Tyler
Active member
Actually it did pass ... that's why you voted to VETO it before it took effect.
VOTE
- Thread starter MAINIAC XV
- Start date
yes as the ballot stated it forced churchs to perform marriages to same sex couples not allowing them the choice to say no. that is cramming it down peoples throats in every way shape and form. if peopel woudl actually listen to the other side of the argument and listen when we say we dotn want to deny them rights that same sex couples have we just dont want them taking away rights of people who dont agree they would of had a bill passed long ago. its not a hard concept to grasp. put forth a bill that sates couples with civil unions get the same rights straight couples do i.e tax breaks health car rights to make medical decisons etc then it will pass i would vote for it.
lets flip this around and say there was a bill that said all marriages must take place at a church and thit must be a religious ceramony. peopel would be crying bloody murder that that tales away peoples rights if they aren't religious and dotn agree with it. peopel have to stop being hypocritical on the left. make a decision either u want a seperation of church and state or you dont
Last edited by a moderator:
MikeD
N/A All The Way!!
Thanks Mark. I understand that debating points on the internet can be tricky and easily gets out of hand with some folks' strong emotions and patriotism....now if we could see how our cars fit into this mess....
Last edited by a moderator:
K
Kati
Guest
(to be read in a warm and friendly tone)
Kristof, I just ran across a private message you sent to my boyfriend where you told him to lay off......
I think it's time you stepped away from this thread and took a really deep breath, composed yourself, and typed more careful.
I love that this thread is still going, and it would be a ***** to have someone lock it on us, simply because someone feels as if they are being picked on, or the topic is getting out of control.
Yes, I know Wikipedia is not always factual, but after I read their definition, I went on Merriam-Webster and a couple others to check the facts before I posted, that way I would have something to back me up, had I been incorrect.
I am all for speaking up, letting yourself be heard, and stressing your point in reason, but when you have a target on your back, you must tread lightly, especially in Mainely. I have to do it, and I KNOW you have to do it. It sucks when you are labelled a "witch" or a ":banana:" just because you speak your mind, but it happens, and I'd rather not have that label.
I'd tone down your argument and tread lightly, that's all I'm saying.
Kristof, I just ran across a private message you sent to my boyfriend where you told him to lay off......
I think it's time you stepped away from this thread and took a really deep breath, composed yourself, and typed more careful.
I love that this thread is still going, and it would be a ***** to have someone lock it on us, simply because someone feels as if they are being picked on, or the topic is getting out of control.
Yes, I know Wikipedia is not always factual, but after I read their definition, I went on Merriam-Webster and a couple others to check the facts before I posted, that way I would have something to back me up, had I been incorrect.
I am all for speaking up, letting yourself be heard, and stressing your point in reason, but when you have a target on your back, you must tread lightly, especially in Mainely. I have to do it, and I KNOW you have to do it. It sucks when you are labelled a "witch" or a ":banana:" just because you speak your mind, but it happens, and I'd rather not have that label.
I'd tone down your argument and tread lightly, that's all I'm saying.
Tyler
Active member
Sorry Kati
haha
K
Kati
Guest
you have been forgiven.Sorry Katihaha
first the message about him laying off had nothign to do with this topic or thread.
secondly im passionate abotu this topic and wont try to be silenced by opposition. just because there are abucnh of liberals on ere it dosent mean ill "tone it down" to not upset anyone. label me what u want but i think this is a fun debate
Nigel Prodrive
Dirt surfer
well the Bush squad got 8 years to eff stuff up, now Obama gets beated on becasue after a few months he hasn't fixed all the bad things yet. The world is not a nice simple place where issues fit into terms like "flaming liberals" or "Ann Coulter conservatives." Change takes time, the process is messy and imperfect. Obama is hardly an "anointed savior" he's more like a super busy guy with a bigger job and more competing interests to manage than any of us will ever know about.
as for the economy, no it's not hunky dory just yet, but genuine progress has been made. Just compare your IRA statement from last November to this November!
as to your other point--majority rule...in Maine, Question 1 DID get voted down by a narrow majority. I'd say that 53 to 47 percent hardly sounds like a landslide. Basically the No on 1 side underestimated how fired-up the Yes side would be. Their mistake was thinking that our duly elected representatives had already decided, now why did we have to decide it again. No matter what you may think the question is not gone away.
Look back in our nation's history, things we now take for granted took many years to get straightened out. civil rights took many years to get squared away. The right of women to vote took many years, etc etc.
In short, if majority rule was indeed the foundation of America, then black people would still be picking cotton in chains, women couln'dt vote, and the only ppl allowed to decide America's future would be white male slaveholders.
"...all men were created equal..." now there's a traditional value for America to remember.
Mark
Active member
Your primary argument seems to be about forcing churches to perform marriages, am i correct?
Hypothetical: If churches had the right to marry whomever they wished and refuse whomever they wished, but alternative churches or just city hall were allowed to marry two people in the traditional sense with all the same rights, even if it were two people of the same sex...would you be ok with that?
I'm not an expert at all on church goings on. I do know however, and it has been noted in this thread, that churches refuse straight couples based on particular codes they have. Can someone more informed on that law please explain how this would or would not be affected. Perhaps we can actually make some headway on a good debate?
Remember, this is not an arguement about whether or not homosexuality is "icky".
Hypothetical: If churches had the right to marry whomever they wished and refuse whomever they wished, but alternative churches or just city hall were allowed to marry two people in the traditional sense with all the same rights, even if it were two people of the same sex...would you be ok with that?
I'm not an expert at all on church goings on. I do know however, and it has been noted in this thread, that churches refuse straight couples based on particular codes they have. Can someone more informed on that law please explain how this would or would not be affected. Perhaps we can actually make some headway on a good debate?
Remember, this is not an arguement about whether or not homosexuality is "icky".
well the " bush squad" was actually a congress ran by democrats the last 4 years and look what it got us a nice housing crash thanks to the amazing oversite by cris dod and barney frank. it was also liberals who kept pushing to lower the standards of people buying homes so more minority's and lower incoem peopel could have their own homes and look what that got us. what happened to workign for soemthign and not having it handed to you by the goverment. so your saying people didnt think obama was the second coming of jesus?
you knwo what ye si would be fine with that. my main problem with all this is forcing peopel to accept and or participate in somethign they were against. yes i still beleive marriage is a word reserved for a man and women but the country has much bigger issues that need to be delt with i could get over it. if a bill came to vote that didnt make somoen who didnt agree into a bad person and allow peopel to take legal action agaisnt them i would be all for it. ive never had an issue with the gay community at all. actually one of my best friends in highschool and college was gay and have many good gay friends over the years so i would never want to deny them rights that i have i just dont want to be told i cant beleive what i want to beleive.
you knwo what ye si would be fine with that. my main problem with all this is forcing peopel to accept and or participate in somethign they were against. yes i still beleive marriage is a word reserved for a man and women but the country has much bigger issues that need to be delt with i could get over it. if a bill came to vote that didnt make somoen who didnt agree into a bad person and allow peopel to take legal action agaisnt them i would be all for it. ive never had an issue with the gay community at all. actually one of my best friends in highschool and college was gay and have many good gay friends over the years so i would never want to deny them rights that i have i just dont want to be told i cant beleive what i want to beleive.
K
Kati
Guest
I know it didn't have anything to do with this thread, but it has a lot to do with your character, determining playful banter or ignorance, and anger issues. I say that because you sent it while you were HEATED about this topic, or maybe his comment fueled your passion for this thread, either or, when it comes to you- it was the same difference.
I'd say, if you have access to them, pop a few Smileys in every once in a while to set your tone then, cause I can picture you with flames coming out of your ears, typing so quickly, getting annoyed. Just a suggestion.
And it's more than just being labeled: spouting off, name calling, strong opinions, have lead to perminant silencing on the board. I wasn't trying to tell you not to speak your mind, just when you do, don't sound so accusatory or such. And you may argue that that is what other's have done, which when people are attacked, they tend to show the same behavior in the heat of the moment.
-----Added 11/5/2009 at 12:22:15-----
..... yikes.
yeah and i would be sayign the same thing for any group that has public deisplays i dotn feel are appropriate. if any group was walkign down the middle of a city road wearing close to nothing i woudl have an issue with it. in a normal everyday circumstance it would be considered public indeceny
that is not something i want my kid seeign floating down the street
that is not something i want my kid seeign floating down the street
MAINIAC XV
The Eco Man
Wood you feel the same way if was women.yeah and i would be sayign the same thing for any group that has public deisplays i dotn feel are appropriate. if any group was walkign down the middle of a city road wearing close to nothing i woudl have an issue with it. in a normal everyday circumstance it would be considered public indeceny
that is not something i want my kid seeign floating down the street
K
Kati
Guest
Ooops, you put that in the wrong thread, you meant to post that in "Wallpapers: show us your desktop wallpapers". I can see where you'd get it confused, they are right near each other in Off Topic.
LOL
Just joking!
LOL
Just joking!
Mark
Active member
have you ever freaking seen mardi gras?
K
Kati
Guest
would I feel the same way if it was women:
those guys are standing there in bathingsuits, NOT groping each other's doorknockers.
If there was a bunch of women standing around in bikinis or just bottoms, the emotion I'd have, I'd feel a little jealous and possibly threatened depending on their hottness factor. If they were getting frisky, then yes, I'd feel a little uncomfortable because of the PDA.
(oops when I scrolled up, I thought Maniacs post was Kristof's... Maniac slipped in with a Ninja Post!)
No, no man would be offended if it was a bunch of women up there.
also, I didn't visit the website that is watermarked on it, but who says they are gay men on a float? It looks like men advertising for a tanning salon, and there's a blonde chick there too.
those guys are standing there in bathingsuits, NOT groping each other's doorknockers.
If there was a bunch of women standing around in bikinis or just bottoms, the emotion I'd have, I'd feel a little jealous and possibly threatened depending on their hottness factor. If they were getting frisky, then yes, I'd feel a little uncomfortable because of the PDA.
(oops when I scrolled up, I thought Maniacs post was Kristof's... Maniac slipped in with a Ninja Post!)
No, no man would be offended if it was a bunch of women up there.
also, I didn't visit the website that is watermarked on it, but who says they are gay men on a float? It looks like men advertising for a tanning salon, and there's a blonde chick there too.
Last edited:
Mark
Active member
perhaps it was a swimming team.
kati quit hogging the computer i sent gabe a pm
kati quit hogging the computer i sent gabe a pm
Nigel Prodrive
Dirt surfer
point was not to make disagreers into bigots, it was that in the past, things that now seem ridiculous (slaves & non-voting ladies) were the accepted norm of the land.
point was to show that things do change over time as ppl's tolerance levels change
and BTW, the wording of Question 1 specifically said that churches could not be compelled to perform same sex marriages...so how it that being "taken to court by those who don't agree"
and yowtch, if you can't handle the lads in the red skivvies on the parade float being seen by children, then the Dallas cowboys cheerleaders need to be banned from TV asap.