Maine Christians ready to screw homosexuals...

[Datajack Franit]

Women in Sumeria, the first civilization

Welcome to 2005

[Theben]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit

Welcome to 2005

So you admit the meaning is up for redefinition?

[notyoueither]

Hypothetical situation.

A man and woman are married and have three children. The woman is killed in an accident. The father spends a period in mourning and then when he begins to look outward again, the following may happen...

A. He meets a kind and loving woman and they get married. She formally adopts the children as she has come to love them and treat them as her own. Unfortunately, the man is critically injured in a car accident. The woman is recognised as guardian of her husband for his remaining time on Earth and is able to ensure that he is cared for in ways he would find appropriate. He didn't like the idea of living as a vegetable, and she was able to see to his wishes being carried out after a painful decision. After his passing she is entitled to control of their communal property and she goes on caring for the childern, her own now.

B. He loved his wife, but... he realises now that he is gay. He meets a kind and loving person and they move in together. Unfortunately they cannot get married, but this does not bother them except for the part where the new partner cannot adopt the children that he has come to love and treat as his own. More unfortunately, the man is critically injured in a car accident. At this point the parents of the man get involved. The partner is shut out of the hospital room. He is not even allowed to visit as the parents despise him (and their son's decision) so much. The partner is powerless to stop the parents from keeping their son on life support for years after he has become an irrecoverable vegetable, even though he knows how offensive that would be to the man. Nor is he allowed to see the children anymore; they are whisked away into the guardianship of the parents whom they hardly know. The new partner is even kicked out of the family home, as is was in the man's name and the partner's contributions to it were mainly in labour and upkeep. Worse yet, when the estate is settled, the new partner gets nada, zip, zilch, zero. He has no standing even though he gave emotional, domestic, and even financial support to the man in his successful business ventures.

The only difference between A and B is a chromosome (A was unable to have children of her own due to any number of factors). Tell me this is just. Furthermore, explain to me how I am being knee jerk, politically correct when I see a problem with the situation in B.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Japher
How's Fresno Kid? My dad is telling me it is suppose to cool off to below 100 by Sunday

Besides hot, it's just fine.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Maine is a pretty staunchly liberal state, yet they've opposed legislation like this twice already. Instead of blaming this on the evil Christians, you might want to re-examine the tactics of those pushing for the extension of rights to homosexuals and correct whatever seems to be putting off the common man...

Maine really isn't especially liberal. Bush is currently not that well loved in Maine but the first time around he came within 5,000 votes of getting one Maine electoral vote by picking up the northern congressional district (which is very poor and is mostly fairly socially conservative).

Basically there aren't that many liberals in Maine, but the people who aren't liberal aren't your standard Republican, they're more Perot types (Perot got his highest % of votes in Maine after Texas) and fairly independent-minded (if stupid at times) and not especially partisan (the current governer is a democrat and he got more republican votes than the republican candidate back when he was the congressman for the northern district).

As far as this thing goes, we've had a couple of these and they're always pretty close. The north goes against the gays and the south goes for them. Eventually the south will win since the north is emptying out demographically.

[Drake Tungsten]

I stand corrected.

I think my basic point is still valid however, ie. that those pushing for the extension of rights to homosexuals should look at their own tactics when faced with electoral failure rather than blaming Christians or "stupid" conservative voters.

[Thorn]

Datajack Franit,

You are incredibly short sided and self-loathing I sense... sounds to me like you need a big hug *hug*.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I stand corrected.

I think my basic point is still valid however, ie. that those pushing for the extension of rights to homosexuals should look at their own tactics when faced with electoral failure rather than blaming Christians or "stupid" conservative voters.

Yeah people often think Maine is more liberal than it is since our Republican Senators are so moderate, but Maine elects moderates generally. Our governor is a quite moderate Democrat and is just as popular as our moderate Republican Senators. Maine has one of the highest % of independent voters in the country, which makes it very hard for non-moderates to get elected.

Anyway, as far as Maine goes your point is wrong. Maine is undergoing democraphic shifts (people moving out of the north, the old people dying, people from blue areas moving into southern Maine etc.) that means that a law that outlaws discrimination against gays is inevitable in Maine in the medium run.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Omni Rex Draconis
It is was not just two people randomly selected to for a "symbolic" joining - they were man and woman.

Because the vast majority of people are heterosexual.


The plains Indians allowed homosexual marriage. Lesbian warriors were allowed to take wives, and male warriors could take gay men as wives.

[Drake Tungsten]

And we all know what happened to the Plains Indians...

[chequita guevara]

Acceptance of homosexuality was not what caused them to lose the Indian Wars, however.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


I disagree

polygamy, and other such things should not be allowed

same as ones that include children or the retarded

also, nonhumans shouldn't be allowed (unless they are sentient and at the same level as us)

JM

You take my word "everyone" too literally.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
I love my cat but I'm not asking to marry him.

Do you know how retarded this fallacy is?

[Omni Rex Draconis]

notyoueither:
Tell me this is just. Furthermore, explain to me how I am being knee jerk, politically correct when I see a problem

I will assume that was aimed at me.

It is not just, and seeing it as a problem does not necessarily mean you are one of the kneejerk politically correct.

To make my opinion clear: what genitalia you are born with and what you decide to insert/have inserted into them should have absolutely no bearing on your status in society.

What I objected to was the automatic acceptance of everything that the activist portion of an oppressed minority claims as "their right".

Forty acres and a mule? Not going to happen.
Ebonics? Really dumb idea.
Anti-discrimination laws, special hate crimes, racial hiring quotas? Using the wrong means to achieve a good end.

Defining marriage universally is almost impossible to do, to which most anthropologists will attest. Thus, it seems only prudent to think deeply and move carefully when making changes to this fundamental institution.

Debating it was fun though, until it descended into ad hominem attacks and repetitive arguments. Oh well, at least I never expected it get anywhere...

[Berzerker]

Ah, the hazards of converting people - the risk of being converted. Oh, Christians weren't literally screwing homosexuals?

Eh, how did they procreate?

The neighborhood incubus... Or the Cathars were sinners too.