• 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

Not according to polygamists and what other government contract can't I enter into with my sister?

Murder contract, prostitution contract, drug contract, etc.
 
Not according to polygamists and what other government contract can't I enter into with my sister?

Because what you are failing to take into consideration is that different classifications undergo different analysis when the Supreme Court addresses equal protection issues.
 
I thought it was you who had a house in Wales?..

Speaking of "anal",
2698077452_f03ceede9d.jpg
I do, I also have one in England and Croatia, and with my brother we are renovating another in Tuscany:2wave:
 
31 ststes have voted on the issue and 31 states said no, most by huge majorities...........This country is not for gay marriage and I don't believe it ever will be...............

But you might notice the majorities have been getting smaller over time. You also might want to look at what younger people think of gay marriage. It's not a matter of if but when.

a minority is Blacks, gays are a class of people defined by their sexual preference.......You can't stop being black....you can stop being gay...........

If you're referring to anti-miscegenation, that actually wasn't discriminating against Blacks per se, but rather people who want to marry another race, whether they be Black or White. It is a matter of who they're attracted to being not who they're supposed to be attracted to or get married to per society's norms. Gay marriage is the same kind of issue.

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.

At the time fully 70% of the populace nationwide wanted to keep those laws on the books. Ill link the gallup poll later.

Here it is: Most Americans Approve of Interracial Marriages

pr070816i.gif

It’s my favorite illustration of the invalidity of democratic processes.

Two consenting adults that fall within accepted parameters of relationship by blood or marriage-- said parameters varying by state-- and who are both legal permanent residents of the United States, who are not currently married to other people regardless of the consent of all parties involved. Some States have residency requirements for one or both of the spouses-to-be. Some States have age requirements other than "adult," ranging if I recall correctly from 12 (with parental permission) to 19.

So no, just because someone is heterosexual does not mean that they can just marry whomever they wish. There are numerous legal requirements that must be met aside from the intended spouses being of the opposite sex, and if marriage is a human right than any couple-- not just homosexual couples-- that do not meet each and every one of those specific legal requirements that vary by State is being denied their right to marriage.

Marriage is not a right. It is a set of legal privileges offered by the State for qualifying participants.

Actually I don't think anybody is prohibited from marrying in general, except those incompetent to consent to contracts in general. 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. Where we do restrict marriage, it is meant to protect society, though you pointed out before that the law is inconsistent on this... surprise surprise.
 
However, since it takes the form of contract, and the individual has the right to contract, it becomes more than privilege granted by the State.

Since the contract specifies behaviors of the State, the State is a signatory to that contract and thus has the same right not to contract with couples whose marriages it disapproves of.
 
I don't think the major issue here is whether they can get married or not (Marriage was in fact a construct of the State waaay back in the day anyways), it's really that they want the benefits offered to those who do get married. 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.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the major issue here is whether they can get married or not (Marriage was in fact a construct of the State waaay back in the day anyways), it's really that they want the benefits offered to those who do get married. 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.

The concern there would be that it is akin to "separate but equal" policies, which were actually separate but unequal. I am really not sure why some people think the word marriage is degraded by homosexuals using it. I mean, people who marry for lust or money use it so what's the difference if another person you consider sinful uses it? Does that make your own marriage meaningless, or are marriages actually defined as separate contracts, not as an overall institution?
 
The concern there would be that it is akin to "separate but equal" policies, which were actually separate but unequal. I am really not sure why some people think the word marriage is degraded by homosexuals using it. I mean, people who marry for lust or money use it so what's the difference if another person you consider sinful uses it? Does that make your own marriage meaningless, or are marriages actually defined as separate contracts, not as an overall institution?

I just figured we'd satisfy both sides of the argument and meet in the middle. there is a middle ground, it's just both sides are too pigheaded and arrogant to accept it. Eh.
 
This is really a world wide thing, NOT just our nation.
In truth, we may have more rights for the homosexual than must, if not all...
Not that we are the most advanced nation....we are not...I think...

We are neither the best, nor the worst. Trust me, it's far better to be a gay man in Alabama than a gay man in Iran.
 
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.
 
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. ;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
Slavery was accepted when ...

So did your country have slavery when slavery was accepted by the majority of your country? Yes or no?
 
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.
 
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.

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.

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.

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.
 
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.


The difference was explained by Ikari many posts ago. Majority is one more than half. Perhaps your sticking point is in identifying what is the whole? The whole is all votes cast for a particular office or issue. Percents are whatever percent various candidates or positions get. If the winner with the most votes gets more than half, they've won a majority. If the winner with the most votes gets less than half, they've won a plurality.

Actually, I kind of think you do know the difference, b/c you've failed to provide your definition link, even after being asked twice. I think your link will explain to you why you're wrong, as well.
 
Since the contract specifies behaviors of the State, the State is a signatory to that contract and thus has the same right not to contract with couples whose marriages it disapproves of.

Not really as the majority of what the contract covers deals with your estate and the handling of it and access to it by others. Thus is more about your property than it is anything the government wants done. The complications are in there purposefully as to not allow the government from being divorced from marriage. I would dare say that most of the "benefits" which come with marriage, especially in regards to taxes and such, should be done away with.
 
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.

I'm not going to ask questions of someone who does not understand totals. The 6% were still PART OF THE VOTE. They still voted on the system. The whole is 100%. Not this crap you're trying to spew so you can try to backtrack as to not look like a total idiot. But damage is done on this one, now stop being stupid.
 
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.

Do comments like this make you feel good about yourself? Clearly you have self esteem issues.
 
Back
Top Bottom