• 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

Which means they did not participate in that particular issue!!!!!!!!!

When many, many people on here express confusion as to your logic, there should be a point where you should question how well you are articulating your point. A reasonable person would do this.
 
Which means they did not participate in that particular issue!!!!!!!!!

Yes they did. If you vote for President, and 6% vote for candidate C for President, it doesn't mean they didn't participate in the vote for President. They most certainly did cast votes for the President position. Were you home schooled?
 
Majority is one more than half.

And plurality is a number that exceeds the remaining number.

Would you call 3 out of 5 a majority or plurality?
 
What overturned slavery in the U.S., Elena? Just a tip...it wasn't a majority vote.

Reading the first 10 pages of this thread, I realized Elena is a devout homophobe who clings to the ignorant and backward belief that sexual orientation is a choice.

See, Elena, you didn't choose to be heterosexual, if that's what you are (I say that because many homophobes are really self-hating homosexuals). No, Dear, you were born with the hard-wired personality traits of a heterosexual. (again, if that's what you are)

And no, it's not a gene, a single gene--brain development is a combination of genetics, prenatal nutrition, and other prenatal factors. It's complicated and difficult to study. But the majority of respected people in related fields, now believe that sexual orientation is a hard-wired trait that comes in degrees.

The law needs to catch up with the science. This is a civil rights issue. You wouldn't prevent left-handed people from getting married? Same thing.

My overall point is that a homophobe who will never understand how ignorant and wrong her beliefs are (Elena) has kept this thread going while well-meaning people try to talk some sense into her.

My advice -- stop humoring her.
:stop:
 
And plurality is a number that exceeds the remaining number.

Would you call 3 out of 5 a majority or plurality?

3 out of 5 is both.

If there were 4 choices at 2/5, 1/5, 1/5, and 1/5; the winner (2/5) is plurality, but not majority.
 
As long as the marriage license exists, denying same sex couples a marriage license is infringing upon their right to contract.
wrong. Same sex couples, singles, or married couples can still create a contract to receive. All the contractual benefits of a marriage contract.

However, you cannot sign a contract to force tax benefits from the government that married couples receive. This is because the government discriminates for such benefits just like it does for medicare and social security. Such discrimination is both rational and constitutional.
 
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.


:roll:

Let me know when you will graduate from your kindergarten.
 
However....Navy....the tide is turning and it soon will be. The polls have shifted dramatically over the last few years. We will see gay marriage recgonized as a right in every state of this great nation.....even within your lifetime. So you best prepare.


You keep saying that DD and yet when the people vote on it by state have voted 31-0 against Gay Marriage........That has to be very disappointing for you...........Most people are for equal rrights but the answer is not gay marriage......
 
jack, if you haven't noticed, Elena is NEVER NEVER EVER EVER wrong. We all are a bunch of idiots, and she's the smartest person in this thread. Can't you see that?

Thank you, darling.

So would you call 3 out of 5 a majority or plurality?
 
wrong. Same sex couples, singles, or married couples can still create a contract to receive. All the contractual benefits of a marriage contract.

However, you cannot sign a contract to force tax benefits from the government that married couples receive. This is because the government discriminates for such benefits just like it does for medicare and social security. Such discrimination is both rational and constitutional.

Not everything.
 
:roll:

Let me know when you will graduate from your kindergarten.

In the arena of intelligence, I have you well out matched. And I can understand fractions.
 
You can question the biological reasons.

Who is "you?" We the People, correct? Meaning Ikari, there are reasons and standards(your example here uses biological reasons) for government to be involved in marriage, we at least both agree there.

Should a married couple reproduce, their offspring should they be closely related stands significant increase in having deformities and such. As well is known from genetics.

So, it's the nation's federal business and we don't approve nor will we allow or give a marriage license to closely related persons? Correct?

That argument does not exist for same sex couples.

Nor for same sex family, so two sisters using your theory shouldn't be denied, correct?

As for polygamy, I have nothing inherently against it.

Would you deny...as a member of a state in our union, a marriage license to two people who are already married to others, yes or no?
 
You keep saying that DD and yet when the people vote on it by state have voted 31-0 against Gay Marriage........That has to be very disappointing for you...........Most people are for equal rrights but the answer is not gay marriage......

People used to vote against emancipation, it doesn't mean that A) things aren't changing (as detailed by the closing gap) and B) that it will never change.
 
50 is half, .5, 1/2. The 49 listed is 49% of the total votes for the guy. The total votes include ALL THE VOTES for the position. It's not 94%, because that IS NOT ALL THE VOTES for that position, that is 94% of the votes for that position. Stop being stupid.

Then why was it said that 94% VOTED???
 
Reading the first 10 pages of this thread, I realized Elena is a devout homophobe who clings to the ignorant and backward belief that sexual orientation is a choice.

See, Elena, you didn't choose to be heterosexual, if that's what you are (I say that because many homophobes are really self-hating homosexuals). No, Dear, you were born with the hard-wired personality traits of a heterosexual. (again, if that's what you are)

And no, it's not a gene, a single gene--brain development is a combination of genetics, prenatal nutrition, and other prenatal factors. It's complicated and difficult to study. But the majority of respected people in related fields, now believe that sexual orientation is a hard-wired trait that comes in degrees.

The law needs to catch up with the science. This is a civil rights issue. You wouldn't prevent left-handed people from getting married? Same thing.

My overall point is that a homophobe who will never understand how ignorant and wrong her beliefs are (Elena) has kept this thread going while well-meaning people try to talk some sense into her.

My advice -- stop humoring her.
:stop:

I guess I have to ask you my left wing friend why is anyone who disagrees with you on this issue is a homophobe.........I am for equal rights for all and against gay marriage and I am no homphobe.........
 
Yes yes yes, but man is she confident of her lack of understanding. I said it before, and I will say it again--her lack of insight is sad.

Heh. I'm glad I'm not the only one who ever butted heads with Elena and ended up hitting my head repeatedly against my desk in total despair at her inability to grasp some very simple concepts. :lol: What a train wreck she's made of this thread. I just can't seem to look away. It's fascinating.
 
People used to vote against emancipation, it doesn't mean that A) things aren't changing (as detailed by the closing gap) and B) that it will never change.

Completely different issue............no comparison and you know it..........
 
No. She doesn't even understand representative democracy and the rule of law.

:doh

I noticed you haven't answered a single question I asked you. Too much knowledge?
 
Which means they did not participate in that particular issue!!!!!!!!!

Yes they did. If you vote for President, and 6% vote for candidate C for President, it doesn't mean they didn't participate in the vote for President. They most certainly did cast votes for the President position. Were you home schooled?


What Ikari said. Of course they participated. They cast votes for a minority position or a minority candidate. All valid votes = the whole set of votes to be divied up.
 
Who is "you?" We the People, correct? Meaning Ikari, there are reasons and standards(your example here uses biological reasons) for government to be involved in marriage, we at least both agree there.

To the degree in which government has entangled essential programs and tax credits into the contract; it has some place.

So, it's the nation's federal business and we don't approve nor will we allow or give a marriage license to closely related persons? Correct?

In the architecture of marriage from previous having been focused more on reproduction; at the time perhaps. I still wouldn't have cared even back in the day if related people got "married". They have to deal with the consequences, not me. Does government have business in it? Currently I guess you could make the argument in that those with genetic disease are more likely to cost more money to the system and society at large. But I'm not usually one who agrees in general with those sorts of arguments.

Nor for same sex family, so two sisters using your theory shouldn't be denied, correct?

Should I care?

Would you deny...as a member of a state in our union, a marriage license to two people who are already married to others, yes or no?

If I had control, sure why not? Consenting adults, I don't care.
 
Back
Top Bottom