Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2009

RSS |

Twitter

Billboard Links Obama to Jihad

Colo. car dealership wants this opinion heard

Nov 20, 09 8:42 PM CST
Palin Pulls in Big Bucks
—for Democrats

'Going Rogue' boosts Dem fundraising to new high

14 hours, 20 minutes ago
HE'S GOT A BOOK OUT, TOO

Beck to Unveil
'Big Plan' at
Saturday Rally

Righty pundit OK with destroying Dems and GOP

Nov 20, 09 8:07 PM CST
demagogue alert

Lawmaker Paints Target on Barack Obama's Back

Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert panders to dangerous paranoids

12 hours, 1 minute ago
Neglected Ind. Fans Boo Palin

Hecklers accuse her of 'quitting on the job'

Nov 20, 09 3:50 PM CST
Limbaugh's Wrong: Gallup's Obama Approval Below 50%

New survey is latest disappointment for President

Nov 20, 09 2:03 PM CST
Reid Gets 60th Vote:
Holdout Lincoln Agrees

She'll allow health care bill to move forward; vote at 8pm

7 hours, 19 minutes ago
Obama's Stimulus Finally
Gets Some Respect

Warring economists agree that it has helped—if not enough

14 hours, 48 minutes ago
the big plan

Beck Will Host Conventions
to Educate America

He's shifting toward political organizer, plans big DC rally

4 hours, 3 minutes ago
Senate Democrats Clear
Health Care Hurdle, 60-39

Reid gets 60 votes to open full debate after Thanksgiving recess

1 hour, 57 minutes ago
showtime: 8pm

All Eyes on Blanche Lincoln in Cliffhanger Senate Vote

Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson expected to back health reform in first vote

13 hours, 46 minutes ago
SURPRISE, SURPRISE

Sullivan Back; Still Hates Palin

Calls her book 'manifesto for the imagined life'

Nov 19, 09 8:49 PM CST
India Miffed By Obama's Bond With Beijing

Perceived slights complicate PM Singh's DC visit next week

Nov 20, 09 6:30 PM CST

|NEXT STORY »

UPDATED

147

Maine Shoots Down Same-Sex Marriage

Law repealed by 53% of voters with rural, Catholic backing

By Mary Papenfuss| Posted Nov 4, 09 4:45 AM CST|

(Newser) – Maine voters yesterday shot down a state law allowing same-sex marriage after an emotionally charged campaign that drew hordes to the polls. The vote was another indication of a list to the right election night. “It has all come together and the institution of marriage has been preserved," said Frank Shubert, manager of the Stand for Marriage Maine campaign, as gays and supporters sobbed at poll-watching sites. Question 1 passed by 53%, largely due to support in rural Maine and among devout Catholic populations.

It rescinds the same-sex marriage law passed in May and quickly suspended before it became effective. "No on 1" campaign manager Jesse Connolly vowed to continue the fight for gay rights: “We're here for the long haul.” The vote is important in the same-sex marriage battle. "The movement has to win a state like Maine," one observer told the San Francisco Chronicle. "It's not a liberal bastion, but fairly progressive—sort of an impartial bellwether."

Frank Schubert, campaign director for Stand for Marriage Maine, claims victory for Yes on 1 last night in Portland, Maine. The vote rescinds the Legislature's approval of same-sex marriage (AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty)

Volunteers cheer while watching returns at the Question 1 election night headquarters in Portland, Maine, last night. (AP Photo/Pat Wellenbach)

Friends console one another after learning about the unofficial defeat on Question 1 at election night headquarters in Portland, Maine, early today. (AP Photo/Pat Wellenbach)

Friends console one another after learning about the unofficial defeat on Question 1 at election night headquarters in Portland, Maine, early Wednesday morning, Nov. 4, 2009. (AP Photo/Pat Wellenbach)

Lisa Brackbill, left, Darlene Huntress and Lisa Pugh console one another after learning about the vote to rescind the Maine Legislature's approval of same-sex marriage. (AP Photo/Pat Wellenbach)

View larger images >>

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

11.20.09

The Health-Care Wars Have Just Begun

11.19.09

Sarah Palin Deserves Some More Attention

147 comments

VIEWING:

Dictator
Nov 4, 09 2:34 AM CST

i disagree and cannot understand gays nor think it is morally correct... but Democracy is here to offer freedom, and we cannot deny rights because it is gross to some people. We will figure this out soon enough, Reply

IN RESPONSE:

jfcd
Nov 4, 09 2:40 AM CST

i disagree with you saying its morally correct, as morals are very personal, however i agree with you about democracy offering freedom. Some people just can't go on with their lives without affecting others apparently, isn't that harming civil rights? We have fighted for this for a very long time and sometimes it seems we are going back, instead of taking a step further....

+10

IN RESPONSE:

jfcd
Nov 4, 09 2:56 AM CST

sry, i mean not morally correct

IN RESPONSE:

prowlerzee
Nov 4, 09 6:53 AM CST

Here's how to figure it out: stop sticking your nose in other people's crotches. Straight people do "gross" things, too, and how is anyone going to police that? Freedom and civil rights require privacy. Quit telling women what they can do with their bodies and quit worrying about what gays do with theirs. Simple.

+15

IN RESPONSE:

hybrid
Nov 4, 09 7:19 AM CST

Privacy is the key word here, hey if you want to play husband and huaband or wife and wife go ahead, you just cant get the tax benefit or insurance benifit for it. As far as hetoro couples doing "gross" things two, ITS not gross if your doing it with the oppisite sex. The people have spoken, they dont want gay marrige

-16

IN RESPONSE:

Thinker
Nov 4, 09 7:28 AM CST

"The People" didn't want an end to slavery or blacks and whites in the same schools, either.

+14

IN RESPONSE:

jamerican
Nov 4, 09 7:51 AM CST

You who agree with gay marriage forget that it affects how our children view morality, how other countries view our immorality and it moves us further and further from being a nation under God...or have you forgotten everything this country was founded on? Gay freedoms have negative consequences on all of us including God turning his back on our nation for our ignorance and sin which will affect all of us.

-4

IN RESPONSE:

hybrid
Nov 4, 09 7:55 AM CST

@jamerican......You start acting like a god fearing man on this site if your going to refer to it. Walk the walk from here on out.

IN RESPONSE:

bewilderbeast
Nov 4, 09 8:30 AM CST

Now here's a real laugh, jamerican: "how other countries view our immorality"! Lessee: Torture; Death Penalty; Fake Democracy; Rigged votes; Illegal Warmongering; Selling Lethal Arms to Anyone; Reneging on International Treaties; Stealing Oil from Iraq and Africa; Polluting other countries; Criminally boycotting and impoverishing a neighbour; Kidnapping and Holding citizens of other countries illegally; I don't think you need to fear that we (the "other" 6200 million citizens of this planet might think WORSE of you because you MIGHT just uphold individual rights, Jamerican!

IN RESPONSE:

Unaffiliated
Nov 4, 09 9:53 AM CST

@jamerican, children seeing a married gay couple will not harm their "morals". In fact, it would be good for them to see a loving couple that truly cares for each other. And from how I experience God, I know God would never "turn away from us." You anthropomorphize God too much. We should try to be more God-like, instead of viewing God as fickle and hateful as we can be.

IN RESPONSE:

Fondue
Nov 4, 09 4:36 PM CST

"ITS not gross if your doing it with the oppisite [sic] sex." Three words my friend: strap on dildos.

IN RESPONSE:

Monjubikahn
Nov 5, 09 1:19 AM CST

You have just changed the purpose of Democracy. It is a system of governance. The deception of the Moral Code thinking is that it does away with right and wrong or sin and salvation. The Ten Commandments breakfast of champions.

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Nixon
Nov 8, 09 4:30 AM CST

Thinker, people did want to end slavery they gave their lives in support of the issue

IN RESPONSE:

mom_of_ross
Nov 11, 09 8:20 AM CST

| 0 minutes ago

jfcd
Nov 4, 09 2:36 AM CST

Well, now Maine has took a step backwards. Civil rights are damaged by things like this... Reply

IN RESPONSE:

KurtRambis4va
Nov 4, 09 2:14 PM CST

...Don't forget about California. I agree that civil rights are damaged by this, but I bet your home state would take a step backwards if it were up for vote there too

| 0 minutes ago

George_Taylor
Nov 4, 09 3:25 AM CST

This is terrible news. The gay community won't give up, so someday they'll get their equal rights. Save everybody the time and money fighting a battle that will only prolong and just let the homosexuals win. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

bewilderbeast
Nov 4, 09 8:34 AM CST

Well, not "win". Just let them be. Equal rights is all. Why it even matters to others is what's WEIRD!

IN RESPONSE:

Monjubikahn
Nov 5, 09 2:18 AM CST

Ah political Jujitsu. Use the force and momentum of your opponant to defeat them. Why did'nt I think of that. An open gay community will bare the sins of the priests who molested us as children. You have the right to remain silent....

IN RESPONSE:

mom_of_ross
Nov 11, 09 8:26 AM CST

What I don't get is why they want MY rights?? I could support a movement that pushes for full access to civil rights, being able to have a 'civil union' that allows partners access to couple's insurance, and other gains. But I would reserve the term 'marriage' for a union between men and women. But the supporters of gay and lesbian marriage are not happy with their own terminology they want mine.

-1

IN RESPONSE:

mom_of_ross
Nov 11, 09 8:26 AM CST

| 0 minutes ago

maryz
Nov 4, 09 3:52 AM CST

It's not a gay rights issue, it's a civil rights issue. I could care a less who gets married as long as they are consenting adults (and preferably not blood relatives.) To me it is simply a denial of the very same rights I am assured under my state constitution. When someone is indiscriminately denied the very same rights I possess, we all lose, because it shows all too clearly how easy those rights can be stripped away just because some segments of society disapprove of others. So, we all (gay or straight) should fear when anyone is denied equality. Reply

+13

| 0 minutes ago

cedarkey
Nov 4, 09 5:37 AM CST

Way to go Maine, Thumbs Up. Reply

-11

IN RESPONSE:

Blackbird
Nov 4, 09 7:15 AM CST

+1...I'm all for legal civil unions with all of the rights of marriage but to me marriage is between a man and a woman.

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Fondue
Nov 4, 09 9:00 AM CST

Why Blackbird? I understand it is your personal prerogative, but how did you personally come to that decision?

IN RESPONSE:

Monjubikahn
Nov 5, 09 2:21 AM CST

We have become altogether like Sodom and Gomorrah. How much time do we have left as a nation? Has everyone built their bomb shelters?

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Face-Of-RNC
Nov 10, 09 1:31 PM CST

Bible thumpin' bastards want the government to leave them alone but want the government to enforce their bullshit religious beliefs. The GOP's definition of true Americanism.

| 0 minutes ago

RockyPneumonia
Nov 4, 09 6:17 AM CST

...And, once again, people who profess to believe in a G-d of love preach, in his name, hatred of his creations. Reply

+10

IN RESPONSE:

cedarkey
Nov 4, 09 6:36 AM CST

And, once again, Rocky distorts God because he does not know God.

-4

IN RESPONSE:

Thinker
Nov 4, 09 7:30 AM CST

And you do, cedarkey? My question is this: Why does God create half-wits, then use them as his spokes persons? And, why does God create people who are gay, then use the half-wits to torture them?

IN RESPONSE:

bewilderbeast
Nov 4, 09 8:41 AM CST

Dincha know, Thinker? God only speaks to really weird assh*les. It's just a thing with "Him". He hangs out with these kooks who often turn out to be pervert freaks. The thing "He" has in common with them is THEY HATE HUMAN BEINGS, and they believe in serious violence. Death is a big thing with them.

IN RESPONSE:

RockyPneumonia
Nov 4, 09 8:55 AM CST

cedarkey, please point out my "distortion". Are you claiming that G-d is NOT a G-d of love?

IN RESPONSE:

paul123
Nov 4, 09 8:55 AM CST

@ Cedarkey: You are dead on. @Thinker: It is very prejudiced to assume that all half wits lean one way only or another way only in the political spectrum. Teh (sic) dumb is an equal opportunity offender. Q2-God give us the free will to live our lives as we see fit. He doesn't want his people to love him or follow him because they are operating in fear. That said. God doesn't create gay people. Those who torture gay people are not necessarily half-wits either. Maine, a traditionally BLUE state all of a sudden contracted teh dumb? Come on. You are as prejudiced as those whom you condemn for being prejudiced.

IN RESPONSE:

Thinker
Nov 4, 09 9:47 AM CST

Paul123 ... uhm, what? Did you have a point or are you just putting some words together to see what they look like.

IN RESPONSE:

paul123
Nov 4, 09 1:23 PM CST

Thinker: I didn't stutter, there are no typos, and the point is clear and concise. If you don't understand it, then maybe you need to explore the topic and content before making your arguments.

IN RESPONSE:

paul123
Nov 4, 09 1:26 PM CST

ok, sorry, one typo: "give" should be "gives", otherwise my posts were answers to the two questions you posed earlier.

IN RESPONSE:

Monjubikahn
Nov 5, 09 1:25 AM CST

Missappropriation of purpose is not something that a loving G-d would reinforce given that He created the whole system. The perversion came through the destroyer or Satan.

| 0 minutes ago

Nixon
Nov 4, 09 7:36 AM CST

Everyone has the same rights, the right to marry one person of the opposite sex. I dont have a problem with this it applies to everyone equally, no single person is excluded from this law. It just so happens that there are people out there that want to marry someone of the same sex. Well there are also people out there who want multiple wives and husbands but under the law they can only have one. There is still no proof that sexuality is genetic and the animal world gives little evidence of homosexuality being common behaviour for the vast majority of species. For the record im not a homophobe, i have plenty of friends that happen to be gay, when asked about the issue i tell them what i think and why. Some of them want gay marriage, some dont care and some dont even want it. To me marriage is the specific relationship between a man and a woman, husband and wife. Reply

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 7:49 AM CST

Ok, to YOU it's between a man and a woman, so YOU marry the opposite sex. But this isn't about you. Two gay people getting married has nothing to do with you. Marriage was a legal institution long before it was a religious institution.

IN RESPONSE:

hybrid
Nov 4, 09 8:01 AM CST

True nixon, where will it stop, next the coloreds will want to vote and use our bathrooms,,,,,This argument is a tuffy,

IN RESPONSE:

bewilderbeast
Nov 4, 09 8:44 AM CST

So right, Corona. And although he'll furiously deny it, Nixon WOULD have argued the same tired shit against allowing black people on the bus in 1959.

IN RESPONSE:

Nixon
Nov 4, 09 9:22 AM CST

Corona_King - "Marriage was a legal institution before it was a religious institution"....hmm not sure about that one. Pretty damn sure you just made that little fact up to suit your position, present a little proof because that is a big claim to make. Gay marriage has plenty to do with me as a citizen I get a say, just like everyone in the country. You think that only gay people can have an opinion on gay marriage? How narrow minded can one person be. To have audicity to claim that marriage to ME, is between a man and a woman and not to others, do you know who else shares my view; how about the majority of the population and the countries few hundred years of history. How about you learn to accept the fact that there are plenty of intelligent and well educated people out there who don't support your cause. And now "hybrid" why be a clown and dig up issues from the 60's and lump that in with gay marriage. Your just straying off topic to try and discredit me with completley unrelated comments. Thats a pure and simple cheap shot that sucks in any liberal like bees to honey. If your going to disagree get a real argument instead of relying on rubbish.

-2

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 9:36 AM CST

@ Nixon, wow, really...ok you asked for it. Marriages have always been about legal contracts between 2 families for thousands of years. How the fuck do you think dowries came about? "Just in case my daughter doesn't give you children, take these cattle as insurance." If you think the Hebrews or Christian culture "invented" marriage, you're sadly mistaken. Every culture throughout history from the Middle East to the Amazon rainforest has something like this legal arrangement.....and no, you don't have a say in peoples' rights. You can have an opinion, but you opinion doesn't mean anything when it affects other people's equality, which is why hybrid brought up 60s issues. Speaking of rubbish arguments, " I don't like it" isn't a valid legal argument when dealing with people's equality.

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 9:46 AM CST

By the way, marriage didn't even become a sacrament in the Catholic church until the 12th century...even they say so: http://www.americancatholic.org/e-News/FriarJack/fj062102.asp

IN RESPONSE:

Nixon
Nov 4, 09 10:12 AM CST

You guys are so freaking biased its ridiculous. You believe that because I oppose gay marriage therefore im a racist. The two things are not even connected. Do you know that black americans are more likely to oppose gay marriage then whites, what insult will you hurl in black americas direction? I mean you can hardly use the "bus" line again.

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Nixon
Nov 4, 09 10:39 AM CST

Corona_King i never once said "i dont like it" as an argument you made that up. I mean you are such a joke as person, you take the moral high ground then you lie. You are so ignoranant and intolleranant of anyone that does not share your views you will do anything to try and get your way. Speaking of valid legal arguments you definition of marrige shows a fundamental lack of understanding. Marriage during the early years of humanity was nothing more than a social agreement. There was no legal rights, obligations or government intervention. Most countries around this time had little in the way of a code of laws. It was not untill the 1700's approx. that any sort of legal recognition of marriage began. Catholics, christians and jews all had socially organised marriage well before this point in time without state involvement.

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 10:42 AM CST

I don't believe anyone called you a racist, they were simply drawing parallels (probably hyperbolic) between your arguments and arguments made in the 50s-60s to deny other groups equal rights. You still haven't come up with a decent legal argument to oppose gay marriage.

-1

IN RESPONSE:

doingtherightthing
Nov 4, 09 10:48 AM CST

Nixon........you questioned your statement; religious institution vs legal institution. Here's your answer Gen 2:24.......no man and man or female and female just man and woman..........makes sense to me......

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 10:55 AM CST

Ok, change legal arrangement to more specifically property arrangement. It still wasn't founded in religion. Which means there's still no reason not to allow gays to marry. Do you want to know my I'm intolerant of your view? Because people like you are keeping gays from engaging in a legal contract for no legal reason. It's discrimination and it's wrong. Why do you think Iowa allowed gay marriage? Preventing them from getting marriage violated the Equal Proctection clause of their state constitution. At the end of the day you can continue to rant and call us liars, but you still have provided no reason no to allow gays to marry.

IN RESPONSE:

Cprizzle
Nov 4, 09 10:59 AM CST

No one called you racist, Nixon. Regardless, I'll call you an insufferable idiot. Homosexuality isn't a race, you IGNORANT MORON!

IN RESPONSE:

Nixon
Nov 4, 09 11:12 AM CST

A large chunk of America is starting to believe that liberals are just a pack of frenzied crazies. You dont listen to anyone except simular minded people, you attack those that dont completley agree and you believe you are more intelligent and superior to those that dont support gay marriage. Your extreme actions are putting people off supporting your cause rather then helping. No one likes having your "correct view" jammed down their throat. Prior to discussing this issue on this website I personally opposed gay marriage but I never felt strongly enough to vote let alone protest and encourage other to support my view. But after being abused when I simply wanted to discuss im strongly considering voting should a simular proposition arise in my state as well as encouraging like minded people to do the same. I dont want to be assocaited with people who lie and mislead others to support their views. Instead of alienating me you could have instead tried to make some reasonable points. At least the christians have got a lifetime of bible reading to explain their strong views on the topic. Congratulations for damaging your cause rather then helping it.

-2

IN RESPONSE:

Nixon
Nov 4, 09 11:18 AM CST

"Cprizzle" there was inplied racism read the posts before commenting instead of making a big critical statement which of course your liberal buddies lap up.

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Nixon
Nov 4, 09 12:01 PM CST

"Corona_King" and "Hybrid" i will leave you with one parting statement that i hope you reply to consistantly. In the western world marriage has 2 pillars which have remained untouched for hundreds of years. They are that marriage involves those of the opposite sex and that only two people are involved in a marriage. Therefore if you choose to change one pillar being the one that involves people of the opposite sex how can possibly not change the other. How can you limit the number of people in a marriage without discriminating, shouldnt citizens choose who and how many people they marry. What gives the state the authority to set the number of people in a marriage as 2? Historically speaking polygamy has been more widespread and socially acceptable then gay marriage. Religions such as mormon fundamentalism and islam believe in polygamy. Based on your views on gay marriage i hope you support polygamy, as I cannot think of a reason that people such as yourselves would dispute it, obviously provided its between a number of consenting adults.

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Fondue
Nov 4, 09 12:13 PM CST

No Nixon, we think you are a bigoted discriminator because you oppose gay marriage. Also, where is "black america"? @ dothewrongthing, nothing in the book says same sexes shall not become one flesh.

-2

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 12:29 PM CST

@ Nixon, so instead of coming up with an argument against gay marriage, you decide to throw in polygamy, which, according to the government is not a legal contract between 2 parties. The government grants these contracts to provide tax benefits and become a third party in deciding property disputes in a divorce. They have no interest in doing with in polygamy because it is multiple contracts to multiple people. I'm sorry, your 2 pillars argument is laughable. " If you remove one, how can you not remove the other?" Why does one depend on the other? The answer is they don't. Have you wondered why no one has come to your defense in this thread? It's because you have no argument. The fact you feel the need to bring up polygamy shows how desperate you are. Also, you argument that we are hurting our cause is bullshit, the gay marriage issue has been gaining steam for a few years now. Iowa made it legal and others will follow. The fact that there's even a vote on this and they only got 53% to oppose it means people are starting to rethink their position.

IN RESPONSE:

Nixon
Nov 4, 09 1:14 PM CST

No one comes to my defence because this site is full of liberals. Plenty of people say rubbish like "(insert random republican here) lets tie them up beat them round a bit and educate them in discrimination" and then like 18 people give it the thumbs up. As far as polygamy goes legal complexity is not a reason to deny rights. Theres a polygamy case in Canada at the moment being argued on the grounds of the two rules of marriage and the introduction of gay marriage. I really hope they win so they can live their life as they want without be supressed by hypocrites such as yourself. As for introducing polygamy as an argument it is being used for a court case so therefore it must be a valid point. You claim me introducing polygamy is proof i have no case how about you saying that because i dont support gay marriage therefore I would have discriminated against blacks. As much as your cause builds steam so does the opposition. I mean so what that you got Iowa (for now) you lost California when you spent more money than the opposition. Oh well lifes tough with a chip on your shoulder, when you hate the world and it hates you back.

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 1:35 PM CST

Where did I say you discriminate against blacks Nixon? "I really hope they win so they can live their life as they want without be supressed by hypocrites such as yourself." What? Who said I voted against gay marriage or polygamy? What are you even talking about? "when you hate the world and it hates you back." ---Uh, I'm not the one hating the world, I want people to be equal. Please come up with a real argument against gay marriage.

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 1:36 PM CST

"As far as polygamy goes legal complexity is not a reason to deny rights." Uh, they have the right to get married idiot. They don't have a right to do it to multiple people at the same time.. Each and everyone of the polygamists' participants can get married. Seriously, is it that hard for you to grasp?

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Nixon
Nov 4, 09 8:01 PM CST

Corona you continue to contradict yourself. You claim Polygamists have the right to get married - but only to one person. That comment draws parralels with the statement homosexuals have the right to get married - but only to a person of the opposite sex. Why consider personal preference for one group and not the other. You have no valid reason at all to deny polygamy except your personal bias being that marriage is between two people. More people globally believe in polygamy then gay marriage, what gives you the right to define a marriage as only between two people in this country. If you claim the law or social views etc your contradicting yourself on your view on gay marriage. Every argument you give in favor of gay marriage can be applied to polygamy also. As for child raising whats to say that 3 parents wouldnt do a good job.

-3

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 9:51 PM CST

No, I didn't contradict myself. Once again, make an argument against gay marriage...It's been hours, you haven't done that.

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 9:53 PM CST

No, I didn't contradict myself. Once again, make an argument against gay marriage...It's been hours, you haven't done that. "But preventing persons to enter into multiple contracts or into an entirely different kind of contract isn't discriminatory within the contract at all -- it is an entirely different kind of contract to which the government has chosen not to give benefits."

| 0 minutes ago

Fondue
Nov 4, 09 9:02 AM CST

Rural Maine and devout Catholics, as well as the rest of the 53% of Maine are ignorant and easily manipulated. Reply

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Nixon
Nov 4, 09 9:47 AM CST

Hey Fondue this isnt about "manipulation" stop believing your somehow more knowledgable and ultimatley superior to those that oppose gay marriage. For someone who preaches anti-discrimination, right now your discriminating against those who are Catholics and live in rural areas. The hypocricy is beyond a joke yet its all ok with you because people that dont agree with you are simply ignorant in your view.

-4

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 10:02 AM CST

Honestly, I don't see a whole lot of difference between this situation and the judge from Louisiana who wouldn't marry a black person and a white person. Opinions and views should be null and void when dealing with treating people equally. The thing is, the anti gay marriage crowd can't come up with a decent legal argument for their "view"...the best they have is some bullshit from Leviticus.

IN RESPONSE:

Fondue
Nov 4, 09 11:06 AM CST

Nixon, it is about manipulation. I guarantee you said devout Catholics made statements such as: gay marriage is a sin. That my friend is manipulation. I may not be more knowledgeable than those who oppose same-sex marriage, but it certainly makes me appear so. And it is you that feels I am superior. I will tell you now - do not feel this way. I am no better, nor any worse than those who voted on false pretenses while their bishops' sins were covered up. As for the rest of the 53%, they most definitely feel they are superior than homosexuals. Why are you not scolding them for their arrogance?

IN RESPONSE:

Nixon
Nov 4, 09 11:37 AM CST

Many of them believe that gay marriage is a sin that is based on their faith which they believe is the word of God. That is freedom of religion and is what they believe in. You cannot prove that their faith is incorrect so therefore who are you to say their view is incorrect and manipulated. You assume that their bishops are sinners??? Some may well be but the imply that they all are is laughable. Someone with your progressive views should be above such assumptions. But as I would expect you apply different rules for different groups. I can only imagine the criticism i would recieve if i dare make assumption about the gay community.

-3

IN RESPONSE:

Fondue
Nov 4, 09 12:30 PM CST

So you want to take the 1st. So do the gay marriage supporters. Also, do you believe in theocracy. Constitution of Maine: Section 1. Natural rights. All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness. -- Mainers just voted and took that away from an entire group (discrimination). And, a large portion use a religion to justify that action. I thought the American experiment was against such tyranny.

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 12:31 PM CST

You still don't get it. "That is freedom of religion and is what they believe in." Who cares what you believe in. Equality isn't up for debate in a democracy. Real democracy protects against the tyranny of the majority.

IN RESPONSE:

mom_of_ross
Nov 11, 09 8:33 AM CST

Fondue-on the contrary...53% of Maine seems to have grown a backbone and stood up to a vocal societal minority.

| 0 minutes ago

Wonka
Nov 4, 09 9:37 AM CST

For all the "celebrating" by conservatives, this is their only real victory yesterday. The bigots prevailed and denied rights to people in Maine. Be proud righties, be proud! Reply

| 0 minutes ago

bcfilmguy
Nov 4, 09 10:50 AM CST

America is so far up its own ass it makes me sick. Gay marriage has been recognized in other countries around the world and the sky has not fallen (oh, I know, conservatives--just wait; the apocalypse is coming). Just like healthcare, which basically every developed country has embraced, the US can't look beyond their own border to see how things have fared other places in the world. Instead they hold up signs and chant verbal masturbation about the sanctity of marriage and society, not acknowledging they aren't the center of the universe and other societies have managed fine. Believe me, when gay marriage is finally recognized in America (and it will happen) America will be the firs to congratulate itself, praising how open-minded and tolerant it is as a nation. And by that time they will probably be the last developed country in the world to recognize same-sex marriage, but will act like they are the first. To the people who supported this bill and those posters on this site who continue to shout your disapproval without really understanding what you're disapproving of, you are doing a great deal of damage. I know you don't think yourselves ignorant or hateful, but you really don't know the pain you're inflicting. Every group that has tried to keep civil liberties from another has historically lost the battle. You are on the wrong side of history. Life is a grey area, but all you can do is ere on the side of love. And you all are most certainly not. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

BleeBloo
Nov 4, 09 11:08 AM CST

I'm ashamed that so many of our states give rights, only to snatch them away again. First California, now Maine--it's a disgrace. It's not anyone's business who you love and who you choose to spend your life with any more than it's anyone's business what straight people do in the bedroom either. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

plstyle
Nov 4, 09 11:56 AM CST

It's not about what you or anybody else does in the bedroom. WAKE UP!

-3

IN RESPONSE:

BleeBloo
Nov 4, 09 12:02 PM CST

Okay, what do you think it's about, then?

IN RESPONSE:

Nixon
Nov 4, 09 1:16 PM CST

Move to Canada then, Americas no place for sooks

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Nixon
Nov 4, 09 9:30 PM CST

You can label same sex relationship marriage if you please, I am indiffernet to what you title it however simply being in a relationship does not entitle you to acces to children. If it is fundamentally impossible on a genetic level for you and your partner to have ever concieved a child on your own then what entitles you to raise children? Thats is the real issue at hand here; giving legal marriage status is just a gateway to a circus of full adoption rights, artifical insemination and surrogacy for same sex couples. Many peoples definition of equal rights fails to recognise the differences in the sexes and now that same mindset has transfered to same sex relationships. People today often deny the reality that men and woman are inherently physically different, equal yet different. Political correctness gets in the way of reality far to often. For example many professions traditionally dominated by men have begun allowing females to join (fair enough) however they normally reduce the physical requirements. That is discrimination as you cannot have minimum standards for one gender and not the other it comprmises the reasons why such tests were introduced in the first place and can potentially put peoples lives at risk. The fire service often requires males upon entering the service to be able to lift a body shaped weight of approx 160lb, female recruits do not have to pass that test. Who suffers when theres a fire and some of the fire fighters cannot lift the passed out bodies of the people trapped inside? Well thats obviously the victims of the fire, I would hate for someone do die as a result of gender concessions being made on the grounds of political correctness. Logic and common sense shows that all recruits must pass the same test regardless of gender in order to properly fulfil the criteria of the role. Now we ask the question why should gay couples be given the right to raise children when they cannot concieve with thier partner due to the lack of sexual compatibility. That sexual incompatability is fact and undeniable, science today has allowed for ways around this however it always requires an external source of the opposite sexes genetic material. By not allowing gay couples to adopt or artifically concieve we are not denying the equal rights to these particular couples as these rights never existed to begin with due to human genetics. All gay couples do not have the required sexual organs to concieve a child on their own, ever............no exceptions. This is undeniable scientific fact. Therefore gay couples do not have the right to raise children due to lack of fundamental compatability as no 'average' person would ever believe that gay couples have the ability to concieve naturally and within the confines of their relationship. Therefore in summary it is impossible to deny a right which has no existance to begin with. Members of society are not responsible for same sex relationships inability to concieve within the confines of their...

IN RESPONSE:

mom_of_ross
Nov 11, 09 8:36 AM CST

BleeBloo...by that argument we shouldn't have a problem with pedophiles.

| 0 minutes ago

d3wd
Nov 4, 09 11:37 AM CST

I'd like to see government get out of the marriage business altogether. If I ever get married again, I will not seek permission from government. It's none of their damned business. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

plstyle
Nov 4, 09 11:39 AM CST

I Disagree with gay "marriage" but don't disagree with the union. There are things that sould be left in place. Its these little things that keep society's structure. I think most of you would agree with everything I say, its the people that stubbornly want this "marriage" tag, that are immature and misguided. they should be fighting for rights that would actually benefit the gays. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

BleeBloo
Nov 4, 09 12:05 PM CST

Marriage is legally distinct from civil unions, and marriage grants more rights than civil unions. Even if they had the same rights, saying gays can only get civil unions is insulting--it says "My heterosexual relationship is more valid than yours!" It says that gays are still SECOND CLASS CITIZENS who do not have full rights under the law. The word marriage need to be abolished form law entirely, or gay marriage needs to be legal in every state, without restraint. Period.

IN RESPONSE:

Nixon
Nov 4, 09 12:12 PM CST

"plstyle" i agree with you but prepare to be torn apart by a bunch of crazy liberals. The majority will not agree with what you say, at least on this website.

-4

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 12:33 PM CST

What? How do Britney Spears and Kevin Federline create a better society structure than 2 gay people?

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 12:39 PM CST

The governments definition of marriage is strictly legal. Which is why you aren't officially married until you sign the papers, even if it's in a church. The government has already decided that marriage the appropriate term for this legal contract, but since it shares its name with a religious sacrament, people want to hijack that term and give it only a religious meaning and create something called a civil union. They "stubbornly want this marriage tag" the same way you stubbornly want to call it a civil union."

IN RESPONSE:

Nixon
Nov 4, 09 1:39 PM CST

I love how im voted down, then they do exactly what i said they would do. Britney and Kev vs. 2 gays......hmmm well im gonna say that u dont actually know what kev and brits are like as parents and that they probs have great nannies so im gonna go with them.

-2

IN RESPONSE:

plstyle
Nov 4, 09 1:45 PM CST

@ Kinq and Bleebloo- yeah, and so is the governments definition of "civil union", so what? I don't know how they do it in Colorado or BleeBloo land, But in California, there has been legislation passed to give them the same rights that a "married" couple has. You need insurance no problem, your partner is in the hospital and you need to see him/her, go head. Like I said, spend your efforts and energies on something that really matters and makes a difference.

-2

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 1:58 PM CST

So if the term is the same, why call it something else when the legal language is already there?

IN RESPONSE:

Nixon
Nov 4, 09 9:32 PM CST

You can label same sex relationship marriage if you please, I am indiffernet to what you title it however simply being in a relationship does not entitle you to acces to children. If it is fundamentally impossible on a genetic level for you and your partner to have ever concieved a child on your own then what entitles you to raise children? Thats is the real issue at hand here; giving legal marriage status is just a gateway to a circus of full adoption rights, artifical insemination and surrogacy for same sex couples. Many peoples definition of equal rights fails to recognise the differences in the sexes and now that same mindset has transfered to same sex relationships. People today often deny the reality that men and woman are inherently physically different, equal yet different. Political correctness gets in the way of reality far to often. For example many professions traditionally dominated by men have begun allowing females to join (fair enough) however they normally reduce the physical requirements. That is discrimination as you cannot have minimum standards for one gender and not the other it comprmises the reasons why such tests were introduced in the first place and can potentially put peoples lives at risk. The fire service often requires males upon entering the service to be able to lift a body shaped weight of approx 160lb, female recruits do not have to pass that test. Who suffers when theres a fire and some of the fire fighters cannot lift the passed out bodies of the people trapped inside? Well thats obviously the victims of the fire, I would hate for someone do die as a result of gender concessions being made on the grounds of political correctness. Logic and common sense shows that all recruits must pass the same test regardless of gender in order to properly fulfil the criteria of the role. Now we ask the question why should gay couples be given the right to raise children when they cannot concieve with thier partner due to the lack of sexual compatibility. That sexual incompatability is fact and undeniable, science today has allowed for ways around this however it always requires an external source of the opposite sexes genetic material. By not allowing gay couples to adopt or artifically concieve we are not denying the equal rights to these particular couples as these rights never existed to begin with due to human genetics. All gay couples do not have the required sexual organs to concieve a child on their own, ever, no exceptions. This is undeniable scientific fact. Therefore gay couples do not have the right to raise children due to lack of fundamental compatability as no 'average' person would ever believe that gay couples have the ability to concieve naturally and within the confines of their relationship. Therefore in summary it is impossible to deny a right which has no existance to begin with. Members of society are not responsible for same sex relationships inability to concieve within the confines of their relationship.

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 10:06 PM CST

Dude...your wall of text managed to say nothing at all. Where the hell is procreation tied to the right to enter in a legal contract for kinship and property? Does that mean single moms or dads can't adopt children? Putting a penis in a vagina doesn't make you a good parent...and it doesn't mean you're owed a child either.

IN RESPONSE:

mom_of_ross
Nov 11, 09 8:37 AM CST

AMEN. If they need to amend civil unions to include more rights, then so be it.

| 0 minutes ago

Nixon
Nov 4, 09 12:37 PM CST

Maybe the law could be amended so that only those biologically believed to be able to potentially have children (at some point in their life) within their relationship can refer to their legal relationship as a marriage. That would get rid of the discrimination claims as it based on whether you ever thought you and your partner had the ability to make a baby. Whether you can actually concieve is irellevant. It also gets back to the reason behind marriage in the first place while getting rid of the possibilty that kids grow up with 2 dads and a surrogate or 2 moms and a donor. Hopefully someone will think of the children, how confusing would it be refering to both your parents with the same name? Marriage wasnt intended to work in this weird pc way, thats why its mom and dad. We should raise our children in an envioment that is as close as possible to 'normal' (ie mom and dad love each other very much and have a child). Reply

-3

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 12:44 PM CST

Wow, that is the most inane comment I've seen on this site in quite awhile. Again, tell me how Britney Spears and Kevin Federline provide a better environment for the children than 2 gay people, I'd like to hear it. Any crackhead heterosexual couple can get married and have kids. 2 gay people have to go through a HUGE adoption procedure where they validate environment and income. Yes, let's think of the children, but lets give them more thought than what you put into that post.

IN RESPONSE:

godawgs
Nov 4, 09 1:16 PM CST

@CK While i agree with you that a gay couple has to go through a much more stringent process to get a child then a heterosexual couple, there haven't been any studies release (or done I think) on the psychological affects or differences of the children raised by a gay couple. Of course we also don't know how Britteny spears kids are going to turn out either.

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 1:26 PM CST

@ godawgs, I'm not aware of any either, but given the heterosexual divorce rate and any other situations that affect kids in heterosexual homes, are gays gonna be any worse? Could they do any worse?

IN RESPONSE:

Nixon
Nov 4, 09 1:32 PM CST

godwgs that view is discrimination it is perfectly normal for a child to be raised by two dads. thats exactly how nature intended it to be and i dont want to hear another word out of you about this. - cant wait till the kid asks his 2 dads how they got him, maybe they should just say the stalk, yeah probably easier. And theres no way that that kid will ever be given a hard time at school by the other kids, think of the physcological affects of that on that poor child.

-2

IN RESPONSE:

godawgs
Nov 4, 09 1:46 PM CST

@ck I don't think that two fathers/mothers would be any worse then a broken home. Now I am a child of divorce but both of my parents were involved in my life growing up. So I guess i am lucky in that respect. I would still think that having two parents in the same household would be good for the kids regardless of sex, as long as the relationship was positive.

IN RESPONSE:

Nixon
Nov 4, 09 1:46 PM CST

wrong again coroan king.......gays have higher divorce rates and ive gotta love ur mentality about parenthood - could they do any worse. Youve got that soup kitchen mentality going which is big liberal trait. Yeah family life is so horrible in th US, you are a disgrace to the privilage you have in this country. Maybe you should travel a little open that closed mind of yours and see what real suffering is. American kids are so lucky and its people like you who make them forget it.

-3

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 2:01 PM CST

Again, Nixon, can you make an argument against gay marriage? If you're saying gays provide a bad environment, back it up. If you're saying they aren't good parents back it up? And to godawgs, I totally agree.

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 2:09 PM CST

"Youve got that soup kitchen mentality going which is big liberal trait. Yeah family life is so horrible in the US, you are a disgrace to the privilage you have in this country." Dude, stop embarrassing yourself. I'm asking you to come up with a legal argument as to why gays can't marry. I have yet to hear nothing but excuses and semantics....obviously the Britney, K-Fed thing was over your head, so I'll let that one slide.

IN RESPONSE:

astrolux
Nov 5, 09 3:05 PM CST

What if a heterosexual is sterile? By your argument (where they are biologically unable to have children) then they shouldn't be able to be married, right?

| 0 minutes ago

Nixon
Nov 4, 09 12:45 PM CST

Also when i see photos of gay marriages i just get the impression that there playing dress ups or something. I mean they often wear the same sort of clothes as hetero marriages ie tux and dress. Whats the deal with that i thought you guys wanna be different not pretend to be heterosexual. How about when gays have a baby to take care of i mean dont they look like there playing house or something? Reply

-5

| 0 minutes ago

Spudsy
Nov 4, 09 12:57 PM CST

So when will the southern states have a referendum on returning to slavery? Reply

| 0 minutes ago

plstyle
Nov 4, 09 12:59 PM CST

We Legalize Gay "marriage" you might as well legalize prostitution. But watch, how long will it be before we want to legalize unions between a man an an animal? There are people that love their animals very much... Should we also allow unions between the men that go to Thailand to find consenting little boys? It could easily be argued the boy is confined to a life of prostitution and poverty, and if his "sponsor" is going to put cloths on his back, feed him, and the two are both in agreement, and it improves the little boys life, what’s the problem? Reply

-3

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 1:11 PM CST

@ plstyle - You didn't even try and come up with an argument to support your position did you? It's really easy to debunk your entire worthless post...ready? Animals, children, and people in Thailand can't engage in legal US contracts. See. And there's no one fighting to even do these things anyway, so once again you have no point.

IN RESPONSE:

Nixon
Nov 4, 09 1:25 PM CST

Give it 20 years and i bet youll be right. The way animals are treated these days by some people im sure it wont be to far away. ill give u a reason for pro animal human marriage now - "who are you to define mine and fidos relationship as wrong, we love each other and thats all that counts, right fido? ruff!!" God this world is going crazy. Remeber how PETA wanted Vicks blood after what he did. They act like he killed a bunch of children. They value animals lives more than humans. Oh well just makes me enjoy my steak just that little bit more.

-2

| 0 minutes ago

plstyle
Nov 4, 09 1:34 PM CST

Well wait a minute Corona Kinq, My point is this; the gay "marriage" initiatives have nothing to do with giving people the right to pick and choose who they want to fuck, live with, or love, and more to do with a silly technicality on what they can or can't call their union.......................I admit my last post seems to be out there, but this gay marriage is a huge slippery slope and you'd be kidding yourself i you think It will have no implications on these issues in the future. Reply

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 1:50 PM CST

What types of implications and issues? It's 2 people joined together legally for benefits that heterosexual people get. Taxes and property disputes (from a governmental standpoint) is all that should matter. I genuinely would like to hear what slippery slope and issues people are having with this.

| 0 minutes ago

plstyle
Nov 4, 09 2:31 PM CST

@ Corona- issues are the ones i posted 40 min before the main post i'm responding on.. I think we agree that if you’re a citizen of the United States, you should be treated fairly, just like what they used to say in the pledge. Why shouldn't homosexuals get the same rights heterosexual people get? But to me, and a lot of other people out there, marriage is a tradition between a man and a woman. I'm sure as we progress traditions like these and their meanings become "old fashioned", watered down, and i can name a few. common courtesy, the customer is #1, treat your elders with respect, opening doors for women, don't swear in front of women and children, I can go on and on, but the point is, there are some things, that should be left alone as a guide on how to live right. Give the Homosexuals couples the same rights heterosexuals have, leave "marriage" alone already. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 2:49 PM CST

First of all, thank you for the calm rational response and I understand where you are coming from. The problem is we can't "leave marriage alone" because the government has chosen to use that wording in it's legal documentation (certificate of marriage, etc.) homosexuals have to fight for that particular terminology...even though it has a religious connotation. Personally, I'm wondering if/since marriages and civil unions are the same legally, why invent a new term for it? It doesn't help anyone involved. It wastes money reprinting documentation, etc and reinvents the wheel so to speak. Marriages are recognized NATIONALLY. If my wife and I move to Wyoming, we're married. This is NOT the case in civil unions as far as I'm aware. They provide protection at the STATE level only. If I were gay and in a union, it wouldn't be recognized in a different state. This is why they can't leave marriage alone.

IN RESPONSE:

plstyle
Nov 4, 09 7:24 PM CST

@ Corona- Yeah, years of dealing with idiots that try and antagonize you, kinda thickens the skin.

-1

| 0 minutes ago

jeebus
Nov 4, 09 4:51 PM CST

Hey, at least they approved medicinal Marijuana. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

TheInterested
Nov 4, 09 5:53 PM CST

I cannot achieve my goal here. This is hardly a podium, but I'd like to contribute to the end of a big and common misunderstanding. I am a biologist, but one not need be to look into life around you. Gay behavior exists in the animal kingdom, it serves reproductive purpose (yes, reproductive purpose), and it isn't common because it is a behavior that exists primarily in birds, monkeys, and apes (social animals). Please google scholar "homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom", or do a little research on Bonobos. I wave my hands emphatically, homosexuality is indeed natural. If you believe that god created life as we know it, you should believe that god created gay ;). I will leave you with The Rare Event Rule from statistics: If under a given assumption an observed event is unlikely, the original assumption was probably not correct. Digest that nugget of knowledge. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

mom_of_ross
Nov 11, 09 8:46 AM CST

However, the behavior you're speaking of isn't really GAY behavior. For example, geese don't become life long partners of another goose of the same sex.

| 0 minutes ago

yummines
Nov 4, 09 6:48 PM CST

I don't understand what's the big deal. Gays are people to, therefore deserve to have the same rights as normal people. This really reminds me of the pre-civil war era, where African-Americans were treated as less of a person. There were abolitionists who opposed this view, and eventually through time America became a tolerant nation. Then all of a sudden gays are less of a person because "the bible says so?" Slave owners tried to misinterpret the Bible to justify slavery, yet nobody can argue that slavery is constitutional. Same with gay marriage, Jesus never specifically said that people cannot be gay. These people quote Old Testament verses, even though the New Testament is what Christians are supposed to follow. The Old Testament is a reference for the history of the Israelites, not the law. If people are going to argue for following the law, then they have to follow the entire law, including circumscision, not eating pork, and all of the laws. Jesus was supposed to have saved Christians from the law, not point them to it. If you're going to quote Old Testament scripture to support an anti-gay sentiment, then prepare to be labeled as hypocritical as many of Jesus' sayings conflict with the Old Testament. An example: Turn the other cheek (in the Old Testament it says an eye for an eye) Reply

IN RESPONSE:

cedarkey
Nov 4, 09 8:36 PM CST

Yummines---Here's some new testament for you. Romans 1: 26-32: God gave them over in the sinful desires of thier hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than God. Because of this God gave them over to shameful lusts.Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. Men abandoned natural relations with women and committed indecent acts with other men, and received in them selves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God , he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what not ough to be done. (31)- They not only continue to do these things but also approve others who practice them. Revelation 22:14-15 ---Jesus says " Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, homosexuals,murderers, idolaters, and everyone who loves & practices falsehoods and oppposes God's word. If you need more from the new testament stating God's disapproval of the act of homosexuality, I or fondue or the doctor will help you out.

-2

IN RESPONSE:

yummines
Nov 4, 09 8:47 PM CST

sorry. i was referring more to what Jesus himself said rather than the New Testament in general. Romans was written by Paul who is a major authority on Christianity, but technically not Jesus. Revelations was a dream (or likely a prophecy) of John when he was stranded on an island. I don't want to argue with you though, I most likely will lose when it comes to religous discussions. I just want to ask though, which version of the Bible did you use (as in NIV, King James, etc.) And if you can, i want to see the verses that condemn homosexuality in the New Testament, particularly in the Gospels (just list them off, ill go look them up myself)

IN RESPONSE:

Face-Of-RNC
Nov 10, 09 1:42 PM CST

Please stick your book of fairy tales someplace other than my government.

| 0 minutes ago

Doctor_Zaius
Nov 4, 09 8:46 PM CST

Deuteronomy 23:1 ESV No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

Monjubikahn
Nov 5, 09 2:06 AM CST

This would make the men guard the family jewels. Also God has high standards. Prophetically the assembly of God are composed of spirit. There will be no male or female.

| 0 minutes ago

Doctor_Zaius
Nov 4, 09 8:47 PM CST

Genesis 38:8-10 NASB Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

Monjubikahn
Nov 5, 09 2:02 AM CST

This is the true sin of Onan. Selfishness. God was simply providing that each Patriarch have and inheritance for his offspring and an offspring for his inheritance. Onan broke the law and God judged him for it. The wages of sin is Death. God can resurrect him later and teach him the correct way to respond and prove him before He grants him immortality.

-1

| 0 minutes ago

Doctor_Zaius
Nov 4, 09 8:48 PM CST

Ezekiel 23:19-20 NET Yet she increased her prostitution, remembering the days of her youth when she engaged in prostitution in the land of Egypt. She lusted after their genitals as large as those of donkeys, and their seminal emission was as strong as that of stallions. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

Monjubikahn
Nov 5, 09 1:47 AM CST

God here is speaking to the Nation that He married. This is a characterological description of Israel , all 12 tribes, prophetically in the end times. In a strange way it describes the porn industry of today. We as a nation launch roughly 3000 porn sites per day.

| 0 minutes ago

Doctor_Zaius
Nov 4, 09 8:49 PM CST

Ezekiel 16:17 NIV You also took the fine jewelry I gave you, the jewelry made of my gold and silver, and you made for yourself male idols and engaged in prostitution with them. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

plstyle
Nov 4, 09 10:11 PM CST

lol, where did you get this stuff?

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Monjubikahn
Nov 5, 09 1:39 AM CST

Thisis a judgement against Israel where He is showing how they used the blessings he provided for them and induldge in Idolatry which is a violation of the Ten Commandments and the covenanat as a whole. This is a marriage covenant. This covenant lasts from generation to generation. The scoffers need to read the covenant. The future of our nation is at stake. Ignorance is not an excuse and bad mouthing God will not change the outcome. If we as a nation continue on our current path of redefining absolute laws to suit our purposes and proceed forth like we got away with something and deceive ourselves with the propaganda of moral codes and civil rights we will reap the benefits of being civilly moral and right in our own eyes. But in reality we have become fools with the propaganda of moral correctness.

IN RESPONSE:

Monjubikahn
Nov 5, 09 1:55 AM CST

Prostitution is a reference to our business practices. An idol can be a rock star, a politician, a porn staror it can ba a false religious practice. Temple prostitutes brought in lots of cash. When a nation turns from God it starts prostituting itself to other nations. There is a marriage being judged here. If you had a wife who did these things what would you do?

-1

| 0 minutes ago

Doctor_Zaius
Nov 4, 09 8:50 PM CST

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 NASB If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

Badumpbump
Nov 4, 09 9:13 PM CST

Doctor_Zaius, so that is what your bible says, eh? Good for you, but you are not suggesting we change our laws to match your religion, are you?

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Nixon
Nov 4, 09 9:44 PM CST

Hey doctor Zaius, your not really proving anything posting cherry picked quotes from the bible. The bible is full of things which have different meanings to different people and the stories were written by people hundreds of years after the stories were told. Some of your quotes are simply statements of sexuality with no proof whether God has condoned or condemmed the actions of the people in question. Anyways I would like to hear what you have to say about my latest opinion which ended up being quite a long post.

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 4, 09 9:55 PM CST

You just proved Doctor's point Nixon.

IN RESPONSE:

Nixon
Nov 5, 09 1:51 AM CST

i never once used the bible as a reason for my position

-2

IN RESPONSE:

Face-Of-RNC
Nov 10, 09 1:48 PM CST

Nixon is convinced his cherry picking equals total knowledge in the grace of god. He's an idiot and all we can do is out vote him, as usual.

| 0 minutes ago

cedarkey
Nov 4, 09 9:06 PM CST

Doctor ape---- If you need scriptures to see what happens to those who pervert God's opinion, (bible), I can help you out. But I think it would be fruitless for I think you are beyond repair. Next Reply

-2

IN RESPONSE:

Count-Spatula
Nov 4, 09 11:01 PM CST

Don't you need to go bless and eat some dung-cakes, and harass people who eat shellfish?

IN RESPONSE:

Monjubikahn
Nov 5, 09 1:57 AM CST

Pol Pot also thought that people were beyond repair.

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Doctor_Zaius
Nov 5, 09 6:16 AM CST

Yawn, go back to the Free Republic website CED. Your cover is blown.

| 0 minutes ago

Count-Spatula
Nov 4, 09 11:00 PM CST

Pfft. Quit whining and start fighting. It's gonna be a long fight. Get tough! Reply

| 0 minutes ago

Monjubikahn
Nov 5, 09 2:27 AM CST

Dear Thinker. It takes less than half a whit to answer your question. God did not invent those things or people you described. This is the handiwork of the destroyer. He hates humans and he loves to see them fight and destroy each other. He hides himself and God gets the bad rap. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

Nixon
Nov 5, 09 3:01 AM CST

There isn’t a single argument in favor of same-sex marriage that isn't also an argument in favor of polygamy Reply

-2

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 5, 09 9:28 AM CST

Wrong. Once again, the right to enter in a legal contract is not the same as the right to enter in multiple simultaneous legal contracts. This isn't that difficult.

| 0 minutes ago

Nixon
Nov 5, 09 3:03 AM CST

Why is it acceptable to remove discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but continue to permit and perpetuate in legislation and common law other forms of discrimination? Either we eliminate all forms of discrimination or we leave the current definition alone. Eliminating discrimination would legalize child marriage, polygamy, marriage between brother and sister, etc. If marriage is redefined to include same-sex couples, then polygamy is inevitable. Reply

-2

IN RESPONSE:

Doctor_Zaius
Nov 5, 09 7:57 AM CST

Just as the desegregation of the south led to cannibalism and giving full rights to circus animals, makes sense to me...not.

IN RESPONSE:

Corona_Kinq
Nov 5, 09 9:31 AM CST

Seriously just stop. That fact that you brought up marriage to children and brother and sisters shows you don't a clue how the legal system works or even how to construct a proper argument.

IN RESPONSE:

Nixon
Nov 6, 09 3:41 AM CST

First, Doctor_Zaius you continue to propose unrelated arguments that have no bearing on this issue what so ever. You continue to simply appeal to liberal minded fools who simply follow the progressive crowd. You also forget that the majority of the population supported desegregation, where as right now the majority does not support "gay marriage". Now Corona_King your taking a approach on arguing through legal means. Thats fine, i must comend you for at least being a little more mature than monkey boy. However if you actually know anything about the law works you will understand that such issues are a matter of interpretation. There is no legal means to deny marriage to those blood related only popular opinion and an idea of protecting a child from this marriage and people from themselves. As for the law on preventing minors from marrying it again is based on the publics view of protecting those who they view as vunerable. Who are the public and our law makers to say that once you reach the age of 18 you are mature enough to marry. Using your earlier Brit and K-Fed point there would be plenty of 17 year olds that are more mature than those aforementioned. Why are we denying them rights when others puley based on age have them? Well the pubic believes that 18 is an appropriate age for the majority. Discrimination in the purest sense is a component of society that serves a purpose and very few people dispute the idea of protecting certain groups ie the mentally ill and children. Discrimination is not always a negative, a fully discrimination free society would be chaos. However you deny that gay marriage will result in an increase in other cases ie polygamy etc. This will establish a precedent, that I can guarentee, cases as those mentioned before will come before the courts. this has already happened in Canada and in other countries around the world. However legal messiness is not a reason to deny, just simply an unwanted side effect. The only real reason there is a difference between gay marriage and these other cases is public support and opinion. If 65% of the population wanted polygamy it would happen you would be foolish to suggest otherwise. Right now there is probably a slight majority favouring maintaining marriage as a purley heterosexual institution. Comments like those of Dr_Zaius just offend the very people who can help your cause. Those with a vested intererest in the issue are a very slow growing component. You must persue those whom are indifferent or boarderline. Instead of letting your passion and emotions do the talking try to appeal to peoples reason. When those with strong opinions attack your cause its an opportunity to paint those people as fools and extremists which can appeal to those undecided. However from reading through the posts people with your opinion just attack and lower yourselves to the same level. A real life example is say if a group of christians protest, a group of pro gay marriage people will behave the same...

| 0 minutes ago

cedarkey
Nov 5, 09 9:47 AM CST

Doctor ape-----the only thing that makes sense to you is eating a banana. Reply

-2

IN RESPONSE:

astrolux
Nov 5, 09 3:12 PM CST

Don't bananas prove God exists? I'm pretty sure Kirk Cameron said that once, so it must be right.

IN RESPONSE:

Face-Of-RNC
Nov 10, 09 1:43 PM CST

Racist!

| 0 minutes ago

View all 147 comments »

gay rights • gay marriage • Maine • vote • Catholic • rural America

from our news partners

Celebs' Most Anticipated TV Season Finales
(8 hours, 55 minutes ago)
What If Twitter Existed When...
(9 hours, 10 minutes ago)
Miley Cyrus 'Deeply Saddened' by Bus Driver's Death
(11 hours, 31 minutes ago)
Investigation Into Michael Jackson's Doctor to Continue Through 2010
(11 hours, 40 minutes ago)

Man attacked by assailants intent on stealing loaf of bread....
(17 minutes ago)
Progress: Story about cat stuck on top of utility pole...
(38 minutes ago)
Photoshop this room under construction [Photoshop]
(3 hours, 9 minutes ago)
Fili-busted [News]
(3 hours, 54 minutes ago)

New Moon Has Best Opening Day Of All Time
(9 hours, 28 minutes ago)
Writer Hired For Underworld 4
(Nov 20, 09 4:44 PM CST)
Brad Pitt Producing Dark Void Video Game Adaptation
(Nov 20, 09 4:36 PM CST)
Trailer: Nicolas Cage Gets Medieval In Season Of The Witch
(Nov 20, 09 4:20 PM CST)

Associated Press

Analysis: Loss in Maine could be staggering blow to gay-marriage movement nationwide
(Nov 4, 09 10:25 AM CST)
Gay-marriage opponents claim victory in Maine; gay-rights side refuses to concede
(Nov 3, 09 11:54 PM CST)
Stakes are high in Maine's vote on gay marriage; out-of-state money pours in...
(Nov 2, 09 4:50 PM CST)
Maine voters to pass judgment on gay marriage
(Nov 1, 09 12:44 PM CST)

What is Newser?

Face it: there's too much news. At Newser, we choose the most important stories from hundreds of US and international sources and reduce them to a headline, picture, and two paragraphs. And we do it 24/7—you can come back morning, noon, night (and in between) for something new that matters. Read less, know more.

Learn more »

Maine Shoots Down Same-Sex Marriage

Law repealed by 53% of voters with rural, Catholic backing

TV's 'Loud and Proud' Gays Should Tone It Down

Outrageous characters may be hurting the cause

MORE ABOUT:
entertainment • television • gay rights • gay marriage • lesbians • Don't Ask, Don't Tell • celebrity • homosexuality • Rachel Maddow • Adam Lambert • Glee • same-sex couples • gay

DC, Catholic Church
in Gay Rights Standoff

Church to pull plug on social programs if marriage bill passes

MORE ABOUT:
gay rights • gay marriage • Catholic Church • Washington DC • social services • District of Columbia • archdiocese

Mormons Back Salt Lake
Gay Rights Law

Church says it won't drop opposition to gay marriage

MORE ABOUT:
gay rights • gay marriage • Salt Lake City • Utah • Mormon • Mormonism • Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

gay rights • gay marriage • Maine • vote • Catholic • rural America

MOST POPULAR STORIES

[ By Views ]

[ By Comments ]

from our news partners

Associated Press

About

Help

Tools

Site Maps

What is Newser?

Maine Shoots Down Same-Sex Marriage

Law repealed by 53% of voters with rural, Catholic backing

Related Newser Stories

OPINION

TV's 'Loud and Proud' Gays Should Tone It Down

Outrageous characters may be hurting the cause

MORE ABOUT: entertainment • television • gay rights • gay marriage • lesbians • Don't Ask, Don't Tell • celebrity • homosexuality • Rachel Maddow • Adam Lambert • Glee • same-sex couples • gay

DC, Catholic Church in Gay Rights Standoff

Church to pull plug on social programs if marriage bill passes

MORE ABOUT: gay rights • gay marriage • Catholic Church • Washington DC • social services • District of Columbia • archdiocese

Mormons Back Salt Lake Gay Rights Law

Church says it won't drop opposition to gay marriage

MORE ABOUT: gay rights • gay marriage • Salt Lake City • Utah • Mormon • Mormonism • Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

gay rights • gay marriage • Maine • vote • Catholic • rural America

MOST POPULAR STORIES

[ By Views ]

[ By Comments ]

from our news partners

Associated Press

About

Help

Tools

Site Maps

What is Newser?

MORE ABOUT:
entertainment • television • gay rights • gay marriage • lesbians • Don't Ask, Don't Tell • celebrity • homosexuality • Rachel Maddow • Adam Lambert • Glee • same-sex couples • gay

DC, Catholic Church
in Gay Rights Standoff

MORE ABOUT:
gay rights • gay marriage • Catholic Church • Washington DC • social services • District of Columbia • archdiocese

Mormons Back Salt Lake
Gay Rights Law

MORE ABOUT:
gay rights • gay marriage • Salt Lake City • Utah • Mormon • Mormonism • Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints