Maine Votes No To Gay Marriage

#101
#101
volfanjustin said:
no one should be legislated not to practice marriage as long as it is between consenting adults.

This is your post
Click to expand...

If legalizing same sex marriage led to incestuous marriages, wouldn't we have already seen that in countries that DO allow gay marriage?

This is reductio ad absurdum. You're trying to promote a scary slippery slope to the point of ridiculousness. It would be like me arguing allowing Christian missionary trips could lead to another Crusade.
 
#102
#102
tvolsfan said:
There was a time in the south where that wasn't so ignorant? I think incest is an abomination, but I can see why you could make the same argument for gay marriage and incest. It doesn't effect other people, right? You may be pro gay marriage, but people definitely have the right to feel like it is wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes, they do. It's immoral for them to restrict the feelings of others because of it, though.
 
#103
#103
tvolsfan said:
There was a time in the south where that wasn't so ignorant? I think incest is an abomination, but I can see why you could make the same argument for gay marriage and incest. It doesn't effect other people, right? You may be pro gay marriage, but people definitely have the right to feel like it is wrong.
Click to expand...

The comparison is valid, he made the statement something to the effect of no one should stop consenting adults from getting married. So the arguement can be applied to this arguement as well.

What is it with you and your bashing of the south? Yesterday southern people were ok with segregation and now we are ok with incest?
 
#104
#104
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Sure. They decided on our President, didn't they?? The people get it right more often than they get it wrong. Besides, how many people in here actually live in Maine and this makes them uncomfortable?? If it doesn't affect you, then what makes it a talking point?? I really have never understood that. The President is doing things that will affect us and our children and their children, but people are calling the people in Maine idiots for what they feel is the right thing to do. It's their right.
Click to expand...

So why can't individuals make that determination?
 
#105
#105
IPorange said:
If legalizing same sex marriage led to incestuous marriages, wouldn't we have already seen that in countries that DO allow gay marriage?

This is reductio ad absurdum. You're trying to promote a scary slippery slope to the point of ridiculousness. It would be like me arguing allowing Christian missionary trips could lead to another Crusade.
Click to expand...

Who are you to not want to allow 2 consenting adults to marry? At least be consistent.
 
#106
#106
volfanjustin said:
The comparison is valid, he made the statement something to the effect of no one should stop consenting adults from getting married. So the arguement can be applied to this arguement as well.

What is it with you and your bashing of the south? Yesterday southern people were ok with segregation and now we are ok with incest?
Click to expand...

It isn't valid. You're trying to use a classic "slippery slope" tactic instead of making an argument as to why you get to tell two consenting gay adults they aren't allowed a basic social institution in a supposedly secular society. You are inserting a straw man of a group of incestuous couples clamoring for marriage when no group like that exists in this country, and no group like that has come about in the many countries with legalized same sex marriage.
 
#107
#107
IPorange said:
So why can't individuals make that determination?
Click to expand...

They did, and voted it down. If you think that a decision on deciding to change the way marriage is defined is one that a political figure should make, then that's an elitist thought process. Political figures should worry more about keeping the people safe, than to worry about homosexuals and abortion, IMO. I guess your good with the government making decisions for you, instead of you actually having to make a decision and makes someone feel uncomfortable, right??
 
#108
#108
IPorange said:
So why can't individuals make that determination?
Click to expand...

Individuals did, they held a vote and they voted not to allow it. I don't see what the problem is. It was an open and fair election where everyone had the right to vote and the people of this state made their voices heard.
 
#109
#109
IPorange said:
It isn't valid. You're trying to use a classic "slippery slope" tactic instead of making an argument as to why you get to tell two consenting gay adults they aren't allowed a basic social institution in a supposedly secular society. You are inserting a straw man of a group of incestuous couples clamoring for marriage when no group like that exists in this country, and no group like that has come about in the many countries with legalized same sex marriage.
Click to expand...

It is valid, you could at least be consistent. If they should be allowed to get married then cousins, siblings or parents to their kids, should all be allowed to marry.
 
#110
#110
volfanjustin said:
Who are you to not want to allow 2 consenting adults to marry? At least be consistent.
Click to expand...

I am being consistent. I am speaking of discrimination based on sexual orientation/gender, you are referring to a sexual behavior.

An incestuous man has other options for marriage that are within the bounds of society. A gay man has no other options that are currently legally.
 
#111
#111
g8terh8ter_eric said:
They did, and voted it down. If you think that a decision on deciding to change the way marriage is defined is one that a political figure should make, then that's an elitist thought process. Political figures should worry more about keeping the people safe, than to worry about homosexuals and abortion, IMO. I guess your good with the government making decisions for you, instead of you actually having to make a decision and makes someone feel uncomfortable, right??
Click to expand...

They are ok with letting the govt make their decisions because if they do then they don't have to be worried about personal responsibilty or affending someone.
 
#112
#112
IPorange said:
I am being consistent. I am speaking of discrimination based on sexual orientation/gender, you are referring to a sexual behavior.

An incestuous man has other options for marriage that are within the bounds of society. A gay man has no other options that are currently legally.
Click to expand...

You can argue both ways for homosexuality according to both sides. So, if you allow one, then later on why not allow the other. He has a valid point.
 
#114
#114
So if 10 people are stranded on a raft in the ocean, and 6 of those 10 vote to not let the other 4 drink the water supplies, this is just and fair simply because the majority voted it so?
 
#116
#116
IPorange said:
So if 10 people are stranded on a raft in the ocean, and 6 of those 10 vote to not let the other 4 drink the water supplies, this is just and fair simply because the majority voted it so?
Click to expand...

Dude, you just don't get it. Your trying to compare a raft full of people to a state or states in the US?? Man, I've heard some stretches, but this may take the cake. BTW, I want to know who loses the vote for the legs because you know the others are going to get hungry. Sounds like a bad Saw movie to me.
 
#117
#117
IPorange said:
I am being consistent. I am speaking of discrimination based on sexual orientation/gender, you are referring to a sexual behavior.

An incestuous man has other options for marriage that are within the bounds of society. A gay man has no other options that are currently legally.
Click to expand...

I am not discriminating against anyone, nor do I believe people who voted this down are. If someone wants to be gay, fine with me. I am against it but I do not wish them harm and they should be allowed to be gay. At the same time the people have the right to not allow them to marry. A gay person does not have to be gay. They choose to be so if an incestuous man can marry someone else then so can a gay man, he can marry a woman.
 
#118
#118
g8terh8ter_eric said:
You can argue both ways for homosexuality according to both sides. So, if you allow one, then later on why not allow the other. He has a valid point.
Click to expand...

Only if you're not critically thinking.


Sexual behavior: The method or way a person expresses their sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation: The direction of a persons desire, towards the same sex, opposite sex, or both.


They're not the same. If you need evidence that they aren't, how do you know that you are straight if you've never had an experience with the same sex? You're just attracted to the opposite sex, and that's that. An incestuous brother and sister aren't incestuous in orientation, but rather in their behavior. It's two different things.
 
#120
#120
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Dude, you just don't get it. Your trying to compare a raft full of people to a state or states in the US?? Man, I've heard some stretches, but this may take the cake. BTW, I want to know who loses the vote for the legs because you know the others are going to get hungry. Sounds like a bad Saw movie to me.
Click to expand...

I'm just saying I don't think something is ethical or moral or fair only because a majority says it is. The majority is wrong about as often as they're right. We are supposed to be a nation with personal freedom and liberties, and it isn't in keeping with that to be telling other people what they can and can't do if it isn't hurting anyone.
 
#121
#121
volfanjustin said:
I am not discriminating against anyone, nor do I believe people who voted this down are. If someone wants to be gay, fine with me. I am against it but I do not wish them harm and they should be allowed to be gay. At the same time the people have the right to not allow them to marry. A gay person does not have to be gay. They choose to be so if an incestuous man can marry someone else then so can a gay man, he can marry a woman.
Click to expand...

Voting to keep a right from a group of people that is available to larger population based on their orientation is most definitely discriminating. That's a loaded word now to be sure, but it is the one that fits.

Why do people have the right not to let "them" marry? What gives them this right?


Also, why on God's green Earth would anyone choose to be gay, given the majority's feelings on them? Never mind the empirical evidence from psychology that indicates otherwise. WHY would one choose to be gay?

And I don't remember deciding to be straight. I just remember thinking girls were hot sometime in middle school.
 
#122
#122
IPorange said:
Only if you're not critically thinking.


Sexual behavior: The method or way a person expresses their sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation: The direction of a persons desire, towards the same sex, opposite sex, or both.


They're not the same. If you need evidence that they aren't, how do you know that you are straight if you've never had an experience with the same sex? You're just attracted to the opposite sex, and that's that. An incestuous brother and sister aren't incestuous in orientation, but rather in their behavior. It's two different things.
Click to expand...

So, now we are back to the whole "Gay Gene" thing now huh??

The whole point is, when you allow one, you set yourself up for the others to get their feet in the door. What if someone REALLY loves their dog and feels predisposed to being that way?? Is there a "Beastiality Gene"?? If people want to be gay, that's fine, not right but fine. They, nor you, should expect the people to be OK with it because it defies all current biological and reproductive stances. They didn't want it, so why do you keep arguing with it?? Seems to me like maybe you should go to Maine and get involved and be the voice of the homosexual movement up there so that way people understand that they are being discriminated against.
 
Last edited:
#123
#123
IPorange said:
I'm just saying I don't think something is ethical or moral or fair only because a majority says it is. The majority is wrong about as often as they're right. We are supposed to be a nation with personal freedom and liberties, and it isn't in keeping with that to be telling other people what they can and can't do if it isn't hurting anyone.
Click to expand...

No, your saying its wrong to decide that things are wrong for people to decide and that a more elitist view is needed because the people are stupid. That's the same view I have argued and seen amongst most of those that are arguing for this whole case. The people don't care if they are gay, they just don't agree that redefining marriage because of a few is something that the people want.
 
#124
#124
g8terh8ter_eric said:
So, now we are back to the whole "Gay Gene" thing now huh??

The whole point is, when you allow one, you set yourself up for the others to get their feet in the door. What if someone REALLY loves their dog and feels predisposed to being that way?? Is their a "Beastiality Gene"?? If people want to be gay, that's fine, not right but fine. They, nor you, should expect the people to be OK with it because it defies all current biological and reproductive stances. They didn't want it, so why do you keep arguing with it?? Seems to me like maybe you should go to Maine and get involved and be the voice of the homosexual movement up there so that way people understand that they are being discriminated against.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you got that I was driving at a "gay gene." Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. There probably isn't.

I again ask, of the many countries that have had legalized same sex marriage for decades, which now has legalized bestial and incestuous marriages?

Homosexuality doesn't defy all current biological and reproductive stances. Gender isn't black and white, it's a spectrum. Homosexual activity of sorts have been observed in several species in nature. It even has indirect evolutionary (but I am sure no everyone "believes" in that) benefits.

An example: say there are two siblings, a male and female, of a social hominid society. The female is straight, finds a mate for life, and has a bunch of kids. The male sibling is gay, and never produces offspring. Because of he doesn't have offspring, the only immediate family he has is his sister's kids. So where does his resources go? To his sister's kids. That's additional food, protection, and the like. This would be a boost in nutrition which outside of modern times would be a big deal, and this would also be a safety net should any tragedy befall the gay hominid or his straight sister's mate.
 
#125
#125
IPorange said:
Voting to keep a right from a group of people that is available to larger population based on their orientation is most definitely discriminating. That's a loaded word now to be sure, but it is the one that fits.

Why do people have the right not to let "them" marry? What gives them this right?


Also, why on God's green Earth would anyone choose to be gay, given the majority's feelings on them? Never mind the empirical evidence from psychology that indicates otherwise. WHY would one choose to be gay?

And I don't remember deciding to be straight. I just remember thinking girls were hot sometime in middle school.
Click to expand...

It is not discrimination, they have the right to be gay. These states have just choose to not have gay marriage shoved down their throats.

I make the choice to be straight. No one is born gay. Why would someone choose to murder, rape or rob soemone. It is a choice they have made.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top