Maine voters reject same-sex marriage : RSS 0.91http://sandbox.plime.com/en-usMaine voters reject same-sex marriage : RSS 0.91http://sandbox.plime.com/<![CDATA[Maine voters reject same-sex marriage]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/plime-com/l/135355/1/
It looked very good in the beginning- we were winning with 55%, but as more and more precincts came in, it dwindled. The last count I saw had it as 53% voting to take away marriage rights, and 47% voting to protect them.]]>
  comments (97)  share edit history (1)
< 1 2 3 4 5 >
<![CDATA[dollyllama @ 11/14/2009 7:17:02 AM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q51« gammerus : I'm not entirely sure why anyone would be against marraige in itself. Maybe the pressure we as a society (and judicially) put on unhappy couples to stay together is wrong, but I see nothing wrong with the institution of marriage. Marriage isn't about tax rights, religion, or children; it is about two people promising to be together forever. To care for each other during times of sickness and poverty. To provide support and comfort when it seems like that is asking too much. To have each others backs when it seems like no one else does.

While it may be idealistic of me, I think that it is a beautiful thing.Sorry to comment so late to this but I didn't get notification of your response here.

No. Commitment is about promising to be together forever to care and provide for each other. Marriage is about taxes and the law and some religious nonsense.

Marriage is a man-made institution to do something which for all intents and purposes, may not be the "natural" state for humans, i.e. monogamy.

Every species on earth courts and breeds according to a natural law that helps in the survival of the species as a whole. It is in the best interest of all nature that this occurs. Many species are naturally monogamous while others are naturally promiscuous. This can help spread the gene pool in the latter instance where as it can assure a stronger off-spring in the former. Man completely upsets the apple cart here with a promise that may go against instinct (we just don't know the human natural state anymore).

But I digress a little. If two people are genuinely committed to staying together and their love never fades then why get married?

Man is the only species that is going to have an argument over something stupid enough to cause a divorce. You aren't going to see penguins fighting about who put a big old dent in the car. Penguins are mostly monogamous and they don't need a ceremony to prove it. So marriage is about making that commitment stick even if one or both parties have no interest in it any more. Marriage is about making that commitment stick long after it goes against nature or feelings. Completely ridiculous.]]><![CDATA[gammerus @ 11/7/2009 1:07:37 AM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q50« dollyllama:What isn't?I'm not entirely sure why anyone would be against marraige in itself. Maybe the pressure we as a society (and judicially) put on unhappy couples to stay together is wrong, but I see nothing wrong with the institution of marriage. Marriage isn't about tax rights, religion, or children; it is about two people promising to be together forever. To care for each other during times of sickness and poverty. To provide support and comfort when it seems like that is asking too much. To have each others backs when it seems like no one else does.

While it may be idealistic of me, I think that it is a beautiful thing.]]><![CDATA[chilehead @ 11/5/2009 8:03:38 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q49
This stupid argument I hear about churches being forced to recognize gay marriages is one such thing. There's nothing that says any church will be required to perform gay marriages, or accept gay couples into their fold. I'm sure gay people would be just as happy having a civil ceremony, or just mosey on over to whatever church there is down the street that doesn't openly discriminate against them.

Then there's the argument they used here in california - that teachers would need to start teaching it in schools. More bulls**t. There's nothing that would require any teachers to teach anything regarding gay marriage in school - teacers decide what and how they are going to teach in their classrooms, and as long as it doesn't bring in any complaints from parents or weak grades on standardized tests, they don't get any grief.

While I'm not planning to get married again any time in the near future, I sure won't be doing it in any kind of church if/when I do. For anything that goes on down here on Earth, it should be civil unions. Church stuff should apply only to the non-existant afterlife, and the sooner we take the church out of all legal considerations, the better. They can be free to add their non-weight-carrying blessing to it afterwards if they they want, but religion can't be trusted to do the right thing, as we've all seen over the last couple thousand years as well as the california and maine propositions.]]><![CDATA[dollyllama @ 11/5/2009 5:04:49 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q48« gammerus : What is wrong with marraige?What isn't?]]><![CDATA[sofsr @ 11/5/2009 3:44:47 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q47« 2manyusernames:compromise? yeah. right. A "compromise" is for those bigots who are too ashamed to admit they are homophobes so suggest a compromise which allows them to lie to themselves that they are open minded.

......2Many, I wish I could shake your hand. That was fantastic.]]><![CDATA[gammerus @ 11/5/2009 2:33:13 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q46« 2manyusernames : compromise? yeah. right. A "compromise" is for those bigots who are too ashamed to admit they are homophobes so suggest a compromise which allows them to lie to themselves that they are open minded.

Not granting certain arbitrary groups rights enjoyed by others for no legitimate reason is not a compromise.

When couple of mixed races wanted to marry they did not seek to be able to be "unionized", they did not seek a compromise which was still a violation of their human rights.

African Americans did not ask to compromise by being allowed to sit in the middle of the bus. African Americans didn't ask to compromise by allowing whites to go to diners and African Americans to go to eateries. Etc, etc.

When it comes to civil rights, human rights, a compromise isn't a compromise. It is sweeping under the rug the violation by putting a fancy word on it.

Still this is an argument that won't go anywhere with so many people. There will always be people who feel that God doesn't want same sex marriages just as there are many people who feel God doesn't want people of different races to marry. The two groups are no different in their prejudices and bigotry. Likewise as we as a nation finally grew past those prejudicial ideas, eventually same sex marriages will be allowed.*claps*]]><![CDATA[gammerus @ 11/5/2009 2:32:36 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q45« dollyllama : Let's just abolish marriage altogether. Seriously.What is wrong with marraige?]]><![CDATA[slapbaker88 @ 11/5/2009 9:47:56 AM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q44
You have one life, only one... that's it, to deny any beings personal rights is obnoxious, and just plain sickening.]]><![CDATA[dollyllama @ 11/5/2009 9:33:19 AM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q43<![CDATA[2manyusernames @ 11/5/2009 8:48:50 AM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q42« srsmits : Zebulor I have offered a compromise[...]compromise? yeah. right. A "compromise" is for those bigots who are too ashamed to admit they are homophobes so suggest a compromise which allows them to lie to themselves that they are open minded.

Not granting certain arbitrary groups rights enjoyed by others for no legitimate reason is not a compromise.

When couple of mixed races wanted to marry they did not seek to be able to be "unionized", they did not seek a compromise which was still a violation of their human rights.

African Americans did not ask to compromise by being allowed to sit in the middle of the bus. African Americans didn't ask to compromise by allowing whites to go to diners and African Americans to go to eateries. Etc, etc.

When it comes to civil rights, human rights, a compromise isn't a compromise. It is sweeping under the rug the violation by putting a fancy word on it.

Still this is an argument that won't go anywhere with so many people. There will always be people who feel that God doesn't want same sex marriages just as there are many people who feel God doesn't want people of different races to marry. The two groups are no different in their prejudices and bigotry. Likewise as we as a nation finally grew past those prejudicial ideas, eventually same sex marriages will be allowed.]]><![CDATA[srsmits @ 11/5/2009 12:01:01 AM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q41« choco : I'll take you on on that bet, and if you're wrong (which I hope you're not) you'll take us out for a round of shots so we can bemoan the state of the US. (Do you live near NY?)
And if you're right, we can all just take shots and celebrate in the tipsy thread.Well I sure hope I'm right, I'm just North of the border of Maine....Ill send over some same sex married couples if I have too lol

But interesting from the article...hopefully this is a sign of slight change anyway

"Maine has struggled with gay rights in the past. In 1998 and in 2000, lawmakers voted to ban discrimination against gays and lesbians but voters narrowly struck down those laws. The law was ultimately approved in 2005."]]><![CDATA[choco @ 11/4/2009 11:58:45 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q40« srsmits : Well since no one likes my idea of taking another approach ;) just give it time and I am willing to bet within 5 years the majority of states accept itI'll take you on on that bet, and if you're wrong (which I hope you're not) you'll take us out for a round of shots so we can bemoan the state of the US. (Do you live near NY?)
And if you're right, we can all just take shots and celebrate in the tipsy thread.]]><![CDATA[srsmits @ 11/4/2009 11:53:42 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q39« gammerus:It is nothing. This country was founded on the belief that everyone can believe as they wish, and that no one should be forced to obey or observe any other mans religion. If that is religious intolerance than I guess our country has more bigots than I thought.Well since no one likes my idea of taking another approach ;) just give it time and I am willing to bet within 5 years the majority of states accept it

or maybe try more dirty tactics in advertising like the other side

"most of the Stand for Marriage supporters are ordinary families who are worried that children will read stories about same-sex couples in schools, that teenagers will be encouraged to experiment with their sexuality, and that same-sex marriage will become widespread"]]><![CDATA[srsmits @ 11/4/2009 11:52:31 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q38« lynxears : No, in Maine it's being taken away: Marriage was allowed, now it will not be.Lynx is right here unfortunately, 6 months ago it was implemented I believe and this ruling overturns it.]]><![CDATA[gammerus @ 11/4/2009 11:14:02 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q37« srsmits : Yes Maven to you it is NOTHING but to them you are taking their beliefs. By using a different word what are the same sex couples giving up?It is nothing. This country was founded on the belief that everyone can believe as they wish, and that no one should be forced to obey or observe any other mans religion. If that is religious intolerance than I guess our country has more bigots than I thought.]]><![CDATA[lynxears @ 11/4/2009 11:12:06 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q36« gammerus : There are no rights being taken away. There are merely rights that have been givin just yet. Right now we are in the process of correcting that.No, in Maine it's being taken away: Marriage was allowed, now it will not be.]]><![CDATA[gammerus @ 11/4/2009 11:08:51 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q35« Hypersapien : It is when the majority is taking away rights from the minority, especially when those rights do not effect the majority in any way.There are no rights being taken away. There are merely rights that have been givin just yet. Right now we are in the process of correcting that.]]><![CDATA[Hypersapien @ 11/4/2009 10:35:11 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q34« srsmits : Yes Maven to you it is NOTHING but to them you are taking their beliefs. By using a different word what are the same sex couples giving up?Legitimacy]]><![CDATA[nikneven @ 11/4/2009 7:24:52 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q33

Inequality--> Partial Rights --> Equality.

Why not try for total equality, but be willing to accept a s**tty compromise when we cant get what we want. It will make getting our way that much closer next time.

Change comes in excruciating increments to those who want it.]]><![CDATA[srsmits @ 11/4/2009 7:03:58 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q32« lynxears : Well, good.

I just don't know what you want from us. You seem to be the one getting upset when people are showing the flaws in your argument. You call everyone bigots.

What do you want, us all to acknowledge you've got it right and we were all fools all along?Wait just a minute there, I said long ago that I was just playing devils advocate here. I did not call everyone bigots I was not the first one to use the term bigot I just said that because people vote one way or another does not make them a bigot.

All I want you to acknowledge is that maybe there is another way to tackle this problem. Being judgmental is something both sides have been guilty of. If you want to succeed you have to ensure everyone is educated.]]><![CDATA[zebulor @ 11/4/2009 6:59:44 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q31« srsmits : Zebulor I have offered a compromise, you can call it irrelevant because it doesn't currently exist, but at least I am offering an opportunity to start moving in the right direction.
But you are using a nonexistent compromise to attack a real law.


You can dispute the definition of Bigot, that is what is written in the dictionary so if you want to define "utterly intolerant" that would be my suggestion. If you disagree with their definition then I'm sure they have someone you can contact. You yourself are using the word within here so if you have a better definition please feel free to share.
Which dictionary did you find it in? It is an ok definition under normal circumstances, but it is useless as an operational definition here.

However:

" a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot


I think that the bold part is really what is relevant here, it is what makes this definition more applicable to this situation.


I don't know what more I can tell you other than you can see where this stance has ended at the poles. Adjusting your platform is one way to resolve this issue sooner rather than later.
Yeah, it would be so if the law would allow the same rights for these same sex unions as they do for marriage. However, they don't, and until a law to this effect is introduced, this position is irrelevant. However, I don't think that introducing that would be any easier right now because then the social conservatives would make loud noises about how the law would allow living in sin and such, and the same thing would happen.


You say that everyone on the other side is a bigot but again these are their beliefs that have been implanted in them since they were children, they were asked if they wanted a particular bill to pass, it was against their beliefs so they voted.
But what you aren't taking into consideration is that I don't think that the other side is bigoted because of their beliefs. They are free to believe what they want, I'm not trying to change them, and nobody is forcing them to act against it. However, they are producing an interference against a minority which is undemocratic and which they are not justifying in terms of equal protection. It is this interference which makes them fit my preferred definition of bigot, not their opinions.


Are they correct...no, but you have to take the time to educate the people not just call them bigots and curse and swear. Again this is just my opinion on how this situation looks to me
Nobody is swearing or cursing. Nobody is denying them their rights. It is not about opinions, it is about a policy.]]><![CDATA[lynxears @ 11/4/2009 6:58:42 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q30« srsmits:I don't have to worry about that Lynx I already live in a place where same sex marriages are legal.. :PWell, good.

I just don't know what you want from us. You seem to be the one getting upset when people are showing the flaws in your argument. You call everyone bigots.

What do you want, us all to acknowledge you've got it right and we were all fools all along?]]><![CDATA[srsmits @ 11/4/2009 6:56:36 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q29« lynxears : Write your Congressman?

Because I bet those opposed to it would be opposed to "separate but equal" too. But good luck with that.I don't have to worry about that Lynx I already live in a place where same sex marriages are legal.. :P]]><![CDATA[lynxears @ 11/4/2009 6:52:08 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q28« srsmits : As long as people will wait that is always an option. Just remember that until that time the people of same sex marriages will be the ones suffering, paying additional taxes...etc so to me it makes sense to get something started nowWrite your Congressman?

Because I bet those opposed to it would be opposed to "separate but equal" too. But good luck with that.]]><![CDATA[srsmits @ 11/4/2009 6:40:37 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q27« choco : Well, maybe you're choosing to ignore history and all the facts that people have brought up that "separate but equal" just.doesn't.work.
I'll go with Marli and wait it out until that 98 year old biddy kicks the bucket anyway, and get the rights as an all or nothing, I guess. It seems stupid, not to mention inefficient and a waste of time, effort and money campaigning for both sides, to call it something else for a few years, wait for the inevitable law suits about violating civil rights, more arguments over the wording of the laws, and then FINALLY ending up at calling it the same thing.As long as people will wait that is always an option. Just remember that until that time the people of same sex marriages will be the ones suffering, paying additional taxes...etc so to me it makes sense to get something started now]]><![CDATA[srsmits @ 11/4/2009 6:37:35 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q26
You can dispute the definition of Bigot, that is what is written in the dictionary so if you want to define "utterly intolerant" that would be my suggestion. If you disagree with their definition then I'm sure they have someone you can contact. You yourself are using the word within here so if you have a better definition please feel free to share.

I don't know what more I can tell you other than you can see where this stance has ended at the poles. Adjusting your platform is one way to resolve this issue sooner rather than later.

Politicians do not have the spines to stand in and force something like this through, they don't want to lose votes over it.

You say that everyone on the other side is a bigot but again these are their beliefs that have been implanted in them since they were children, they were asked if they wanted a particular bill to pass, it was against their beliefs so they voted.

Are they correct...no, but you have to take the time to educate the people not just call them bigots and curse and swear. Again this is just my opinion on how this situation looks to me]]><![CDATA[zebulor @ 11/4/2009 6:31:44 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q25« srsmits : Again an Emotional statement, you too are ignoring many facts I have stated throughout the post. Or I could be wrong maybe you just didn;t read them. But if the goal is to get the rights today then something has to be changed, the results on the poll show this.
Neither he nor anyone else is ignoring what you are saying, but you are ignoring the fact that your whole case is based on the premise that same-sex couples would have the same rights even without marriage, but this is not the case.


I have stated here time and time again its a means to an end. A way to get the rights they deserve today and continue to work to resolve to bigger issue as people realize that this is something stupid to fight over. But you know what...that 98 year old lady who isnt likely to have her mind changed...but when we change the word and combine the law down the road she wont be there to stand up and fight and there will be more open minded people (i sure hope anyway)
Well, the article makes it look like it wasn't old people in Maine. It seems to have been parents who are concerned that their children would be taught homosexuality in school if gay marriage was legalized. This is disturbing and I don't think that demographic changes would change this situation. I mean, the vote wasn't even about teaching something in schools, it was about marriage.]]><![CDATA[choco @ 11/4/2009 6:26:30 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q24« srsmits :  But you know what...that 98 year old lady who isnt likely to have her mind changed...but when we change the word and combine the law down the road she wont be there to stand up and fight and there will be more open minded people (i sure hope anyway)Well, maybe you're choosing to ignore history and all the facts that people have brought up that "separate but equal" just.doesn't.work.
I'll go with Marli and wait it out until that 98 year old biddy kicks the bucket anyway, and get the rights as an all or nothing, I guess. It seems stupid, not to mention inefficient and a waste of time, effort and money campaigning for both sides, to call it something else for a few years, wait for the inevitable law suits about violating civil rights, more arguments over the wording of the laws, and then FINALLY ending up at calling it the same thing.]]><![CDATA[zebulor @ 11/4/2009 6:25:13 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q23« srsmits : I have offered a solution and part of the stipulation was that both sides were given the exact same rights

I don't think this comment is really relevant under the statements I have made. Again way off base
But there is no such solution out there right now. Like I said earlier, if there was such a solution under consideration, you would have a point, but since there isn't any sort of law to that effect, having that sort of law as an underlying assumption in your argument renders it irrelevant.


The quote does not state that is is just disagreeing but utterly intolerant and it is the actual definition of bigot. Not just not agreeing with someone
You failed to differentiate between disagreeing and being 'utterly intolerant'. What do you mean by 'utterly intolerant' anyway? It sounds like any disagreement could be claimed to be 'utter intolerance'. So a definition which makes a distinction between disagreement and active interference is still necessary. Stubborn isn't bigoted.


They are not attempting to take government out of marriage they are attempting to have the laws rewritten to allow for same sex marriage, something that should never really have been an issue but because of those in power and beliefs when they were written included the typical church marriage.
But in effect, that is taking the government out of marriage as it pertains to this issue. The opponents of gay marriage are the ones who want the government to interfere with marriage as it pertains to this issue, and this active interference is what makes them bigoted. They can think whatever they want, nobody cares about that, but public policy cannot have this unequal interference.]]><![CDATA[srsmits @ 11/4/2009 6:20:02 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q22« choco : srsmits, I still don't see how you're not realizing how unnecessary it is to call it anything but marriage. It's ridiculous and is only scraping and bowing to these people who have such strong religious convictions or "conservative" ideas that are NEGATIVELY impacting other people's lives! You keep saying, well, these liberal ideas of marriage are harming the conservative beliefs in the same way! but seriously, the two aren't even comparable.
I'm "up in arms" because it's stupid. Period. Would you go ahead and give another name to all the other kinds of marriages as well? You conveniently skipped over that part of my last comment. Where do you draw the line? There is *no need* to deny these people's union it's own feeling and sense of validity by saying, "well, hmph, you'll get the same rights on paper, but we're not going to call your union what we call *our* union. *We* have the *real* kind of marriage, and you've got that *other* kind. Be happy you even got that!" Come on.Again an Emotional statement, you too are ignoring many facts I have stated throughout the post. Or I could be wrong maybe you just didn;t read them. But if the goal is to get the rights today then something has to be changed, the results on the poll show this.

I have stated here time and time again its a means to an end. A way to get the rights they deserve today and continue to work to resolve to bigger issue as people realize that this is something stupid to fight over. But you know what...that 98 year old lady who isnt likely to have her mind changed...but when we change the word and combine the law down the road she wont be there to stand up and fight and there will be more open minded people (i sure hope anyway)]]><![CDATA[srsmits @ 11/4/2009 6:16:18 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q21« Marli : I understand your point, but I guess I just don't have any interest in coddling their bigotry by calling it something different. I'll fight a few more years to call it what it is.And Marli if I am asked to vote it will still be in favor, but until some of the people get off the fence (or more likely some of the die hard churchies slowly pass) I just think there could be a better solution to get the rights now]]><![CDATA[choco @ 11/4/2009 6:14:38 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q20I'm "up in arms" because it's stupid. Period. Would you go ahead and give another name to all the other kinds of marriages as well? You conveniently skipped over that part of my last comment. Where do you draw the line? There is *no need* to deny these people's union it's own feeling and sense of validity by saying, "well, hmph, you'll get the same rights on paper, but we're not going to call your union what we call *our* union. *We* have the *real* kind of marriage, and you've got that *other* kind. Be happy you even got that!" Come on.]]><![CDATA[srsmits @ 11/4/2009 6:08:56 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q19« zebulor:Except that they are not receiving the same rights. If they were, you might have a point, but since they are not, your whole argument is irrelevant.I have offered a solution and part of the stipulation was that both sides were given the exact same rights

« zebulor
Sometimes what appears to be a compromise really isn't a compromise. Like if one side wants to kill kittens and the other side doesn't, killing half of the kittens isn't really a compromise.
I don't think this comment is really relevant under the statements I have made. Again way off base


« zebulor

But I think that this definition is incomplete. Disagreeing is not being bigoted. A better definition would make a distinction between disagreeing in your mind and taking action such as violence or segregation based on whatever is not tolerated.
The quote does not state that is is just disagreeing but utterly intolerant and it is the actual definition of bigot. Not just not agreeing with someone

« zebulor

So on one side you have those who want to take government out of marriage(remove obstacles for gays to marry), and on the other side, you have those who want a bigger government(the government puts up obstacles to marriage for some). By any good definition of bigot, it would seem that not both sides are bigoted, but only the side that is trying to make an intolerant law.
They are not attempting to take government out of marriage they are attempting to have the laws rewritten to allow for same sex marriage, something that should never really have been an issue but because of those in power and beliefs when they were written included the typical church marriage.]]><![CDATA[zebulor @ 11/4/2009 6:08:29 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q18« srsmits : All I can say to everyone who is up in arms is Why?Because...I have attacked your "beliefs". Despite the fact that I mention a compromise people feel attacked and get emotional, fight with their emotions. What do you think is happening on the other side?

Both sides need to be open to communicate, and although I agree that the religious side is being particularly stubborn in this situation that is how they have been raised. The way the solution is being brought forth makes it sound like you want to take something from them rather than get equal rights. Now again this is not all the pro same sex marriage but also the few against it who word things in their adds attacking it.

To those trying to get this passed, first you need to approach the situation in a manner that isn't an offensive but a compromise. In this world today our first reaction is to scream out BLOODY MURDER and attack anyone who doesn't stand with us. Again this is true for both sides but the only way to have this resolved is open dialogue.Read my previous comment. I already tackled this issue.]]><![CDATA[srsmits @ 11/4/2009 6:06:39 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q17
Both sides need to be open to communicate, and although I agree that the religious side is being particularly stubborn in this situation that is how they have been raised. The way the solution is being brought forth makes it sound like you want to take something from them rather than get equal rights. Now again this is not all the pro same sex marriage but also the few against it who word things in their adds attacking it.

To those trying to get this passed, first you need to approach the situation in a manner that isn't an offensive but a compromise. In this world today our first reaction is to scream out BLOODY MURDER and attack anyone who doesn't stand with us. Again this is true for both sides but the only way to have this resolved is open dialogue.]]><![CDATA[zebulor @ 11/4/2009 6:06:06 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q16« srsmits :
I stated they receive the EXACT SAME RIGHTS not different rights.
Except that they are not receiving the same rights. If they were, you might have a point, but since they are not, your whole argument is irrelevant.


It is the closed mindedness of the situation that is putting us in this situation. By both sides being "bigots" we are not getting to a solution.
How is disagreeing bigoted? There's nothing wrong with conflict in a republic- the whole political system depends on it. Otherwise you might as well just have an authoritarian government.

Sometimes what appears to be a compromise really isn't a compromise. Like if one side wants to kill kittens and the other side doesn't, killing half of the kittens isn't really a compromise.

Earlier you said
Bigot - a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
But I think that this definition is incomplete. Disagreeing is not being bigoted. A better definition would make a distinction between disagreeing in your mind and taking action such as violence or segregation based on whatever is not tolerated.

So on one side you have those who want to take government out of marriage(remove obstacles for gays to marry), and on the other side, you have those who want a bigger government(the government puts up obstacles to marriage for some). By any good definition of bigot, it would seem that not both sides are bigoted, but only the side that is trying to make an intolerant law.

Isn't it ironic that conservatives actually love big government in this issue?]]><![CDATA[Marli @ 11/4/2009 6:00:38 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q15« srsmits :
Is it stupid....Yup...but will it work?I understand your point, but I guess I just don't have any interest in coddling their bigotry by calling it something different. I'll fight a few more years to call it what it is.]]><![CDATA[srsmits @ 11/4/2009 5:57:45 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q14« lynxears :
Can you honestly not see how that same situation will play out with gay marriage if heterosexuals get "marriage" while gays get "unions?"Means to an end Lynx. How is the current battle working out? Its not always all or nothing]]><![CDATA[srsmits @ 11/4/2009 5:55:54 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q13« choco : Uh uh, I have to say this makes no dang sense then. If it's the same thing, then just call it water! Again Choco I have said by doing this they will receive the same rights now because as you can see by the results of the vote it is very close. All you need to do is to sway a few votes and same sex couples will get the rights until the day when peoples minds are more open. When this day comes...again I don't feel this is far off the word marriage will be used for all unions lol

Think how much easier a law would be to pass by saying we are going to change the word union to the word marriage vs the current debate

Is it stupid....Yup...but will it work?]]><![CDATA[lynxears @ 11/4/2009 5:53:05 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q12« srsmits : Come on Lynx your analogy is as bad as mine.

I stated they receive the EXACT SAME RIGHTS not different rights. So your analogy they are getting something cheap and rotting?
My analogy isn't bad because of the analogy, it's bad because of the reality.

When people originally set up the "separate but equal" situation between black and white Americans, on paper that meant everyone gets the same stuff under a different name (this being your solution for gay rights, too).

So on paper, that's nice and all well and good.

HOWEVER, in practice, how did "separate but equal" work out? It meant whites = good stuff/front of bus, blacks = crappy stuff/back of bus.

Can you honestly not see how that same situation will play out with gay marriage if heterosexuals get "marriage" while gays get "unions?"]]><![CDATA[choco @ 11/4/2009 5:49:31 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q11« srsmits: My example is more like saying that instead of them calling it water the call it aqua but it comes from the same place and is exactly the same thing.
Uh uh, I have to say this makes no dang sense then. If it's the same thing, then just call it water! Or do you have to call it aqua for the people who have this shade of skin, then h20 for people with that shade of skin, and XX for people with this skin, and so on until what point? That's so stupid!
going along with this mentality, let's have a different word for all the diff. marriages that don't match up to the Bible's ideal "baby producing union between man and woman."
i.e. marriage for the "standard" union for "those gays! ah!" "selfish sex" for those who don't want kids but can have them etc.]]><![CDATA[srsmits @ 11/4/2009 5:46:53 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q10« Dontgivethedogchoccy : I'm on the side of those who are trying to live their lives without adversely affecting anyone else.

In this issue I'm on the side of same sex couples.

Tell me what harm same sex marriage does to anyone. Tell me other than some religious folks having their cages rattled because they can't impose their biblical beliefs on others what harm or adverse effect same sex marriage has on society or heterosexual people.Dont get me wrong I live in a province where same sex couples are given the same rights as others and are also declared married and I have no issue with it.

But based on your logic tell me what adverse effect same sex couples face by gaining all the same rights of married couples if it is simply called a union?]]><![CDATA[srsmits @ 11/4/2009 5:42:43 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q9« lynxears:By that logic, the separate water fountains/facilities for blacks in America were totally fine, too.

"Well, we're still giving them water, they just have to drink from that fountain *over there." (never mind that that fountain is cheap and rotting and the "white's only fountain is maintained)

Or: "Why are they so upset about sitting in the back of the bus? We're all going the same place; if they would just sit down back there and let the white people have it their way, there wouldn't be any fighting at all!"

You're right, in a sense just calling it something different will get something like equality.

But something like equality turns out to be not equal, at the end of the day.Come on Lynx your analogy is as bad as mine.

I stated they receive the EXACT SAME RIGHTS not different rights. So your analogy they are getting something cheap and rotting? My example is more like saying that instead of them calling it water the call it aqua but it comes from the same place and is exactly the same thing.

I have also stated that it is a means to an end to get people who are "bigots" to slowly get to the end goal of equality. You cant change the world overnight no matter how unfortunate it is.

It is the closed mindedness of the situation that is putting us in this situation. By both sides being "bigots" we are not getting to a solution.

EDIT: changed Linx to Lynx ...don't want to put any more fire on this flame lol]]><![CDATA[Dontgivethedogchoccy @ 11/4/2009 5:40:37 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q8« srsmits : So you cant possibly be for either side?
I'm on the side of those who are trying to live their lives without adversely affecting anyone else.

In this issue I'm on the side of same sex couples.

Tell me what harm same sex marriage does to anyone. Tell me other than some religious folks having their cages rattled because they can't impose their biblical beliefs on others what harm or adverse effect same sex marriage has on society or heterosexual people.]]><![CDATA[lynxears @ 11/4/2009 5:35:15 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q7« srsmits:By using a different word what are the same sex couples giving up?By that logic, the separate water fountains/facilities for blacks in America were totally fine, too.

"Well, we're still giving them water, they just have to drink from that fountain *over there." (never mind that that fountain is cheap and rotting and the "white's only fountain is maintained)

Or: "Why are they so upset about sitting in the back of the bus? We're all going the same place; if they would just sit down back there and let the white people have it their way, there wouldn't be any fighting at all!"

You're right, in a sense just calling it something different will get something like equality.

But something like equality turns out to be not equal, at the end of the day.]]><![CDATA[tgkprog @ 11/4/2009 5:33:06 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q6<![CDATA[srsmits @ 11/4/2009 5:30:20 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q5« Dontgivethedogchoccy:This is a horrible attempt at an analogy

Again I am playing devils advocate here but people are not open to both sides.

I'm not open to a side that's bigoted and biased against another human, no.So you cant possibly be for either side?

Bigot - a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Compromise does not make either side a bigot. Realizing that couples in same sex marriage deserve the exact same rights (again something I have stated in the post) while still allowing the opponents to keep a word does not make either side a bigot.

Both sides have differing beliefs, those beliefs in themselves do not make them bigots, the intolerance of others opinions and beliefs is what makes them a bigot.]]><![CDATA[Dontgivethedogchoccy @ 11/4/2009 5:24:13 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q4« srsmits:On that train of thought try to use the word "Engineer" next to your name. You cant because that term belongs to the engineers to represent their status. Does that make them racist?This is a horrible attempt at an analogy

Again I am playing devils advocate here but people are not open to both sides.
I'm not open to a side that's bigoted and biased against another human, no.]]><![CDATA[srsmits @ 11/4/2009 5:00:48 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q3« Dontgivethedogchoccy : So becasue a section of society is racist also we should give into them and bow to their bigoted 'beliefs' for fear of taking them?

I personally think not.On that train of thought try to use the word "Engineer" next to your name. You cant because that term belongs to the engineers to represent their status. Does that make them racist?

Again I am playing devils advocate here but people are not open to both sides. I have stated that if they are given exactly the same rights but it was called union instead of marriage why wouldn't there be willingness to compromise?]]><![CDATA[Dontgivethedogchoccy @ 11/4/2009 4:54:29 PM]]>http://sandbox.plime.com/l/135355/1/rss0_91.rss#q2« srsmits : Yes Maven to you it is NOTHING but to them you are taking their beliefs. By using a different word what are the same sex couples giving up?So becasue a section of society is racist also we should give into them and bow to their bigoted 'beliefs' for fear of taking them?

I personally think not.]]>