• 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

a man can do something a woman can not do and vice versa solely because because of their gender.
They can both marry someone unrelated and neither can marry someone related.

They can both marry someone of legal age and neither can marry a minor.

They can both marry someone of sound mind and neither can marry the mentally incompetent.

They can both marry someone of the opposite sex and neither can marry someone of the same sex.

They can both marry someone of who's unmarried and neither can marry someone who is married.
 
Last edited:
Your mere disagreement and say-so means exactly dick. Provide evidence that I'm wrong.

Its not "mere disagreement". I'll attach equal protection 101...but you are going to have to take the time to read it.

There are three levels of analysis under equal protection depending upon the nature of the right involved and the class of individuals.

Suspect classes and fundamental rights receive the highest scrutiny.
non suspect classes and/or rights that are not fundamental receive standard scrutiny.
There is an intermediate level that the court sometimes employs.

Let me search around for a link and you can read a little more indepth if you choose.

Here's a link I found with a quick search that isn't bad...it explains the process fairly well. I was looking for something a little more user friendly...but the info in this is accurate.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm
 
Last edited:
Its not "mere disagreement". I'll attach equal protection 101...but you are going to have to take the time to read it.

There are three levels of analysis under equal protection depending upon the nature of the right involved and the class of individuals.

Suspect classes and fundamental rights receive the highest scrutiny.
non suspect classes and/or rights that are not fundamental receive standard scrutiny.
There is an intermediate level that the court sometimes employs.

Let me search around for a link and you can read a little more indepth if you choose.

Here's a link I found with a quick search that isn't bad...it explains the process fairly well. I was looking for something a little more user friendly...but the info in this is accurate.
Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

That's old news, learned all about it years ago and formed my position from there.

Care to address my argument now?
 
That's old news, learned all about it years ago and formed my position from there.

Care to address my argument now?

Your argument is "same but equal".
 
Your argument is "same but equal".

Only if I support Domestic Partnership ;)

I never have. In fact I've often warned anti-gm folks on DP not to either, like Navy. I told them that granting Domestic Partnership enables gay-marriage. However, it would appear that most anti-gm are both short sighted and under the naive assumption that gays would stop at Domestic Partnership.

Suppose some minority wanted to have multiple wives, but the majority was against it. Eventually enough anti-polygamist acquiesce to some Domestic Partnership equivalent to polygamy, identical to marriage in every way except the name. How easy would it be to challenge in court and win "marriage" for polygamists.

They called my argument a Slippery-Slope and dismissed it out of hand.

IMO they don't look very wise today.
 
Last edited:
Only if I support Domestic Partnership ;)

I never have. In fact I've often warned anti-gm folks on DP not to either, like Navy. I told them that granting Domestic Partnership enables gay-marriage. However, it would appear that most anti-gm are both short sighted and under the naive assumption that gays would stop at Domestic Partnership.

Suppose some minority wanted to have multiple wives, but the majority was against it. Eventually enough anti-polygamist acquiesce to some Domestic Partnership equivalent to polygamy, identical to marriage in every way except the name. How easy would it be to challenge in court and win "marriage" for polygamists.

They called my argument a Slippery-Slope and dismissed it out of hand.

IMO they don't look very wise today.

What would the polygamist argument be in front of the SCOTUS?
 
Only if I support Domestic Partnership ;)

I never have. In fact I've often warned anti-gm folks on DP not to either, like Navy. I told them that granting Domestic Partnership enables gay-marriage. However, it would appear that most anti-gm are both short sighted and under the naive assumption that gays would stop at Domestic Partnership.

Suppose some minority wanted to have multiple wives, but the majority was against it. Eventually enough anti-polygamist acquiesce to some Domestic Partnership equivalent to polygamy, identical to marriage in every way except the name. How easy would it be to challenge in court and win "marriage" for polygamists.

They called my argument a Slippery-Slope and dismissed it out of hand.

IMO they don't look very wise today.

What exactly is wrong with polygamy?
 
That's old news, learned all about it years ago and formed my position from there.

Care to address my argument now?

Your argument that it has to be a fundamental right in order to be discrimination?

If that's what you are referring to....again...you are wrong. Governmental limitations placed on ANY right or privilege can be deemed discrimination if it does not meet the required interest showing depending on the tier of scrutiny it receives under equal protection analysis.
 
Kal, I suggest you get in on that Polygamy thread, it's getting fun!
 
I do not support immoral people getting married either. So your argument is useless.

You would be in the minority of those against gay marriage in that case, as there is no widespread movement to prevent hedonists or the like from getting married, so why focus upon gay people?

We are not denying anyone anything. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want just like everyone else.

Yes and with anti-miscegenation laws, everybody could marry within their own race. Somehow you fail to see that parallel. You can apply arbitrary restrictions that apply to everybody, but they'll only meaningfully apply to some, i.e. those with different sexual preferences for another race or the same gender.

I will not support the lifestyle. It is wrong just like polygamy etc.

In what way is allowing others to form a marriage contract supporting their lifestyle? I don't support people marrying for money, but if they want to that's their business.

If that were the case we would not even be having this argument.

It is absolutely possible for intelligent people to disagree on what is logical.

More red herrings. :roll:



Dude if you are not going to stick to the subject and continue with the "race" thing that has nothing at all to do with it, we are done here. You know my position, do you want to continue to beat a dead horse?

I receive my marching orders from God, and I really don't care one bit what you think about that.

They can marry anyone of the opposite sex they like, and that is correct and equal, period.

Dude, it's called an analogy. When you took the SAT did you write red herring everytime you were supposed to find the analogous relationship?

It is discrimination based on gender. The genders are treated the same but not equally when one can do what the other gender can not.

If you think about it, anti-miscegenation and anti-SSM are both completely about sexual orientation. It was considered sexually deviant and unnatural for the races to mix romantically in the past. It is still considered sexually deviant and unnatural to have homosexual relations today.

Wow it's like you didn't even Google the quote and read the ruling in full and learn about the Lemon Test.

I pretty much don't care about what the law says when arguing about how things should be, nor should anybody, as it is not dependent upon truth or logic. If they had compelling arguments, you didn't present them. What you did present was fallacious.

They obviously don't see the divorce rates. A relationship can take a VERY bad turn once you wake up and realize you're legally bound to that bastard/bitch until death or nullification of said contract. Either way, it's an expensive set of chains to try and take off. Let em have it. >: D and if their divorce rate skyrockets up past the straights, we can rub their noses in it. OR we just all live happily ever after humping whatever gets our rocks off.

It's almost a certainty that lesbians would have lower divorce rates and male homosexuals would have higher.
 
Freedom of religious practice.

(Think Muslim)

But the discrimination applies equally to all religions where as the the discrimination regarding gay marriage does not apply equally to the sexes.
 
I just think this argument revolves around the fear of americans that this will lead to gay sex becoming mainstream. Mothers and fathers all over the country are afraid they will come home and find their sons or daughters in the sack with a friend of the same sex. This is a real worry, but guess what, it happens everyday, somewhere in this country, some young person is engaged in this behavior, and it is o.k, it really is. I just do not happen to think that if this becomes mainstream(and it has already), that this will stop young people from following their instinct, and you are either born with an attraction for the same sex, or you are not.

You simply cannot legislate this away, let people be free, freedom is always the best option!
 
I just think this argument revolves around the fear of americans that this will lead to gay sex becoming mainstream. Mothers and fathers all over the country are afraid they will come home and find their sons or daughters in the sack with a friend of the same sex. This is a real worry, but guess what, it happens everyday, somewhere in this country, some young person is engaged in this behavior, and it is o.k, it really is. I just do not happen to think that if this becomes mainstream(and it has already), that this will stop young people from following their instinct, and you are either born with an attraction for the same sex, or you are not.

You simply cannot legislate this away, let people be free, freedom is always the best option!

You aren't born with an attraction to anything. You hit puberty and chemicals start sloshing around and hormones make you do crazy stuff. This whole "Born gay" thing is silly. You may "mature" gay during puberty, but I highly doubt you're born with it.

Not to mention, why would you be born with a natural instinct, so to speak, that goes against the survival or your race. If that were a logical argument, gay could be seen as counter-evolutionary and it's clearly just for getting your rocks off. Nothing wrong with that.
 
Last edited:
You aren't born with an attraction to anything. You hit puberty and chemicals start sloshing around and hormones make you do crazy stuff. This whole "Born gay" thing is silly. You may "mature" gay during puberty, but I highly doubt you're born with it.

Not to mention, why would you be born with a natural instinct, so to speak, that goes against the survival or your race. If that were a logical argument, gay could be seen as counter-evolutionary and it's clearly just for getting your rocks off. Nothing wrong with that.

A gay friend once told me...."do you really think I wanted to be born this way, from the first day of school, I was attracted to the other boys, who would want to grow up this way"

I can only share my experiences, I am not a biologist, but I do believe people are born gay.
 
You would be in the minority of those against gay marriage in that case, as there is no widespread movement to prevent hedonists or the like from getting married, so why focus upon gay people?

So what?

Because it is wrong and I don't have to support it, thank you very much.

Yes and with anti-miscegenation laws, everybody could marry within their own race. Somehow you fail to see that parallel. You can apply arbitrary restrictions that apply to everybody, but they'll only meaningfully apply to some, i.e. those with different sexual preferences for another race or the same gender.

Race and gender are not the same thing. Never have been and never will be do to biological limitations. :roll:

In what way is allowing others to form a marriage contract supporting their lifestyle? I don't support people marrying for money, but if they want to that's their business.

Because it is wrong and I don't have to support it. I will stand by my principles. If you don't like it that's OK, but stop asking me the same questions over and over again. This is getting tiresome.

Every single thing you have asked I have already answered. If you do not like my answers I can't help you.

It is absolutely possible for intelligent people to disagree on what is logical.

Here is logic for you...

I am a Christian, and I have a certain moral code I follow. So logic would dictate I will follow that code and not be swayed by your moral values. If I did my principles must not mean much. Yours may not mean much to you, mine do.

This is no longer a debate, it is you trying to tell me my morals are wrong. They are not. As far as I can tell yours are a tad on the wrong side of things from my vantage point.

In the end I am not willing to risk my soul, salvation etc on your moral values.

Dude, it's called an analogy. When you took the SAT did you write red herring everytime you were supposed to find the analogous relationship?

That was not a debate, this is, or was before you got here.
 
A gay friend once told me...."do you really think I wanted to be born this way, from the first day of school, I was attracted to the other boys, who would want to grow up this way"

I can only share my experiences, I am not a biologist, but I do believe people are born gay.

I have also had gay people tell me that and next thing you know (years later)they are with the opposite sex and married. I have noticed females do this more often than men (just a personal observation not based on anything but anecdotal evidence).

I don't know if you are born that way or not, it is just very confusing.
 
You aren't born with an attraction to anything. You hit puberty and chemicals start sloshing around and hormones make you do crazy stuff. This whole "Born gay" thing is silly. You may "mature" gay during puberty, but I highly doubt you're born with it.

Not to mention, why would you be born with a natural instinct, so to speak, that goes against the survival or your race. If that were a logical argument, gay could be seen as counter-evolutionary and it's clearly just for getting your rocks off. Nothing wrong with that.

Jesus, EpicDude. Did you one day decide, "I like women"? Did you? What in your body made you like women?

I don't see how you cannot understand that there are anomolies (did I spell that correctly). People can be born being half boy/half girl. Can you explain what happened there? What if it's a girl, and she's unable to conceive because her uterus and ovaries didn't form correctly. How do you explain that? Because...it does happen.
 
A gay friend once told me...."do you really think I wanted to be born this way, from the first day of school, I was attracted to the other boys, who would want to grow up this way"

I can only share my experiences, I am not a biologist, but I do believe people are born gay.

...I'd like to see some documented evidence to support his claim...how can you say you're attracted at such a young age?
 
Jesus, EpicDude. Did you one day decide, "I like women"? Did you? What in your body made you like women?

One day I started to notice things about girls...and things about myself. That's called puberty, and that's when our sexual selves awaken...

I don't see how you cannot understand that there are anomolies (did I spell that correctly). People can be born being half boy/half girl. Can you explain what happened there? What if it's a girl, and she's unable to conceive because her uterus and ovaries didn't form correctly. How do you explain that? Because...it does happen.

Nature can and will have anomalies. (You were close with the spelling) however, your sexual preference isn't innate. Are you suggesting we are born with other fetishes too?
 
...I'd like to see some documented evidence to support his claim...how can you say you're attracted at such a young age?

I am not out to convince anyone, this is just what I believe.
 
Your argument that it has to be a fundamental right in order to be discrimination?

There has to be a fundamental right being infringed, you have to not be able to control the attribute, and the state must not have a compelling interest to infringe.

Gays meet 2/3 of those requirements if they can successfully argue that gay-marriage would not exacerbate the divorce rate.

Gays do not, however, have the right to marry the same-sex. No one does. Therefore it is not "Discrimination" under the law.

If that's what you are referring to....again...you are wrong. Governmental limitations placed on ANY right or privilege can be deemed discrimination if it does not meet the required interest showing depending on the tier of scrutiny it receives under equal protection analysis.

Mhmm, the Lemon Test, I know all about it, which is how I know I'm right.
 
Back
Top Bottom