Homosexual Marriage defeated by WIDE Margins

Kristie - The people did not ban the LIFESTYLE. Most States did not ban civil unions which provides ALL the financial and decision making benefits of married couples. they just do NOT want to call it a marriage.

What part do you NOT get??

This is the attitude that energized Democrats and Republicans to get out amend their States constitution.

When 8 out of 10 disagree with your position, maybe it is time for YOU to re-think your position and move on to accept a compromise such as civil unions.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Kristie - The people did not ban the LIFESTYLE. Most States did not ban civil unions which provides ALL the financial and decision making benefits of married couples. they just do NOT want to call it a marriage.

What part do you NOT get??

This is the attitude that energized Democrats and Republicans to get out amend their States constitution.

When 8 out of 10 disagree with your position, maybe it is time for YOU to re-think your position and move on to accept a compromise such as civil unions.

Well Woiyo, the part that I don't get it the part where you people think that just because you're the majority, you get to be right. Rolling Eyes

And civil unions are NOT in option in my state now, so perhaps you should get your facts straight.

Now you want to quibble about the terminology of it? Talk about struggling for a good argument. The point is that you homophobes are too scared to let people with a different lifestyle be happy. Also, I don't believe that the ballot said Yes or No on calling it marriage. This wasn't a vote for terminology. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

There you go Kriste. Start with the name calling.

You pig-headedness has hampered you ability to argue the point with someone WHO SUPPORTS YOUR LIFESTYLE!!!!

Life is not always fair and sometime you have to compromise.

You completely ignored the statement that the vote was not a vote against the LIFESTYLE!!!!

It is your attitude that drove the masses out to vote against you, but you (and those like you) are too stubborn to see the possibility of compromise.

Too bad for you.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

There you go Kriste. Start with the name calling.

You pig-headedness has hampered you ability to argue the point with someone WHO SUPPORTS YOUR LIFESTYLE!!!!

Life is not always fair and sometime you have to compromise.

You completely ignored the statement that the vote was not a vote against the LIFESTYLE!!!!

It is your attitude that drove the masses out to vote against you, but you (and those like you) are too stubborn to see the possibility of compromise.

Too bad for you.

It isn't my lifestyle. That's the beauty of it. And I didn't ignore your comment on the lifestyle.

THERE IS NO COMPROMISE. Why should there be? Seperate but equal was a compromise. That didn't make things any better. So how should there be a compromise? I am eager to hear your compromise on this.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

There you go Kriste. Start with the name calling.

That is what a person who is afraid of homosexuals is called, no? It seems to me that most of the supporters of this ban are frightened of the prospect of letting "those people" into the American Dream. God forbid they corrupt the country....

0 Replies

Even now that the election is over and we as citizens should be keeping an eye on what bush plans to do to us in his second term, we are still going to be kept busy talking about this non issue.........wringing our hands, getting our panties in a bunch....while the administration continues to pick our pockets.....sigh...

0 Replies

My panties aren't in a bunch. Lively discussion on this end. I can't speak for woiyo of course.

0 Replies

If what you say is true, then woiyo. Do you believe that interracial couples should be banned from marriage, but should have the right for civil unions? Well, that was the attitude not that long ago and look where we are now

0 Replies

Linkat wrote:

If what you say is true, then woiyo. Do you believe that interracial couples should be banned from marriage, but should have the right for civil unions? Well, that was the attitude not that long ago and look where we are now

Let me try this one Link. You are not comparing the same thing here. It was absolutely wrong not to allow interracial couples to marry. They were denied the right to do what every other man and woman was allowed to do. A homosexual is free to marry anyone of the opposite sex anytime they choose. Thus there is no discrimination as long as the law is applied to all people equally. It is. Blacks were denied the right to marry someone of the opposite sex if that person was white. Thus, the law was not being applied equally to them. This is why it was discriminatory.

0 Replies

"THERE IS NO COMPROMISE. Why should there be? Seperate but equal was a compromise. That didn't make things any better. So how should there be a compromise? I am eager to hear your compromise on this. "

The compromise is CIVIL UNIONS. So long as ANY couple can pass property, make health decisions, adopt, file taxes jointly, etc... same as a married couple.

Does anyone really need the States "blessing" to live together and love each other?? NO!!!!

So long as the benefits are the same, I do not see the problem.

0 Replies

I will repeat: Michigan has banned civil unions as well.

0 Replies

Coastalrat your disagreement is similar to an argument that was set up against interracial couples marrying:
"The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." The judges insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." "

Basically you can twist almost anything to have it fit in a nice tidy bundle. You are denying homosexuals the same right. By denying them to marry some one of the same sex, you are basically saying you cannot marry as homosexuals would have no desire to marry some one of the opposite sex, the argument is ludicrous. You not applying the law equally to them since you are taking away their opportunity to marry.

Woiyo - the States are not "blessing" anyone, as "blessing" is a religious terminology. The States are legalizing the marriage. Do you need the States "blessing" to live together and love each other?? I propose that the States should not be involved at all in legalizing or "blessing" marriages. I propose that the States only have the power to legislate Civil Unions for all couples (Homosexual or Heterosexual) since marriage has such a religious connotation. So all "marriages" by the justice of the peace are denoted as civil unions. That way according to the government we are all equal with civil unions and all have the same legal stuff - property, adopting, taxes, etc. Leave the term "marriage" to the churches. To me that would solve all these differences.

0 Replies

Linkat wrote:

I propose that the States only have the power to legislate Civil Unions for all couples (Homosexual or Heterosexual) since marriage has such a religious connotation. So all "marriages" by the justice of the peace are denoted as civil unions. That way according to the government we are all equal with civil unions and all have the same legal stuff - property, adopting, taxes, etc. Leave the term "marriage" to the churches. To me that would solve all these differences.

In the early 17th century in states (colonies) such as Massachusetts and Connecticut this was the only kind of marriage that was available. It change because of the opposition and influence of the clergy (Protestant). I see no reason why we can not return to that.

0 Replies

I will state again, the battle for civil rights is different then the battle for gay marriage. Blacks don't have an option of being black. We know that being black is a genetic thing and can't be helped. Science backs it; the same thing cannot be said about being gay. People can say they are born that way, but there in nothing to back it up.

Prove through science that people are born gay and there won't be an issue. At this point in time, homosexuality is a choice and we shouldn't change society on people's choice.

0 Replies

Baldimo - do you believe that smoking causes lung cancer? Do you assume that a fetus will become a baby? No one fully understands any of this stuff, but we tend to all believe that Lung cancer can be caused by smoking, that little cell clusters will miraculously become a human being. No one can even fully explain why atoms form into cohesive units like human bodies.

So, none of the above proves that gay people are biologically designated as such, but it sort of discounts your theory, doesn't it?

0 Replies

And, by the way, no one really can prove how electricity works either, so you may want to turn off your computer.

0 Replies

ignorance

woiyo wrote:

So long as the benefits are the same, I do not see the problem.

There is a HUGE problem--whether you choose to see it or not. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the "separate but equal" doctrine is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Brown v. Board of Education

0 Replies

When can we expect the teaching of evolution to be banned.

0 Replies

Baldimo, homosexuals do not have the option of not being homosexual either. Personally I did not make a conscience decision to be heterosexual, I was just attracted to men not women. Did you make a conscience decision to be attracted to the opposite sex or is it just innate to you?

Just for arguments sake, lets say what you say is true. In the same vain, say a black is attracted to a white person. Well since it is not genetic, and they have the choice, it should be illegal for interracial marriages and relationships.

0 Replies

How long until a bi-sexual decides he/she wants both a husband and a wife?

0 Replies

Homosexual Marriage defeated by WIDE Margins

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know