• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

If someone pays their taxes and obeys the laws, why should they be considered different. First one to answer correctly wins 10 internets.
 
EpicDude86 said:
If someone pays their taxes and obeys the laws, why should they be considered different. First one to answer correctly wins 10 internets.
Click to expand...

Different doesn't mean unequal so treating someone differently when they actually are different is ok.
 
Last edited:
EpicDude86 said:
Mmmmm if they aren't getting something that other taxpayers are getting then yes, Different is unequal.
Click to expand...

You can't get SS if you're not disabled or elderly. You can't get Tricare unles you're in the service. You can't get FASFA unles you're a student.

In each of those 3 examples, a tax-payer is getting something other tax payers can not.

Yet they are all equal non-the-less.
 
Jerry said:
You can't get SS if you're not disabled or elderly. You can't get Tricare unles you're in the service. You can't get FASFA unles you're a student.

In each of those 3 examples, a tax-payer is getting something other tax payers can not.

Yet they are all equal non-the-less.
Click to expand...


Yes but getting marriage isn't getting something back from the government.



So...You have to qualify for marriage, now? Well that makes sense.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Yes but getting marriage isn't getting something back from the government.
Click to expand...

Uh, yes it is. Spousal Privilege and next-of-kin to name a couple items.


EpicDude86 said:
So...You have to qualify for marriage, now? Well that makes sense.
Click to expand...

We've always had to qualify for marriage. There are Federal requirements like being unrelated to state requirements such as STD testing.

If a hetero loves another hetero and they want to marry, but one has an STD, the application is denied.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Uh, yes it is. Spousal Privilege and next-of-kin to name a couple items.




We've always had to qualify for marriage. There are Federal requirements like being unrelated to state requirements such as STD testing.

If a hetero loves another hetero and they want to marry, but one has an STD, the application is denied.
Click to expand...

Touche, sir, Touche.


I guess the gays should have thought about this before they went and got all gay.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Touche, sir, Touche.


I guess the gays should have thought about this before they went and got all gay.
Click to expand...


No one is stopping them from freely associating as they please.

The right to marry is not the right to freely associate. People often confuse the two. No one is legislating who anyone can love.
 
Jerry said:
No one is stopping them from freely associating as they please.

The right to marry is not the right to freely associate. People often confuse the two. No one is legislating who anyone can love.
Click to expand...

But they are legislating something that they want and are entitled to.
 
EpicDude86 said:
But they are legislating something that they want and are entitled to.
Click to expand...

That's the right to marry, not the right to freely associate, and gays do have every bit as much access to marriage as heteros do as there is no requirement to be of a particular sexual orientation to apply for a marriage license.
 
Jerry said:
That's the right to marry, not the right to freely associate, and gays do have every bit as much access to marriage as heteros do as there is no requirement to be of a particular sexual orientation to apply for a marriage license.
Click to expand...

Gays have every bit as much access to marriage as heteros do? Uh...you seen the title of this thread lately?

two people who pay taxes and are 'together' (Marriage or Civil Union, I don't care what you call it) should get the same benefits that two people who pay taxes get. (Marriage or Civil Union, I don't care what you call it)
 
EpicDude86 said:
Gays have every bit as much access to marriage as heteros do? Uh...you seen the title of this thread lately?
Click to expand...

The law changed marriage, it did not extend a right that only heteros allegedly have to now include gays.

EpicDude86 said:
two people who pay taxes and are 'together' (Marriage or Civil Union, I don't care what you call it) should get the same benefits that two people who pay taxes get. (Marriage or Civil Union, I don't care what you call it)
Click to expand...

They do, if only they choose to. Gays typically choose not to, just as many hetero couples choose not to, and that's their choice. Frankly I think you're being a touch homophobic by not letting gays live with their own decisions. It's their life, not yours, so let them live it. If they choose not to enter a relationship that can marry, that doesn't affect you, so it's non of your business.
 
Jerry said:
The law changed marriage, it did not extend a right that only heteros allegedly have to now include gays.



They do, if only they choose to. Gays typically choose not to, just as many hetero couples choose not to, and that's their choice. Frankly I think you're being a touch homophobic by not letting gays live with their own decisions. It's their life, not yours, so let them live it. If they choose not to enter a relationship that can marry, that doesn't affect you, so it's non of your business.
Click to expand...

You are excellent at word manipulation. But your substance leaves much to be desired.

I am saying TAXPAYERS should get what's coming to them, if in this case GAYS are TAXPAYERS and want what's coming to them, then give it to them. You're just playing with words to try and make me look stupid or make me recant. Which, I won't But hey, this game is fun. ok, your turn!
 
EpicDude86 said:
You are excellent at word manipulation. But your substance leaves much to be desired.

I am saying TAXPAYERS should get what's coming to them, if in this case GAYS are TAXPAYERS and want what's coming to them, then give it to them. You're just playing with words to try and make me look stupid or make me recant. Which, I won't But hey, this game is fun. ok, your turn!
Click to expand...

Non-taxpayers also have the right to marry as paying taxes has never been a requirement on a marriage license.

This is how the government can marry a foreign national with a US citizen. The foreign national, having never paid US taxes, simply agrees to the terms of the US marriage license.

Your "taxpayer" qualification is not but an appeal to emotion, no different than pointing to gay soldiers. Paying taxes has nothing to do with being eligible for marriage, it is therefore a false premise.
 
Last edited:
54 pages of blabbering on this thread in just a day. Would hate to have to read it all as like other ssm threads on this board, the discussion is quickly hijacked into myriad directions.

I would just like to thank those 53% of Maine voters that bothered to come out and vote and thus continue to show that in virtually every state that has ever had a same sex marriage ballot initiative, the American people have CONSISTENTLY spoken to deny such. Even here in liberal California. Victory!
 
Jerry said:
Non-taxpayers also have the right to marry as paying taxes has never been a requirement on a marriage license.

This is how the government can marry a foreign national with a US citizen. The foreign national, having never paid US taxes, simply agrees to the terms of the US marriage license.

Your "taxpayer" qualification is not but an appeal to emotion, no different than pointing to gay soldiers. Paying taxes has nothing to do with being eligible for marriage, it is therefore a false premise.
Click to expand...

Oh sorry for using the word 'Taxpayer' there. I might have switched to use the words "American Citizen" but then again Foreigners can get married and the gays can't so there goes that theory. Well I guess it's just plain wrong to marry gay couples. or Civil-unionize them. or whatever. Poor, Poor gays.
 
scourge99 said:
We are a republic, not a democracy. Representatives are not required to legislate based on their constituients opinions, otherwise we would just be a democracy, not a republic.
Click to expand...
Who said they were "required to legislate based on their contituents opinions?"
 
EpicDude86 said:
Oh sorry for using the word 'Taxpayer' there. I might have switched to use the words "American Citizen" but then again Foreigners can get married and the gays can't so there goes that theory. Well I guess it's just plain wrong to marry gay couples. or Civil-unionize them. or whatever. Poor, Poor gays.
Click to expand...

Many, many American Citizens have access to rights and privileges that other American Citizens do not.

Different does not mean unequal.

Can I have my 10 internetz now?
 
scourge99 said:
Please quote or show where I claim that my support of gay marriage has anything to do with "political correctness".

Otherwise retract your claim.
Click to expand...

Darling, your support IS a demonstration of political correctness. If it wasn't you would've switched on your brain and asked yourself what exactly you are supporting: the rights, or the whims. You didn't do it. No adherent of doctrines of political correctness ever does. Live with it.
 
scourge99 said:
Very well.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/41174-do-you-object-gay-couples-adopting-3.html#post1057847882

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/41174-do-you-object-gay-couples-adopting-3.html#post1057847883



Please show me this evidence that has convinced you. Do you have anything? Anything at all?

What convinced you?
Click to expand...

And you gave me links to yet another debate on this forum exactly why?

Google is your friend. If you want information, you will look for it. I am not your nanny to chew your soup for you.
 
CriticalThought said:
Somewhere along the line did you see "fatherless" statistics taken from children of single mothers and get it mixed up in your head
Click to expand...

Did I?

Briefing Report: The Failure of the Single Parent Family Parental Rights

Children of single parents are susceptible to psychological issues, emotional problems and social difficulties, and need the extra attention and care to help them cope with their situation...When the stress levels increase as they so often do, members of single parent homes can develop problematic relationships, leading to further estrangement and isolation for children.
Children of Single Parent Homes | Child Care Finders - All you need to know about child care.
 
Elena said:
No. Because they may or may not be fertile and if they adopt, they still will be capable to bring up a balanced individual, while gay couples are incapble of it by definition.
Click to expand...

You do understand that this is a completely false statement, proven false by data. But since I have not seen you produce one shred of substantiation for your position, let's see some. Please provide research/data/links demonstrating that gay couples are incapable of bringing up a balanced individual.

And, for those of you who have seen me debate this topic before...you know what's coming next. ;)
 
disneydude said:
Its not about PC its about making a logical argument without flaws. You failed miserably in supporting your argument. Sorry.
Click to expand...

You failed miserably to make any argument supporting your thought flow. Twice.

Be happy with your PC stance.
 
Here let me end this debate it really doesn't matter if a Gay Couple can or can't raise a child what this vote came down to was the Elected officials in the State of Maine decide to enacted a Law with-out the Citz. of Maine's imput we the Citz said woh not so fast folks. Got it put onto the Ballet and we the Citz of Maine used OUR 1ST ADM. RIGHTS AND VOTED.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom