Page 32 of 99 FirstFirst ... 2230313233344282 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 989

Thread: Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

  1. #311
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    11-26-09 @ 04:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    737

    Re: Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    OMFG. Now, you have 100% voting for a position. There was another candidate who got some votes as well.

    Person A:49
    Person B: 45
    Person C: 6Total 100
    half of total 50
    Wining candidate 49<50
    Did not get the majority of the votes, but got the plurality.

    Comprende? Holy ****, I didn't think this should be so tough. Humans have a large degree of intellect; it's time for you to employ it.
    There may be 10 000 apples on a tree you are under, but you can take into account only those apples that are in your pocket. The rest are out of your reach, they are not yours.

    If those 6% of the total of your state, town, street did not bother with the issue you can't count them. They chose not to bother with your vote. And thus yours are only the remaining 94% of the total -- those who did take part in your voting. These 94% of the total are your 100% when you are talking of the voting.

    Maybe it is difficult for a future PhD to grasp, but children usually learn %% at the age of 9. Feel free to ask questions.

  2. #312
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

    Quote Originally Posted by Elena View Post
    There may be 10 000 apples on a tree you are under, but you can take into account only those apples that are in your pocket. The rest are out of your reach, they are not yours.

    If those 6% of the total of your state, town, street did not bother with the issue you can't count them. They chose not to bother with your vote. And thus yours are only the remaining 94% of the total -- those who did take part in your voting. These 94% of the total are your 100% when you are talking of the voting.

    Maybe it is difficult for a future PhD to grasp, but children usually learn %% at the age of 9. Feel free to ask questions.
    It doesn't matter. In spite of the majority selecting particular candidates, any legislative decision made by these candidates can be overturned by the court if it fails the litmus test of U.S. constitutional law.

    That's where you fail, Elena. You want to believe that the U.S. is governed by majority rule, but it isn't. Even majority decisions can be overturned if they are found to be unconstitutional by the courts.

    Not to mention that your math skills aren't anything to write home about.

    Feel free to ask questions if you still don't understand that the U.S. is NOT a democracy.

  3. #313
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    11-26-09 @ 04:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    737

    Re: Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    Which dictionary? Link?

    49 is a percentage ... the whole is 100. The whole is all votes cast - you cannot have less than 100% when considering all votes cast. 49 surpasses 45, and is a plurality; 49 does not pass half of all votes cast, and thus is not a majority.
    Yes, the whole is 100%. The whole of what? The whole of those who voted! And only 94% of the total of the number of voters in the town, state, department, street, etc. took part in a vote. Out of these 94% OF THE TOTAL 49% voted for blue, 45% voted for green. But you can count ONLY THOSE WHO DID VOTE. And so your 94% from the total number becomes your 100% of voters, the rest were NOT voters.

  4. #314
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    11-26-09 @ 04:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    737

    Re: Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    It was also eliminated, without a simple majority vote to do so.
    And did the majority object?

  5. #315
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Banning same sex marriage infringes upon the right of contract by the individual.
    No it doesn't. Gays or singles can get all the same contractual benefits of a marriage: hospital visitation, inheritance, guardianship, etc through any lawyer. The difference is that the government streamlines the process for hetero couples. Seperately the gov't LEGISLATES other benefits such as tax breaks. But this is no more dicrimination against gays than it is agains single. Just like medicare discriminates based on age. Certain types of discrimination are both rational and constitutional.

    This is why the gay marriage movement has almost not foot to stand on.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  6. #316
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    11-26-09 @ 04:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    737

    Re: Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

    Quote Originally Posted by jackalope View Post
    In the case of a plurality winning candidate, the majority of the voters voted for someone else. The plurality wins the day. The majority is SOL.
    jackalope, I gave you a definition of "plurality" and a definition of "majority" taken from online free dictionary, show me the difference, please.

    If you listen all your life to gobbledy-gook your politicians spin around the meaning of the words of your language, it's your problem, but don't expect everyone to follow your suit.

    Please, show me the difference in definitions of these two words.

  7. #317
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

    Quote Originally Posted by Elena View Post
    And did the majority object?
    It doesn't MATTER if the majority objects, the litmus test for EVERY LAW passed in the U.S., ultimately, is if it meets the constitutional standard. THAT is what matters.

    That's the difference between a constitutional republic (based upon the rule of law and adherence to core principles) and mob rule.

    Please try to grasp this, it's not that difficult.

    So, historically speaking, it doesn't matter that the majority of white people in Little Rock didn't want the schools integrated, and black kids sitting next to their white daughters in a classroom when separate but equal was deemed unconstitutional in the Supreme Court.
    Last edited by Catz Part Deux; 11-04-09 at 03:47 PM.

  8. #318
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    11-26-09 @ 04:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    737

    Re: Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Slavery was accepted when ...
    So did your country have slavery when slavery was accepted by the majority of your country? Yes or no?

  9. #319
    Sage
    jackalope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    08-08-14 @ 01:54 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,494

    Re: Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

    Quote Originally Posted by Elena View Post
    Yes, the whole is 100%. The whole of what? The whole of those who voted! And only 94% of the total of the number of voters in the town, state, department, street, etc. took part in a vote. Out of these 94% OF THE TOTAL 49% voted for blue, 45% voted for green. But you can count ONLY THOSE WHO DID VOTE. And so your 94% from the total number becomes your 100% of voters, the rest were NOT voters.

    No, 6% voted for somebody else. And none of them are total of all voters in any voting district, they are totals of those who cast ballots.

    So, counting ballots cast, 49% of ballots cast went to the winner. 51% of ballots cast went to someone who was not the winner. Majority voted for someone who didn't win. Plurality elected the winner.

  10. #320
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    As far as stop being gay, that would only be true if they were bisexual to begin with. Personally I could not choose to be aroused by another male. If you feel you can sexually choose men or women, then you are bisexual.
    In that case we're all bisexual. We might not be able to consciously control our preferences, but barring medical or psychological condition we are all capable of arousal and sexual performance with members of the same sex. Hell, we're capable of these things with "partners" that are far less compatible than that.

    How do you think the majority of homosexual parents acquire babies to raise? Adoption and reproductive technology are far more expensive and difficult than natural procreation, regardless of how "unnatural" natural procreation comes to the participants.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    Actually I don't think anybody is prohibited from marrying in general, except those incompetent to consent to contracts in general.
    True. But the "ridiculous" argument in question is that homosexuals are not prohibited from marrying in general-- only members of the same sex. It is only one item on a fairly long list of legal requirements for marriage, and I simply don't see any grounds upon which it can be claimed that this requirement is more a "violation" of our "marriage rights" than any of the others. They are all related in one fashion or another to the form and function of marriage in our society and what we consider to be acceptable unions.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post
    What I really can't figure out is why you assume having these parameters is reasonable. Heterosexual couples simply have fewer restrictions, but that doesn't mean some of those restrictions aren't also arbitrary and unfair.
    It isn't an assumption. It is a reasoned position on my part. I believe that marriage is meant to fulfill certain societal functions and thus that it is reasonable for marriage to be limited to those unions which either serve those functions or at the least do not undermine them. I do not support all of the current restrictions on marriage, but I would rather support all of them collectively than none of them. At this time, I am only willing to advocate for the lifting of one of these restrictions, that being the restriction that potential spouses must be of the opposite sex.

    I believe that marriage serves roughly two functions, and that all of the benefits of marriage and all of the restrictions ought to revolve around these two functions. Remember, the State extends benefits and provides legal services for marriage that cost us money, so marriage itself must be justified.

    These two functions are:
    1) reinforce the ideal home environment for children, which includes (at least) two parents among other things
    2) provide the basis for natural alliances between families

    Thus I support restricting marriage on the basis of affinity because incestuous marriages fail on both points. I support restricting marriage on the basis of legal permanent residency because the State has the right to bar immigration and a marriage spread across national boundaries fails point 1. I support premarital counseling requirements because they protect the stability of marriages, which is essential to both points. Obviously, I support the restriction that both potential spouses consent and I actually lean toward the belief that minors should not be allowed to marry even with parental consent.

    And there are a few points upon which I think restrictions ought to be loosened. Homosexual marriages satisfy both points and ought to be allowed. Marriages between blood relatives with no affinity-- meaning they were raised as though unrelated-- satisfy both points and ought to be allowed. (Siblings have only the same chance of producing children with birth defects as women over 40. There's simply no reason to prohibit it.) Polygamous marriages satisfy both points and ought to be allowed as long as all current spouses consent.

    I'm actually much more concerned with attempting to discourage divorce than I am either imposing or removing restrictions on marriage. On the other hand, there's simply no political force behind such proposals despite that marriage is just as traditionally for life as it is strictly between one man and one (or more) woman.

    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    So why don't we just require civil unions and marriages to receive the same benefits from insurance and businesses and call it a day.
    Because that would require revisions to tens of thousands of laws in thousands of jurisdictions. And because such a "compromise" solution gives neither side what they really want. Gays want compulsory social acceptance and 'phobes want their right to discriminate legally protected.

Page 32 of 99 FirstFirst ... 2230313233344282 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •