Maine repeals gay marriage

Overheal · 05-11-2009 03:04AM

RandolphEsq wrote: »

Interesting . . . what reasons would you use if I asked you to qualify your claim?

When they asked Ghandi about his opinion on Western Civilization he replied "I think it would be a good idea."

Liam Byrne · 05-11-2009 03:10AM

Local-womanizer wrote: »

It isent unfortunatly, Civil Partnership still fails to fully recognise gay couples. Points that have been raised by gay groups are why should they settle for a CP which is seen as inferior to marriage in the eyes of the state. Andf the adoption issue is a huge bone of contention aswell.

I wouldn't see it as inferior; in fact, the only issue that I would actually like to see excluded would be adoption. I know that won't make me popular with some people posting here, but it's my view. And, given that I don't think adoption is, or should be, an automatic right for anyone*, I would view that as a separate issue.

*Example : I think single people adopting is wrong, people with particular lifestyles where they can't devote enough time to a child, etc.....even my own personal view that unless I can afford to give them a decent life (no bells and whistles, but a comfortable enough one in terms of time and care) I won't have any. So - for the record - I don't view this as specifically discriminatory against gays.

Local-womanizer wrote: »

If the CP Bill was put to the people tomorrow I think myself if would rejected, by people against homosexuals and homosexuals themselves, albeit for totally different reasons.

Interesting - because my point was that it would have made it more likely to be passed, because people like myself would view it as "everything bar adoption", and therefore support it 100%; I guess I'd view it as a bit like the Lisbon Treaty, where questions as to what it meant re neutrality, abortion, etc, "muddied the water" on the core opinion.

RandolphEsq · 05-11-2009 03:11AM

Overheal wrote: »

When they asked Ghandi about his opinion on Western Civilization he replied "I think it would be a good idea."

Well if Ghandi* says so

*by Ghandi one obviously refers to a 'god amongst men person who is the nearest thing 'they' have to a real god. As opposed to the actual living person who was nothing like this Ghandi they rely upon to 'prove' their arguments

RandolphEsq · 05-11-2009 03:14AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I wouldn't see it as inferior; in fact, the only issue that I would actually like to see excluded would be adoption. I know that won't make me popular with some people posting here, but it's my view. And, given that I don't think adoption is, or should be, an automatic right for anyone*, I would view that as a separate issue.

*Example : I think single people adopting is wrong, people with particular lifestyles where they can't devote enough time to a child, etc.....even my own personal view that unless I can afford to give them a decent life (no bells and whistles, but a comfortable enough one in terms of time and care) I won't have any. So - for the record - I don't view this as specifically discriminatory against gays.

Well it would actually be illogical to argue against your point; e.g. a person is created with a man and a woman, so ideally that man and woman who created that specific child should take that child under their wing. Can't see it as anything other than experimental to suggest anything to the contrary

Liam Byrne · 05-11-2009 03:23AM

RandolphEsq wrote: »

Well it would actually be illogical to argue against your point; e.g. a person is created with a man and a woman, so ideally that man and woman who created that specific child should take that child under their wing. Can't see it as anything other than experimental to suggest anything to the contrary

Appreciate the post.

Where I can see the issue that gay people might have with that, however, is that society has already screwed up the basis for such an argument, allowing single adoptions, sperm donors for single women who just "want" kids, etc. All of which I completely disagree with.

Given that those are allowed, the core argument has been diluted.

Therefore, in order for the "all-bar-adoption" to be 100% fair to gay people, the above would have to be repealed / outlawed / sorted out. And I haven't a clue how that could be done without screwing up the lives of those kids even more than they already are.

jtsuited · 05-11-2009 03:46AM

lol at Fo Real.

What else can you do?

Anyways the whole idea of a referendum on this is ridiculous. The only people gay-marriage is going to effect are gay people (adoption is a COMPLETELY different issue). So they're the ones who get the say in it. End of story.

Putting these things to a referendum is ludicrous and a complete abuse of the concept of democracy.

Nebit · 05-11-2009 05:38AM

the term 'backwards' is used because these countries generally base their laws on religious teachings which were only relevant to the time they were written.
for example not eating pork in some religions because at the time there was a illness you could catch from pork.
Also it depends mainly on interpretation of these writings (which led to the laws). But lets say it was referring to gays. This could just be another way of preventing the spread of illness to a similar extent of the ban on pork.

Also the current CP proposed and i believe passed but awaiting conformation, gives hardly any rights to gays to the same extent of hetrosexual couples.
for example inheritance issues are not equal. list goes on.
although it is a step forward in my opinion to future rights so i welcome it.

On the subject of adoption, i think it is fine for a homosexual couple to adopt, to the same extent as a hetro couple or even a single parent, however i do believe there should be a test almost to see are theses people suitable and capable of raising a child REGARDLESS of there sex or orientation.

The_Minister · 05-11-2009 06:00AM

jtsuited wrote: »

Anyways the whole idea of a referendum on this is ridiculous. The only people gay-marriage is going to effect are gay people (adoption is a COMPLETELY different issue). So they're the ones who get the say in it. End of story.

It has already been pointed out that tax breaks, welfare payments, pension entitlements etc will mean that the taxpayer are subsidising those unions.

Furthermore, were the state to recognise SSM, it is inevitable that it would have to be mentioned in some way in primary schools. Much of the activities engaged in in primary school involve discussions of family life, which would leave teachers with the choice of not mentioning those family units and alienating members of their class, or teaching that SSM is a valid family unit. If you doubt it, there is a thread in the LGB forum complaining that there is no mention of gay identities in the secondary school curriculum.

SSM is a good idea IMO, but I get pissed off when people get uppity about it and treat everyone who disagrees like a brain-dead Neanderthal, and dismiss their points without actually rebutting them.

Kernel32 · 05-11-2009 06:11AM

I'm living in Maine myself for the last 12 years and saw the campaigns up close. Same sex marriage was overturned unfortunately as has been reported. What people probably don't realize is that it was overturned because of the intense and constant widespread campaigning of the catholic church within the state. There was a huge effort that plastered the TV stations, went door to door, video's shown in churches, everything you can think of. The message sent out though wasn't that homosexuality is wrong, or same sex marriage is wrong, they instead took a very smart direction to scare the general middle of the road population. They sent our fear into the community by saying that same sex marriage is opening the door to homosexual advocacy groups to go into schools to educate students from kindergarten up and basically make them gay. It was thinly veiled but that was the message.

I personally know some catholic friends who walked out of church while these videos were shown because the message was so ugly and disgusting and was been shown to children to scare them. They ultimately won the campaign but have damaged their relationship with their own congregations in doing so.

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 . . .

The above quote I would 100% disagree with. Ireland is not a liberal country. Ireland is a socialized nanny state with enough liberalism to make the current generation believe they live in a liberal country. The church in Ireland has it's fingers very very deep into the fabric of society and government. The Irish government and the church work within a mutual satisfactory state of status quo that allows the church to continue to control much of the education system. The population isn't diverse enough to really give a damn which allows the status quo to continue. This will likely change over time but it's still a long way off. This is the complete opposite to the US which has separated church and state. The separation does led to friction and controversy but for the most part works well. At a minimum it encourages intelligent dialog on the subject and sometimes things move too far in one direction or another but over time balance out.

Any concerted effort in Ireland to legalize same sex marriage on the same footing as heterosexual marriage will be met by an opposing campaign from the church on a scale not seen before. The church will easily mobilize the base and then move onto scaring the crap out of the middle, the arm chair catholics basically. Ireland is many years away from having same sex marriage even be a possibility. There may be some weakened and watered down civil union legal constructs but it's not the same thing.

So that's my own personal opinion on the subject. I realize the thread has degenerated into a discussion on the rights and wrongs of homosexuality so this may not be that relevant any more.

spurious · 05-11-2009 08:05AM

The above doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

For the rest of the (mostly) nonsense on this thread, there are not degrees of equality.

Kipperhell · 05-11-2009 10:55AM

This thread really points out how it wouldn't pass here.

Personally I think a child being adopted by gay parents is not a good idea and I also disagree with intentional single parents. I do think somebody married to a gay person with their own child should be able to get their partner to adopt.

Adoption by a gay couple of a child that is of no connection seems to me to be an imposition on the child's rights in favour of the adults' wishes.

The state should be putting adopted children in the best environment and I do think that means a heterosexual couple. I know it is unpopular with some but It would be how I see it. There are plenty of heterosexual couples that are unfit parents and I know that but the adoption process is about selection and there aren't that many children to be adopted in this country.

It appears homosexual behaviour is prevalent in many animals so I don't see it as unnatural. I think I read that some scientists say it may be a result of over population.

Funny how people have used the term "civilised" as homosexual behaviour was pretty common with the Greeks that started most of what people mean by civilisation.

Mark200 · 05-11-2009 11:34AM

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.

That's like saying "so just because some people don't agree with YOUR opinion that women should get equal rights..." or "so just because some people don't agree with YOUR opinion that black people should be able to walk around safely"....

Some things just aren't 'opinion', and if anywhere in the world stops a proportion of the population from having the same rights as the rest of the population then yes, it is backward.

I personally find it very offensive that you think that others don't deserve the same rights as you.

Mark200 · 05-11-2009 12:33PM

Also, after googling gay marriage in Ireland:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Ireland

Same-sex relationships are due to be recognised in Ireland under a recently published bill (Civil Partnership Bill 2009) that would permit civil unions between same-sex couples with extensive legal rights but not full civil marriage. The government has indicated that the bill will become law before the end of 2009.

hooradiation · 05-11-2009 12:43PM

The_Minister wrote: »

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.

Once again showing why granting people basic civil rights shouldn't be put to the baying discordant mob that is public.

philologos · 05-11-2009 12:50PM

The_Minister wrote: »

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 comes across as anti-democratic to change the entire system of how family and how marriage is done without consulting the population itself.

So I guess it is illegitimate precisely because it is done contrary to the will of the people in a large amount of cases.

MrMicra · 05-11-2009 01:16PM

LordActon wrote:

The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities.

.

Reflector · 05-11-2009 01:17PM

Fo Real wrote: »

If I, as Taosieasch, allowed civil partnership would you be satisfied? True, it doesn't harm anybody. But I would draw the line there.

No gay couples adopting children. A child has the right to a mother and father.
No other groups of various sexual persuasions would be legally forced to be socially accepted as gay rights were. This includes beastiality fans, necrophiliacs ("this is hurting nobody!" / liberal ) and pedophiles. It's a downward spiral into moral decay.

Ok, I think you need a serious slap. Comparing gay relationships with beatiality. Please.

Anyway I do believe that a marraige bill would be defeated here in my beautiful home country of Ireland. Even though polls show that people are in favour of it the simple scare tactics used by religious right wingers and the catholic church would sway fence siiters to err on the side of caution and vote no. Also my parents generation are still not as educated on gay people as this generation and they are a huge voting power. Maybe the next generation will be diiferent.

My own views are that I have no interest in getting married at the moment. Maybe if the right guy came along and we wanted to celebrate it I could see it happening. As far as kids are concerned all children deserve love support and stability. We live in a time like no other where gay people are setting up homes and living as couples. Many lesbian women are having children and this is pretty much going to continue as you cannot outlaw a woman becoming pregnant. The kids from these couplings face one huge hurdle in their life and that is society and it's attitude. If society reduces these kids to second class citizens then they will feel isolated and ostricized.

Also I believe that gay rights are not just for gay people. They are human rights. It is a sign that we live in a more tolerant society when a minority can live openly and safely and not fear persecution. I work with a guy who is going home next month after his mother has emailed him some photos of girls that he has to choose one to marry,he is so in awe of how in Ireland we can do what we like in regards to relationships between consenting adults, gay rights is another step forward. Freedom of choice is a human right and equality is so important. I look forward to the day when I can refer to myself as an "Irish man" and not have to label myself as a "gay Irish man"

philologos · 05-11-2009 01:25PM

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

"backwards" is a contested term. It is used to guilt trip people rather than convincing them using reason.

I want to be convinced that changing what marriage is is beneficial for society without biased notions of "West is best" interfering in the discussion.

Mark200 wrote:

That's like saying "so just because some people don't agree with YOUR opinion that women should get equal rights..." or "so just because some people don't agree with YOUR opinion that black people should be able to walk around safely"....

It's not about equality. All people can get married under the current definition, which is between a man and a woman. The question isn't about equality, but rather about changing what marriage is.

hooradiation · 05-11-2009 01:25PM

Jakkass wrote: »

It comes across as anti-democratic to change the entire system of how family and how marriage is done without consulting the population itself.

So I guess it is illegitimate precisely because it is done contrary to the will of the people in a large amount of cases.

Anti-democratic being code for "things i don't like"

fuck the will of the people. The civil rights movement in America was done contrary to the will of a large amount of the public, and much like that the rights of a minority shouldn't be put to a popularity vote.

philologos · 05-11-2009 01:28PM

hooradiation wrote: »

Anti-democratic being code for "things i don't like"

Nonsense. Anti-democratic being code for changes the people do not want to have in their society.

If most of the people wished for gay marriage to be legalised, sure I would be opposed, but I would have to respect the democratic decision of the people.

That's democracy.

hooradiation wrote: »

**** the will of the people. The civil rights movement in America was done contrary to the will of a large amount of the public, and much like that the rights of a minority shouldn't be put to a popularity vote.

The right to marriage is already available to all. It's merely that people aren't happy with what marriage is.

Simply put.
Marriage: a heterosexual union.
Civil partnership: a homosexual union.

If people are unhappy with the current legislation, surely it would be more pragmatic to use this as a stepping stone to further changes in the law rather than dismissing the Governments efforts to accommodate LGBT couples entirely.

Silencing the majority of the population is undemocratic, hence why I think the US method of legalising gay marriage is wrong from a purely political point of view.

Newaglish · 05-11-2009 01:37PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Nonsense. Anti-democratic being code for changes the people do not want to have in their society.

If most of the people wished for gay marriage to be legalised, sure I would be opposed, but I would have to respect the democratic decision of the people.

That's democracy.

The right to marriage is already available to all. It's merely that people aren't happy with what marriage is.

Simply put.
Marriage: a heterosexual union.
Civil partnership: a homosexual union.

If people are unhappy with the current legislation, surely it would be more pragmatic to use this as a stepping stone to further changes in the law rather than dismissing the Governments efforts to accommodate LGBT couples entirely.

Silencing the majority of the population is undemocratic, hence why I think the US method of legalising gay marriage is wrong from a purely political point of view.

Sorry, what are you actualy saying? That you disagree with gay marriage because of semantics?

philologos · 05-11-2009 01:41PM

I disagree with changing the definition of marriage when a reasonable alternative has been provided. I disagree with changing the definition of family, or depriving children of a mother and a father.

The first two disagreements are far lesser than my final disagreement though:
I don't support changes in relationship or family structure without the consent of the people. That's anti-democratic, particularly when the family is enshrined in the constitution. I don't support changes in this law without the peoples verdict.

If the majority in Ireland vote for gay marriage, I will accept the vote of the people, but I will personally remain opposed. That's democracy. If we are a democratic state, this is how we operate.

ShooterSF · 05-11-2009 02:25PM

jtsuited wrote: »

Putting these things to a referendum is ludicrous and a complete abuse of the concept of democracy.

Actually it's a fantastic litmus test of how well democracy works. After all a referendum is not "What do you want" but "What would be best for our society as a whole"(No pun intended

).
Your real problem is not "abuse of the concept of democracy" rather a core "failing of the concept of democracy". Not that I can offer a better solution

Liam Byrne · 05-11-2009 02:41PM

Newaglish wrote: »

Sorry, what are you actualy saying? That you disagree with gay marriage because of semantics?

Conversely, it appears that gay people are against the "civil partnership" legislation "because of semantics".

Since "marriage" is defined as "between a man and a woman", then they can't have "marriage" - simple as.

Maybe it shouldn't be the government that they should be lobbying, but the Oxford English Dictionary ?

And in that context I can see why existing married couples have an issue with using that word; if someone proposed (excuse the pun) changing the word to include people who live together, they'd do likewise.

And I think that's what we need to do here; separate real and actual views from scaremongering, homophobia, etc.

Re the poster who said that gay people who have their own kids should be able to adopt; since we're told people are "born that way", I'm at odds to see how this even happens. And - for the same reasons outlined earlier - I'd definitely side with giving custody to the unfortunate person who's just found out that their (former, "now" gay) partner's "commitment" was a lie.

netwhizkid · 05-11-2009 03:00PM

Personally I am against Gay Marriage and Gay adoption. I do not however equate homosexuality to either paedophilia or bestiality etc.

I think in Ireland, we will never have same sex marriage and I am happy with this is as marriage in a union of a man and a woman and is the natural order. Gay rights activists are actually amongst the most intolerant and bigoted people there is and never respect the views of other people while preaching this. This is common of all liberals who sing from the same hymn sheet who will not be happy until they have their own agendas completed.

Such agendas include:

Unlimited inward immigration
Gay Marriage and adoption
Brainwashing children in schools with their agenda
Multiculturalism while portraying everything white and Irish as bigoted and negative
Mixed race unions and glorifying them in the media
Pro-Abortion
Political correctness, await the "Happy Holidays" PC bull crap next month
Anti-Religion, not happy to leave those worship in peace but rather criticise everything and belittle those who hold faith.

These are things I am worried about and equate with the Gay agenda not Bestiality etc. I beleive people who make such outrageous claims are actually pro-gay marriage and make such outrageous claims under false flag operations to try and swing the undecided centre. Similarly as happened in the Lisbkn treaty.

Newaglish · 05-11-2009 03:07PM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Conversely, it appears that gay people are against the "civil partnership" legislation "because of semantics".

Since "marriage" is defined as "between a man and a woman", then they can't have "marriage" - simple as.

I think the issue is that civil partnerships do not confer the same rights as full legal marriage. Maybe it's not just "simple as".

I'm amazed at the amount of people who are arguing this purely as an issue with the word marriage rather than the actual practicalities of gay marriage. I actually would be more able to understand someone who was just homophobic.

Just because something is defined one way in legislation or the constituion, doesn't mean it's right and shouldn't be changed.

I think it's incredibly cowardly of people to say they don't agree with changing a word or the definition of a word as a cover for revealing their true opinions on things they find strange or just plain don't like.

If people are genuinely upset by the changing of a definition and have no capability of understanding the wider moral issues they really have no place in a debate such as this.

MagicMarker · 05-11-2009 03:10PM

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.

Homosexuals can already adopt. It's funny how you didn't know that. Could it be that you're full of shít?

philologos · 05-11-2009 03:12PM

Newaglish wrote: »

I'm amazed at the amount of people who are arguing this purely as an issue with the word marriage rather than the actual practicalities of gay marriage. I actually would be more able to understand someone who was just homophobic.

We agree that LGBT relationships should be formalised, we just disagree in how they should be formalised. Although the practicalities of gay marriage have been raised, in terms of family structure and the right of a child to both a mother and a father.

Newaglish wrote: »

Just because something is defined one way in legislation or the constituion, doesn't mean it's right and shouldn't be changed.

Em, that's why we are having this debate. If it should be changed, it should be changed by a majority vote, not by anti-democratic means. The people should be behind such a change, if not it shouldn't happen. We live in a democracy, and to change the constitution it needs a majority vote.

Newaglish wrote: »

I think it's incredibly cowardly of people to say they don't agree with changing a word or the definition of a word as a cover for revealing their true opinions on things they find strange or just plain don't like.

If that is what opponents to gay marriage said, it would be cowardly. However, that isn't what has been said on this thread.

Newaglish wrote: »

If people are genuinely upset by the changing of a definition and have no capability of understanding the wider moral issues they really have no place in a debate such as this.

Indeed, they don't. If such people were debating this, then there wouldn't be a debate. However, other issues have been raised.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Homosexuals can already adopt. It's funny how you didn't know that. Could it be that you're full of shít?

It's very difficult as a single person, and heterosexual couples are favoured.

Reflector · 05-11-2009 04:07PM

yes Jackass but it is not illegal for a single person to adopt so as to protect the child from not having a mother and a father. this is not the issue, it is simply societies ignorance to gay people and that they will somehow damage children with their devient lifestyle. Anything else is a cowardly lie hiding behind unprovable theories of happy child development.

All the arguements against gay marraige and adoption are from either a religious stand point.

We are our own rulers, we decide how we live and how we shape society. children do better in a structured loving environment.

it's not Man +Woman = happy stable children.

There is no formula, I am sick of you constantly rehashing the same bull**** arguement on every thread on this site.
you are a bigot. that is simple no matter how much you try and sugar coat it with how you dont mind the gays, you are close minded and have no right to deny people basic human rights.
I think that you sort should instead of trying to stop potentially great parents beginning a family that your effort should go into helping children that are being abused, physically and mentally every day becuase noone give a f**k about them and I am sure that these children might just be happy to do without their alcoholic violent mother in place of two adults who might actually give a **** about them.

AlmightyCushion · 05-11-2009 04:48PM

Reflector wrote: »

yes Jackass but it is not illegal for a single person to adopt so as to protect the child from not having a mother and a father. this is not the issue, it is simply societies ignorance to gay people and that they will somehow damage children with their devient lifestyle. Anything else is a cowardly lie hiding behind unprovable theories of happy child development.

All the arguements against gay marraige and adoption are from either a religious stand point.

We are our own rulers, we decide how we live and how we shape society. children do better in a structured loving environment.

it's not Man +Woman = happy stable children.

There is no formula, I am sick of you constantly rehashing the same bull**** arguement on every thread on this site.
you are a bigot. that is simple no matter how much you try and sugar coat it with how you dont mind the gays, you are close minded and have no right to deny people basic human rights.
I think that you sort should instead of trying to stop potentially great parents beginning a family that your effort should go into helping children that are being abused, physically and mentally every day becuase noone give a f**k about them and I am sure that these children might just be happy to do without their alcoholic violent mother in place of two adults who might actually give a **** about them.

Less of the personal abuse there.

Maine repeals gay marriage

Comments