Marriage Equality Has 21-Point Lead in Maine

Oct 3, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: EDGE

A poll revealed that that support for a referendum that would legalize same-sex marriage in the state has a 21-point lead, the Waterville Morning Sentinel reports.

Comments
61 - 80 of 177 Comments Last updated Oct 25, 2012

“Marriage equality for all”

Since: Jul 07

Illinois

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
At the federal level.
Perhaps equality could be attained federally via unions, but the Obama administration is going to skip that step and head straight (pun intended) to gay marriage.

Once again, separate, but equal, has never been equal.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Never straight.

Gayly forward.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Those can be more appropriately established through gay unions.
It's just easier to provide those benefits through marriage, just like we do for every other couple. No need to create an entirely new parallel benefits system.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
At the federal level.
Yes, marriage rights for same-sex couples at the federal level.

That's exactly what we'll be getting as soon as the SCOTUS finishes overturning DOMA.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Separate but equal does not apply.
You're right, because civil unions can't be made equal to marriage.

They are currently separate AND unequal.

That's why we won't accept anything but marriage.

Civil unions are only acceptable as a stepping stone to full marriage equalty.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Separate but equal does not apply.
But that is precisely what you are suggesting.

You are also suggesting that we as individuals are somehow inferior to hetero people, and so our love is something less.

You are a chauvinist bigot.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71
Oct 12, 2012
 
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Why stop with just gays if that is the definition of 'justice for all'?
I get the impression all you know is gay twirl sound bites that you not only have never thought about, you don't even know who they apply.
Get real.
You DO spend a lot of time obsessing about "gay twirl" (whatever that is...), don't you?? I wonder why that is?? Do you like how your skirts feel when your twirling and twirling around the room?

Once again, "Liberty and justice FOR ALL", not just the people you decide get it. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Would you not be jumping up and down and screaming your closeted head off if someone was trying to keep YOU from exercising your constitutionally guaranteed equal rights?

God knows you'd be here on Topic BITCHING about it plenty....

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
But that is precisely what you are suggesting.
You are also suggesting that we as individuals are somehow inferior to hetero people, and so our love is something less.
You are a chauvinist bigot.
Hardly. In any of your statements.

You are hate mongering because you have no answer to the list of distinctions I have listed;

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'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Why stop with just gays if that is the definition of 'justice for all'?
I get the impression all you know is gay twirl sound bites that you not only have never thought about, you don't even know who they apply.
Get real.
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
You DO spend a lot of time obsessing about "gay twirl" (whatever that is...), don't you?? I wonder why that is?? Do you like how your skirts feel when your twirling and twirling around the room?
Once again, "Liberty and justice FOR ALL", not just the people you decide get it. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Would you not be jumping up and down and screaming your closeted head off if someone was trying to keep YOU from exercising your constitutionally guaranteed equal rights?
God knows you'd be here on Topic BITCHING about it plenty....
Johny, Johny, you make my point.

I have listed distinctions that clearly differentiate the claim of equal. Gay unions are obviously not the same as marriage on every level of comparison. Yet here you go gay twirling a sound bite that is meaningless.

I'm simply pointing out reality. The other person is the one bitching, right?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right, because civil unions can't be made equal to marriage.
They are currently separate AND unequal.
That's why we won't accept anything but marriage.
Civil unions are only acceptable as a stepping stone to full marriage equalty.
I'm glad you finally admit that gay unions are clearly separate and unequal to gay marriage.

Maybe now you will stop pretending redumbant genders can be called married.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>

Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.
Married same-sex couples are married.

Enough said.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm glad you finally admit that gay unions are clearly separate and unequal to gay marriage.
Maybe now you will stop pretending redumbant genders can be called married.
No, I said civil unions aren't equal to marriage.

It doesn't matter what their gender or sexuality- straight people enter into civil unions as well.

Married same-sex couples are married.

That's how they can be called married.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#77
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Married same-sex couples are married.
Enough said.
Hardly.

Denial is all you have when you have no response to the distinctions.

Marriage is the birth place of every single other relationship, including yours. Gay unions are the birth place of none. Not one.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardly.
Denial is all you have when you have no response to the distinctions.
Marriage is the birth place of every single other relationship, including yours. Gay unions are the birth place of none. Not one.
There are no significant distinctions between married same-sex couples and married opposite-sex couples.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
There are no significant distinctions between married same-sex couples and married opposite-sex couples.
Are you serious?

Every single aspect of your statement is pure idiocy. It is why you avoid specificity in making it.

Even the comparison has denial and deceit embedded in it. Marriage in all of human history, in every single culture has always been diverse gendered couples. To even call a redumant gendered couple 'married' is a perversion of language, culture, history, evolution, religion and logic.

The very roots of life go back to a simple non-gendered life form. Marriage is simply a human formalization and celebration of millions of years of evolutionary refinement. Male and female reunited into one is the design of evolution's highest life form. Mating behavior is as engrained into our DNA as eating is, if not more so!

A gay union is a defective aberration of evolution and nature. A violation of design that is fruitless. It results in a pointless duplication of gender, whereas marriage, the blend of male and female, results in a whole new 'being'. Homosexuals can only mimic with flamboyant gays and butch lesbians.

You are simply and consistently stomping your feet like a girl and demanding everyone deny reality so you can pretend.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you serious?
Every single aspect of your statement is pure idiocy. It is why you avoid specificity in making it.
Even the comparison has denial and deceit embedded in it. Marriage in all of human history, in every single culture has always been diverse gendered couples. To even call a redumant gendered couple 'married' is a perversion of language, culture, history, evolution, religion and logic.
The very roots of life go back to a simple non-gendered life form. Marriage is simply a human formalization and celebration of millions of years of evolutionary refinement. Male and female reunited into one is the design of evolution's highest life form. Mating behavior is as engrained into our DNA as eating is, if not more so!
A gay union is a defective aberration of evolution and nature. A violation of design that is fruitless. It results in a pointless duplication of gender, whereas marriage, the blend of male and female, results in a whole new 'being'. Homosexuals can only mimic with flamboyant gays and butch lesbians.
You are simply and consistently stomping your feet like a girl and demanding everyone deny reality so you can pretend.
Other than gender, there are no signficant differences between married same-sex & opposite-sex couples.

There is no reason to deny marriage to same-sex couples.

Banning marriage for same-sex couples isn't going to turn them straight.

Allowing marriage for same-sex couples isn't going to prevent opposite-sex couples from marrying.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardly. In any of your statements.
You are hate mongering because you have no answer to the list of distinctions I have listed;
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.
What is "sacred" has no business in secular government. That's caesaropapism.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Other than gender, there are no signficant differences between married same-sex & opposite-sex couples.
There is no reason to deny marriage to same-sex couples.
Banning marriage for same-sex couples isn't going to turn them straight.
Allowing marriage for same-sex couples isn't going to prevent opposite-sex couples from marrying.
Interesting...

Ignore the vast distinctions I note.

Bring up a incredibly idiotic assertion no one is making to divert attention. Are you serious? Banning gays from marriage will "turn them straight"??? Please, tell me why that came up, I'm really curious.

Then you top it off with, "won't prevent marriage for straights". Please, marriage has always and only been for diverse genders.

Which brings us back to your claim that the only distinction is gender. In every single culture, in all of recorded human history, not one culture has accepted gay 'marriage' from start to finish. Even now, in places where gay 'marriage' is claimed, it is strongly resisted. In every single culture, marriage has been a fundamental relationship from start to finish. Quite a profound distinction, right?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardly. In any of your statements.
You are hate mongering because you have no answer to the list of distinctions I have listed;
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.
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
What is "sacred" has no business in secular government. That's caesaropapism.
Out of that extensive list, the only argument you have is one I didn't make?

Silly boy.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84
Oct 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

It underlies all of your assertions.

The rest are merely unsupported suppositions requiring no comment other than to note the fact.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••