Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
After it was signed into law, it just wasn't implemented.
Politically Obama needs issues he think can motivate the middle. If Romney moves Right on the issue it will irritate independent voters.
Modern ethics in the Western World has clearly settled on monogamy as the norm. In this context it would make no difference if you were taking multiple same sex partners vs heterosexual ones.
They're different issues entirely.
-spence
|
"After it was signed into law, it just wasn't implemented."
As usual, you are 100% wrong on the facts. Do you know why it wasn't implemented, in Maine? Because after the politicians signed it into law, the public said "not so fast, we want to vote on this." It went to a public vote, and the public, like they have
every single time they have been given a say on this, rejected it. Again, you are not entitled to your own facts. Look it up. I'm right. The politicians didn't decide on their own to delay implementation - the public said "hell, no". And that's in liberal Maine.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/maine...ory?id=8992720
A key quote, if you are interested in truth...
"
Voters rejected a state law Tuesday that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed. The repeal comes just six months after the measure was passed by the Maine legislature and signed by the Democratic Gov. John Baldacci. "
"Politically Obama needs issues he think can motivate the middle."
I agree. However, if gay marriage has been voted on 32 times, and it has been rejected 32 times (32 for 32, that is incredible), please tell me how openly supporting gay marriage helps Obama with independents. You cannot tell me that only radicals oppose gay marriage, not if it has been summarily rejected 32 times in 32 attempts. Few issues have such a consensus. North Carolina is hardly a hardcore conservative state - Obama won there in 2008 - and homosexual marriage was shot down in a rout.
"Modern ethics in the Western World has clearly settled on monogamy as the norm"
I cannot imagine what planet you live on if you think that. I support monogomy, but that puts me in a very small minority. Rick Santorum was crucified for his traditional Catholic beliefs. More than 50% of marriages end in divorce, abortions are up, infidelity is up...Spence, I sincerely wish monogomy was the norm, but that's one of the most demonstrably false things you have ever said. Your side, the liberal side, gets a lot of talking points from Hollywood. Tell me how common monogomy is out there, and in other liberal places.
One other thing about homesexuality. And again, I'm in favor of gay marriage. But a homesexual relationship is not the same thing as a heterosexual relationship, there is a huge, huge difference. One of those unions can produce life, the other cannot. Society cannot exist without heterosexual relationships, therefore society has a vested interest in protecting heterosexual relationships. I do not see homosexual marriage as a threat to traditional marriage, but I can see where someone else might.
And I asked a question that you - once again - chose to ignore. If you expand the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, how can you exclude a threesome? What if 3 consenting adults genuinely love each other? Who are you to say they can't be married? Why don't they have the same rights as the rest of us? Every single argument in favor of gay marriage,
every single one, can just as easily be used to support the right of a threesome to be married. I'd love to see you refute that.
Hybrid Mode
