gay marriage law rejected in Maine!

[Cowgirl]

This is all allowed now. What's not allowed is state recognition of those situations for the purpose of gaining benefits.

Lots of people are in polyamorous relationships. Many people have children with more than one other parent. None of this is illegal, or in any manner stopped.

Marriage, as defined for centuries, is given a special role in tax and other benefits because of the additional good it does to society. None of the rest are prohibited.

I'm asking you what harm it would do to ALLOW these people to get married? Why can't the definition of marriage be re-written? What harm would it do?

 

[vraiblonde]

On another note, the Constitution does create a separation of church and state, because the Supreme Court said that it did in Everson v Board of Education (1947).

Supreme Court decisions are not constitutional amendments. Until the US Constitution is amended to contain the phrase "separation of church and state," I'll stick with the original.

 

[vraiblonde]

Marriage, as defined for centuries, is given a special role in tax and other benefits because of the additional good it does to society. None of the rest are prohibited.

Like what?

 

[bcp]

The obvious answer is that your being naked affects others.

other than offending them (and trust me, it would ) how is it negatively affecting them?

 

[Cowgirl]

other than offending them (and trust me, it would ) how is it negatively affecting them?

I'm assuming most NORMAL people do not want to see strangers naked. :shrug:

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm asking you what harm it would do to ALLOW these people to get married? Why can't the definition of marriage be re-written? What harm would it do?

That is not the question. There is potentially 'no harm' in you limiting my free speech. I may not have anything to say. There is 'no harm' in a an illegal search of my home. I have nothing to hide.

However, in both cases, a right is being violated even if there is no practical harm. The harm is to the right, the idea, the principle.

 

[bcp]

I'm assuming most NORMAL people do not want to see strangers naked. :shrug:

What they want to see is not the question, they can turn their head
what actual harm, other than repulsion could it possibly cause?

Although, as I type this my mind wanders to a scene in a wal-mart,, gotta go hurl.

 

[Cowgirl]

What they want to see is not the question, they can turn their head
what actual harm, other than repulsion could it possibly cause?

Although, as I type this my mind wanders to a scene in a wal-mart,, gotta go hurl.

So are you trying to compare walking around naked to gay marriage?

 

[bcp]

Bottom line here is that, even with voting on these changes, the question is not IF but WHEN will Gay Marriage be recognized by the states and the federal government.
There is no question that the day will get here. only when.

Then the next fight will be when some hotel or resturant etc... advertises as a Straight only establishment.

 

[puggymom]

What they want to see is not the question, they can turn their head
what actual harm, other than repulsion could it possibly cause?

Although, as I type this my mind wanders to a scene in a wal-mart,, gotta go hurl.

This conversation immediately made me think of peopleofwalmart.com!!

 

[bcp]

So are you trying to compare walking around naked to gay marriage?

I am trying to point out that there is really no reason for people to be forced to wear clothing other than society has determined that it is not acceptable.

It certainly can not physically harm you to simply see my fat ass walking down the street naked.

Not all laws, or functions of society are created based on harm.

 

[Cowgirl]

Not all laws, or functions of society are created based on harm.

I'm trying to figure out why one wouldn't want marriage to be open to gay people. :shrug: If it's not harmful, then why not allow it?

 

[bcp]

I'm trying to figure out why one wouldn't want marriage to be open to gay people. :shrug: If it's not harmful, then why not allow it?

Im trying to figure out why I cant run around naked.

I guess we both have questions.

 

[itsbob]

umm....I was married to my husband in a civil ceremony. Please be a bit more careful on making generalized comments.

yeah??

So was I.


What's your point?

 

[Pete]

I'm trying to figure out why one wouldn't want marriage to be open to gay people. :shrug: If it's not harmful, then why not allow it?

I think there are 2 schools of thought.

1. Some people think homosexuality is icky and perverse, thus legalizing gay marriage legitimizes that which they think is icky and perverse.

2. It is all about money. It burdens society with more costs, tax breaks, medical policy coverage, social security benefits, and so on.

 

[bcp]

umm....I was married to my husband in a civil ceremony. Please be a bit more careful on making generalized comments.

yeah??

So was I.


What's your point?

You were married to Aerogal's husband in a civil ceremony?

did she know this prior to your post?

 

[Vince]

They will file suit and the churches will be compelled to perform gay marriages or risk being disabled, either through penalties or losing tax exempt status (let's not start debating this).
Catholic bishops have already said that they will close their hospitals rather than perform abortions. This will be true of the Catholic Churches, too. So then, in my case, I lose my church in the United States.
That's the way I see it.

If the gov't forced the closure of Catholic Churches in the US, you would see more than just protests. It would ignite a revolution, and for what, a small percentage of the community that's gay? I don't see the gov't forcing this issue on the churches. The government shouldn't even be involved with the church. It would be someone forcing their beliefs on a church that is against those beliefs.

 

[vraiblonde]

Im trying to figure out why I cant run around naked.

Because your rights end where my nose begins. I do not want to see you naked, and you have no right to force me to do so. And you also have no right to run me out of a public place to avoid your nakedness.

Very similar to the guy who wants to sit in the McDonald's and scream obscenities. He gets kicked out or arrested for disorderly conduct because it interferes with the rights of other patrons.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with you. You won't see it unless you specifically seek it out. And you won't even know a person is gay unless they decide to inform you. Not nearly the same as you showing up naked at the Wal-Mart.

 

[bcp]

Because your rights end where my nose begins. I do not want to see you naked, and you have no right to force me to do so. And you also have no right to run me out of a public place to avoid your nakedness.

Very similar to the guy who wants to sit in the McDonald's and scream obscenities. He gets kicked out or arrested for disorderly conduct because it interferes with the rights of other patrons.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with you. You won't see it unless you specifically seek it out. And you won't even know a person is gay unless they decide to inform you. Not nearly the same as you showing up naked at the Wal-Mart.

And when I happen to see them kissing, or holding hands etc...

they should be run out of stores for that too?

 

[libertytyranny]

Because your rights end where my nose begins. I do not want to see you naked, and you have no right to force me to do so. And you also have no right to run me out of a public place to avoid your nakedness.

Very similar to the guy who wants to sit in the McDonald's and scream obscenities. He gets kicked out or arrested for disorderly conduct because it interferes with the rights of other patrons.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with you. You won't see it unless you specifically seek it out. And you won't even know a person is gay unless they decide to inform you. Not nearly the same as you showing up naked at the Wal-Mart.

I think that argument goes a little bit deeper though. Why is it that it is infringing on your rights to see someone naked in walmart? Because you don't like it? We can't let our likes and dislikes dicatate what is infringing on rights..because then..people who dislike gay marriage can say the same thing...

So the argument is not that he can't do it..but why that is infringing on your rights to see something you think is wrong..but NOT infringing on someone else's rights because they see something THEY think is wrong. Its a silly example..of course..but raises good questions.