Mainers we have an upcoming ballot (Parkman: school, camps, pros and cons)

[elston]

It absolutely escapes me what is more moral about sex between a man and a woman and sex between two men or two women within a commited relationship. Our society is strengthened when people make commitments and keep those commitments. I don't concede one iota on the morality scale between my commited relationship and any other in the state of Maine. My relationship is condoned and blessed by my minister and my church congregation and was by my mother and my entire extended family; it is a life commitment and it is based on love. ....The State of Maine has withheld its civil blessing....but before God and my faith community I am a-ok and living a moral life.

If you dont want a same sex marriage.....don't have one.....but don't use the government to force your choices or your religion on me.

[broadbill]

Originally Posted by flycessna

un un aaahh... I am not using a slippery slope argument. I am simply stating the issue is about morals and not civil rights.





I love it, you are contradicting yourself as you write. A Man marrying his sister is not a moral issue but a practical one because of public health issues, what if she is incapable of having children? what if a brother wants to marry his brother?

And Polygamy should be against the law because there "might" be spousal abuse and child welfare issues... come on???? and there isn't these issues in every relationship know to man.. last time I checked FBI crime reporting didnt account for these kind of relationships..




see above



I agree, but the fact remains many of the laws we have are moraly based in our culture of what we as a people decide to be acceptable. I am sure we can look back to other cultures and find things that were considered acceptable and that in our society are moraly reprehensible and illegal.




I am not talking about freedom of Assembly, and i am not against civil rights. I am agaisnt people blaming abuse of civil rights when no abuse exists. What about my rights??

(Example)If the marijuana thing passes here as a landlord seeking tenants I will not be able to discriminate against them.. I do not want to rent to any smokers, Pot or any other tobaco products.. it creates problems and more work for me. but my rights dont count I guess

What rights of yours are being trampled in the case of Question #1?

[reloop]

The bottom line in question 1 IMHO, boils down to minding one's own business.

If only people tended to their own business and left others to their own, then question 1 would cease to exist.

Same sex commitments are certainly nothing new. We kid ourselves if we think that by making gay marriage legal that will somehow increase the number of gays in the world. The only difference now-a-days is that those who are in committed relationships choose not to be hidden away from society as much (although I certainly still know some who would rather die then be "outted" lest it completely ruin their professional and personal reputation).

If one wants to argue for Question 1 on the basis that the state wants to cram it down our collective throats, then okay, I guess I can understand that; however, to look to it as an excuse to judge how people conduct their lives (in what is supposed to be a free country) escapes me.

[forest beekeeper]

So does anyone know about Q4, does it change the limits to higher? or to lower than they are now?

[forest beekeeper]

1. y

2. y, I do not like the idea of giving hybrids a pass. Hybrids are expensive vehicles. If you buy one, and it's fuel consumption is less, that in itself is a savings and a benefit to the owner. Overall, it seems that Mainers whine the most about their excise tax, so maybe it should be lowered.

3. y, we do need to cut how much money is wasted, but this was the wrong method.

4. y, I think but I would like to know for sure if this change lowers how much they can go beyond their limits.

5. y

6. n, I am not in favour of raising taxes. No way, no how.

7. y, Get the job done right.

[RANGER.101ST]

there are 6 other questions that i would think about more then i would the gay marriage bill.
I'm more focused on how the state's going to screw me out of more tax money.i could care less if some dude wants to marry some other dude.i dont care.what i dont like is the state thinking I'm the bank of Maine and reaching in my wallet and taking what they want.hey lets give out more stimulus money so we can raise taxes to buy a new hot tub with bubbles for the Blaine house.hey lets tax the he!! out of people until we drive their business out of Maine.

[flycessna]

Originally Posted by elston

It absolutely escapes me what is more moral about sex between a man and a woman and sex between two men or two women within a commited relationship. Our society is strengthened when people make commitments and keep those commitments. I don't concede one iota on the morality scale between my commited relationship and any other in the state of Maine. My relationship is condoned and blessed by my minister and my church congregation and was by my mother and my entire extended family; it is a life commitment and it is based on love. ....The State of Maine has withheld its civil blessing....but before God and my faith community I am a-ok and living a moral life.

If you dont want a same sex marriage.....don't have one.....but don't use the government to force your choices or your religion on me.

Elston, I never said or made claim that I THINK Sex between a man and a women is Moral while sex between a same sex couple is Immoral! I know you didn't say that specifically but I want to make it clear.

What I was saying, and what I am saying is that the issue in my opnion is about Morals and not civil rights.

the state of Maine has withheld its "civil blessing" based on the ideals of maine's population in that they do not accept gay marraige as moraly acceptable and do not aprove of it. How can anyone say they have no problem with gays or same sex relationships and then say.. " duh,, I dont think they should get married though"

We are asking ourselves as a society if we feel as though we have come far enough to accept same sex realtionships as moral and should we redefine what marraige is based on that.

the issue absolutely cannot be about civil rights otherwise we can debate a whole lot of other issues along with it like brother and sisters getting married, or brother and brother ect. I am sorry but This question is a Moral one and not a civil rights issue.

[elston]

Flycessna....... I agree with you that it is a moral issue but I dont concede civil rights; I believe it is an equal protection issue as well. I totally disagree with your subsequent reasoning.

To address the morality issue, I would state my belief and understanding that morality is not determined by majority vote....it runs deeper than that. If morals could be decided by the vote or agreement of the majority.....Hitler was a moral leader and the genocide of the concentration camps was "moral"; if morality were decided by the prevailing societal attitude and belief....the cruxifiction of Jesus was "moral"; if morality were decided by societal attitudes and popular votes...slavery and segregation and laws against inter-racial marriages were "moral" and it was moral to work children in the mills of NH RI and Massachussets...6 days a week for 12 hour days in dangerous jobs.

If morality could be decided by prevailing attitudes and majority votes, women would have never been given the vote....that was wildly unpopular with the majority of voters and it took a Constitutional amendment in 1920 to accomplish as the states couldn't pass it by popular vote. Prevailing societal attitudes and comfort levels have little to do with morality!

Legal marriage is a civil institution, a contract and it bestows a host of legally recognized benefits and recognitions and establishes legal relationships between people, my partner and I want to get married we want legal recognition of our family. Marriage provides stability to society and to the couples who enter into it. The gay community would benefit from that stability and recognition.

I believe that equal protection and equal justice means "marriage" can't be held captive by religion or public comfort levels. I believe it is also immoral to discriminate against a group of people because of who they are; because of their nature and by that discrimination to deny them the full oppurtunities that the majority cherish and would fight and die for.
It is immoral in my opinion for parents to drive their gay children to suicide or the street because of who they are.

The argument based on dire warnings of beastiality or incest are "red herrings".....one could go back to the establishment of marriage as currently defined and say if the government recognizes "marriage" it opens the door to: (fill in the blank).

The morality issue is exactly why I believe to my core that it is wrong to decide this issue by majority vote......very often the moral thing to do.....is not the immediately popular position that a society already agrees to and accepts. You cant legislate hearts and attitudes but you can legislate policy, behavior and laws and these tend to bring attitudes along .... like de- segregation laws in this country.

I am hoping that Mainers will vote NO ON ONE.....but I dont believe that will settle the morality issue....it will resolve the civil rights issue. Morality is not on the ballot....rights and law and equal justice are.

I don't intend to go back and forth about this but I wanted to clearly state my position in the thread.

[broadbill]

@elston: once again, well said.

[Maine Writer]

Well said elston.