What is the most probable motivation for the states that reject gay marriage?

[sportage]

Man with a woman, woman with a man. Plain and simple. Does it really need a lot of explaining?

Ok... This is such total BullSheit.
You're quoting from the bible???
The same bible that says to kill you disobedient child?
The same bible that says a woman’s place is in the home (more or less).

If those bible thumpers actually ran their life by the bible, word for word, then I'd give you a break. But as we all know, very few of those bible thumpers have stoned their wife or child to death for defying Gods word.

But when it comes to equal rights for Gays, you THEN refer to the bible, word for word.
Get outa here you silly silly person.

 

[sportage]

Have to add this...
They say you can't know a person till you have walked in their shoes.
Can the opponents imagine what it would be like if they needed approval from a people they did not even know, for "their" person life desires and needs?

Imagine your married and plan to have three kids, one dog, and live in the west.
Then, a bunch of people you do not know. That do not know you. Decide by a vote that you can only have one child. Cannot have the dog. And must live in the east.
Imagine people you do not know, deciding your life, and all those decisions in fact mean nothing to those calling the shots. After they decide your life, they will never know what became of you. Never meet you face to face. Never have any contact with you what-so-ever. They would never know how their decision concerning your life plans turned out, because??? your life path after their judgment upon you would never have one single impact, not one hint of influence, on them. Not one!

It’s just like a rape. Someone is attacked, raped, and the attacker runs away into the night never to be seen by you again, and they never see you again. But what they took from you that night, what was done to you that night, that injustice can never be measured. Completely uncalled for. Pure injustice.

THAT is EXACTLY what happened in CA with prop-8 and Maine with prop-1.
The mob raping of the innocent by the evil. And for no other reason than giving the rapist a feeling superiority at the time of the rape. That desire to punish someone you never knew, or will never know.

 

[Patranus]

You just made an argument that is nearly identical to the argument put forth by those seeking to keep the ban on interracial marriage made in Loving v. Virginia.

The US Supreme Court ruled unanimously that such an arrangement was a violation of not only the Due Process clause, but the Equal Protection clause. So yes, it is absolutely an equal protection issue.

Intellectually dishonest comparison.

 

[rchiu]

Ok... This is such total BullSheit.
You're quoting from the bible???
The same bible that says to kill you disobedient child?
The same bible that says a woman’s place is in the home (more or less).

If those bible thumpers actually ran their life by the bible, word for word, then I'd give you a break. But as we all know, very few of those bible thumpers have stoned their wife or child to death for defying Gods word.

But when it comes to equal rights for Gays, you THEN refer to the bible, word for word.
Get outa here you silly silly person.

First of all, bible has nothing to do with gay and marriage. marriage has been defined as between a man and a women since the beginning of human history, way before Christ was born. and that's the same for Asian, Egyptian, roman, Greek, Babylonian, Indian and any other ancient civilization.

Second of all, although there are people with different positions, but I believe majority of the people have no issue with providing gay couples EQUAL RIGHTS, only with gay couple equate their union to marriage.

 

[Moonbeam]

Intellectually dishonest comparison.

On the contrary, your words are not only intellectually dishonest, they are intellectually vacuous. You assert a truth without argumentative support. That is the foaming of an idiot, not a truth. Of course, I understand that had you the mental capacity to actually mount a rebuttal to eskimo's point, you would have. You were just hoping your vapid jab might persuade others similarly brain dead.

 

[Moonbeam]

..

 

[JEDIYoda]

Man with a woman, woman with a man. Plain and simple. Does it really need a lot of explaining?

You are so fucking misguided.......
Your probably some 13 year old kid whose reciting some propaganda he learned in Sunday school!

 

[sportage]

Well, like I said, back then you could stone your bad child or wife to death for being disobedient. And the bible "actually" spoke of multiple wives, not just one man one woman. You're getting stuck on terminology that boils down to nothing more than personal opinion. Marriage is, has always been to do with ownership and property rights. Religion did not create marriage, except for reference to the already mentioned multiple partner marriage.
If marriage was some pure white man-woman religion creation, then we would not today have civil service marriage (no religion there), or marriage by Elvis in Las Vegas drive-thru (certainly no religious connections there), nor marriage at sea by the captain of a vessel (again, non religious ceremony).

Exactly what is this pure religious marriage thing you are protecting by opposing same sex marriage? Plenty of people with no religious beliefs get married every day.
Face it and admit it, this boils down to some self serving power over an minority.
After Bill marries Ted, in private with only friends and immediate family present, then Bill and Ted go away to live their happy lives. Why the hell should that matter to you??? Really... Seriously... You will never know Bill or Ted in the first place, unless it is in the newly married section of the newspaper. Is THAT what bothers you? Reading it in the paper? Because other than that slight chance, you will have nothing to do with Bill and Ted what so ever, in any form, in your entire lifetime on earth.
Opposing same sex marriage is to me, some sort of mental illness fixation thing. Some oppose it for no logical reason, no personal reason, but just to oppose it. Very oddly strange indeed.
And might I add, the same thing went on with mixed marriage back when, and again as in the news lately. Other than two people getting married, same sex, mixed or whatever, who’s business is it besides the two involved and their families?
Something very "sick" is going on with opponents of same sex marriage. Sick or evil. But very strange never the less. By the dawning of their white robes, with bible in hand, proclaiming judgment over others is… as I understand it… God’s grounds for damnation to hell. I see no white silk wings on those opponents proclaiming the moral high ground, thus taking on the role of God and Judge.
Especially when no doubt in their own life, there is much seriously wrong that needs their attention first.
Maybe that is where the desire to attack, and exercise power over others, stems from?

 

[Red Irish]

First of all, bible has nothing to do with gay and marriage. marriage has been defined as between a man and a women since the beginning of human history, way before Christ was born. and that's the same for Asian, Egyptian, roman, Greek, Babylonian, Indian and any other ancient civilization.

Second of all, although there are people with different positions, but I believe majority of the people have no issue with providing gay couples EQUAL RIGHTS, only with gay couple equate their union to marriage.

In relation to your first point, Wikipedia has the following to say:

Various types of same-sex marriages have existed,[33] ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.[34]

In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[35] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[36]

The first recorded mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.These same sex marriages were solemnized with the same ceremonies and customs which were used for heterosexual marriages. Cicero mentions the marriage (using the latin verb for "to marry", i.e. nubere) of the son of Curio the Elder in a casual manner as if it was commonplace. Cicero states that the younger Curio was "united in a stable and permanent marriage" to Antonius. Martial also mentions a number of gay marriages. By Juvenal's time, gay marriages seem to have become commonplace as he mentions attending gay marriages as if there were "nothing special." These gay marriages continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient

 

[sportage]

Well, like I said, back then you could stone your bad child or wife to death for being disobedient. And the bible "actually" spoke of multiple wives, not just one man one woman. You're getting stuck on terminology that boils down to nothing more than personal opinion. Marriage is, has always been to do with ownership and property rights. Religion did not create marriage, except for reference to the already mentioned multiple partner marriage.

If marriage was some pure white man-woman religion creation, then we would not today have civil service marriage (no religion there), or marriage by Elvis in Las Vegas drive-thru (certainly no religious connections there), nor marriage at sea by the captain of a vessel (again, non religious ceremony).

Exactly what is this pure religious marriage thing you are protecting by opposing same sex marriage? Plenty of people with no religious beliefs get married every day.
Face it and admit it, this boils down to some self serving power over an minority.
After Bill marries Ted, in private with only friends and immediate family present, then Bill and Ted go away to live their happy lives. Why the hell should that matter to you??? Really... Seriously... You will never know Bill or Ted in the first place, unless it is in the newly married section of the newspaper. Is THAT what bothers you? Reading it in the paper? Because other than that slight chance, you will have nothing to do with Bill and Ted what so ever, in any form, in your entire lifetime on earth.
Opposing same sex marriage is to me, some sort of mental illness fixation thing. Some oppose it for no logical reason, no personal reason, but just to oppose it. Very oddly strange indeed.

And might I add, the same thing went on with mixed marriage back when, and again as in the news lately. Other than two people getting married, same sex, mixed or whatever, who’s business is it besides the two involved and their families?
Something very "sick" is going on with opponents of same sex marriage. Sick or evil. But very strange never the less. By the dawning of their white robes, with bible in hand, proclaiming judgment over others is… as I understand it… God’s grounds for damnation to hell. I see no white silk wings on those opponents proclaiming the moral high ground, thus taking on the role of God and Judge.
Especially when no doubt in their own life, there is much seriously wrong that needs their attention first.

Maybe that is where the desire to attack, and exercise power over others, stems from?

 

[Red Irish]

First of all, bible has nothing to do with gay and marriage. marriage has been defined as between a man and a women since the beginning of human history, way before Christ was born. and that's the same for Asian, Egyptian, roman, Greek, Babylonian, Indian and any other ancient civilization.

Second of all, although there are people with different positions, but I believe majority of the people have no issue with providing gay couples EQUAL RIGHTS, only with gay couple equate their union to marriage.

First of all, bible has nothing to do with gay and marriage. marriage has been defined as between a man and a women since the beginning of human history, way before Christ was born. and that's the same for Asian, Egyptian, roman, Greek, Babylonian, Indian and any other ancient civilization.

Second of all, although there are people with different positions, but I believe majority of the people have no issue with providing gay couples EQUAL RIGHTS, only with gay couple equate their union to marriage.

In relation to your first point, Wikipedia states the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient

Various types of same-sex marriages have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.

In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies. Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.

The first recorded mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire. These same sex marriages were solemnized with the same ceremonies and customs which were used for heterosexual marriages. Cicero mentions the marriage (using the latin verb for "to marry", i.e. nubere) of the son of Curio the Elder in a casual manner as if it was commonplace. Cicero states that the younger Curio was "united in a stable and permanent marriage" to Antonius. Martial also mentions a number of gay marriages. By Juvenal's time, gay marriages seem to have become commonplace as he mentions attending gay marriages as if there were "nothing special.". These gay marriages continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.

 

[sportage]

Well, like I said, back then you could stone your bad child or wife to death for being disobedient. And the bible "actually" spoke of multiple wives, not just one man one woman. You're getting stuck on terminology that boils down to nothing more than personal opinion. Marriage is, has always been to do with ownership and property rights. Religion did not create marriage, except for reference to the already mentioned multiple partner marriage.
If marriage was some pure white man-woman religion creation, then we would not today have civil service marriage (no religion there), or marriage by Elvis in Las Vegas drive-thru (certainly no religious connections there), nor marriage at sea by the captain of a vessel (again, non religious ceremony).

Exactly what is this pure religious marriage thing you are protecting by opposing same sex marriage? Plenty of people with no religious beliefs get married every day.
Face it and admit it, this boils down to some self serving power over an minority.
After Bill marries Ted, in private with only friends and immediate family present, then Bill and Ted go away to live their happy lives. Why the hell should that matter to you??? Really... Seriously... You will never know Bill or Ted in the first place, unless it is in the newly married section of the newspaper. Is THAT what bothers you? Reading it in the paper? Because other than that slight chance, you will have nothing to do with Bill and Ted what so ever, in any form, in your entire lifetime on earth.
Opposing same sex marriage is to me, some sort of mental illness fixation thing. Some oppose it for no logical reason, no personal reason, but just to oppose it. Very oddly strange indeed.
And might I add, the same thing went on with mixed marriage back when, and again as in the news lately. Other than two people getting married, same sex, mixed or whatever, who’s business is it besides the two involved and their families?
Something very "sick" is going on with opponents of same sex marriage. Sick or evil. But very strange never the less. By the dawning of their white robes, with bible in hand, proclaiming judgment over others is… as I understand it… God’s grounds for damnation to hell. I see no white silk wings on those opponents proclaiming the moral high ground, thus taking on the role of God and Judge.
Especially when no doubt in their own life, there is much seriously wrong that needs their attention first.
Maybe that is where the desire to attack, and exercise power over others, stems from?

 

[Red Irish]

repeat post

 

[sportage]

Well, like I said, back then you could stone your bad child or wife to death for being disobedient. And the bible "actually" spoke of multiple wives, not just one man one woman. You're getting stuck on terminology that boils down to nothing more than personal opinion. Marriage is, has always been to do with ownership and property rights. Religion did not create marriage, except for reference to the already mentioned multiple partner marriage.
If marriage was some pure white man-woman religion creation, then we would not today have civil service marriage (no religion there), or marriage by Elvis in Las Vegas drive-thru (certainly no religious connections there), nor marriage at sea by the captain of a vessel (again, non religious ceremony).

Exactly what is this pure religious marriage thing you are protecting by opposing same sex marriage? Plenty of people with no religious beliefs get married every day.
Face it and admit it, this boils down to some self serving power over an minority.
After Bill marries Ted, in private with only friends and immediate family present, then Bill and Ted go away to live their happy lives. Why the hell should that matter to you??? Really... Seriously... You will never know Bill or Ted in the first place, unless it is in the newly married section of the newspaper. Is THAT what bothers you? Reading it in the paper? Because other than that slight chance, you will have nothing to do with Bill and Ted what so ever, in any form, in your entire lifetime on earth.
Opposing same sex marriage is to me, some sort of mental illness fixation thing. Some oppose it for no logical reason, no personal reason, but just to oppose it. Very oddly strange indeed.
And might I add, the same thing went on with mixed marriage back when, and again as in the news lately. Other than two people getting married, same sex, mixed or whatever, who’s business is it besides the two involved and their families?
Something very "sick" is going on with opponents of same sex marriage. Sick or evil. But very strange never the less. By the dawning of their white robes, with bible in hand, proclaiming judgment over others is… as I understand it… God’s grounds for damnation to hell. I see no white silk wings on those opponents proclaiming the moral high ground, thus taking on the role of God and Judge.
Especially when no doubt in their own life, there is much seriously wrong that needs their attention first.
Maybe that is where the desire to attack, and exercise power over others, stems from?

 

[Red Irish]

repeat post

 

[Red Irish]

repeat post

 

[Red Irish]

repeat post

 

[ebaycj]

Intellectually dishonest comparison.

Care to go into WHY it's intellectually dishonest ?

 

[fskimospy]

Intellectually dishonest comparison.

By all means explain why. I already have a pretty good guess as to what you're going to say, and I'll enjoy trashing it.

 

[Craig234]

I'd like to get an idea of what this forum thinks honestly motivates people to vote down gay marriage.

Speaking for myself: I don't hate gays. With very few exceptions (terrorists, child rapists, etc.) I don't hate anyone at all. Not even Michael Moore. For the simple reason that, just like me, they're doing what they think is right, and even if that's dead wrong, I prefer that people follow their minds and stick to their convictions.

That being said, I believe my reasoning in opposing gay marriage makes sense. I won't go through it because most of you won't agree. But I think the voters in Maine believed the same thing: They don't hate gays. They oppose gay marriage on a basis that makes sense to them.

Even if they're wrong, I can't ask any more of them. If I can't persuade people otherwise, then I can't berate them for voting their conscience.

Also, if you think I should add further to my poll, lemme know.

Your post reminds me of the Jon Stewart segment this week about two gay men walking on what appeared to be a city street but was Mormon Church land, where one kissed the other on the cheek, and this was seen by Mormon security who confronted the men, told them they were disgusting, and then took them to the ground, handcuffed them and put them off the property.

A mormon law professor and a church statement explained how the law was followed and it wasn't about their being gay but was about lewd, lascivious behavior against the rules.

The report went on to have a male and femal make out like porn stars at the exact spot of the gay kiss, without any interference from security.

Yes, it had nothing to do with their being gay, it was only about violating gender-neutral rules on lewd behavior.

You won't post your reasons for your defense of discrimination, but having examined the issue at length, I'd say you do not deserve the 'benefit of the doubt' on that.

If your position were non-discrimination, you could ask for that, but it's not. You actively want to deny others a right you have, and the presumption for me is that it's bigotry.

Do understand that I think most bigots don't think of themselves as bigoted.

 

[Craig234]

Yeah, we should just ask serfsatwerk what is a right and what isn't, and be done with it. No need for pesky voting, laws and that kind of nonsense.

Right, and let's put every issue up to a popular vote, such as the rights of Christians versus minority religions in states with large Christian majorityes.

No need for those pesky courts to defend *individual* rights against the majority's disrespect for them.

That works so well, for situation such as the south's treatment of blacks. Remember how the southern states voted to end segregation?

Of course, those who defended segregation weren't racist. They merely supported states' rights.

 

[Craig234]

Care to go into WHY it's intellectually dishonest ?

No, our weak posters like to post conclusions as attacks, not support them with argument.

They get called a name like 'intellectually dishonest' for good eeason, and then parrot it back against others badly misusing the term.

We could use a forum rule or standard that some argument is required for conclusions, but oh well.

 

[OrByte]

Intellectually dishonest comparison.

oh wow.

Where is PJABBER when you need him?! Here is the "rational, intellectual, reasonable" argument coming from the "right" PJABBER..... pfffsh.

 

[rchiu]

In relation to your first point, Wikipedia states the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient

Various types of same-sex marriages have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.

In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies. Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.

The first recorded mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire. These same sex marriages were solemnized with the same ceremonies and customs which were used for heterosexual marriages. Cicero mentions the marriage (using the latin verb for "to marry", i.e. nubere) of the son of Curio the Elder in a casual manner as if it was commonplace. Cicero states that the younger Curio was "united in a stable and permanent marriage" to Antonius. Martial also mentions a number of gay marriages. By Juvenal's time, gay marriages seem to have become commonplace as he mentions attending gay marriages as if there were "nothing special.". These gay marriages continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.

That wiki entry is horseshit created by people desperately trying to make homosexuality look like widely accepted practice. I am a Chinese and knows everything there is to know about Fujian's tradition. Citing those practice like homosexuality is commonly accepted in China is like saying Davidian and David Koresh represents Christian and what Christian is all about. And citing one guy out of billions of people through out history using the word "nubere" to describe some other two guys relation simply reeks the same desperation.

 

[Red Irish]

That wiki entry is horseshit created by people desperately trying to make homosexuality look like widely accepted practice. I am a Chinese and knows everything there is to know about Fujian's tradition. Citing those practice like homosexuality is commonly accepted in China is like saying Davidian and David Koresh represents Christian and what Christian is all about. And citing one guy out of billions of people through out history using the word "nubere" to describe some other two guys relation simply reeks the same desperation.

That's interesting, I don't know everything there is to know about anything: I take my hat off.

You will at least accept that same-sex marriages did occur in Europe, I presume? Of course this would force you to admit that you were wrong when you claimed that marriages have always involved partners of different genders in all cultures and throughout all human history.