Defeat in Maine a Harsh Blow to Gay-Marriage Drive

[Hold please]

Axel Rodam wrote:

<quoted text>
Gay marriage is as much discriminatory and limiting, as str8 marriage! Currently supporters of this idea do not include Muslims and Mormons ideas of family, for an example.
Gay marriage is as much discriminatory and limiting, as str8 marriage! Currently supporters of this idea do not include Muslims and Mormons ideas of family, for an example.
So good luck fighting for another government controlled and anti-constitutional provision.

I'm not getting what you're saying. If Muslims and Mormons choose not to recognize same-sex marriage, it's their own fault. No one is forcing them to believe what they believe.
And I'm not clear on your phrase of marriage being a, "government-controlled and anti-Constitutional provision." How would support of same-sex marriage be anti-Constitutional?

[Axel Rodam]

Hold please wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not getting what you're saying. If Muslims and Mormons choose not to recognize same-sex marriage, it's their own fault. No one is forcing them to believe what they believe.
And I'm not clear on your phrase of marriage being a, "government-controlled and anti-Constitutional provision." How would support of same-sex marriage be anti-Constitutional?

I am saying that Muslims and some Mormons recognize unions between one man and many women.. Should they be able to create and have an official government "blessing" for this kind of marriages? I do not see ACLU and organized gay groups defending this type of unions... Opposite, they say a marriage is a union of two adults of any gender. Why?

[Craig in OKC]

Axel Rodam wrote:

<quoted text>
I am saying that Muslims and some Mormons recognize unions between one man and many women.. Should they be able to create and have an official government "blessing" for this kind of marriages? I do not see ACLU and organized gay groups defending this type of unions... Opposite, they say a marriage is a union of two adults of any gender. Why?

Well, civil marriage should not give preference to ANY religion, nor strive to recognize a religions beliefs. So, when talking about civil marriage, it is not recognizing Christian, Muslim, Mormon or any other religion.
Civil marriage is basically a contract, which is between two people. In order to allow polygamy, not only would civil marriage need to be changed, but a large host of other laws. Tax laws, inheritence laws, family laws etc, since they are all based on the two person contract philosophy.
Now, that being said, at the moment gays haven't achieved equality for THEIR marriages, so why would you expect the energy to be expended on others? It has nothing to do with us being AGAINST those people, as we aren't actively fighting them either. It's a matter of resources - and we're spread pretty thin right now.

[SHADOW]

Craig in OKC wrote:

<quoted text> Well, I don't know what church you go to, but I can pretty much guarantee if you put it to a vote that that was the ONLY church people could go to it would also get defeated. The majority thinking a particular way doesn't make it right.
You know what. You're a f*cking tool and I'm pretty much done with you. You'll never listen to anybody else. You pretty much think you are God Almighty himself. So, just go right on believing that. But before too long, you yourself will fall right in line with your definition of perverse. Now try to figure that one out, d*ckhead.
And, no, I don't usually swear at people and call them names. There's just something about your "christlike" attitude that brings it out in me. I think you causing that is a sin, right?

I think your shat attitude is, face it, just what you are. Cussing means you are big and strong right?
Can't adress my post so you call me names.
One man plus one woman= marriage and that is that.

[Craig in OKC]

SHADOW wrote:

<quoted text>
I think your shat attitude is, face it, just what you are. Cussing means you are big and strong right?
Can't adress my post so you call me names.
One man plus one woman= marriage and that is that.

Well, I'm obviously bigger than you because I believe ALL citizens deserve the same rights. You have to make yourself bigger by believing you are somehow superior.
And, I've addressed your posts over and over. Sometimes you just have to recognize that some people have such a hardened heart and closed mind that nothing can EVER be discussed logically with them. You'd have a better change making a brick wall as soft as a feather bed.

So, my swearing at you wasn't to make me a bigger man - but to show how much I dismiss you as a decent human being. Have a good life in your hatred for your fellow man.

[SHADOW]

Craig in OKC wrote:

<quoted text> Well, I'm obviously bigger than you because I believe ALL citizens deserve the same rights. You have to make yourself bigger by believing you are somehow superior.
And, I've addressed your posts over and over. Sometimes you just have to recognize that some people have such a hardened heart and closed mind that nothing can EVER be discussed logically with them. You'd have a better change making a brick wall as soft as a feather bed.
So, my swearing at you wasn't to make me a bigger man - but to show how much I dismiss you as a decent human being. Have a good life in your hatred for your fellow man.

OMG I've been dismissed by a flaming queer. What ever will I do now??????
Craig I've tried to be nice to you and that won't work so ------
I DISMISS YOU FROM THE EARTH!!!!!

[Hold please]

Axel Rodam wrote:

<quoted text>
I am saying that Muslims and some Mormons recognize unions between one man and many women.. Should they be able to create and have an official government "blessing" for this kind of marriages? I do not see ACLU and organized gay groups defending this type of unions... Opposite, they say a marriage is a union of two adults of any gender. Why?

I don't have the answer for why polygamy is illegal, but if I had to hazard a guess, it would probably go towards the concept of divorce. But I'll check it out and see why and get back to you.

[Hold please]

SHADOW wrote:

<quoted text>
I think your shat attitude is, face it, just what you are. Cussing means you are big and strong right?
Can't adress my post so you call me names.
One man plus one woman= marriage and that is that.

Say it again.
Say, "one man plus..." again just so everyone can see how much of a fool you are.
Marriage has no truth. There is no "definition" of marriage as there is a definition of a star or a diamond. Marriage can be modified any time. At one time is was, "one man plus one woman of the same race equals marriage and that is that" and see how that turned out. In some areas of the world they say, "one man plus many women equals marriage and that is that." Are you going to tell them they're wrong?
Your little formula - 1m+1w=M - only works for you and other frightened, narrow-minded, selfish people.

Here's something I've always wondered, and you're just the person to ask: assuming you're married or plan to be, if they ever did have a big ol' Supreme Court decision and nationally legalized same-sex marriage (as a Civil ceremony), would you get a divorce?

[Barney Stinson]

SHADOW wrote:

<quoted text>
I think your shat attitude is, face it, just what you are. Cussing means you are big and strong right?
Can't adress my post so you call me names.
One man plus one woman= marriage and that is that.

1 Man + 1 Woman = Marriage
1 Man + 1 Woman + 1 Marriage = 1 Marriage + 1 Marriage
(1 Man + 1 Woman)+(1 Man + 1 Woman)= 2 Marriages
(1 Man + 1 Man)+(1 Woman + 1 Woman)= 2 Marriages

The additive and distributive properties don't lie. Gay marriage fits your equation.

[SHADOW]

Hold please wrote:

<quoted text>
Your little formula - 1m+1w=M - only works for you and other frightened, narrow-minded, selfish people.

And that would be the majority feel like me in all 31 states where the gay marriage proposal has been voted on by the people.

[Short Left Index Finger]

Now that everbody that is gay wants legal marriage,all of the sudden the straight world becomes defensive of it,it figures.

[Hold please]

SHADOW wrote:

<quoted text>
And that would be the majority feel like me in all 31 states where the gay marriage proposal has been voted on by the people.

So you think that this is good? That this is honorable? That we should be proud that a "majority" (which really just means those who turned out to vote) of people in these states are in favor of less freedom for Americans?
I'm sorry, but this is not a proud moment. This is not a victory, but a defeat. It shows that, as a nation, we give lip-service to our love of "freedom for all Americans", but we only mean those that fall within a certain group.
Answer me this Shadow - are you for freedom or not?
Although, I guess you've answered that question already, haven't you?

[Axel Rodam]

Craig in OKC wrote:

<quoted text> Well, civil marriage should not give preference to ANY religion, nor strive to recognize a religions beliefs. So, when talking about civil marriage, it is not recognizing Christian, Muslim, Mormon or any other religion.
Civil marriage is basically a contract, which is between two people. In order to allow polygamy, not only would civil marriage need to be changed, but a large host of other laws. Tax laws, inheritence laws, family laws etc, since they are all based on the two person contract philosophy.
Now, that being said, at the moment gays haven't achieved equality for THEIR marriages, so why would you expect the energy to be expended on others? It has nothing to do with us being AGAINST those people, as we aren't actively fighting them either. It's a matter of resources - and we're spread pretty thin right now.

One can't be free, if others are not...

I respect those who fight for their own freedom. But only those who fight for freedom of others are to be blessed!

[Axel Rodam]

Barney Stinson wrote:

<quoted text>
1 Man + 1 Woman = Marriage
1 Man + 1 Woman + 1 Marriage = 1 Marriage + 1 Marriage
(1 Man + 1 Woman)+(1 Man + 1 Woman)= 2 Marriages
(1 Man + 1 Man)+(1 Woman + 1 Woman)= 2 Marriages
The additive and distributive properties don't lie. Gay marriage fits your equation.

The Old Testament is clear on a definition of marriage.
Marriage is a union between ONE MAN and MULTIPLE WOMEN!
So why do we put in jail all these poor Mormons?

[Barney Stinson]

Axel Rodam wrote:

<quoted text>
The Old Testament is clear on a definition of marriage.
Marriage is a union between ONE MAN and MULTIPLE WOMEN!
So why do we put in jail all these poor Mormons?

the old testament is also very clear on the fact that because a pig has split hooves but does not chew the cud, it is unclean and should not be eaten, nor should we touch the carcass.

ever had bacon? pork chops?

you know, lobsters and crabs do not have both fins and scales, and thus are unclean and should not be eaten.

ever had lobster tail or crab rangoon?

Also, whenever a woman menstrates, she must wait seven days after the blood stops flowing, then sacrifice two small turtledoves or she will be unclean. Any leather or cloth that has semen on it is unclean and must be washed. Whenever a man and woman have intercourse, they must bathe in water or remain unclean.

The old testament is a little out of date. The book of leviticus forbids homosexual relations, true, but it also forbids you from touching a woman during her period, and from wearing clothing made from blended fibers.

Funny how you are quick to say that gays violate god's commands, but Joe's Crab Shack and Bubba's BBQ dont.

[pickelparkguide]

CHECK THIS OUT http://smargus.com/2009/06/queers-find-gay-ma...

[mktmom]

Craig in OKC wrote:

<quoted text> .
Thanks for showing me you don't have the same sense of justice.

You're right. We will never have the same sense of justice because in the case of gays there is nothing to correct. Imagine if black people had the income gays have, if black people had the influence in media, government and entertainment. Do you think we would be screaming about injustice? No way. We'd be more than happy. They could call us any name they wanted. Why? The only thing we ever wanted was the opportunity to earn money and take care of our families. We never expected or demanded that anyone tolerate us or love us or even value us Why? Because we already knew that we were as good as they were. Gays try to demand what cannot be given by a court, or vote. Gays want esteem from the outside world because they don't have it in themselves. They lack what blacks have, the knowledge that God had created us and loves us. It did not matter what the white world did to us.

To change laws we did not have to parade filthiness in the street like gays. We didn't demand that governments force five year old children and younger to hear about sexual practices. All we had to do to remind them of the unjust position is stand quietly in opposition to them. Just as God delivered us out of slavery, He would deliver their guilty consciences.

I just don't feel any guilt when I see all the power and money gays have. They already have everything we have ever asked for. Now they want to be treated special. They want to change the definition of words so that they can do what they want. Marriage is God made, not man made. So man has no right to twist and corrupt it.

God stood on our side when He helped us. We will continue to stand on His side and say no to this abomination in His sight.

[BetweenUandI]

*mktmom*,

Wow ! That was powerful. Truth to Power kind of powerful.
Superb dissertation..

[Shadow Dragon]

mktmom wrote:

<quoted text>
Marriage is God made, not man made. So man has no right to twist and corrupt it.
God stood on our side when He helped us. We will continue to stand on His side and say no to this abomination in His sight.

Then How come why Atheists can get married? If god didn't want gay people then why gay people are here?

[SHADOW]

mktmom wrote:

<quoted text>
You're right. We will never have the same sense of justice because in the case of gays there is nothing to correct. Imagine if black people had the income gays have, if black people had the influence in media, government and entertainment. Do you think we would be screaming about injustice? No way. We'd be more than happy. They could call us any name they wanted. Why? The only thing we ever wanted was the opportunity to earn money and take care of our families. We never expected or demanded that anyone tolerate us or love us or even value us Why? Because we already knew that we were as good as they were. Gays try to demand what cannot be given by a court, or vote. Gays want esteem from the outside world because they don't have it in themselves. They lack what blacks have, the knowledge that God had created us and loves us. It did not matter what the white world did to us.
To change laws we did not have to parade filthiness in the street like gays. We didn't demand that governments force five year old children and younger to hear about sexual practices. All we had to do to remind them of the unjust position is stand quietly in opposition to them. Just as God delivered us out of slavery, He would deliver their guilty consciences.
I just don't feel any guilt when I see all the power and money gays have. They already have everything we have ever asked for. Now they want to be treated special. They want to change the definition of words so that they can do what they want. Marriage is God made, not man made. So man has no right to twist and corrupt it.
God stood on our side when He helped us. We will continue to stand on His side and say no to this abomination in His sight.

Very good points, some I never thought about.
The thing I have the greatest problem with is all the threats from the gay community. I have a hard time calling them gay, when I grew up gay was something completely different. These people marching in our streets are anything but gay.
But the bottom line for me is God already came down on this and called it an abomination in His sight. I know saying that will bring on the the lions but it is fact and needs to be said more often to regain our God fearing moral society before it is too late.
I sincerely thank you for the post mkmom.
May God stand with each and everyone of us.