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

[George]

Sarah C wrote:

<quoted text>
The genus Pan. Now I get YOU and I now understand Girls' Gone Wild.
You are just trying to procreate to extend your family.

I only understand a few languages Sarah, and none of them resemble the gibberish from that post. Try again.

[Peppy]

manwolf wrote:

<quoted text>
The sole purpose of human sexuality is "procreation"? So every single time heterosexual people have sex it's for the sole purpose of making babies? And unlike heterosexual people, homosexual people have no inherent sexual desires?
Sorry, your stud-farm approach to human sexuality falls short on that count alone. Try again.

You can justify your immoral behavior how ever you please. That's your choice. The fact is that homosexual sex is meaningless and useless to the continuation of mankind. If it did not exist, the world would not notice.

[lides]

aDoseOfCommonSense wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I know that it will not cease, but allowing gay marriage will condone, celebrate and legitimize this behavior. I have no problem with gays practicing any type of behavior that they choose, but it should not be legitimized through marriage.
Gay marriage is detrimental because of the reasons I mentioned above. In addition, by allowing a man to marry another man, where does it end? This would be the springboard for others to claim their right to marry as well. If gay marriage is allowed, then why not allow a man to marry two or three men along with two or three women? Why not allow a man to marry his dog? I guarantee, someone will demand the right to do this if gay marriage is legalized - it is inevitable.

Legal marriage between several (three or more) has decided drawbacks as it regards benefits which are extended to marriage partners, and the bestiality argument holds no weight, since animals are unable to enter into a legal contract as they are unable to show legal consent. What other arguments do you have?

[George]

Peppy wrote:

<quoted text>
Homosexual sex is as meaningless as having sex with a goat. It serves no purpose other than to quell some misguided urge.
Heterosexual sex has a definite purpose. Without it, the human race would cease to exist. Sex not producing a child does not diminsish the importance of the ability to procreate.
The world could exist just fine without homosexuals, but would cease to exist without heterosexuals. You are non-essential to the evolution of man.

Peppy, whether or not any of that is true (and I would contend that it is not), so what? Does a person's impact on the evolution of our entire species determine whether or not one is allowed to marry a person of their choosing?

[Peppy]

George wrote:

<quoted text>
Peppy, whether or not any of that is true (and I would contend that it is not), so what? Does a person's impact on the evolution of our entire species determine whether or not one is allowed to marry a person of their choosing?

No, my comments had little to do with gay marriage. On that issue, I do not care one way or the other. Live and let live.

My comments simply explain why the majority people are not ready to fully accept homosexual behavior (don't shoot the messenger). Some may point to sin and religious beliefs while others just find that it goes against the grain of nature. Either way, they are not quite ready to socially accept homosexuality on equal terms.

[George]

Peppy wrote:

<quoted text>
No, my comments had little to do with gay marriage. On that issue, I do not care one way or the other. Live and let live.
My comments simply explain why the majority people are not ready to fully accept homosexual behavior (don't shoot the messenger). Some may point to sin and religious beliefs while others just find that it goes against the grain of nature. Either way, they are not quite ready to socially accept homosexuality on equal terms.

Peppy, all anyone has to do is look at nature and see that "homosexuality" is found in species other than our own. I don't see how one can use nature as an argument against it.

[Gryph]

Eaglefan9727 wrote:

<quoted text>
First of all, I dont go by any bible and there are others that dont go by the bible either. You can complain all you want about the gay community being treated like second class citizen, But that is not the case as they have right like I or others have.
<quoted text>
Doesnt matter if they are blood family or not. If marriage gets redefined for one group, Why not let them marry each other unless you want to make them second class citizens? It just shows how hypocritical you are.

No I don't have the same rights as you, I can get fired far easier then you, if I wasn't buying my house I could get kicked out of my living space far easier then you and I can't marry the adult partner that I love; you either can or have.

Yes it does make a difference and our base laws were set that way for the health and welfare of our country. Being gay, lesbian or trans does not harm others any more then being straight harms others.

Why do you like throwing straw-man arguments out there as if they were actually valid points?

[Peppy]

George wrote:

<quoted text>
Peppy, all anyone has to do is look at nature and see that "homosexuality" is found in species other than our own. I don't see how one can use nature as an argument against it.

You keep using the "It exists so it is normal argument". People are born with all sorts of genetic deviations. That does not make them bad people. So whether you are a dwarf, shcizophrenic, autistic, siamese twins, albino or homosexual, you are different from the vast majority of the population. You seem to not like the term deviant, but it happens in nature all the time. If you feel better calling it normal just because it happens, fine. I think you are just kidding yourself.

[George]

Peppy wrote:

<quoted text>
You keep using the "It exists so it is normal argument". People are born with all sorts of genetic deviations. That does not make them bad people. So whether you are a dwarf, shcizophrenic, autistic, siamese twins, albino or homosexual, you are different from the vast majority of the population. You seem to not like the term deviant, but it happens in nature all the time. If you feel better calling it normal just because it happens, fine. I think you are just kidding yourself.

I don't think you are understanding my point. You are using the argument that homosexuality goes against nature. What I am pointing out is that in nature, there are animals other than ourselves that engage in same sex pairings. Is it within the baseline norm for all of those species? No, and I am not claiming that it is. But is it "natural?" Well, if you look at nature and see this happening, then it is natural, isn't it?

And I think you know why I am not using the term deviant. While it is technically correct, it has conotations other than what you are using it for that I am intentionally avoiding.

[Peppy]

George wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think you are understanding my point. You are using the argument that homosexuality goes against nature. What I am pointing out is that in nature, there are animals other than ourselves that engage in same sex pairings. Is it within the baseline norm for all of those species? No, and I am not claiming that it is. But is it "natural?" Well, if you look at nature and see this happening, then it is natural, isn't it?
And I think you know why I am not using the term deviant. While it is technically correct, it has conotations other than what you are using it for that I am intentionally avoiding.

Okay George, I appreciate your argument and I understand all of your points.

One interesting note is that the word "natural" has 15 or so different definitions.

Despite all my rhetoric, I am not an anti-gay person. I have a gay sister-in-law and my sister's step daughter is gay. They are just people like everyone else and that is how I treat them. I am not marching in parades for their cause, but I do understand the level of descrimination they face from the public in general.

[Eaglefan9727]

Gryph wrote:

I can get fired far easier then you, if I wasn't buying my house I could get kicked out of my living space far easier then you

Up here in Massachusetts, If they fire you for being gay or kick you out of your living space for being gay. They can get in trouble for doing so.

Gryph wrote:

Why do you like throwing straw-man arguments out there as if they were actually valid points?

It is NOT a straw man argument, Because if we are going to redefine the word marriage for one group. We have to redefine it for all the other groups that want to get married. If not, We write discrimination into the constitution.

[BetweenUandI]

I suppose had the Gay Organizing Committee sought out another venue, rather then latch onto the 'civil rights wagon, I might have been more sympathetic to their cause.
-
But such as it is , and quite underhanded to say the least, I can see no argument that can justified any claim they make to 'entitlement'. The very prospect places marriage, as it is, deeper in the dump.
And is just as funny as electing a college drunkard like Mr. Bush. Not to mention both the Gay community and the Bush clad have unlimited funds at their disposal.
-
It's heartening to see that the majority of Americans in those States where it's been 'put to the people' as a vote, that not all ridiculous propositions put before us get by us so easy.
-
On a side note, I understand that Leona Helmsly's kin are taking her dog to court to reclaim the fortune she left the pooch when she died. I wonder if anyone will step forward to marry that wealthy hound.

[manwolf]

Peppy wrote:

You are non-essential to the evolution of man.

Spoken like a true Nazi. Perhaps heterosexuals should stop producing gay people.

[manwolf]

Peppy wrote:

<quoted text>
Homosexual sex is as meaningless as having sex with a goat.

Speaking from experience?

I smell yet another dysfunctional, self-loathing closet case.

[Community Organizer]

Peppy wrote:

<quoted text>
You keep using the "It exists so it is normal argument". People are born with all sorts of genetic deviations. That does not make them bad people. So whether you are a dwarf, shcizophrenic, autistic, siamese twins, albino or homosexual, you are different from the vast majority of the population. You seem to not like the term deviant, but it happens in nature all the time. If you feel better calling it normal just because it happens, fine. I think you are just kidding yourself.

you seem unusually preoccupied and fascinated with the topic. What aren't you telling us, old boy?

[lides]

Eaglefan9727 wrote:

<quoted text>
Up here in Massachusetts, If they fire you for being gay or kick you out of your living space for being gay. They can get in trouble for doing so.
<quoted text>
It is NOT a straw man argument, Because if we are going to redefine the word marriage for one group. We have to redefine it for all the other groups that want to get married. If not, We write discrimination into the constitution.

Why not step up and address it, specifically, on a case by case basis. What other groups do you assert will try to bootstrap on such a change? It seems that you are trying to change course. Polygamy, would put employers at a decided disadvantage in extending benefits as it pertains to multiple spouses (not to mention the fact that it is already covered in numerous state laws which do not violate civil rights), similarly incest is addressed by existing law and has obvious genetic drawbacks pertaining to reproduction, and bestiality and pedophilia both lack the ability for a partner to consent or enter into a legal agreement. Unless, of course, you had some other argument in mind.

[Eaglefan9727]

lides wrote:

Why not step up and address it, specifically, on a case by case basis. What other groups do you assert will try to bootstrap on such a change?.

Im not the one that is screaming "Equal rights for all". It's the gay community that is doing it.

[cbb]

Gay Marriage?

Sure, why not, should have happened 50 years ago. Get er down and let's move on to important issues.

[lides]

Eaglefan9727 wrote:

<quoted text>
Im not the one that is screaming "Equal rights for all". It's the gay community that is doing it.

"Equal rights for all", now there is an unreasonable concept (the preceding statement was heavily laden with sarcasm). Making a statement like this makes me understand your position even less.

[Eaglefan9727]

lides wrote:

"Equal rights for all", now there is an unreasonable concept (the preceding statement was heavily laden with sarcasm). Making a statement like this makes me understand your position even less.

You wouldnt know what hit you if that statement slap you across your face. All you are concerned about is the gay community and no one else.