is old, does not make it invalid.

The beliefs of the religions were what people believed in the past. Hopefully society has evolved in the last few milleniums.

Just because something is legalised by the state, does not make it suddenly become moral. Morality is defined by a higher authority than governments.

There is nothing moral about Christianity, Judaism or Islam.

If you think about it there texts show "god" as a sadistic hatefull person.

[Midas]

Why? Are you arguing that because marriage traditionally only applies to a male/female coupling it should always be so? If so, why should it?

No, I'm all for progression, but old fashioned as it might sound, I firmly believe marriage should be between two people of the opposite sex. Gay people, whilst I've absolutely nothing against them as individuals, are in very much a minority and certainly don't represent the norm; basically they're just another minority group who want to push their abnormality (not meant in a derogatory way in the slightest, just meaning different to normal) in people's faces and gay marriages are yet another symptom of society giving in to that.

[red star]

The right wing nuts that take such exception to gay unions are the same nuts that whinge about the state meddling in our lives. Apparently they don't want the state in our lives ,just in our bedrooms

They rant about the ruination for society because of it but there has never been any evidence ever to support that claim.

They rant about the sanctity of the marraige union and yet see fit to have affairs behind their second wifes back.

If consenting adults want to make a commitment then its nobody elses business. live your own lives and let others live theirs FFS

In fact the divorce rate between gays is about the same as straights ........so it seems the sanctity of marraige isn't under threat from either side

[Opinionated]

No, I'm all for progression, but old fashioned as it might sound, I firmly believe marriage should be between two people of the opposite sex. Gay people, whilst I've absolutely nothing against them as individuals, are in very much a minority and certainly don't represent the norm; basically they're just another minority group who want to push their abnormality (not meant in a derogatory way in the slightest, just meaning different to normal) in people's faces and gay marriages are yet another symptom of society giving in to that.

OK, but define "marriage", then in purely secular terms, why should someone be denied protection because they are in a minority group?

[pauli007001]

I favour subverting, undermining and generally poking with a stick Tantal's vision of society. If he had his way we'd all be sitting in segregated churches packing concealed weapons while listening to some barking mad clergyman - who turns out to be a fraudster and a sexual pervert - tell lies about a non-existent entity. It's the stuff of witch burnings and normal, decent people scarred for life by religious bigots and hypocrites.

Good luck to the Maine gays. They're in the front line against conservative America. It's their job to make Tantal weep into his grits and feel the moral tectonic plates of 21st century US society shift under his feet.

I just hope he doesn't snap and launch himself into a gay marriage ceremony and spray a lot of nice San Francisco shirt-lifters with automatic gunfire. It's bound to happen sooner or later. Presumably the Men in Black are keeping an eye on him. They should certainly confiscate his popguns until things settle down.

San Fransico is nowhere near Maine Balti!!

From Maine(lets say Lewiston) drive 3 hours south until you get to Boston, drive to Logan Get on a Plane for 6 hours.Its 9 hours and close to 3000 miles away.

However good Luck to the gays in Maine and anyone else who wishes to be equal to the next person.
In the US freedom stems from equality.

[pauli007001]

Why? Are you arguing that because marriage traditionally only applies to a male/female coupling it should always be so? If so, why should it?

Im all for Gay Marrage, so long as both chicks are hot!!!


But seriously why is it such a big Issue i am married to the person of my choosing(and she knew about it, oddly enough).It was an arranged Marrage, we arranged it ourselves.In terms of equality two people should be allowed to marry, if a particular church has an issue with Gay Marrage it dosnt have to marry em, this is a legal union not a faith based one.Christians/Jews/moslems didnt invent marrage you know.

[fubar]

Please for the love of god tell me who did invent marriage the suspense is killing me?

[Tantal]

Please for the love of god tell me who did invent marriage the suspense is killing me?

Actually, it was the same being that created all of us.....but something tells me you knew that already.

[fubar]

Actually, it was the same being that created all of us.....but something tells me you knew that already.

ha,ha, ha sorry i couldn't help myself their.

[Tantal]

If right-wing religious nutters can shoot abortionists they can certainly rub out a gay marriage ceremony. It's such an obvious target. I mean d'oh!

You're partially right. I am right-wing and religious....just not a nutter.

Only in America....where people can't be penalised for mere thoughts.

There, fixed it for ya.

On the basis that, depending on the level of irrational religious rage in the Tantal bosom, you might do a Timothy McVeigh on the wretched shirt-lifters.

I believe that they are committing murder in the eyes of God. What God decides to do about it is up to Him. As for dead abortionists, I would never kill them, but I'm not going to lie to you and tell you that I mourn their loss. You probably feel the same way about bankers.

You can both give up your pop guns and take up origami or screen printing or some other manly pursuit.

You people have been severely brainwashed by your government and media. You assume that anyone who possesses a firearm is a lunatic hell bent on killing. I haven't left the house since 1995 without a handgun and have yet to shoot anyone. My job aside, I've only had to pull it once while off-duty. I interrupted a robbery of a video store when I was a rookie. The mere presence of the weapon made the bad guy stop what he was doing and follow my commands. Bad guy went to jail, nobody hurt.

Why should gays going about their lawful business live in fear of a massacre by a religious maniac?

Who said that I was a threat to gays? I have a cousin and brother-in-law that are both queer as football bats. They have nothing to fear from me. Family gatherings are not even 'uncomfortable'. I know their lifestyle, they know my opinion of it, and it isn't even discussed. Doesn't mean I don't value them as people. You can hate the sin whilst still loving the sinner.

You talk a lot about your freedom. I say gays have rights in that area too.

I agree. They just don't have the right to pervert what is a religious institution created by God himself. If they want to combine their property, fine, but 'marriage' it is not.

[Balthazar]

You people have been severely brainwashed by your government and media.

The truth is Britain decided freely and democratically, via our elected lawmakers in Parliament, to de-fang our Gun Nuts. We went through shootings at Hungerford and Dunblane, and decided enough is enough. You, on the other hand, still allow nutters to own weapons and justify it with pompous guff about 'freedum' and 'last line of defence against tyrannical government.'

Because of those murderous failures in your culture and democratic system, nice gays who've fallen in love and demand a bit of respect must run the gauntlet of armed nincompoops who are also religious maniacs and gay-haters (probably because they're repressed homosexuals driven mad by US macho culture). Seriously, you've got people with guns in America who believe the earth is 4,000 years old! And armed individuals who pray for the 'rapture'!

It's not healthy mate and I'm not surprised it encourages you to dream up fairy stories about about 'Yerp' brainwashing. You're sitting on a powder-keg with your fingers in your ears going 'Lalalalalalala.'

[fubar]

I think Balthazar miss read your bio Wack-job English interpretation nutter

[Tantal]

The truth is Britain decided freely and democratically, via our elected lawmakers in Parliament, to de-fang our Gun Nuts.

Doesn't mean that your government and media weren't complicit in your disarmament. Hitler was democratically elected too. Doesn't mean he was good guy with good ideas.

We went through shootings at Hungerford and Dunblane, and decided enough is enough.

Tragic cases, but still not as bad as the atrocities committed against unarmed civilians by Hitler, Mao, and Uncle Joe. The confiscation of weapons always come before the purges.

You, on the other hand, still allow nutters to own weapons and justify it with pompous guff about 'freedum' and 'last line of defence against tyrannical government.'

I knew there was a reason we revolted against you chuckleheads. Apparently, our Founding Fathers thought the same.

Because of those murderous failures in your culture and democratic system, nice gays who've fallen in love and demand a bit of respect must run the gauntlet of armed nincompoops who are also religious maniacs and gay-haters (probably because they're repressed homosexuals driven mad by US macho culture).

What failures in culture? What failures in our democratic system? You mean the fact that we have Constitutional protections in place here? Those 'failures'?

Seriously, you've got people with guns in America who believe the earth is 4,000 years old! And armed individuals who pray for the 'rapture'!

Who would probably be the last person to pull a gun on you. The one's you have to worry about are the urban sophisticates in Detroit, L.A., New York, and D.C. (the 'gun free zones' I might add). Who knew that places where weapons are prohibited could be so unsafe? Didn't the government guarantee safety if only the citizens would give up their guns?

You're sitting on a powder-keg with your fingers in your ears going 'Lalalalalalala.'

Actually, I don't have any powder-kegs. I buy all of my ammunition already manufactured. I don't have the space for the reloading press. Maybe when the kids move out.......

[pauli007001]

Tantal, did the God of the Abrahmic faiths invent marrage?

Did the same god invent zoastrian marrage?

[Midas]

OK, but define "marriage", then in purely secular terms, why should someone be denied protection because they are in a minority group?

"The state legalisation of the union of two people voluntarily joined for life or until divorce according to the natural laws of the animal kingdom which dictate that such unions shall be of opposite sex partners for the primary purpose of reproducing the species".

If gay people wish to make some form of legal contractual agreement to protect their assets, which I presume is what you mean by 'protection', that's entirely up to them, but why should the state be forced, and give way to, minority opinion simply because a few people think "it's right"? What's going to be next, those few people who think it's fine to have sex with animals insisting on some form of state recognition?

[My Winter Storm]

They just don't have the right to pervert what is a religious institution created by God himself. If they want to combine their property, fine, but 'marriage' it is not.

The government controls marriage, God does not, and never has. Marriage may be a religious insitution, but that doesn't stop millions of people enjoying civil ceremonies, yet those ceremonies end with the couple being legally wed.

If marriage is a religious institution, how can a union which does not take part in a church, and involves a civil celebrant, rather than a priest be called a marriage?

[JacquesMagique]

"The state legalisation of the union of two people voluntarily joined for life or until divorce according to the natural laws of the animal kingdom which dictate that such unions shall be of opposite sex partners for the primary purpose of reproducing the species".

If gay people wish to make some form of legal contractual agreement to protect their assets, which I presume is what you mean by 'protection', that's entirely up to them, but why should the state be forced, and give way to, minority opinion simply because a few people think "it's right"? What's going to be next, those few people who think it's fine to have sex with animals insisting on some form of state recognition?

Well no Midas, animals can't consent can they. I seem to remember you whinging about how immoral it is for the majority to tax you for their own benefit. Well in this situation, the minority are only demanding freedom from bigoted interference.

[Midas]

Well no Midas, animals can't consent can they. I seem to remember you whinging about how immoral it is for the majority to tax you for their own benefit. Well in this situation, the minority are only demanding freedom from bigoted interference.

I didn't mention any consent between animals now did I, I used it as an illustration of the universal and natural nature of male-female bonding, not male-male or female-female bonding; as I'm sure you well know!

Why is this situation remotely related to my views on taxation? Gay people are very much in the minority despite the excessive amount of noise some of them like to make to draw attention to themselves. Why does disagreeing that such minority groups should receive special treatment mean I'm bigoted? I've said before that I have nothing against gay people on a personal level, they're not responsible for their sexuality, but that doesn't mean I have to agree that it should be flaunted in public.

[DTE]

If gay people wish to make some form of legal contractual agreement to protect their assets, which I presume is what you mean by 'protection', that's entirely up to them, but why should the state be forced, and give way to, minority opinion simply because a few people think "it's right"? What's going to be next, those few people who think it's fine to have sex with animals insisting on some form of state recognition?

Thats just nuts Midas. Its the same argument as Tantal proposed earlier, "where will it all end? with paedos and beastiality?" I know I'm paraphrasing there, but its just reading between the lines. If you have no religious qualms about using the term marriage (a POV I disagree with, but can at least understand) then I really don't see what the problem is. So Jim and Jeff want to get married, why does that effect Adam and Eve's commitment to eachother?

Why is this situation remotely related to my views on taxation? Gay people are very much in the minority despite the excessive amount of noise some of them like to make to draw attention to themselves. Why does disagreeing that such minority groups should receive special treatment mean I'm bigoted? I've said before that I have nothing against gay people on a personal level, they're not responsible for their sexuality, but that doesn't mean I have to agree that it should be flaunted in public.

How dare they make such "excessive noise" in their quest for equality? You'd have been great during the civil rights movement in the 60s "nothing against you personally Dr King, but could you just keep it down a bit?"

How does wanting the same state recognition of their partnership as a straight couple does qualify as "flaunting"?

[Midas]

Thats just nuts Midas. Its the same argument as Tantal proposed earlier, "where will it all end? with paedos and beastiality?" I know I'm paraphrasing there, but its just reading between the lines. If you have no religious qualms about using the term marriage (a POV I disagree with, but can at least understand) then I really don't see what the problem is. So Jim and Jeff want to get married, why does that effect Adam and Eve's commitment to eachother?

It's an argument which holds water though, regardless of your personal views on the subject, and is yet another example of the steady decline in society and standards. To reiterate though, my main objections are firstly that 'marriage' between two people of the same sex is not a 'natural' state of affairs, i.e., it has nothing to do with two people wanting to legally bind themselves together for normal genetic reasons, and secondly that it's yet another example of both government, and society by default, acceding to the demands of vocal minority groups, often against significant public opinion, for no other reason than to popularise themselves, i.e., buy votes.

How dare they make such "excessive noise" in their quest for equality? You'd have been great during the civil rights movement in the 60s "nothing against you personally Dr King, but could you just keep it down a bit?"

Absolutely! But seriously, there's no comparison whatsoever. The civil rights movement was to demand equality for a whole race of people who were being treated like second class citizens. Gay people only represent somewhere between 3% and 5% of the population and by and large in modern society they're certainly not being treated like second class citizens. It's a different issue to gay marriages being legal or not.

How does wanting the same state recognition of their partnership as a straight couple does qualify as "flaunting"?

Come on, that's not what I said; you're trying to taken two different things and relate them. If you read what I wrote again you'll see that I disagreed that the sexuality of gays should be flaunted in public, all this 'gay parades' stuff for example; I didn't link that to gay marriages, you did.

[DTE]

It's an argument which holds water though, regardless of your personal views on the subject, and is yet another example of the steady decline in society and standards.

Midas, you are saying that gay people are a slip in standards basically. Lets cut through the euphemisms, that is what you are saying. I don't see this is an issue of standards at all, rather its a minority group pushing for equality against a larger group of detractors whose only reason for opposing such measures is that it doesn't fit with their morality. In essense then, you are enforcing your view of what is acceptable on another group, not vice versa. Just because they are a minority is irrelevant, as the changes proposed only effect them, and its this distinction which sets it apart from the other examples of governments bowing down to minority opinion.

To reiterate though, my main objections are firstly that 'marriage' between two people of the same sex is not a 'natural' state of affairs, i.e., it has nothing to do with two people wanting to legally bind themselves together for normal genetic reasons, and secondly that it's yet another example of both government, and society by default, acceding to the demands of vocal minority groups, often against significant public opinion, for no other reason than to popularise themselves, i.e., buy votes.

It seems there is a strategic flaw in this plan, if government are deliberately going against the wishes of the majority, how would that help them succeed vote-wise?

Absolutely! But seriously, there's no comparison whatsoever. The civil rights movement was to demand equality for a whole race of people who were being treated like second class citizens. Gay people only represent somewhere between 3% and 5% of the population and by and large in modern society they're certainly not being treated like second class citizens. It's a different issue to gay marriages being legal or not.

Maybe so. Its still a push for equality though, and you are assuming here that the only people for gay marriage are gay themselves, I'm not gay but I see no problem with it. Its an issue of equality not sexuality or morality.

Come on, that's not what I said; you're trying to taken two different things and relate them. If you read what I wrote again you'll see that I disagreed that the sexuality of gays should be flaunted in public, all this 'gay parades' stuff for example; I didn't link that to gay marriages, you did.

Well the thread itself is about gay marriage so I'd say you did link it simply by inclusion. What is the big deal with gay parades anyway? The only people who have a problem with it are people who deem homosexuality as immoral, now if the BNP were planning a march, I'd certainly not go on it, but I would recognise it as their right to do it. And a BNP march would, I imagine, be a much more volitile atmosphere than Gay Pride. I recommend you go next time there's a parade, you might enjoy yourself.

I just wanted to pick up on this from an earlier post as it illustrates what I see as a contradiction of viewpoint.

I've said before that I have nothing against gay people on a personal level, they're not responsible for their sexuality, but that doesn't mean I have to agree that it should be flaunted in public.

Now this maybe an un-PC thing to say...but here goes. I've never bought into to this "you're born gay" argument. To me that seems like genetic determinism taken too far, and until scientists dicover a 'gay gene' I'll remain sceptical. However, Midas if you believe this to be true, then what is the harm of 'promoting' the gay lifestyle (if that is an adequate description of the parades) as it is surely not possible for anyone to be 'turned' by this promotion as people are either born gay or straight, right? The only conclusion I see is that people who are against gay parades are so for one reason, they see it as further acceptance of a lifestyle choice they see as immoral, and one that should not only be not promoted, but also discouraged.

[Midas]

Midas, you are saying that gay people are a slip in standards basically. Lets cut through the euphemisms, that is what you are saying. I don't see this is an issue of standards at all, rather its a minority group pushing for equality against a larger group of detractors whose only reason for opposing such measures is that it doesn't fit with their morality. In essense then, you are enforcing your view of what is acceptable on another group, not vice versa. Just because they are a minority is irrelevant, as the changes proposed only effect them, and its this distinction which sets it apart from the other examples of governments bowing down to minority opinion.

No, I'm not saying that gay people per se are a slip in standards! What I see as a slip in standards (one of many it must be said) is the fact that the argument put forward by gay people to legalise marriage is being considered acceptable. OK, to that I will add the overt demonstration many of them make concerning their sexuality, but that's a different matter. That aside though, as a minority group, why should gay people have equal rights when it comes to marriage, given what marriage is supposed to stand for? Yes, I'm putting my point of view, and what I think would be a significant majority view if many people weren't ambivalent about it, against a minority, but for very good and very well established reasons.

It seems there is a strategic flaw in this plan, if government are deliberately going against the wishes of the majority, how would that help them succeed vote-wise?

No, not really. It's hardly a mainstream issue, but it is one that's hardly likely to lose a government more votes from people like myself who don't approve of gay marriages than it's likely to gain from those gays themselves.

Maybe so. Its still a push for equality though, and you are assuming here that the only people for gay marriage are gay themselves, I'm not gay but I see no problem with it. Its an issue of equality not sexuality or morality.

I don't see it like that, people are not all equal and never will be; there are many differences, some good, some not so good. To accede to demands for equality in all aspects of their lives by a small minority group who are plainly unequal in one very important aspect, their sexuality is, to me, plainly wrong.

Well the thread itself is about gay marriage so I'd say you did link it simply by inclusion. What is the big deal with gay parades anyway? The only people who have a problem with it are people who deem homosexuality as immoral, now if the BNP were planning a march, I'd certainly not go on it, but I would recognise it as their right to do it. And a BNP march would, I imagine, be a much more volitile atmosphere than Gay Pride. I recommend you go next time there's a parade, you might enjoy yourself.
I just wanted to pick up on this from an earlier post as it illustrates what I see as a contradiction of viewpoint.

I made an aside comment on a related issue, period. What is the big deal with gay parades? As far as I'm concerned they're little more than overt attempts to push a very significant difference in the faces of the many people who have a normal sexuality, many of who are admittedly ambivalent about the matter, but many more of whom see it as a decline in standards. I have been to a gay parade as it happens, and to be quite honest I found it embarrassing in the extreme!

Now this maybe an un-PC thing to say...but here goes. I've never bought into to this "you're born gay" argument. To me that seems like genetic determinism taken too far, and until scientists dicover a 'gay gene' I'll remain sceptical. However, Midas if you believe this to be true, then what is the harm of 'promoting' the gay lifestyle (if that is an adequate description of the parades) as it is surely not possible for anyone to be 'turned' by this promotion as people are either born gay or straight, right? The only conclusion I see is that people who are against gay parades are so for one reason, they see it as further acceptance of a lifestyle choice they see as immoral, and one that should not only be not promoted, but also discouraged.

As it happens I'm not convinced that 'gayness' is genetic either; I tend to lean towards the view that it's got far more to do with the relative levels of male and female hormones present in a mother's body at the very vulnerable stage of sexual determination of a foetus. But regardless of how it arises, I see absolutely no reason why anyone who is different in such a fundamental way should want to promote it, or encourage its promotion! I certainly don't approve of public money being spent on it. I will quite admit I'm at a complete loss to understand why anyone should want to advertise such a difference though, and I'll also accept that perhaps that inability to understand plays a role in my distaste for the disproportionate and often overt publicity surrounding the whole subject.

[JacquesMagique]

I didn't mention any consent between animals now did I, I used it as an illustration of the universal and natural nature of male-female bonding, not male-male or female-female bonding; as I'm sure you well know!

I'm not sure I follow.

Why is this situation remotely related to my views on taxation?

Because you complained about your rights being denied to appease the majority. Now you are suggesting the majority view is more important, and the minority do not deserve recognition because of it.

Gay people are very much in the minority despite the excessive amount of noise some of them like to make to draw attention to themselves. Why does disagreeing that such minority groups should receive special treatment mean I'm bigoted?

They are not demanding 'special treatment'. They just want the same rights as straight couples.

I've said before that I have nothing against gay people on a personal level, they're not responsible for their sexuality, but that doesn't mean I have to agree that it should be flaunted in public.

But shouldn't they be free to express themselves if they wish? I might not like having to see the clothes you wear, but I would certainly not deny you the right to wear them.

It's an argument which holds water though, regardless of your personal views on the subject, and is yet another example of the steady decline in society and standards. To reiterate though, my main objections are firstly that 'marriage' between two people of the same sex is not a 'natural' state of affairs, i.e., it has nothing to do with two people wanting to legally bind themselves together for normal genetic reasons, and secondly that it's yet another example of both government, and society by default, acceding to the demands of vocal minority groups, often against significant public opinion

We don't live in a state of nature anymore, thankfully. By the same measure I'm not sure that using a fridge or a car is 'natural' either.

Absolutely! But seriously, there's no comparison whatsoever. The civil rights movement was to demand equality for a whole race of people who were being treated like second class citizens. Gay people only represent somewhere between 3% and 5% of the population and by and large in modern society they're certainly not being treated like second class citizens. It's a different issue to gay marriages being legal or not.

There absolutely is a comparison to be made here. Denying the rights of a majority group to a minority group of any size is treating them like second class citizens.

[Opinionated]

Why does disagreeing that such minority groups should receive special treatment mean I'm bigoted?

Not to overstress the point here but they are not asking for special treatment! What they are asking for is the same treatment, that the state (not necessarily the church - that's a different subject) recognise the commitment that two people who love each other have made. Love's not that hard to understand is it?

[Midas]

Not to overstress the point here but they are not asking for special treatment! What they are asking for is the same treatment, that the state (not necessarily the church - that's a different subject) recognise the commitment that two people who love each other have made. Love's not that hard to understand is it?

They are asking for something which is not normal and not natural. I've explained enough times why I think this is so and it's something I am very much opposed to; nothing more to add as far as I'm concerned.

[Opinionated]

They are asking for something which is not normal and not natural.

Yet you accept that a persons sexuality is most probably beyond their own control, making it perfectly natural surely? How much more normal can you get than fall in love with someone and want to build a life together?

[Midas]

Yet you accept that a persons sexuality is most probably beyond their own control, making it perfectly natural surely? How much more normal can you get than fall in love with someone and want to build a life together?

Natural: existing in or in conformity with nature or the observable world; in this context, male + female. Male + male or female + female = not natural, regardless of the cause of the sexual variance.

[Opinionated]

Natural: existing in or in conformity with nature or the observable world; in this context, male + female. Male + male or female + female = not natural, regardless of the cause of the sexual variance.

OK I'm having a thick day! How, if you accept that homosexuality is not a choice, can it not be "existing in or in conformity with nature"? Also why should we be restricted by conformity are we not enlightened enough to accept that sometimes people are different?