Gay marriage backers vow to renew fight

Gay marriage backers vow to renew fight

There are 108 comments on the Brattleboro Reformer story from Nov 5, 2009, titled Gay marriage backers vow to renew fight. In it, Brattleboro Reformer reports that:

Supporters of a gay marriage law rejected by voters took heart Wednesday in the 47 percent they received in a referendum that drew a turnout close to what's seen in a presidential election year.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Brattleboro Reformer.

First Prev
of 6
Next Last

“Pic of Sockett”

Since: Jan 08

Jacksonville, FL

#110 Dec 3, 2009
It seems that you read post like you read your bible. Again, now define marriage with out the use of gender! As you do, you will realize that no matter what the gender is applied to the word marriage, it will stand to be exactly that marriage.

As for the "typo" you continued to make the same "typo" in this post. I am normal, and for you to make an assumption about someone you don't even know or even comprehended their post, proves the abnormality of your gray matter.

Not to be distracted by your attempt to circumvent what I asked you in my first post, I will provide you an example of different things being called the same. Follow me if you can, Pine, Oak, Pecan, Maple, Sequoia, Elm, etc... all different, yet they are called trees. So, male & male, Female & female, Female & male, male & female, each in a loving relationship, committed to each other goes to the court house to obtain documentation proving their love for one another is called a marriage. It is you that wants to change a simple word into something more complicated than it need be. Here is a little word fun for ya. What does the word Blizzard mean? I you think it has to do with a harsh winter storm, then you will realize that you just accepted a word that had its meaning changed so completely that the original use of the word is forgotten. http://podictionary.com/... will explain that to you.
So, again I have shown to you that your the one that is wanting to change the word marriage, from what was taught, & if I was you I would be mad too, but I would not take it out on others, I would work on improving myself, try that for a bit. The only thing I am a victim of is the ability to think for myself, & I wasn't complaining about it.
estanson wrote:
<quoted text>
maybe a typo...but definately a misread if you read my posts...CU's NOT THE SAME...I think i captialize it most times...so there goes the rest of what you said...
here's the kicker...what do i care if you think I'm normal...why do you feel like YOU have to be normal? Irregardless and despite your attempts to make it sound like it...claiming to have a married family when it is naturally impossible to be a family is not the norm...its the exception...now gays want to use the exception to swallow the rule...(cue arguments on vitro, adoption, old couples etc...all exceptions to the NORM or what most people do and have done)
and while you claim to have read them...you clearly missed the point of all my "rants"...different is not inherently inequal...women and men are DIFFERENT...therefore two women is different than a woman and a man...why in the world should different things have the same name?
its the gay inferiority complex again...they are nothing if not victims...

“Pic of Sockett”

Since: Jan 08

Jacksonville, FL

#111 Dec 3, 2009
Here is a tidbit that you show error in your statements, since you say that gays can be couples, and straights can be couples, that makes no sense from you point of view. You just proved that they are the same, by using the word "couple" to define both groups. So should marriage, the meaning does not change, the reason does not change, the process does not change.

That last part "I believe", that is what is wrong with you, stop believing and know.
estanson wrote:
<quoted text>
*Edited because you ramble* "It is word control to effectively argue later that gay couples and straight couples are the EAXCT same thing and THEY ARE NOT!...I believe" *Edited because you ramble*
estanson

Windsor, VT

#112 Dec 3, 2009
BR0DY wrote:
Here is a tidbit that you show error in your statements, since you say that gays can be couples, and straights can be couples, that makes no sense from you point of view. You just proved that they are the same, by using the word "couple" to define both groups. So should marriage, the meaning does not change, the reason does not change, the process does not change.
That last part "I believe", that is what is wrong with you, stop believing and know.
<quoted text>
Brody,

while I am interested in inteligent dialougue...
I am finding you a waste...
calling me religious and the points you made indicate you didnt reasd my posts at a l yet crtitique them with the same ole bull
so until you actually say something that responds to me...have an nice day...

It also occurs to me that my point of view seem to be in the majority...so its not me who has to convinve the folks like you but the other way around and none of you have made any valid point or approached the ideas presented by me or by "just me"

good luck with your crusade, bu you will have to make intelligent responses before you get anywhere...
want proof...see NY...

“Pic of Sockett”

Since: Jan 08

Jacksonville, FL

#113 Dec 3, 2009
Well, I am sorry that I have proven you to be in error. You have yet to answer any of my question that I posed to you about your stance on marriage. That leaves me to understand that even thou you know better, and have been informed better, by me none the less, you are in capable of intelligent conversation. Heck you can't even operate spell check, what makes me think you can fathom love and marriage. The only reason I am a waste to you is because I have picked apart every aspect of your opinion, and proved you wrong, which again is why you never answer, but provide pointless diatribe. Oops, I just provided you with a new word.
estanson wrote:
<quoted text>
Brody,
while I am interested in inteligent dialougue...
I am finding you a waste...
calling me religious and the points you made indicate you didnt reasd my posts at a l yet crtitique them with the same ole bull
so until you actually say something that responds to me...have an nice day...
It also occurs to me that my point of view seem to be in the majority...so its not me who has to convinve the folks like you but the other way around and none of you have made any valid point or approached the ideas presented by me or by "just me"
good luck with your crusade, bu you will have to make intelligent responses before you get anywhere...
want proof...see NY...
estanson

Windsor, VT

#114 Dec 3, 2009
BR0DY wrote:
Well, I am sorry that I have proven you to be in error. You have yet to answer any of my question that I posed to you about your stance on marriage. That leaves me to understand that even thou you know better, and have been informed better, by me none the less, you are in capable of intelligent conversation. Heck you can't even operate spell check, what makes me think you can fathom love and marriage. The only reason I am a waste to you is because I have picked apart every aspect of your opinion, and proved you wrong, which again is why you never answer, but provide pointless diatribe. Oops, I just provided you with a new word.
<quoted text>
nope you have said nothing except inapplicable out of the can responses...you have repeatedly missed the mark..that is why you are a waste...
and lastly, check the recent votes...I have no need to change your position it is you who have to win the majority opinion which is mine...
you failed with me...and you will continue to fail with the majority as you did in Maine and by implication in NY due to your inability to articluate anything except a claim of entitlement and spouting of anger and hate!
also, this board doesnt have a spellcheck and you cannot cut and paste...so even on that point you are misleading and wrong...

I doubt i will respond to your nonsense again...and its too bad...as i said...I dont need to change your mind...you need to change mine, and it wont happen with bare accusations and meaningless critiques (spelling..come on bro!)

you have taken someone who wanted to have an honest dialogue about this issue and put them off...dont expect my vote or the rest of those in the middle who reason and dont listen to the bible or your out of the can BS.

“Pic of Sockett”

Since: Jan 08

Jacksonville, FL

#115 Dec 3, 2009
again, a non-answer answer. Again, just because you cannot figure out how to use a feature, does not mean it isn't possible.

I copied this from my word document.

What is this can that I am pulling my responses from?
BLocal

Sheffield, VT

#116 Dec 3, 2009
estanson wrote:
<quoted text>
last time try...I am responding to the argument that has been presented that Cu's are MORE (catch that?) MORE...that mean MORE comitted then straight...
your response that heteros are not comitted therefore misses the point (again)...no 2 cases dont, but neither do your hypotheticals...
do you agree that CU's are likely not MORE comitted?
I didn't say that heterosexual marriages are not committed - I said that marriages are what the 2 people put into them. Gay or straight.

Since I've been in a heterosexual marriage for 29 years now I do know a little something about marriage in general. If both people in the marriage work at making it work, are committed and love each other - it makes for a good marriage. I also know same sex couples who are just and loving and committed. No difference.

Since I didn't make an argument for straights or gays being more committed I don't even know what you're reading in my post for you to come up with that. What I said -(CATCH THIS)- is that either side can be good or bad at it, no difference.(Again) Marriages can end for the same reasons whatever the makeup of the couple, they can also succeed.
estanson

Windsor, VT

#117 Dec 3, 2009
BLocal wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say that heterosexual marriages are not committed - I said that marriages are what the 2 people put into them. Gay or straight.
Since I've been in a heterosexual marriage for 29 years now I do know a little something about marriage in general. If both people in the marriage work at making it work, are committed and love each other - it makes for a good marriage. I also know same sex couples who are just and loving and committed. No difference.
Since I didn't make an argument for straights or gays being more committed I don't even know what you're reading in my post for you to come up with that. What I said -(CATCH THIS)- is that either side can be good or bad at it, no difference.(Again) Marriages can end for the same reasons whatever the makeup of the couple, they can also succeed.
I am sorry for the misunderstanding...I was referring to other posters' claims (maybe even in past threads)...anyway, since the point was to argue THAT claim (and not your own) i think we may even agree...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

South Portland Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Where to live in Maine. Apr 16 Fake Aussie 2
Hottest Newscaster in Maine (Aug '13) Apr 16 Fake Aussie 12
Scott hamann (Jul '17) Jul '17 Jeb 1
Pat Gilbride financial sorcerer of Ed Jones swi... (Jan '17) Jan '17 Patrick Gilbride ... 2
News News Minute: Here is the latest Maine, New Hamp... (Apr '16) Apr '16 Lucy Anna Jane 1
News Two new charter schools tentatively approved in... (Nov '15) Nov '15 Robert Cameron 5
News United States Senator Susan Collins to Visit Ka... (Oct '15) Oct '15 longtail 1

South Portland Jobs

Personal Finance

South Portland Mortgages