Marriage Equality Has 21-Point Lead in Maine

[KiMare]

KiMare wrote:
Marriage has always described a distinct relationship. In fact, the evolutionary birth place of every single other human relationship. It is simply ignorant denial to pretend there is no difference. In fact, it is dangerous to do so.
There are numerous critical distinctions between the union of duplicate genders and marriage. You have to dumb down marriage to 'two people in a relationship' to equate gay unions to marriage.
Marriage is the only relationship that possesses the ponderous propensity to bear human fruit in a natural and beneficial way.
Gays can and have obtained needed rights through 'gay unions'.

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope, we'll take marriage and make it our own.
Don't like it, TOUGH SH!T.

Aside from being a silly, childish response, it is also idiotic.

If you call the tail on a dog a leg, what is it?

When anyone looks at two couples in a union (one duplicate genders, the other diverse genders), they will always FIRST identify one as gay. Even a child can tell the difference, especially if one is mom and dad.

The fact is, the closer a imposter gets to the real thing, the more obvious the fake is.

[WeTheSheeple]

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:
Marriage has always described a distinct relationship. In fact, the evolutionary birth place of every single other human relationship. It is simply ignorant denial to pretend there is no difference. In fact, it is dangerous to do so.
There are numerous critical distinctions between the union of duplicate genders and marriage. You have to dumb down marriage to 'two people in a relationship' to equate gay unions to marriage.
Marriage is the only relationship that possesses the ponderous propensity to bear human fruit in a natural and beneficial way.
Gays can and have obtained needed rights through 'gay unions'.
<quoted text>

Aside from being a silly, childish response, it is also idiotic.
If you call the tail on a dog a leg, what is it?
When anyone looks at two couples in a union (one duplicate genders, the other diverse genders), they will always FIRST identify one as gay. Even a child can tell the difference, especially if one is mom and dad.
The fact is, the closer a imposter gets to the real thing, the
more obvious the fake is.

I'm married and there's NOTHING you can do about it. It's only a matter of time before we force marriage equality on the entire nation.

When we win these votes we will be insufferable rubbing our victory in the face of every bigot who voted against us.

[snyper]

KiMare wrote:

Marriage has always described a distinct relationship. In fact, the evolutionary birth place of every single other human relationship. It is simply ignorant denial to pretend there is no difference. In fact, it is dangerous to do so.
There are numerous critical distinctions between the union of duplicate genders and marriage. You have to dumb down marriage to 'two people in a relationship' to equate gay unions to marriage.
Marriage is the only relationship that possesses the ponderous propensity to bear human fruit in a natural and beneficial way.
Gays can and have obtained needed rights through 'gay unions'.

Blah, blah, blah.

Civil Unions do NOT do the same things as Civil Marriage.

http://micro.pimpmywry.com/2010/04/list-of-me...

http://www.edgelasvegas.com/index.php...

http://hunterofjustice.com/2009/09/court-dism...

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marria...

[KiMare]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm married and there's NOTHING you can do about it. It's only a matter of time before we force marriage equality on the entire nation.
When we win these votes we will be insufferable rubbing our victory in the face of every bigot who voted against us.

Votes or legal imposition can't change reality.

That is why you have no answer to my arguments except to cry bigot.

Idiot.

[KiMare]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
Blah, blah, blah.
Civil Unions do NOT do the same things as Civil Marriage.
http://micro.pimpmywry.com/2010/04/list-of-me...
http://www.edgelasvegas.com/index.php...
http://hunterofjustice.com/2009/09/court-dism...
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marria...

Of course they don't. That is why they describe distinct relationships.

My point exactly.

[snyper]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course they don't. That is why they describe distinct relationships.
My point exactly.

Read the links.

[KiMare]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
Read the links.

I have.

Gay unions can and have dealt with all those issues.

None of that changes the fact that gay couples and marriage are two distinct relationships. Always have been, always will be.

Get real.

[WeTheSheeple]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Votes or legal imposition can't change reality.
That is why you have no answer to my arguments except to cry bigot.
Idiot.

You're right, nothing can change the reality that I'm legally married to my husband of 25+ years.

It's only a matter of time before the federal govt and the other 42 states are forced to recognize it too.

There is no answer to bigotry. We can only steamroll over you.

[snyper]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
I have.
Gay unions can and have dealt with all those issues.
None of that changes the fact that gay couples and marriage are two distinct relationships. Always have been, always will be.
Get real.

Apparently you conclude that there are two classes of people.

Listen closely to "Will"s reasoning about the the Declaration of Independence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[KiMare]

KiMare wrote:
Marriage has always described a distinct relationship. In fact, the evolutionary birth place of every single other human relationship. It is simply ignorant denial to pretend there is no difference. In fact, it is dangerous to do so.
There are numerous critical distinctions between the union of duplicate genders and marriage. You have to dumb down marriage to 'two people in a relationship' to equate gay unions to marriage.
Marriage is the only relationship that possesses the ponderous propensity to bear human fruit in a natural and beneficial way.
Gays can and have obtained needed rights through 'gay unions'.

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
You're right, nothing can change the reality that I'm legally married to my husband of 25+ years.
It's only a matter of time before the federal govt and the other 42 states are forced to recognize it too.
There is no answer to bigotry. We can only steamroll over you.

You continue with your baseless and childish responses, stamping your feet and saying, "I am too married!!!"

Not one response to the distinctions I posted. Why? They are simple reality, and you have no argument.

I would suggest you read the old fable, "The Emperor and His Partner Are Not Married".

As to bigotry, a key element is a denial of facts. Here are some facts about marriage and gay unions;

If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love

If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage

If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by a imposition on marriage

If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders

If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history

If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no affect

If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships

If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity

If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent

If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act

If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end

If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest

If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none

If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'

Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.

[KiMare]

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I have.
Gay unions can and have dealt with all those issues.
None of that changes the fact that gay couples and marriage are two distinct relationships. Always have been, always will be.
Get real.

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
Apparently you conclude that there are two classes of people.
Listen closely to "Will"s reasoning about the the Declaration of Independence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Typical gay twirl.

I expose your lie that gay unions don't provide all the legitimate rights, so you slither on and present another lie.

I don't conclude there are different classes of people, the Law does. It provides special/distinct rights for gender, handicapped, minorities, and others. The Law recognizes distinctions and special needs. SCOTUS has done so regarding marriage many times;

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."- Skinner v Oklahoma

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."- Loving v Virginia

"Our Court has not recognized a fundamental right to marry that departs in any respect from the right defined by the US Supreme Court in cases like Skinner which acknowledged that marriage is "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race" because it is the primary institution supporting procreation and child-rearing (316 US at 541; see also Zablocki, 434 US 374; Griswold, 381 US 479). The binary nature of marriage—its inclusion of one woman and one man—reflects the biological fact that human procreation cannot be accomplished without the genetic contribution of both a male and a female. Marriage creates a supportive environment for procreation to occur and the resulting offspring to be nurtured. Although plaintiffs suggest that the connection between procreation and marriage has become anachronistic because of scientific advances in assisted reproduction technology, the fact remains that the vast majority of children are conceived naturally through sexual contact between a woman and a man."- Hernandez v Robels

"It is an institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress. "- Maynard v Hill

This is why I say again,'get real'. Why would you have to lie and distort to defend a legitimate position??? You demean and expose your own position as false by these tactics.

[snyper]

They don't.

If you think they do, then get a Civil Union and see how far it gets you.

[Quest]

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I have.
Gay unions can and have dealt with all those issues.
None of that changes the fact that gay couples and marriage are two distinct relationships. Always have been, always will be.
Get real.
<quoted text>
Typical gay twirl.
I expose your lie that gay unions don't provide all the legitimate rights, so you slither on and present another lie.
....

Twirl all you like, but you aren't talking sense.

Gay people and straight people have the SAME types of relationships. One is not "lesser" than the other. Your opinion to the contrary is irrelevant.

Your second statement just doesn't make any sense, either. You can't "expose" any facts that prove that civil unions provide all of the same legal protections and societal recognition that marriage does, because that's just not the case.

For instance, can you list the states that legally recognize another state's civil unions?

And which state's civil unions are recognized by the federal government?

The nice thing is that there is no need for separate but unequal designations for the marriages of gay couples.

Marriage is just fine.

[Quest]

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:
....
"It is an institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress. "- Maynard v Hill
....

Yes, and this applies to gay couples and their families as well.

[eJohn]

KiMare wrote:

Marriage has always described a distinct relationship. In fact, the evolutionary birth place of every single other human relationship. It is simply ignorant denial to pretend there is no difference. In fact, it is dangerous to do so.
There are numerous critical distinctions between the union of duplicate genders and marriage. You have to dumb down marriage to 'two people in a relationship' to equate gay unions to marriage.
Marriage is the only relationship that possesses the ponderous propensity to bear human fruit in a natural and beneficial way.
Gays can and have obtained needed rights through 'gay unions'.

So you'd be down with requiring fertility tests before a couple would qualify for a marriage license and some sort of forced expiration date on their marriage if they don't produce offspring within a certain length of time?? How long should the government wait before considering a childless couple no longer married?

If you're going to indiscriminately ban an entire group of people from civil marriage based on the fact that those couples can't produce offspring together, how do you justify allowing ANY couple that can't naturally produce offspring together to marry?

[WeTheSheeple]

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:

Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.

Blah, blah, blah.

The courts disagree with your bigoted opinion.

Marriage equality in 6 states (plus DC) with 4 more to come this year and 4 more next year, plus federal recognition of our marriages.

Now post some more blather.......

[KiMare]

eJohn wrote:

<quoted text>
So you'd be down with requiring fertility tests before a couple would qualify for a marriage license and some sort of forced expiration date on their marriage if they don't produce offspring within a certain length of time?? How long should the government wait before considering a childless couple no longer married?
If you're going to indiscriminately ban an entire group of people from civil marriage based on the fact that those couples can't produce offspring together, how do you justify allowing ANY couple that can't naturally produce offspring together to marry?

Nice little gay twirl talking point you injected...

I never thought of that, but off the top of my head, how about leaving it the way it has always been? It seems to have worked out fine. It makes a lot more sense than adding a relationship that is totally unable to mutually reproduce, right?

By the way, there are numerous relationships not considered marriage, right? No ban, just simple common sense.

[KiMare]

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, and this applies to gay couples and their families as well.

No it doesn't.

[eJohn]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
Nice little gay twirl talking point you injected...
I never thought of that, but off the top of my head, how about leaving it the way it has always been? It seems to have worked out fine. It makes a lot more sense than adding a relationship that is totally unable to mutually reproduce, right?
By the way, there are numerous relationships not considered marriage, right? No ban, just simple common sense.

It's "worked out fine" for some, but that's not exactly the American way, is it? Is it "liberty and justice for some"?? "Liberty and justice for a few"?? "Liberty and justice for KiMare's friends"??

Nope. It's "Liberty and justice for ALL". That means gay couples, too. And we won't stop fighting for equality until we get it.

Bummer for you, huh?

[eJohn]

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
No it doesn't.

Why not?? Because you think gay sex is all icky and gross and that's all you can think about when someone mentions gay folks?