Maine repeals gay marriage

The_Minister

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/maine-gay-marriage-law-repealed/story?id=8992720

In a referendum held this week, Maine has repealed it's gay marriage laws.

This is a fairly large blow to the same-sex marriage movement, because if it had passed, it would have been the first time gay marriage was passed by a vote of the people, not be the courts or the legislature.

So far, not one referendum on the issue has supported gay marriage, which is a huge blow for the legitimacy of these campaigns.


It's actually weird, but I had heard nearly nothing of this vote, whereas California had its very own **** storm.

speedboatchase

It's sad, but every single time gay marraige has been put to a vote it's been rejected over there. The American people still aren't ready but I do think it's a case of when, rather than if it will ever be brought into law. I'd love for some of these issues to go to a vote over here

Mark200

The amount of backward places left in the supposedly 'civilised' part of the world is ridiculous.

AnonoBoy

You used to be cool Maine.....

Long Onion

Maine bastards

Manic Moran

The_Minister wrote: »

It's actually weird, but I had heard nearly nothing of this vote, whereas California had its very own **** storm.

Utah's much closer to California, those pesky mormons could have a greater effect.

Actually, I think it's because unlike most (all?) of the other States, the issue was that the voters overruled not the California State legislature but the California Supreme Court. Generally the courts are the refuge of the minorities, Constitutional protections can only be demanded by the Courts, and are the bastion of liberty against the tyrrany of the majority. However, the California court ruled in a constructive manner, basically saying "There is nothing in the California Constitution saying gay marriage is legal or it is illegal, so in the absence of any other guidance, we'll look at it in the following manner." The court then got definitive guidance from the people afterwards, thus went on to reverse their own position, upholding the referendum.

There was also an argument made, though I am less convinced by it, that the lower the level of government that you look at, the more weight should be given to the will of the people and the less to the written law. So a Federal Constitution would be inviolable by popular vote, a State Constitution less so, a county Constitution even less, and so on. Not sure how you could parse it in legal terms though, it's more of a suggested philosophy.

And, of course, there's the popular perception that California is a liberal, progressive, hippy State which was somewhat shattered by the referendum. It's not. It's actually surprisingly conservative, just the people in San Francisco and Berkeley get all the publicity.

NTM

Kipperhell

I doubt it would pass here so the American bashing seems a little silly

The_Minister

Kipperhell wrote: »

I doubt it would pass here so the American bashing seems a little silly

It probably wouldn't - and it only failed by about 8-9% I think.

Mike 1972

Does this mean Gay people who are already married are now unmarried ?


Not a great fan of this homosexual marriage idea mind you
But only in the sense that Im not a great fan of the hetrosexual marriage idea either

rainbow kirby

The_Minister wrote: »

It probably wouldn't - and it only failed by about 8-9% I think.

It's actually even narrower than that, more like 52:48.

ShooterSF

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Not a great fan of this homosexual marriage idea mind you
But only in the sense that Im not a great fan of the hetrosexual marriage idea either

Neither am I but would you deny a hetro couple marriage?

The_Minister

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Does this mean Gay people who are already married are now unmarried ?

My understanding is that the law had not come into effect yet, even though it had been approved by the legislature.

Mike 1972

ShooterSF wrote: »

Neither am I but would you deny a hetro couple marriage?

in spite of how much I might want to

No

piby

Kipperhell wrote: »

I doubt it would pass here so the American bashing seems a little silly

I disagree with ya on that I think the Irish people are a bit more liberal when it comes down to it. At least I'd like to think that the average Irish person isn't that much of an ignorant twat . . .

ShooterSF

Mike 1972 wrote: »

in spite of how much I might want to

No

Exactly Horses for courses eh?

Bottle_of_Smoke

piby wrote: »

I disagree with ya on that I think the Irish people are a bit more liberal when it comes down to it. At least I'd like to think that the average Irish person isn't that much of an ignorant twat . . .

I doubt it. A referendum to allow it here would be defeated. I think in polls 60% of people said they'd suport it. Now, take away the ones who didn't want to seem homophobic to the person conducting the survey, then remember the opposition would pull the gay adoption card, Ireland would definitely say no.

Fo Real

Mark200 wrote: »

The amount of backward places left in the supposedly 'civilised' part of the world is ridiculous.

So if someone doesn't agree with YOUR opinion they are backward? I find this highly offensive.

Please explain how accepting homosexual marriage = progress.

At the turn of the last century women were given the right to vote.
Then the blacks got their rights in the 60's.
Likewise with the Catholics of Northern Ireland in the 70's.
Then the gays were given equal rights in the 70's/80's in different parts of the world.
What's next? Will the lefties whinge until pedophiles are accepted in our society and given equal rights?
Your whole notion of "progress" seems a little twisted and sick to me.
Thankfully 90% of the world has sense and the institution of traditional marriage remains intact.

The_Minister

Fo Real wrote: »

So if someone doesn't agree with YOUR opinion they are backward? I find this highly offensive.

Please explain how accepting homosexual marriage = progress.

At the turn of the last century women were given the right to vote.
Then the blacks got their rights in the 60's.
Likewise with the Catholics of Northern Ireland in the 70's.
Then the gays were given equal rights in the 70's/80's in different parts of the world.
What's next? Will the lefties whinge until pedophiles are accepted in our society and given equal rights?
Your whole notion of "progress" seems a little twisted and sick to me.Thankfully 90% of the world has sense and the institution of traditional marriage remains intact.

Love the sig.

ShooterSF

Fo Real wrote: »

So if someone doesn't agree with YOUR opinion they are backward? I find this highly offensive.

Please explain how accepting homosexual marriage = progress.

At the turn of the last century women were given the right to vote.
Then the blacks got their rights in the 60's.
Likewise with the Catholics of Northern Ireland in the 70's.
Then the gays were given equal rights in the 70's/80's in different parts of the world.
What's next? Will the lefties whinge until pedophiles are accepted in our society and given equal rights?
Your whole notion of "progress" seems a little twisted and sick to me.
Thankfully 90% of the world has sense and the institution of traditional marriage remains intact.

Wow. They should be just as entitled to civil marriage as you or I. I doubt any want a church marriage given most religions views on homosexuality. Unlike Pedos 2 consensual adults wanting to marry each other hurts no one. Well no one but the bigots.
How is that twisted and sick?

Fo Real

ShooterSF wrote: »

Wow. They should be just as entitled to civil marriage as you or I. I doubt any want a church marriage given most religions views on homosexuality. Unlike Pedos 2 consensual adults wanting to marry each other hurts no one. Well no one but the bigots.
How is that twisted and sick?

I'm glad you agree with me that pedophilia is bad and morally wrong. But who is to say the Zeitgeist of the future doesn't dictate otherwise? If you grew up in the 50's would you still be in favour of homosexual marriage?

I hope you can see the point I'm making.

The_Minister

Fo Real wrote: »

I'm glad you agree with me that pedophilia is bad and morally wrong. But who is to say the Zeitgeist of the future doesn't dictate otherwise? If you grew up in the 50's would you still be in favour of homosexual marriage?

I hope you can see the point I'm making.

It's better if you use incest rather than paedophilia for the point you are making.

El_Dangeroso

Fo Real wrote: »

So if someone doesn't agree with YOUR opinion they are backward? I find this highly offensive.

Please explain how accepting homosexual marriage = progress.

At the turn of the last century women were given the right to vote.
Then the blacks got their rights in the 60's.
Likewise with the Catholics of Northern Ireland in the 70's.
Then the gays were given equal rights in the 70's/80's in different parts of the world.
What's next? Will the lefties whinge until pedophiles are accepted in our society and given equal rights?
Your whole notion of "progress" seems a little twisted and sick to me.
Thankfully 90% of the world has sense and the institution of traditional marriage remains intact.

I really cannot believe you are trying to use a syllogism based on paedophilia to make your point.:mad:

The views you've expressed have the same tone as those who tried to sound reasonable while advocating segregation in the 1960's.

Fo Real

Fo Real wrote: »

If you grew up in the 50's would you still be in favour of homosexual marriage?

Thats retarded.

ShooterSF

Fo Real wrote: »

I'm glad you agree with me that pedophilia is bad and morally wrong. But who is to say the Zeitgeist of the future doesn't dictate otherwise? If you grew up in the 50's would you still be in favour of homosexual marriage?

I hope you can see the point I'm making.

Actually and you're not going to like me for this I have some sympathy for pedos who have never acted on their feelings. I think you should be able to admit having an attraction to kids as long as you seek help and show an ability to control your desires. After all these poor souls are born with a defect which means they are attracted to kids, an attraction they should (but still have to work to) suppress. It's not a choice anymore than being gay but unlike being gay if they act on their feelings they create a victim (and should be strung up for it).
As for the 50's thing no I probably wouldn't be but then I wouldn't be as educated either. That doesn't make it any better.

Fo Real

There are groups on the internet fighting for the accptance of pedophilia. They try to pass themselves off as normal repectable people, arguing that their love of children is merely a fetish or sexual persuasion - the same way homosexuals claim their lifestyle is merely a sexual persuasion. There are direct parallels between the two groups.

The only difference is that today's media have brainwashed the vulnerable and weak-minded in our society into thinking homosexuality is "normal" and "acceptable" eg. gay kisses on daytime TV soaps for children to see. This kind of thing was not on our TVs as recent as 15 years ago. If the media decide tomorrow that it's okay to molest children will you be in favour pedophiles' rights?

Also why do the vast majority of countrys/states in the world still have bans on gay marriage? Are they all backward, leaving you as the only progresive thinking intellect in the world?

NiamhDunk

Thankfully it wasnt passed. People seem to have forgetten that homosexuality is a behavioural disorder

rainbow kirby

Fo Real wrote: »

There are groups on the internet fighting for the accptance of pedophilia. They try to pass themselves off as normal repectable people, arguing that their love of children is merely a fetish or sexual persuasion - the same way homosexuals claim their lifestyle is merely a sexual persuasion. There are direct parallels between the two groups.

The only difference is that today's media have brainwashed the vulnerable and weak-minded in our society into thinking homosexuality is "normal" and "acceptable" eg. gay kisses on daytime TV soaps for children to see. This kind of thing was not on our TVs as recent as 15 years ago. If the media decide tomorrow that it's okay to molest children will you be in favour pedophiles' rights?

Also why do the vast majority of countrys/states in the world still have bans on gay marriage? Are they all backward, leaving you as the only progresive thinking intellect in the world?

NiamhDunk wrote: »

Thankfully it wasnt passed. People seem to have forgetten that homosexuality is a behavioural disorder

*facepalm*

Fo Real

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats retarded.

Why is it retarded? Please back-up your claims or else they hold no water and people will ignore you. Argue your point.

ShooterSF

Fo Real wrote: »

There are groups on the internet fighting for the accptance of pedophilia. They try to pass themselves off as normal repectable people, arguing that their love of children is merely a fetish or sexual persuasion - the same way homosexuals claim their lifestyle is merely a sexual persuasion. There are direct parallels between the two groups.

The only difference is that today's media have brainwashed the vulnerable and weak-minded in our society into thinking homosexuality is "normal" and "acceptable" eg. gay kisses on daytime TV soaps for children to see. This kind of thing was not on our TVs as recent as 15 years ago. If the media decide tomorrow that it's okay to molest children will you be in favour pedophiles' rights?

Also why do the vast majority of countrys/states in the world still have bans on gay marriage? Are they all backward, leaving you as the only progresive thinking intellect in the world?

They are 2 different issues though.

So and I don't hold my breath on this one, what is your problem with 2 same sex people committing themselves to each for life in the eyes of the state? And please something more specific than "It's icky. Ewww."

Liam Byrne

I always think it's kinda weird watching discussions about this subject, because it always appears to be a simple case of wanting what you don't/can't have.

Most people that I know are perfectly happy to just live together until such point as they decide they want kids, so that it puts those kids on a legal footing....."marriage", per se, has no appeal for them.

So - given that that is most people's view on marriage - it means that there's no "need" for it for a gay couple.

Do gay people genuinely view marriage that differently to the rest of us ? That they need the "lifelong commitment" to be recognised, while hetero couples are just happy being together and feel little or no compulsion to be "hitched" ?

El_Dangeroso

Fo Real wrote: »

There are groups on the internet fighting for the accptance of pedophilia. They try to pass themselves off as normal repectable people, arguing that their love of children is merely a fetish or sexual persuasion - the same way homosexuals claim their lifestyle is merely a sexual persuasion. There are direct parallels between the two groups.

The only difference is that today's media have brainwashed the vulnerable and weak-minded in our society into thinking homosexuality is "normal" and "acceptable" eg. gay kisses on daytime TV soaps for children to see. This kind of thing was not on our TVs as recent as 15 years ago. If the media decide tomorrow that it's okay to molest children will you be in favour pedophiles' rights?

Also why do the vast majority of countrys/states in the world still have bans on gay marriage? Are they all backward, leaving you as the only progresive thinking intellect in the world?

The majority of people in the past thought that it is ok to treat women like possessions, does that mean it was right?

The thing that's puzzling me is I don't get why you have a problem with it. Why is it any of your business what two consenting adults do with their lives?

If you use the 'It's not natural' argument then I don't know how your posting given the usage of a computer is not natural.

What catastrophic real social impact do you predict from legalising gay marriage?

The_Minister

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

The majority of people in the past thought that it is ok to treat women like possessions, does that mean it was right?

The thing that's puzzling me is I don't get why you have a problem with it. Why is it any of your business what two consenting adults do with their lives?
If you use the 'It's not natural' argument then I don't know how your posting given the usage of a computer is not natural.

What catastrophic real social impact do you predict from legalising gay marriage?

In fairness, that argument only really applies to legalising sodomy.

If gay marriage (or a subsitute) comes in, then his tax money will be subsidizing those relationships. As such, he does have some interest.

Fo Real

ShooterSF wrote: »

They are 2 different issues though.

So and I don't hold my breath on this one, what is your problem with 2 same sex people committing themselves to each for life in the eyes of the state? And please something more specific than "It's icky. Ewww."

If same sex-marriage is accepted then it opens the door for many other groups.

"Beastiality is okay! Legalise it so I can openly have sex with my dog!"
"Pedophilia is okay! Legalise it so I can ....."
etc.

Don't give an inch to the homosexuals because if you do they will only want more and more "entitlements" like the right to adopt a child. We must draw the line somewhere.

kowloon

Homosexuality a disorder; for the purpose of propogation of the species perhaps, but if it is a disorder, is it one that actually needs to be corrected?

I see no reason why the anti-same sex marriage camp shouldn't have to justify a restriction on rights as opposed to the current system of people having to fight for something that hurts nobody.

The Saint

Fo Real wrote: »

If same sex-marriage is accepted then it opens the door for many other groups.

"Beastiality is okay! Legalise it so I can openly have sex with my dog!"
"Pedophilia is okay! Legalise it so I can ....."
etc.

Don't give an inch to the homosexuals because if you do they will only want more and more "entitlements" like the right to adopt a child. We must draw the line somewhere.

You really have issues with basic logic don't you?

It's been pointed out many times already. There is a world of difference between consensual and non-consensual.

El_Dangeroso

The_Minister wrote: »

In fairness, that argument only really applies to legalising sodomy.

If gay marriage (or a subsitute) comes in, then his tax money will be subsidizing those relationships. As such, he does have some interest.

Subsidizing how? Do you mean through married couples tax-allowance?

That's a rather tenuous argument, the same could be said of people under a certain income bracket being allowed to have a child given that the state will subsidize that child's ubpringing.

Local-womanizer

Fo Real wrote: »

If same sex-marriage is accepted then it opens the door for many other groups.

"Beastiality is okay! Legalise it so I can openly have sex with my dog!"
"Pedophilia is okay! Legalise it so I can ....."
etc.

Don't give an inch to the homosexuals because if you do they will only want more and more "entitlements" like the right to adopt a child. We must draw the line somewhere.

Seriously, I cannot believe you are mentioning pedaphilia in this argument.

2 homosexuals are not hurting anyone, its consentual. Pedaphilia is not. The 2 are a world apart and peoples views will not change on that. Simple as.

Why shouldent a homosexual couple be allowed to adopt? Just because they are gay does not mean they are not capable of raising a child.

Why should people have to "conform" to society's view on what is normal, it has sweet F all to do with any one else. Why should 2 people be denied a simple basic right just to keep the church and the homophobes in this backward country happy? Its a load of Sh1te tbh.

Typical bullsh1t from bigots in this country. It does not affect you in any way whatsoever unless you just dont like seeing them kiss in the street and making you feel uncomfortable.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Fo Real wrote: »

There are groups on the internet fighting for the accptance of pedophilia. They try to pass themselves off as normal repectable people, arguing that their love of children is merely a fetish or sexual persuasion - the same way homosexuals claim their lifestyle is merely a sexual persuasion. There are direct parallels between the two groups.

The only difference is that today's media have brainwashed the vulnerable and weak-minded in our society into thinking homosexuality is "normal" and "acceptable" eg. gay kisses on daytime TV soaps for children to see. This kind of thing was not on our TVs as recent as 15 years ago. If the media decide tomorrow that it's okay to molest children will you be in favour pedophiles' rights?

Do you acknowledge the huge difference between homosexuality and paedophelia in that acts of the latter there's no consent?

Same sex marriage would not allow homosexuals rape people.

Also why do the vast majority of countrys/states in the world still have bans on gay marriage? Are they all backward, leaving you as the only progresive thinking intellect in the world?

Religion I'd imagine. We're close to a civil partnership, same sex couples can adopt in the UK/in some American states. Religion is losing its grip. 20 years time the majority of countries in the west will be allowing civil marriage.

Fo Real

Local-womanizer wrote: »

Seriously, I cannot believe you are mentioning pedaphilia in this argument.

2 homosexuals are not hurting anyone, its consentual. Pedaphilia is not. The 2 are a world apart and peoples views will not change on that. Simple as.

I think it's a valid comparison. I've already outlined the parallels between homosexuals and pedophiles. For the record, I don't hate homosexuals. I'll do business with them and would accept one as a friend. But they shouldn't be allowed to marry for the reasons I've already mentioned.

Why shouldent a homosexual couple be allowed to adopt? Just because they are gay does not mean they are not capable of raising a child.

This is where your "it's consentual; it's hurting nobody" argument goes out the window. That child did not choose or consent to having two parents of the same-sex. He may be subjected to bullying or discrimination for the rest of his life because of it (which I think is wrong by the way but there are people who see gay-bashing as a hobby)

Why should people have to "conform" to society's view on what is normal, it has sweet F all to do with any one else. Why should 2 people be denied a simple basic right just to keep the church and the homophobes in this backward country happy? Its a load of Sh1te tbh.

Typical bullsh1t from bigots in this country. It does not affect you in any way whatsoever unless you just dont like seeing them kiss in the street and making you feel uncomfortable.

I'll repeat once more: How does accepting homosexual marriage = progress? The vast majority of countrys/states in the world still have bans on gay marriage. Are they all backward, leaving you as the only progresive thinking intellect in the world?

jhegarty

kowloon wrote: »

I see no reason why the anti-same sex marriage camp shouldn't have to justify a restriction on rights as opposed to the current system of people having to fight for something that hurts nobody.

Like it or not that's the way democracy works.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Fo Real wrote: »

I'll repeat once more: How does accepting homosexual marriage = progress? The vast majority of countrys/states in the world still have bans on gay marriage. Are they all backward, leaving you as the only progresive thinking intellect in the world?

Careful now. Take a look at this map. It appears the vast majority of western nations have same sex marriage or something along the lines of a civil partnership.

The vast majority of the ones who don't have either of the above are actually backward countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_homosexuality_laws.svg

Euro_Kraut

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Most people that I know are perfectly happy to just live together until such point as they decide they want kids, so that it puts those kids on a legal footing....."marriage", per se, has no appeal for them.

So - given that that is most people's view on marriage - it means that there's no "need" for it for a gay couple.

I think there is a flaw in your argument.

You appear to have decided that is 'most peoples' view on the basis of your observation of your friends. I don't think its good to explopoate from a perceptions of the behaviors of a narrow group to the entire populations.

The reasons for marriage are wide and varied. People should have the right to get married for regardless of motivation. Child birth should not be compulsory. Many married couples choose not to have children as is their right - I am sure most would agree with that as there appears to little clamour to reverse the current laws in that regard.

A lot of homosexuals would appear to disagree with your argument that they do not 'need' to have the right to marry.

Anita Blow

Fo Real wrote: »

I think it's a valid comparison. I've already outlined the parallels between homosexuals and pedophiles. For the record, I don't hate homosexuals. I'll do business with them and would accept one as a friend. But they shouldn't be allowed to marry for the reasons I've already mentioned.



This is where your "it's consentual; it's hurting nobody" argument goes out the window. That child did not choose or consent to having two parents of the same-sex. He may be subjected to bullying or discrimination for the rest of his life because of it (which I think is wrong by the way but there are people who see gay-bashing as a hobby)



I'll repeat once more: How does accepting homosexual marriage = progress? The vast majority of countrys/states in the world still have bans on gay marriage. Are they all backward, leaving you as the only progresive thinking intellect in the world?

I just don't see why you're against homosexuals marrying? I mean, just because they can't marry doesn't mean they'll automatically stop being gay and live heterosexual lives. They'll continue to live with their partner, so why not give them the same rights as a heterosexual couple?

Put simply, what right have you to say 2 consenting, loving people cannot marry? It doesn't affect you in any real way so why does it matter whether some random same-sex couple wants to marry or not or adopt a child?

Also, the parallels you draw between paedophilia and homosexuality are just plain stupid. One is consenting, the other is not.
Allowing same-sex marriage=progress because it's pulling down the barriers in this world that have stood for decades. We're finally realising that if 2 people are consenting lovers, then they deserve the same respect and diginity as any other couple out there..whether they're hetero or homo.

It's going to take quite a while for the backwards teachings of the church to be reversed though so I wouldn't see it happening for a while..

I'd hope that some day, 2 men/women together could have the same rights as myself and my girlfriend...simply because it's the right thing to do

Podge_irl

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Do gay people genuinely view marriage that differently to the rest of us ? That they need the "lifelong commitment" to be recognised, while hetero couples are just happy being together and feel little or no compulsion to be "hitched" ?

Being married is merely a legal contract, but it has important ramifications for things such as tax status and inheritance.

Fo Real

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Careful now. Take a look at this map. It appears the vast majority of western nations have same sex marriage or something along the lines of a civil partnership.

The vast majority of the ones who don't have either of the above are actually backward countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_homosexuality_laws.svg

Interesting. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Although more western countries than I thought have some form of civil partnership, it still looks like they are a minority. The vast majority of the USA still reject it and as we can see some states like Maine are actually repealing it. Who is to say a "backwards" trend won't prevail?

Still: even if every country in the world leglised gay marriage, does that make it right? Should smoking tobacco be legal? It directly harms and kils people and costs healthcare systems around the world billions annually.

El_Dangeroso

Podge_irl wrote: »

Being married is merely a legal contract, but it has important ramifications for things such as tax status and inheritance.

Never mind being able to make medical end-of-life decisions should a partner be incapicitated.

Local-womanizer

Fo Real wrote: »

I think it's a valid comparison. I've already outlined the parallels between homosexuals and pedophiles. For the record, I don't hate homosexuals. I'll do business with them and would accept one as a friend. But they shouldn't be allowed to marry for the reasons I've already mentioned.

So you think a same sex couple in a loving relationship is the same as some middle age man shagging a kid?Seriously!

Fo Real wrote: »

This is where your "it's consentual; it's hurting nobody" argument goes out the window. That child did not choose or consent to having two parents of the same-sex. He may be subjected to bullying or discrimination for the rest of his life because of it (which I think is wrong by the way but there are people who see gay-bashing as a hobby)

Why should these peoples way of living be dictated by what other bigots think of them? The answer is it shouldent.

Fo Real wrote: »

I'll repeat once more: How does accepting homosexual marriage = progress? The vast majority of countrys/states in the world still have bans on gay marriage. Are they all backward, leaving you as the only progresive thinking intellect in the world?

It = progress as it is giving homosexuals rights that they should have, just like women and Blacks when they were allowed to vote. That for me is progress. It creates and equal society. In doing so it will eventualy change society's view on the whole subject. People will think nothing of a same-sex couple in 10-15 years time if the Bill was passed here. It would be the norm.

Its not like the country is going to be over-run by homosexual couples if it is passed. You dont wake up one morning a decide to be gay.

rainbow kirby

Fo Real wrote: »

Still: even if every country in the world leglised gay marriage, does that make it right?

Yes it does.

Liam Byrne

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

I think there is a flaw in your argument.

You appear to have decided that is 'most peoples' view on the basis of your observation of your friends. I don't think its good to explopoate from a perceptions of the behaviors of a narrow group to the entire populations.

Quite possibly, however given the amount of 20 - 35 year-olds living together as distinct from getting married would indicate that there is a basis for at least some extrapolation.

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

The reasons for marriage are wide and varied. People should have the right to get married for regardless of motivation. Child birth should not be compulsory. Many married couples choose not to have children as is their right - I am sure most would agree with that as there appears to little clamour to reverse the current laws in that regard.

I agree with the first part, but I cannot see any logic or relevance behind the "reverse the current laws" comment. I do, however, see a point in your argument that younger married couples who choose not to have children would dent the earlier observation; and while I don't want to claim to speak for every one of those couples, there are at least some of those for whom the phrase "don't want to have kids " would include the phrase "....not yet".

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

A lot of homosexuals would appear to disagree with your argument that they do not 'need' to have the right to marry.

I think you've taken me up wrong on this; my "argument" is not that they don't need to, it's that they feel the need to.

I firmly believe in "live and let live", and have never defined anyone by their sexuality; having said that - when it comes to children, having a child is 100% physically impossible without a mother and a father - across mammals on the planet, as far as I know, and there must be some credence to that fact.

Yes, there's blurred lines with some people viewing sex itself, and not just sexuality or sexual orientation, as something transient, and there's certainly some crossover happening with effeminate males and butch females, but the above cannot be denied. Just as there's a reason the Earth is round, there's a reason why nature only allows a male + female partnership to create children.

And yes, that's at the nub of my post; given that I - and a lot of other under-40 / next-generation people (but admittedly not everyone) - only see marriage in that context, and for that purpose, I do find it curious that gay people feel the "need" to have marriage available.

I have no problem with some level of committed partnership, btw; lucky them if they find someone worthwhile. And while I'm not 100% for gay marriage, I'm not a raving opponent of it either......just curious as to why it's such an issue.

Reindeer

Mark200 wrote: »

The amount of backward places left in the supposedly 'civilised' part of the world is ridiculous.

Strong words from a country of 'ungrateful Lisbon denounce-rs'...

Local-womanizer

Fo Real wrote: »

IStill: even if every country in the world leglised gay marriage, does that make it right?

Why is wrong?

You failed to make a viable argument regarding civil partnership itself, you are bringing into questions the changing attitude of a country. You are scared that these attitudes will change to such an extent that certain crime will become legal.

I cant get my head around your thinking. People in power are rational enough to realise the difference between padaphilia and civil partnership.

Padaphila issue is being addressed in which offenders are being offered help.