@chadmak09, gay people are attracted to all kinds of people throughout the entire spectrum of feminine to masculine. One example of how a gay couple (in this case a gay family) can act is "depfox" on YouTube. The femininity/ masculinity of a person in a relationship doesn't make it good or bad by itself - we're all different people. Some people just act different around different people, it's just the way some of us are.
@chadmak09, if you are not being sarcastic, then take out the quotations around partner in your comment above so you won't cause any confusion (if it were me, I would switch the word with husband). If you ask me, if you want to create a real civil union with equal rights, then the government should get out of the marriage business and change all existing marriages into civil unions.
So the only answer is to create a "civil union" that gives all the legal rights/benefits of a normal marriage between two normal people (man and woman).
@chadmak09, I will bet you money that a couple in a domestic partnership will still be discriminated in some respects due to "confusion" of a domestic partnership compared to the obvious and more universal understanding of marriage. Social apartheid can never be a natural incubator of dignity.
@chadmak09, civil unions will never be treated the same way as marriages as long as they are named differently, and this is because separate is inherently unequal, as proven with the Jim Crow laws of the South (white and colored drinking fountains, white and colored schools, etc.). Arguing that couples that can naturally procreate should have more rights than others is assuming a remarkably and tragically narrow-minded view of our world (impending overpopulation, adoption, insemination, etc.)
@chadmak09, one example of cluelessness is failure to recognize that Iraqi militia are hunting down gay people and killing them by gluing their anus cheeks together while forcing them to drink a diarrhea-inducing drink, causing the victims to suffer the most painful death imaginable. Another example is the failure to realize that both Jewish and gay people were exterminated during the Nazi holocaust.
You seem to carry a pungent hatred against gays, and I don't tolerate such a tone of voice.
As long as gays continue to push agendas on us, schools, & children, there will be those who will stand against it & stop u from FORCING your values on people who are not willing.
Your agenda is WRONG.
Live your life as you wish & be happy, but dont try to change other peoples values by paying off politicians 2 legalize gay marriage.
If U do, We will fight back & vote it down.
The people have spoken on this subject, & its about time you guys get the message. We will not stand down
@chadmak09, I've heard the argument many times that "gays are pushing their agendas on our schools and children". I think it's sad that gay couples who wish to marry and raise children are regarded as pushing their agenda simply because they exist. I think it's also sad that those who oppose gay marriage force their agenda down those gay couples by taking away their civil right to marry. People don't have to change their values, but they should treat others with dignity and respect.
@chadmak09, the Merriam-Webster and American Heritage dictionaries both define marriage as both opposite-sex and same-sex. The government regards marriage as a fundamental civil right, which carries a different set of rules compared to the definition of a word. If only straight citizens can marry the persons that they love, then marriage would be inherently unconstitutional, and the government should then change all existing marriages into civil unions and stop granting legal marriages.
Also, the people of Washington voted for the first time to grant all the rights of marriage for gay couples, so why don't you go to Washington and call them all "ungodly heathens"? Go ahead and keep preaching your bullshit, because a MAJORITY of the people voted against it! :)
If you actually read your bible and tried to follow Jesus' example, you would know that God loves gay people and gay relationships. The Episcopal Church recognises this, allong with several other large protestant denominations and even some Catholic churches. So as long as you keep invoking God to justify your hatred, keep in mind that there are many Christians who believe it is YOU who are being immoral when you attack us.
The fact that you attack gay people as sick, perverted and immoral is wrong. This is not a matter of "tolerance" for opposing view points. This is matter of right vs wrong, and when you attack gays, YOU are wrong. So if you want to call me a bigot for not being "tolerant" of your stupid, outdated beliefs, then BRING IT ON.
Bigot \Big"ot\, n. A person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion. Sound familiar? I'd say that discribes YOU. You keep saying that homosexuality is perverted no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary. I don't agree with the mormon religion, but at least I'm not trying to outlaw it.
when gay people automatically attack anyone who opposes thier opinons and starts calling them hatemongers and bigots , they are being intolerant of opinions which conflict w/thier own, and are blindly devoted to thier own belief, or opinion.
The definition of bigotry.
Thank you for backing me up on what I just said.
Or were you saying that its only bigotry when someone who isnt gay does those things??
The laws of which religion, specifically are being imposed on you? Are these Methodist laws? Catholic Canon law? Sharia? The Torah? Please be specific.
Dear Mr. nnjhansen, ALL religions need to stay out of civil law, civil rights which are here to protect the human rights and civil liberties of ALL AMERICANS. What you obviously object to is a separation of church and state as you feel it is your right to exclude a portion of the US citizenry from obtaining equal legal status and federal and state's rights afforded the heterosexually wed.
Have you ever read the Rev Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Letter From a Birmingham Jail? Are you at all familiar with the work of the Rev. Joseph Lowery or the Rev Hosea Williams?
Were they wrong to bring the force of their religious beliefs to bear on civil public policy questions?
No one is demanding that any religion perform the unions. Again, we are a SECULAR society wherein we must accept and live alongside many many people who do not agree with a given religious position, however, that postiion, whatever it's religious perspective has ZERO rights to be imposed upon any of our citizens. Liberty and Justice FOR ALL, not just the God fearing!
But beyond that..have you nothing of import to spend your time on? How about volunteering at a children's cancer ward, or feeding the aged and abandoned in nursing homes (as I do) or going to war for this country, as I did. Please if this issue only serves for you to spout your belief that a segment of the American family is not entitled to the same rights and benefits as you, then waste your time. You will be proven wrong in the end.
The world is moving toward progressive and tolerant modalities. The Middle Ages and the Inquisition of the Church against its perceived "heretics" is long over. Dust off the cobwebs in your brain - and welcome to the modern world. Again, the best thing I paid witness to was the inordinate amount of heterosexuals and more than that the youth who refuse to participate in social segregation and who will in time overcome ignorance, bias and bigotry of people still dwelling in the Middle Ages.
Theres no way to carry a civil discussion about this.
If you are against gay marriage, then you are automatically labeled as a hatemonger and a bad person.
I dont now why those that push for gay marriage have to be so bigoted. If you dont agree with them, then they automatically start calling you a bigot and a religious nutjob. They attack anyone who doesnt think just like them. Which is the definition of a bigot
I thought the guy who voted yes was very civil and did a good job trying to explain why people should vote yes (and why they won). But as always, The other guy had to play the victim and claim that his rights were being violated even gay marriage has never been a right.
Chad, I think it's possible to carry on a civil discussion. I hope so anyway. I try to do that all the time. Youtube is not the best place for it, what with all the name-calling and swearing that most people do, but it's possible to have a conversation without all that. Anyway, if the "Yes on 1" people would want to have a discussion with me, then I am all for it. I'm not going to call you names. I just don't understand why you're against equal rights. I want to understand your reasons.
I think that the future will look back to this era as a dark time filled with people who harbored prejudice, ignorance and hatred towards a suspect minority class, and those people will not be looked at favorably. It will be an afterthought that gay people are the same as straight people, and both will be treated fully the same. And the strongest people of all are those who are oppressed today, because their strength is tested and proven.
Also, is there a need for you to gloat about the election results? Is this about protecting marriage, or is it about doing a victory dance around a group of people, and would such an action belie a rather sinister attitude against that group of people?
Perhaps if the gay community weren't such rabid activists with a political agenda they wouldn't have lost 31 state votes on this issue. But marriage is only one of their agendas. They want their lifestyle taught in public schools. They want special laws to protect them from what I'm not sure. Unless you're some type of drop dead beautiful model (either sex) each of us face some sort of discrimination in life. Get over it and move on. Stop it with the vitriol each time you lose like this.
milehigh587, with all due respect, your comment makes me wonder if you hate, fear and/or are grossed out by LGBT people. No one should vote to take away marriage rights from LGBT people in the first place. Gay rights aren't special rights, because it isn't special to be free from discrimination - that is an ordinary universal entitlement of citizenship. No one should be discriminated, period, and any discrimination should be fought and protested until overturned.
Homosexuals have the exact same ability to marry as anyone else. The conditions and restrictions on obtaining a marriage license apply to everyone equally.
Repeating the same untruth does make it true. Maybe if you were honest in your arguments you would not lose every election.
I can go as long as you continue to propagate the lies that this issue has anything to with equality or that anyone is being denied a right.
This is simply a case where you object to a condition for a state issued license. The condition applies equally to all people and is reasonably related to the purpose of that license.
nnjhansen, Gays are not allowed to marry each other in most states. They cannot marry the one they love. Is that so difficult to understand? You keep mentioning conditions, are not these conditions wrong? Do you think gays should be able to marry each other, In case if you don't understand, should same sex marriage be legal? Please answer or shut up!
No the conditions and restrictions are not wrong if they are reasonably related to a legitimate state interest and the requirement for one man and one woman clearly is.
nnjhansen ,milehigh and others of your ilk. You continually tell lie after lie as a means to cover your ignorance and deep-seated hatred. You seem gleeful that 31 states have voted to relegate gays to second-class citizenship. There is absolutely no validity to your statements. History will look back on you just as does the whites who lined the strets to yell slurs at the black children who had to be escorted to school by the National Guard. Many of us already see you that way. I will not
respond to any more of your comments because it is a waste of time. I do hope that you one day realize the hurt and damage that you and others like you have and are causing to your fellow Americans who happen to be gay. "The arc of History is long but it always bends toward justice" It is only a matter of time. Peace.
nnjhansen, Massachusetts, Vermont, Iowa, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Canada, Spain, Belgium, Holland and I believe now Norway allow gays to marry each other.
It is not about rights. It is about gays getting access to the innocent children, at a very young age, and brainwashing them into accepting deviant/unnatural sex acts as a norm. Their other goal is to get the taxpayers to pay, via Obama's socialist thuggery, for this destruction of our young.
Thank god for the common sense people of Maine, and the other 31 states that will never buy into the gay propaganda.
Dealit707, that's a lie. This is entirely about civil rights, dignity and respect towards all people regardless of sexual orientation. The argument of "gays getting access to the innocent children" is twisted fear-mongering and comes from a place of narrow-minded ignorance and learned hatred. I find it sad that people regard those who are gay with ugly disdain instead of opening up their mind and understanding sexual orientation better.
Deal, oh my God, seriously, not this again. Same-sex marriage has *nothing* to do with children. Gay people still have their children. They still can adopt children and raise children, and millions of straight parents also teach their kids that being gay is perfectly fine. None of that is against the law, and none of it has to do with marriage. It's not illegal to talk about gay people in schools in Maine or CA or anywhere else, and the votes didn't change that.
The Yes on 1 side had some very good points. I believe homosexuals aren't being denied their rights but want additional rights to marry someone of the same sex. If a homosexual wants to have sex with someone of the same gender why should all of us be forced to say that it is ok even though it's not really natural and against our belief system of right and wrong? Not really natural in a sense that if you had an entire species that was homosexual then it would die out. Homosexuality is a dead end.
TaxPayersMoney839, we can agree to disagree, but in America, we have the fundamental rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and we are governed on the virtues of fairness, equality, dignity and respect. You don't have to say that being gay is ok, but that doesn't mean you should take away my rights as well, or you come off as arrogant, self-righteous and supreme. And homosexuality is very natural on this planet - look at the thousands of other species as proof.
"The laws governing marriage do treat everyone fairly and equally" No, they do not. This is the same silly argument that was presented before the Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia regarding inter-racial marriage. Virginia argued that it was treating everyone the same by saying that they were telling both the blacks and whites that they could only marry within their own race. Do you not see how illogical this argument is?
You may want to read Loving again. One of the two basis on which it was overturned was the fact that it was not applied equally. Only whites were forbidden from marrying outside their race. The Court also found that the restriction was not related to a legitimate interest but to the illegitimate purpose of preserving the purity of the white race
The SC ruled that it was not applied equally even though Virginia had argued that it was applying the law equally. Those who now say the law is applied equally are just as illogical. Furthermore, the SC ruled that marriage was a basic fundamental "right".
Because it was not applied equally. Whites were forbidden to marry outside of their race while others were not.
The Court was citing itself in Skinner, the full Skinner citation reads, "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.: Sill want to argue it applies to marriages between those of the same sex?
The fact that upon marriage, heterosexuals are granted over 1000 special rights is a clear violation of the principles set forth in the US Constitution.
How is it a violation? Those privileges (that is what they are, not rights) are open to everyone who meets the conditions for the license. The fact that homosexuals generally choose not to accept the conditions does not constitute a constitutional defect.
Two consenting adult heterosexuals can marry and thereby be granted over 1000 special privileges. Two consenting adult homosexuals cannot marry and thus are denied over 1000 special privileges. Clearly it is a Constitutional issue.
There are a number of reasons why two consenting adult heterosexuals cannot marry. There is also no law preventing two consenting adult homosexuals from marrying.
The US Supreme Court has already said this issue fails to present a substantial federal question.
nnjhansen, All states except Massachusettts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont do not allow gays to marry each other. You keep bringing this up. Whats the deal?
Those jurisdictions have redefined marriage by removing a previously fundamental requirement for it. That has nothing to do with the equal application of that requirement in other jurisdictions.
Dealit707, that's incorrect; homosexuality has played a part in the progression of various species. Being gay is a genetic difference, not a genetic sickness, as much as being straight is also a genetic difference and not a genetic perfection that legitimizes supremacy.
Genetic difference? Are you saying there is a gay gene? Homosexuality is a choice not a genetic condition. There are cases where people that practice homosexuality were able to become heterosexual. I'm definitely not saying it's easy to overcome but there is hope.
If people want to be happy then let them. Since when does someone care about marriage. I've never seen people talk about this stuff as they do about the war in Iraq or the economy. the yes on 1 people just don't like gay people and that's all there is to it. my cousin is gay (moms niece) and my step dads sister is gay and they are both voteing yes. Such a low thing to do. People who vote yes have no heart.
i think the next issue should be to allow marraige to multiple people. thats what would make me happy. or better, making it legal to marry and have mistresses. i think that would make life better for everyone.
So if a law is passed, which says same-sex couples now fit the requirements of a marriage license (discrimination gone) you would still deny them because they cannot fulfil the purpose of the marriage, even though an infertile couple is in the same boat we just haven't figured it out yet.
so can i ask, what was the reason you brought up procreation as a purpose? just because a couple can not procreate is not a good enough reason to deny them marriage because its not a legal requirement.
Every licensing scheme serves a societal purpose. In order to further that purpose, the state imposes conditions and requirements on the issuance of that license that are reasonably related to that purpose. If you meet the requirements for the license, one is issued.
Human reproduction requires one man and one woman, therefore the requirement for such is reasonably related to the societal purpose of marriage.
of course its discriminatory, its the same as saying to a black woman in 1960, you can't marry your white boyfriend but you can marry that black guy over their instead, because all black people can marry each other, its "equal".
There you are wrong. The anti-miscegenation laws were not equal (blacks could marry outside their race and whites could not) they were also related to a state purpose that the 14th Amendment deemed illegitimate.
infertile people are in the same boat as gay people.
the purpose relating to the requirement cannot be achieved because of their sexual orientation, is discrimination.
if the whole reason you think they shouldnt be allowed marriage licenses is because they cannot fulfill the purpose JUST like a an infertile couple, then the infertile couple should be denied the license too.
No, infertile couples are not similar to same sex couples. Infertile couples meet the requirements for a marriage license and the same sex couple does not.
I do not think same sex couples should be issued marriage licenses because they do not satisfy the requirements for one.
Those requirements are reasonable and clearly related to the state's purpose in issuing those licenses.
but their not, How can they be reasonable if their whole purpose of marriage was to help families, the license needs changing because the definition of family has changed, when the license was created gay families didnt exist, now those families need the legal protections, (next of kin, adoption, custody, insurance) as any other family.
they also have to called marriage, not only because we all know that separate but equal is not equal, but also because marriage is globally recognized, civil unions are not.
The people of the 30 states that the issue has been put before to date disagree with you. They found the requirements completely reasonable. It is properly their decision, isn't it?
we all know gay marriage will be legal eventually, the reason its been denied before is the generation, if you put it on a history context you know it takes time for equality.
the reason states have lost is not because they didnt agree with what iv just said, most of the votes have been based on not knowing what i've said, and the majority of votes based purely on a stereotype or opinion of gay people.
so why didnt the vote become closer in california? its because people decided to do the research themselves. The adverts that are against gay marriage rely on fear mongering and propaganda to get a vote, if they actually had a decent opinion on the subject to put forward they would have. (your opinion did come close, but the fact is we change, we always have changed to improve and amend.
The vote in CA was not very close. There was no more fear mongering on one side than the other. The whole basis for the No side was false. No right was being taken away from anyone.
i said closer. "a storm is coming" ...heart beating music in the background, video clips of kids saying "im confused" ...relating two seperate events and saying that allowing gay marriage MIGHT take away parents rights to remove books from class, that church's COULD lose their tax exempt status, all lies and fear mongering,
they were not even close to being true and you know it.
King & King, the childrens book about 2 men in a relationship, wanting to be removed from a childs class in Massachusetts.
-if it was a book about a man & a woman they still wouldnt of been allowed to remove the book, no where in the gay marriage bill did it take away any body else's rights away.
its like me saying, we cant let interracial marriage legal, we might not be allowed to take all the books about black people from the schools
the tax exempt status being removed is also another fear mongering lie, gay couples would marry the same way another other non religious couple would marry, WITHOUT a church. or they would marry in a church were they are wanted. the churches religious freedoms remain intact the same way before a civil gay marriage becomes legal, they can still turn away anyone for any reason, its their church.
so if the straight couple is later found out that they are infertile through their own accord (not intrusive or costly) should we terminate their marriage license? because they cannot fulfill the purpose relating to the requirements.
Couple goes to city hall and applies for a marriage license, the clerk determines that the man and woman meet all the requirements for the license and issues it.
Another couple goes to city hall and the clerk determines that these two men do not meet the requirements and denies the license.
your telling me that it costs money and intrusiveness to find out if a couple can fulfill the PURPOSE of marriage, but because it doesn't require money or intrusiveness for the same sex couple, its somehow ok to deny them marriage because its now considered a requirement?
Homosexual people DO meet the requirements, same sex couples do not.
The state can, at a reasonable cost ($0 and zero intrusiveness) determine that a same sex couple cannot fulfill the purpose. Determining the same for a man-woman requires an unacceptable amount of dollars and intrusiveness.
But the purpose is not to procreate, the societal purpose is to RAISE children, which same sex couples as well infertile couples and straight couples.
YOU said procreation is not a requirement, so which requirement are we talking about that same sex couples cannot achieve?
YOU said over and over again that procreation is a purpose, why is it a purpose for a straight infertile couple, but now requirement for the gay couple, a requirement which if is not met, denies them the license.
The difference is that the state can reasonably determine that the same sex couple cannot fulfill the purpose because they do not meet the requirements that are reasonably related to it.
Should we terminate the marriage license if it later found that the straight couple is infertile through their own accord? (not costly or intrusive) because they are in the same boat as the gay couple who can also NOT procreate.
Do we terminate the drivers license of the person who decides not to drive anymore? The law license of the lawyer who retires from the practice of law or the cosmetology license from the retired hair stylist?
nnjhansen, it is an issue of church and state, because lots of people are voting to take away the legal right of civil non-religious marriage from gay couples based on their religious beliefs. Should we vote to outlaw pork because Jewish people find eating pork to be unsacred, even though not everyone is Jewish? Other religions believe in both gay and straight marriage, what about them? There's a reason why our government can not adopt any religion.
No kidding! My daughter is reading "Julie of the Wolves" in school. It's about a 13 yr old girl who ran away from her abusive husband. My daughter is baffled, reading about a girl a year older than her who was forced to marry and was later rapped by her husband, etc. What horrible stuff to "teach" in the schools. And they worry about books about 2 moms or 2 dads?
They'll allow "alternative methods" for legally-recognized same-sex unions, just as long as they aren't called "marriage?" Just as long as we don't "re-define" the word?
Yeah, right. That's why here in Washington we have to fight tooth and nail to approve Referendum 71, expanding domestic partnerships to be on par with marriages in all but name. It's separate but "equal," and they still won't stand for it!
I swear, these people won't be satisfied until they get the anti-sodomy laws reinstated.
Even if marriage had to be redifined. Whats the big deal? OMG we have to change "marriage is the union between one man and one women" to "Marriage is the union of two people" AHHH wont somebody please think of the children. lol People really need to grow the f&*k up. you want to get married to the PERSON you love, do it. Let others marry the PERSON they love. Whats the big deal with that. I capitalized person because some bigots like to say animals and what not. Equality is coming :-)
Throughout history, there has been a first time for everything. Gay marriage is very new, just as interracial marriage was new at one point. Just as the first woman ever voted; just as the first European walked on American soil; just as the first man walked on two legs. It's called cultural evolution, and those whom are most resistant to change, are the one's whom will ultimately suffer; just as they predict.
So..the woman that I work with that has been married 3 times since my partner and I have been together..those are "approved" rights??? Please explain?
I certainly cannot judge you..I do not know you and have no idea how you were raised. I am not a big fan of capital punishment but I truly believe whoever invented the "closet" should be executed..
It is a horrible place that makes gay kids commit suicide and gay politicians and gay clergy create homophobic laws and rules. Being gay is soooo not a choice.. and that comes from my heart...
I wish you well on your journey through this thing we call life....
Perhaps not..who knows? I REALLY wish you the best..seriously! If you want to protect "marriage" then we need to have a constitutional amendment to ban divorce..I assure you that my partner and I would never go that route..if in this state we could ever get married...
I agree that divorce laws should be made more strict but I fail to see how weak divorce laws are an argument for divorcing civil marriage from it principle societal purpose. Sounds like throwing out the baby and the bath water because the tub leaks.
I have asked this question over and over again and have not received an answer yet: How is it in this FREE country that the MAJORITY can put the MINORITIES rights on a ballot and just vote them away??? Where our our state and federal constitutions???
Great vid !
Jim
PS SEAN..you crack me up...ASPARAGUS PLANT!!!! LOL
What right specifically do you believe is on the ballot? What is the basis for this right? Is it enumerated somewhere? Is it based on custom, tradition, or history?
nnjhansen, the fundamental civil right to marry per precendent of the Supreme Court of the United States in its ruling of Loving vs. Virginia (1967) is being questioned for LGBT citizens in Question 1 on the Maine ballot.
Everyone in Maine has the exact same ability to marry. The restrictions and conditions attached to civil marriage apply equally to all and are related to a legitimate state interest.
The problem with anti-miscegenation laws, as struck down in Loving was that they were unequally applied (whites were forbidden to marry outside their race but blacks and others were not) and that the state's argued interest in such restrictions (purity of the white race) was illegitimate.
nnjhansen, same-sex couples are entitled to the right to legally marry and have their marriages legally recognized under government law. There is nothing pure about treating gay people differently than straight people in banning legal civil gay marriage.
So, you are claiming a right to marry someone of the same sex? If that is the case, my original questions apply. Were did such a right come from? Is it enumerated somewhere? Is it based on law? Custom? Tradition?
Again, current marriage laws TREAT no one differently. What you want has nothing to do with equality, you simply dislike one of the conditions (the principal one, at that) the state places on civil marriage.
nnjhansen, I am entitled to the right to marry the person that I love, and this entitlement is based on my fundamental rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and the precedent set by the US Supreme Court in the ruling of Loving v. Virginia whereby marriage is a fundamental civil right. Regardless of what other think, my future marriage will be sacred, but how dare anyone legally tarnish and compromise the validity of my future marriage with cowardly distortions because I am a gay man.
I'm sorry but claiming a right to a state issued license on the basis of your right to pursue happiness is, to put it bluntly, absurd.
Have you actually read Loving? If you had you might realize that the citation in Loving describing the right to marry as fundamental is actually a truncation of a citation from Skinner which reads; "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
Still think it encompasses a right to marry someone of he same sex?
One, I reject the idea that it is question of rights or that the courts have a legitimate role in the discussion.
Two, I believe it is oxymoronic. The concept of two people of the same sex being "married" completely divorces the institution of marriage from its principal societal purpose.
nnjhansen, I have a problem with people who try to stop me from legally marrying my future husband, interfere with my life and disrespect me for my difference in belief about marriage. If you have a problem with gay marriage, don't have one, but mind your own business and leave married gay couples alone.
@victimofcheese, your comment is incredilby disrespectful, and you have been blocked from my channel.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
I have an honest question.
If gay men like men, then why do they want a man that acts like a girl?
If a lesbian likes women, then why do they want thier women to dress up like men & cut thier hair short like a man?
Ive always wondered this.
seriously
Is there a confusion of what they want?
am i wrong?
I seriously would like to know about this.
always wanted to ask my co-worker who is gay why he talks like a man when its just me & him, but he acts like a girl when he is around other gays
chadmak09 2 years ago
@chadmak09, gay people are attracted to all kinds of people throughout the entire spectrum of feminine to masculine. One example of how a gay couple (in this case a gay family) can act is "depfox" on YouTube. The femininity/ masculinity of a person in a relationship doesn't make it good or bad by itself - we're all different people. Some people just act different around different people, it's just the way some of us are.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
@chadmak09 Probably because they are emotionally messed up people with a host of psychiatric problems.
victimofcheese 2 years ago
@victimofcheese, who are you talking about?
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
Hopefully this message will shed some light of the subject for u.
But my guess is that u will still remain lost in the dark on this subject.
Good luck, and I hope your Civil Union gets all the legal benefits u deserve.
And I hope you lead a happy life with your "partner".
I am not being sarcastic, I really do hope the best for you and your partner and hope you can lead a happy life together.
CIVIL UNIONS=EQUAL RIGHTS.
lets work together to create a real Civil union with equal rights.
chadmak09 2 years ago
@chadmak09, if you are not being sarcastic, then take out the quotations around partner in your comment above so you won't cause any confusion (if it were me, I would switch the word with husband). If you ask me, if you want to create a real civil union with equal rights, then the government should get out of the marriage business and change all existing marriages into civil unions.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
So the only answer is to create a "civil union" that gives all the legal rights/benefits of a normal marriage between two normal people (man and woman).
But it cannot be called marriage.
Because it isnt.
End of story.
There is simply no arguement to this.
Its time for you to accept this.
chadmak09 2 years ago
@chadmak09, I will bet you money that a couple in a domestic partnership will still be discriminated in some respects due to "confusion" of a domestic partnership compared to the obvious and more universal understanding of marriage. Social apartheid can never be a natural incubator of dignity.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
its time for you to accept this
it is 2010
everyone should be equal
idaman12345 2 years ago
I agree that civil/gay unions should get all the legal rights/benefits of a real marriage.
This will give gay couples equal rights.
But this should only be considered a CIVIL UNION. Not marriage.
Marriage requires a man and woman.
Marriage requires consumation and sex.
Sex requires both female and male genitalia.
Didn't you take sex eduation?
This is pretty basic stuff here.
chadmak09 2 years ago
@chadmak09, civil unions will never be treated the same way as marriages as long as they are named differently, and this is because separate is inherently unequal, as proven with the Jim Crow laws of the South (white and colored drinking fountains, white and colored schools, etc.). Arguing that couples that can naturally procreate should have more rights than others is assuming a remarkably and tragically narrow-minded view of our world (impending overpopulation, adoption, insemination, etc.)
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
lol.
There you go again comparing yourself to blacks, civil rights, and interracial relationships.
you are insulting alot of people when you do that.
I dont think martin luther king jr would have been for gay marriage. In fact, I am certain since he was a christian.
So stop playing the victim and comparing your "cause" to real victims.
To even compare gays wanting to re-define marriage to the horrors that blacks and jews have went thru just shows how CLUELESS you are on this.
chadmak09 2 years ago
@chadmak09, one example of cluelessness is failure to recognize that Iraqi militia are hunting down gay people and killing them by gluing their anus cheeks together while forcing them to drink a diarrhea-inducing drink, causing the victims to suffer the most painful death imaginable. Another example is the failure to realize that both Jewish and gay people were exterminated during the Nazi holocaust.
You seem to carry a pungent hatred against gays, and I don't tolerate such a tone of voice.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
are we talking about iraq, the holocast, or actual modern day AMERICA??
Because you seem to be moving the subject away from the topic.
we are talking about america.
chadmak09 2 years ago
@chadmak09, do you wish to have a conversation with me, or do you wish to talk at me with twisted arguments?
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
As long as gays continue to push agendas on us, schools, & children, there will be those who will stand against it & stop u from FORCING your values on people who are not willing.
Your agenda is WRONG.
Live your life as you wish & be happy, but dont try to change other peoples values by paying off politicians 2 legalize gay marriage.
If U do, We will fight back & vote it down.
The people have spoken on this subject, & its about time you guys get the message. We will not stand down
chadmak09 2 years ago
@chadmak09, I've heard the argument many times that "gays are pushing their agendas on our schools and children". I think it's sad that gay couples who wish to marry and raise children are regarded as pushing their agenda simply because they exist. I think it's also sad that those who oppose gay marriage force their agenda down those gay couples by taking away their civil right to marry. People don't have to change their values, but they should treat others with dignity and respect.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
no one is "taking away" your right to marry.
You have always had the right to marry.
marriage is between man and woman.
Whats so hard about this to understand?
And if u r saying that we are "taking away" your right to marry someone of the same sex, then again you r WRONG.
the right to re-define marriage has never been granted to anyone. regardless of race, creed, color, sex, etc.
so nothing is being "taken away".
chadmak09 2 years ago
@chadmak09, the Merriam-Webster and American Heritage dictionaries both define marriage as both opposite-sex and same-sex. The government regards marriage as a fundamental civil right, which carries a different set of rules compared to the definition of a word. If only straight citizens can marry the persons that they love, then marriage would be inherently unconstitutional, and the government should then change all existing marriages into civil unions and stop granting legal marriages.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
but i suppose its ok for those opposed to same sex marriage to force their values on people who are not willing
idaman12345 2 years ago
the pro communist (anti gay marriage) agenda is wrong
5 states have legalized gay marriage
hopefully the rest will follow
idaman12345 2 years ago
And I hate conservative views.
I am not a christian. I am an atheist.
I simply have views and opinions that I feel are correct.
People like you who believe your view is the only view and is right, and that every other view is wrong are engaging in bigotry.
Just becasue I think gay marriage is wrong, and unnatural does not mean that I have to be a christian right wing loon.
I dont need any bible or religion to tell me that gay marriage and relationships are wrong.
chadmak09 2 years ago
@chadmak09, feeling and thinking overlap but not perfectly.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
Also, the people of Washington voted for the first time to grant all the rights of marriage for gay couples, so why don't you go to Washington and call them all "ungodly heathens"? Go ahead and keep preaching your bullshit, because a MAJORITY of the people voted against it! :)
bndkllr2 2 years ago
Chadmac09,
If you actually read your bible and tried to follow Jesus' example, you would know that God loves gay people and gay relationships. The Episcopal Church recognises this, allong with several other large protestant denominations and even some Catholic churches. So as long as you keep invoking God to justify your hatred, keep in mind that there are many Christians who believe it is YOU who are being immoral when you attack us.
bndkllr2 2 years ago
The fact that you attack gay people as sick, perverted and immoral is wrong. This is not a matter of "tolerance" for opposing view points. This is matter of right vs wrong, and when you attack gays, YOU are wrong. So if you want to call me a bigot for not being "tolerant" of your stupid, outdated beliefs, then BRING IT ON.
bndkllr2 2 years ago
Hey Chadmac09,
Here's Webster's definition of a bigot:
Bigot \Big"ot\, n. A person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion. Sound familiar? I'd say that discribes YOU. You keep saying that homosexuality is perverted no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary. I don't agree with the mormon religion, but at least I'm not trying to outlaw it.
bndkllr2 2 years ago
exactly bndkllr2 .
when gay people automatically attack anyone who opposes thier opinons and starts calling them hatemongers and bigots , they are being intolerant of opinions which conflict w/thier own, and are blindly devoted to thier own belief, or opinion.
The definition of bigotry.
Thank you for backing me up on what I just said.
Or were you saying that its only bigotry when someone who isnt gay does those things??
chadmak09 2 years ago
chad, you are entitled to your opinion. Just don't try to stand in the way of civil rights.
jimbobubbadj 2 years ago
Comment removed
papermooner 2 years ago
Comment removed
papermooner 2 years ago
The laws of which religion, specifically are being imposed on you? Are these Methodist laws? Catholic Canon law? Sharia? The Torah? Please be specific.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Dear Mr. nnjhansen, ALL religions need to stay out of civil law, civil rights which are here to protect the human rights and civil liberties of ALL AMERICANS. What you obviously object to is a separation of church and state as you feel it is your right to exclude a portion of the US citizenry from obtaining equal legal status and federal and state's rights afforded the heterosexually wed.
papermooner 2 years ago
Have you ever read the Rev Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Letter From a Birmingham Jail? Are you at all familiar with the work of the Rev. Joseph Lowery or the Rev Hosea Williams?
Were they wrong to bring the force of their religious beliefs to bear on civil public policy questions?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Again my friend....get a life.
papermooner 2 years ago
An amazingly articulate and cogent defense of your argument. I am in awe.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
No one is demanding that any religion perform the unions. Again, we are a SECULAR society wherein we must accept and live alongside many many people who do not agree with a given religious position, however, that postiion, whatever it's religious perspective has ZERO rights to be imposed upon any of our citizens. Liberty and Justice FOR ALL, not just the God fearing!
papermooner 2 years ago
But beyond that..have you nothing of import to spend your time on? How about volunteering at a children's cancer ward, or feeding the aged and abandoned in nursing homes (as I do) or going to war for this country, as I did. Please if this issue only serves for you to spout your belief that a segment of the American family is not entitled to the same rights and benefits as you, then waste your time. You will be proven wrong in the end.
papermooner 2 years ago
The world is moving toward progressive and tolerant modalities. The Middle Ages and the Inquisition of the Church against its perceived "heretics" is long over. Dust off the cobwebs in your brain - and welcome to the modern world. Again, the best thing I paid witness to was the inordinate amount of heterosexuals and more than that the youth who refuse to participate in social segregation and who will in time overcome ignorance, bias and bigotry of people still dwelling in the Middle Ages.
papermooner 2 years ago
This is just a temporary setback... gay marriage will eventually be passed, it's inevitable...
Gregroix 2 years ago 3
Theres no way to carry a civil discussion about this.
If you are against gay marriage, then you are automatically labeled as a hatemonger and a bad person.
I dont now why those that push for gay marriage have to be so bigoted. If you dont agree with them, then they automatically start calling you a bigot and a religious nutjob. They attack anyone who doesnt think just like them. Which is the definition of a bigot
chadmak09 2 years ago
I thought the guy who voted yes was very civil and did a good job trying to explain why people should vote yes (and why they won). But as always, The other guy had to play the victim and claim that his rights were being violated even gay marriage has never been a right.
chadmak09 2 years ago
Chad, I think it's possible to carry on a civil discussion. I hope so anyway. I try to do that all the time. Youtube is not the best place for it, what with all the name-calling and swearing that most people do, but it's possible to have a conversation without all that. Anyway, if the "Yes on 1" people would want to have a discussion with me, then I am all for it. I'm not going to call you names. I just don't understand why you're against equal rights. I want to understand your reasons.
rainbowheartgirl 2 years ago
I am a Gay man, and I know the gay agenda, the gay agernda is targeting the children its sick!!
SlingBlade79 2 years ago
Sling, huh? Targeting children? What in the world do you mean by that? I grew up in the gay community and no one ever "targeted" me.
rainbowheartgirl 2 years ago
sling, i don't believe that you are gay.
jimbobubbadj 2 years ago
Voters have spoken ONCE AGAIN. Go peddle your agenda in San Francisco, oh wait, California voters struck your lies down also!!!!!
victimofcheese 2 years ago
@victimofcheese
I think that the future will look back to this era as a dark time filled with people who harbored prejudice, ignorance and hatred towards a suspect minority class, and those people will not be looked at favorably. It will be an afterthought that gay people are the same as straight people, and both will be treated fully the same. And the strongest people of all are those who are oppressed today, because their strength is tested and proven.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
@victimofcheese
Also, is there a need for you to gloat about the election results? Is this about protecting marriage, or is it about doing a victory dance around a group of people, and would such an action belie a rather sinister attitude against that group of people?
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
victim, what are the lies?
jimbobubbadj 2 years ago
Perhaps if the gay community weren't such rabid activists with a political agenda they wouldn't have lost 31 state votes on this issue. But marriage is only one of their agendas. They want their lifestyle taught in public schools. They want special laws to protect them from what I'm not sure. Unless you're some type of drop dead beautiful model (either sex) each of us face some sort of discrimination in life. Get over it and move on. Stop it with the vitriol each time you lose like this.
milehigh587 2 years ago
milehigh587, with all due respect, your comment makes me wonder if you hate, fear and/or are grossed out by LGBT people. No one should vote to take away marriage rights from LGBT people in the first place. Gay rights aren't special rights, because it isn't special to be free from discrimination - that is an ordinary universal entitlement of citizenship. No one should be discriminated, period, and any discrimination should be fought and protested until overturned.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
Thanks for your opinion. You need to re-read what I posted.
milehigh587 2 years ago
milehigh587, I've read your opinion. You're free to respond to my response as you wish.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
NO RIGHTS WERE TAKEN AWAY!!! NONE!
Homosexuals have the exact same ability to marry as anyone else. The conditions and restrictions on obtaining a marriage license apply to everyone equally.
Repeating the same untruth does make it true. Maybe if you were honest in your arguments you would not lose every election.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen, how much longer would you like to play the game of lies?
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
I can go as long as you continue to propagate the lies that this issue has anything to with equality or that anyone is being denied a right.
This is simply a case where you object to a condition for a state issued license. The condition applies equally to all people and is reasonably related to the purpose of that license.
Tell the truth and you might win one. Can't hurt.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
nnjhansen, Gays are not allowed to marry each other in most states. They cannot marry the one they love. Is that so difficult to understand? You keep mentioning conditions, are not these conditions wrong? Do you think gays should be able to marry each other, In case if you don't understand, should same sex marriage be legal? Please answer or shut up!
jimbobubbadj 2 years ago
No the conditions and restrictions are not wrong if they are reasonably related to a legitimate state interest and the requirement for one man and one woman clearly is.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
nnjhansen ,milehigh and others of your ilk. You continually tell lie after lie as a means to cover your ignorance and deep-seated hatred. You seem gleeful that 31 states have voted to relegate gays to second-class citizenship. There is absolutely no validity to your statements. History will look back on you just as does the whites who lined the strets to yell slurs at the black children who had to be escorted to school by the National Guard. Many of us already see you that way. I will not
EPRVa62 2 years ago
respond to any more of your comments because it is a waste of time. I do hope that you one day realize the hurt and damage that you and others like you have and are causing to your fellow Americans who happen to be gay. "The arc of History is long but it always bends toward justice" It is only a matter of time. Peace.
EPRVa62 2 years ago
I take this to be your concession that there is not a single law in any state that forbids homosexuals from marrying.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
nnjhansen, Massachusetts, Vermont, Iowa, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Canada, Spain, Belgium, Holland and I believe now Norway allow gays to marry each other.
jimbobubbadj 2 years ago
It is not about rights. It is about gays getting access to the innocent children, at a very young age, and brainwashing them into accepting deviant/unnatural sex acts as a norm. Their other goal is to get the taxpayers to pay, via Obama's socialist thuggery, for this destruction of our young.
Thank god for the common sense people of Maine, and the other 31 states that will never buy into the gay propaganda.
Dealit707 2 years ago
Dealit707, that's a lie. This is entirely about civil rights, dignity and respect towards all people regardless of sexual orientation. The argument of "gays getting access to the innocent children" is twisted fear-mongering and comes from a place of narrow-minded ignorance and learned hatred. I find it sad that people regard those who are gay with ugly disdain instead of opening up their mind and understanding sexual orientation better.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
Deal, oh my God, seriously, not this again. Same-sex marriage has *nothing* to do with children. Gay people still have their children. They still can adopt children and raise children, and millions of straight parents also teach their kids that being gay is perfectly fine. None of that is against the law, and none of it has to do with marriage. It's not illegal to talk about gay people in schools in Maine or CA or anywhere else, and the votes didn't change that.
rainbowheartgirl 2 years ago
The Yes on 1 side had some very good points. I believe homosexuals aren't being denied their rights but want additional rights to marry someone of the same sex. If a homosexual wants to have sex with someone of the same gender why should all of us be forced to say that it is ok even though it's not really natural and against our belief system of right and wrong? Not really natural in a sense that if you had an entire species that was homosexual then it would die out. Homosexuality is a dead end.
TaxPayersMoney839 2 years ago
TaxPayersMoney839, we can agree to disagree, but in America, we have the fundamental rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and we are governed on the virtues of fairness, equality, dignity and respect. You don't have to say that being gay is ok, but that doesn't mean you should take away my rights as well, or you come off as arrogant, self-righteous and supreme. And homosexuality is very natural on this planet - look at the thousands of other species as proof.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
No one is being denied their right to life, liberty, or to pursue happiness. The laws governing marriage do treat everyone fairly and equally.
When you ask the state for a license you are asking for approval. That is what granting a license does, it grants society's approval.
Again, what 'right' do you believe has been taken away?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
"The laws governing marriage do treat everyone fairly and equally" No, they do not. This is the same silly argument that was presented before the Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia regarding inter-racial marriage. Virginia argued that it was treating everyone the same by saying that they were telling both the blacks and whites that they could only marry within their own race. Do you not see how illogical this argument is?
EPRVa62 2 years ago
You may want to read Loving again. One of the two basis on which it was overturned was the fact that it was not applied equally. Only whites were forbidden from marrying outside their race. The Court also found that the restriction was not related to a legitimate interest but to the illegitimate purpose of preserving the purity of the white race
nnjhansen 2 years ago
The SC ruled that it was not applied equally even though Virginia had argued that it was applying the law equally. Those who now say the law is applied equally are just as illogical. Furthermore, the SC ruled that marriage was a basic fundamental "right".
EPRVa62 2 years ago
Because it was not applied equally. Whites were forbidden to marry outside of their race while others were not.
The Court was citing itself in Skinner, the full Skinner citation reads, "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.: Sill want to argue it applies to marriages between those of the same sex?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
The fact that upon marriage, heterosexuals are granted over 1000 special rights is a clear violation of the principles set forth in the US Constitution.
EPRVa62 2 years ago
How is it a violation? Those privileges (that is what they are, not rights) are open to everyone who meets the conditions for the license. The fact that homosexuals generally choose not to accept the conditions does not constitute a constitutional defect.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Accept the conditions? Marry someone of the opposite sex even though homosexual? I would have to become a Republican first.
EPRVa62 2 years ago
Your choice but clearly not a constitutional issue.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Two consenting adult heterosexuals can marry and thereby be granted over 1000 special privileges. Two consenting adult homosexuals cannot marry and thus are denied over 1000 special privileges. Clearly it is a Constitutional issue.
EPRVa62 2 years ago
There are a number of reasons why two consenting adult heterosexuals cannot marry. There is also no law preventing two consenting adult homosexuals from marrying.
The US Supreme Court has already said this issue fails to present a substantial federal question.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
I must be missing something. "There is no law preventing two consenting adult homosexuals from marrying" ???
EPRVa62 2 years ago
There is not a single one in the United States. If you can find one, please cite it.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
nnjhansen, All states except Massachusettts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont do not allow gays to marry each other. You keep bringing this up. Whats the deal?
jimbobubbadj 2 years ago
Those jurisdictions have redefined marriage by removing a previously fundamental requirement for it. That has nothing to do with the equal application of that requirement in other jurisdictions.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Homosexuality is a genetic sickness. It is rejected in the natural world.
Dealit707 2 years ago
You're a dumbass.
TehJonneh 2 years ago
Dealit707, that's incorrect; homosexuality has played a part in the progression of various species. Being gay is a genetic difference, not a genetic sickness, as much as being straight is also a genetic difference and not a genetic perfection that legitimizes supremacy.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
Genetic difference? Are you saying there is a gay gene? Homosexuality is a choice not a genetic condition. There are cases where people that practice homosexuality were able to become heterosexual. I'm definitely not saying it's easy to overcome but there is hope.
TaxPayersMoney839 2 years ago
Doesn't anyone remember segregation in the south? I wonder how the vote would have turned out if it were held back then?
divad838 2 years ago
If people want to be happy then let them. Since when does someone care about marriage. I've never seen people talk about this stuff as they do about the war in Iraq or the economy. the yes on 1 people just don't like gay people and that's all there is to it. my cousin is gay (moms niece) and my step dads sister is gay and they are both voteing yes. Such a low thing to do. People who vote yes have no heart.
guitarkis49 2 years ago
Are you saying that someone's happiness is dependent on a state issued license? That is beyond sad.
The arguments against redefining marriage have nothing to do with not liking homosexuals.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Yep we are going to lose.
Clemburke1111 2 years ago
i think the next issue should be to allow marraige to multiple people. thats what would make me happy. or better, making it legal to marry and have mistresses. i think that would make life better for everyone.
minimart11723 2 years ago
So if a law is passed, which says same-sex couples now fit the requirements of a marriage license (discrimination gone) you would still deny them because they cannot fulfil the purpose of the marriage, even though an infertile couple is in the same boat we just haven't figured it out yet.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
You are begging the question. The question IS whether or not a law should be passed to remove the requirement.
That requirement is NOT improperly discriminatory. It applies to everyone equally.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
so can i ask, what was the reason you brought up procreation as a purpose? just because a couple can not procreate is not a good enough reason to deny them marriage because its not a legal requirement.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
Every licensing scheme serves a societal purpose. In order to further that purpose, the state imposes conditions and requirements on the issuance of that license that are reasonably related to that purpose. If you meet the requirements for the license, one is issued.
Human reproduction requires one man and one woman, therefore the requirement for such is reasonably related to the societal purpose of marriage.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
of course its discriminatory, its the same as saying to a black woman in 1960, you can't marry your white boyfriend but you can marry that black guy over their instead, because all black people can marry each other, its "equal".
BenJEMean 2 years ago
There you are wrong. The anti-miscegenation laws were not equal (blacks could marry outside their race and whites could not) they were also related to a state purpose that the 14th Amendment deemed illegitimate.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
infertile people are in the same boat as gay people.
the purpose relating to the requirement cannot be achieved because of their sexual orientation, is discrimination.
if the whole reason you think they shouldnt be allowed marriage licenses is because they cannot fulfill the purpose JUST like a an infertile couple, then the infertile couple should be denied the license too.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
No, infertile couples are not similar to same sex couples. Infertile couples meet the requirements for a marriage license and the same sex couple does not.
I do not think same sex couples should be issued marriage licenses because they do not satisfy the requirements for one.
Those requirements are reasonable and clearly related to the state's purpose in issuing those licenses.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
"Those requirements are reasonable "
but their not, How can they be reasonable if their whole purpose of marriage was to help families, the license needs changing because the definition of family has changed, when the license was created gay families didnt exist, now those families need the legal protections, (next of kin, adoption, custody, insurance) as any other family.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
they also have to called marriage, not only because we all know that separate but equal is not equal, but also because marriage is globally recognized, civil unions are not.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
i could not care less about civil unions.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
The people of the 30 states that the issue has been put before to date disagree with you. They found the requirements completely reasonable. It is properly their decision, isn't it?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
we all know gay marriage will be legal eventually, the reason its been denied before is the generation, if you put it on a history context you know it takes time for equality.
the reason states have lost is not because they didnt agree with what iv just said, most of the votes have been based on not knowing what i've said, and the majority of votes based purely on a stereotype or opinion of gay people.
BenJEMean 2 years ago 3
We all know no such thing.
You also have no idea why the people voted as they did. The results speak for themselves.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
so why didnt the vote become closer in california? its because people decided to do the research themselves. The adverts that are against gay marriage rely on fear mongering and propaganda to get a vote, if they actually had a decent opinion on the subject to put forward they would have. (your opinion did come close, but the fact is we change, we always have changed to improve and amend.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
The vote in CA was not very close. There was no more fear mongering on one side than the other. The whole basis for the No side was false. No right was being taken away from anyone.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
i said closer. "a storm is coming" ...heart beating music in the background, video clips of kids saying "im confused" ...relating two seperate events and saying that allowing gay marriage MIGHT take away parents rights to remove books from class, that church's COULD lose their tax exempt status, all lies and fear mongering,
BenJEMean 2 years ago
Given what has happened in other locales, those possibilities were real. What was not real was the entire basis of the other sides argument.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
they were not even close to being true and you know it.
King & King, the childrens book about 2 men in a relationship, wanting to be removed from a childs class in Massachusetts.
-if it was a book about a man & a woman they still wouldnt of been allowed to remove the book, no where in the gay marriage bill did it take away any body else's rights away.
its like me saying, we cant let interracial marriage legal, we might not be allowed to take all the books about black people from the schools
BenJEMean 2 years ago
the tax exempt status being removed is also another fear mongering lie, gay couples would marry the same way another other non religious couple would marry, WITHOUT a church. or they would marry in a church were they are wanted. the churches religious freedoms remain intact the same way before a civil gay marriage becomes legal, they can still turn away anyone for any reason, its their church.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
scenario 1:
infertile couples goes to city hall, gets a marriage license.
scenario 2:
gay couple goes to city hall, cant get a marriage license because they cannot fulfil the purpose of marriage (procreation).
but neither can the straight infertile couple.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
so if the straight couple is later found out that they are infertile through their own accord (not intrusive or costly) should we terminate their marriage license? because they cannot fulfill the purpose relating to the requirements.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
Couple goes to city hall and applies for a marriage license, the clerk determines that the man and woman meet all the requirements for the license and issues it.
Another couple goes to city hall and the clerk determines that these two men do not meet the requirements and denies the license.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
"lerk determines that these two men do not meet the requirements"
but you JUST said procreation IS NOT a requirement, but a purpose.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
It is not a requirement, one man and one woman is the requirement.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
your telling me that it costs money and intrusiveness to find out if a couple can fulfill the PURPOSE of marriage, but because it doesn't require money or intrusiveness for the same sex couple, its somehow ok to deny them marriage because its now considered a requirement?
How does that work
BenJEMean 2 years ago
Yes, every licensing scheme balances the purpose of the license with the costs of the conditions and requirements for the license.
As long as the requirement is reasonably related to the purpose and the purpose is legitimate, the licensing scheme is valid.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
as you said...
"A member of the bar who does not practice law is still a lawyer. A married couple who does not have children is still married. "
...so a married gay couple who does not have children/procreate is STILL married. its an invalid argument against gay marriage.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
Only if you also say that passing the bar is an invalid requirement for a law license because everyone who gets a law license does not practice law.
Satisfying the requirements is what is needed for a license. Not fulfilling the purpose. A same sex couple does not meet the requirements.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Gay people meet every requirement a civil marriage asks... you just said procreation was the purpose not the requirement.
Straight people = meet the requirements and purpose
Straight infertile people = meet the requirements not the purpose
Gay people = meet the requirements not the purpose.
only 1 is not allowed marry.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
but even then i'd argue the purpose is not to create the children, but to raise them. which all of the groups can do
BenJEMean 2 years ago
if the societal purpose was to procreate and not raise the children we'd be in a bit of mess don't you think.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
Homosexual people DO meet the requirements, same sex couples do not.
The state can, at a reasonable cost ($0 and zero intrusiveness) determine that a same sex couple cannot fulfill the purpose. Determining the same for a man-woman requires an unacceptable amount of dollars and intrusiveness.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
But the purpose is not to procreate, the societal purpose is to RAISE children, which same sex couples as well infertile couples and straight couples.
YOU said procreation is not a requirement, so which requirement are we talking about that same sex couples cannot achieve?
BenJEMean 2 years ago
No, "the Supreme Court has seen marriage as having a traditional principal purpose: to regulate and legitimize the procreation of children."
Same sex couples CANNOT procreate.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
thats a double standard
YOU said over and over again that procreation is a purpose, why is it a purpose for a straight infertile couple, but now requirement for the gay couple, a requirement which if is not met, denies them the license.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
The difference is that the state can reasonably determine that the same sex couple cannot fulfill the purpose because they do not meet the requirements that are reasonably related to it.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
previous comment
BenJEMean 2 years ago
Are there any other licensing schemes you object to? They all work in the same general way.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Should we terminate the marriage license if it later found that the straight couple is infertile through their own accord? (not costly or intrusive) because they are in the same boat as the gay couple who can also NOT procreate.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
Do we terminate the drivers license of the person who decides not to drive anymore? The law license of the lawyer who retires from the practice of law or the cosmetology license from the retired hair stylist?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
but an infertile couple is not retiring anything, their still in the marriage continuing/trying to fulfill the purpose, which they never could.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
An the retired lawyer still has a law license and the pedestrian still has a drivers license, so what?
They met the requirements for the license when it was issued, end of story.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Media and politicans are on our side not some religious bigots.
TheRachelle31 2 years ago
Gay people do not deserve scorn.
And why doesn't the YEs people ever answer questions without spouting religious BS.
Exactly. We are not all the same. LET US BE DIFFERENT ANd who we were born to be.
TheRachelle31 2 years ago
No one is stopping you from being who were "born to be" now are they?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
what happened to separation of church and state?
wynnndhamm 2 years ago
This is not a church-state issue.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
nnjhansen, it is an issue of church and state, because lots of people are voting to take away the legal right of civil non-religious marriage from gay couples based on their religious beliefs. Should we vote to outlaw pork because Jewish people find eating pork to be unsacred, even though not everyone is Jewish? Other religions believe in both gay and straight marriage, what about them? There's a reason why our government can not adopt any religion.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
No one is obligated to leave their beliefs, religious or otherwise, out of the voting booth.
Religious leaders are not forbidden from taking stands on public policy questions.
If the majority of people in a certain area wish to ban pork, that is their prerogative.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
but banning pork is very different to banning another group of people from obtaining a license based on a menial fact of gender/sexual orientation.
Banning anything from anyone based on a characteristic of WHO that person is, is discrimination, Banning pork is a preference of some people.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
No one is banned from marriage. The conditions and restrictions on marriage apply equally to all.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Really you mean it would be okay for a gay man to marry your daughter?
syzygywell 2 years ago
OK with me or OK with the state?
I would advise against it but the state would have no problem with it t all.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
"Traditional Marriage will prevail"
il go grab my 11 wives then, one for each job in the house, if i dont like them il sell one, or remarry, if she wants to remarry, execute her.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
No kidding! My daughter is reading "Julie of the Wolves" in school. It's about a 13 yr old girl who ran away from her abusive husband. My daughter is baffled, reading about a girl a year older than her who was forced to marry and was later rapped by her husband, etc. What horrible stuff to "teach" in the schools. And they worry about books about 2 moms or 2 dads?
PLmoms 2 years ago 2
PLmoms, that is starkly enlightening perspective, thanks for sharing it!
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
They'll allow "alternative methods" for legally-recognized same-sex unions, just as long as they aren't called "marriage?" Just as long as we don't "re-define" the word?
Yeah, right. That's why here in Washington we have to fight tooth and nail to approve Referendum 71, expanding domestic partnerships to be on par with marriages in all but name. It's separate but "equal," and they still won't stand for it!
I swear, these people won't be satisfied until they get the anti-sodomy laws reinstated.
Jhaaghon 2 years ago 2
Even if marriage had to be redifined. Whats the big deal? OMG we have to change "marriage is the union between one man and one women" to "Marriage is the union of two people" AHHH wont somebody please think of the children. lol People really need to grow the f&*k up. you want to get married to the PERSON you love, do it. Let others marry the PERSON they love. Whats the big deal with that. I capitalized person because some bigots like to say animals and what not. Equality is coming :-)
bobby472 2 years ago 3
Throughout history, there has been a first time for everything. Gay marriage is very new, just as interracial marriage was new at one point. Just as the first woman ever voted; just as the first European walked on American soil; just as the first man walked on two legs. It's called cultural evolution, and those whom are most resistant to change, are the one's whom will ultimately suffer; just as they predict.
beegbolt 2 years ago 2
Gosh Sean..what a "hornets nest" you have created with this vid!! Good for you! We need this dialog...GOSH! The internet-you gotta luv it!
Cheers!
Jim
stoner829 2 years ago
So..the woman that I work with that has been married 3 times since my partner and I have been together..those are "approved" rights??? Please explain?
stoner829 2 years ago
If you are asking me if divorce laws should be more restrictive, I agree. Other than that I do not see any issue of "rights" here.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
I certainly cannot judge you..I do not know you and have no idea how you were raised. I am not a big fan of capital punishment but I truly believe whoever invented the "closet" should be executed..
It is a horrible place that makes gay kids commit suicide and gay politicians and gay clergy create homophobic laws and rules. Being gay is soooo not a choice.. and that comes from my heart...
I wish you well on your journey through this thing we call life....
Jim
(just a regular guy from Ohio)
stoner829 2 years ago
Whether or not being gay is a choice is really not relevant to the discussion is it?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Perhaps not..who knows? I REALLY wish you the best..seriously! If you want to protect "marriage" then we need to have a constitutional amendment to ban divorce..I assure you that my partner and I would never go that route..if in this state we could ever get married...
stoner829 2 years ago
I wish you the best as well.
I agree that divorce laws should be made more strict but I fail to see how weak divorce laws are an argument for divorcing civil marriage from it principle societal purpose. Sounds like throwing out the baby and the bath water because the tub leaks.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Hey nnj-
Gosh..gotta go to bed..cannot argue anymore..:(
Just worked a 10 hour shift...
Please take care....
Jim
stoner829 2 years ago
very well said. Thanks for the support
bobby472 2 years ago
I have asked this question over and over again and have not received an answer yet: How is it in this FREE country that the MAJORITY can put the MINORITIES rights on a ballot and just vote them away??? Where our our state and federal constitutions???
Great vid !
Jim
PS SEAN..you crack me up...ASPARAGUS PLANT!!!! LOL
stoner829 2 years ago 2
What right specifically do you believe is on the ballot? What is the basis for this right? Is it enumerated somewhere? Is it based on custom, tradition, or history?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
nnjhansen, the fundamental civil right to marry per precendent of the Supreme Court of the United States in its ruling of Loving vs. Virginia (1967) is being questioned for LGBT citizens in Question 1 on the Maine ballot.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
Everyone in Maine has the exact same ability to marry. The restrictions and conditions attached to civil marriage apply equally to all and are related to a legitimate state interest.
The problem with anti-miscegenation laws, as struck down in Loving was that they were unequally applied (whites were forbidden to marry outside their race but blacks and others were not) and that the state's argued interest in such restrictions (purity of the white race) was illegitimate.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
nnjhansen, same-sex couples are entitled to the right to legally marry and have their marriages legally recognized under government law. There is nothing pure about treating gay people differently than straight people in banning legal civil gay marriage.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
So, you are claiming a right to marry someone of the same sex? If that is the case, my original questions apply. Were did such a right come from? Is it enumerated somewhere? Is it based on law? Custom? Tradition?
Again, current marriage laws TREAT no one differently. What you want has nothing to do with equality, you simply dislike one of the conditions (the principal one, at that) the state places on civil marriage.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
nnjhansen, I am entitled to the right to marry the person that I love, and this entitlement is based on my fundamental rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and the precedent set by the US Supreme Court in the ruling of Loving v. Virginia whereby marriage is a fundamental civil right. Regardless of what other think, my future marriage will be sacred, but how dare anyone legally tarnish and compromise the validity of my future marriage with cowardly distortions because I am a gay man.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
I'm sorry but claiming a right to a state issued license on the basis of your right to pursue happiness is, to put it bluntly, absurd.
Have you actually read Loving? If you had you might realize that the citation in Loving describing the right to marry as fundamental is actually a truncation of a citation from Skinner which reads; "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
Still think it encompasses a right to marry someone of he same sex?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
nnjhansen, do you have a problem with gay marriage?
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
Yes, on two levels.
One, I reject the idea that it is question of rights or that the courts have a legitimate role in the discussion.
Two, I believe it is oxymoronic. The concept of two people of the same sex being "married" completely divorces the institution of marriage from its principal societal purpose.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
nnjhansen, I have a problem with people who try to stop me from legally marrying my future husband, interfere with my life and disrespect me for my difference in belief about marriage. If you have a problem with gay marriage, don't have one, but mind your own business and leave married gay couples alone.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago