• 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

You fail to understand the function of a constitutional republic. It does not work in the same way as a pure democracy. I see that you are essentially unfamiliar with the checks/balances of the U.S. system of government, and your posts illustrate that lack of information.

Right! Now I understand! You wheel out "democracy" when it suits the agenda of a particular lobby dear to the heart of some policymakers, and you completely disregard that same "democracy" when it doesn't support the agenda of some minority lobby!

Thank you!
 
Congratulations Black Bears.
 
So, long story short, what have gays really lost due to the vote in Maine?
 
Elena's still miserable about all of that wanton anal sex. Don't reckon there's much can be done for her about it.

?

Am I? Thank you, o, Septic Peg, for clarifying it for me!
default.jpg


Is it a traditional American way of holding a debate: mouthing off for your opponent?
 
Welcome to Britain...

Britain still has a state church. Meddling is to be expected.

And any country that seriously considers banning pint glasses because they might be used as weapons is a terrible example to use when talking about absolutely anything pertaining to sound government.

Is it a traditional American way of holding a debate: mouthing off for your opponent?

No, but when you make a stupid argument, in any country, you should expect to be ridiculed for it. When you whine about being ridiculed for making a stupid argument, you should expect to be ridiculed further. You made a stupid argument and then whined about being ridiculed for it. How long this continues is in your own hands now.
 
Last edited:
LOL, when are you gay marriage advocates going to realize that normal people don't think like you? When the most liberal state in the union shot it down last year, you should have taken your hint and cut your losses.

I do not think it is a matter of people liking or disliking gays. Its a matter of wanting marriage to remain exclusively between one man and one woman.
 
That is the problem. "An ancient institution" needs not to be changed at all. Churches and preachers can deny marrying gay people all they want, as it is a religious thing. If the gays want to get married in a church.. start your own church or find a preacher/church that is open to such things!

Now the legal aspect of marriage is not a religious thing. This has to do with taxes, inheritance and so on and that is all civilian law... heck even marriage is that these days too.. you need a licence for example and can skip the whole church thing if you want.

But the debate in the US (like it was in Europe) has been hijacked by especially the radical religious right and together with the radical gay movement, it has turned into something that it, it is in reality not.
Strictly speaking, the "religious right" cannot, by definition, be radical.
 
I don't believe that gays being allowed to marry will impact me, at all. That's why I have a libertarian stance on the matter. The only people who DO seem to care about it a great deal seem to spend a significant amount of their time fixated on anuses. I find that rather creepy. :shrug:

Once again, it's not "the only people", this is the biggest mistake given concerning this issue. It's always assumed it's some minority closed minded constituency that defeats same sex marriage initiatives. It's actually the overwhelming number of voters in nearly every state same sex marriage gets defeated in. Even states such as California where such high turnout during Presidential elections occur and where a cross section of America lives easily and handily defeats same sex marriage.

Your "creeped" out feeling should actually be turned inward. In other words, those that support same sex marriage are actually in the minority, on the fringe, and happen to be the ones who actually fixate on anuses. In fact when two men or two women are denied marriage licenses in any of these states, orientation isn't even mentioned, any State doesn't deny the license on the basis you're gay or straight, you're disqualified for gender. It's the gay community that makes it about "gay" marriage, it's important to remember the vast number of Americans have figured this out. They realize it's a political acceptance attempt, the vast majority know it's not about marriage
 
Last edited:
I do not think it is a matter of people liking or disliking gays. Its a matter of wanting marriage to remain exclusively between one man and one woman.

Which is to say, believing that only heterosexuals are fit to raise children and that only heterosexuals deserve to be able to legally designate their next of kin. That sounds very suspiciously like having a serious dislike of people who are not heterosexuals, especially when all available scientific evidence contradicts the first point.
 
I belive I already answered that. If they do not represent the majority of the society of your country, the society has the right to decide what to do about them. What is your point?

You're mistaken. We don't have a pure democracy here. We don't rule by majority. We have a constitutional republic, which means that the rights of the minority, even hate-mongering Islamic creeps, are protected. That makes us different from those who rule by mob.
 
In other words, those that support same sex marriage are actually in the minority, on the fringe, and happen to be the ones who actually fixate on anuses.

Forty-seven percent may be a minority, but it is far from a "fringe" and it isn't the people who support gay marriage-- the vast majority being heterosexual-- who are making utterly irrelevant, distasteful and frankly moronic arguments concerning other peoples' sexual organs and practices. They are not the ones who don't seem to understand that marriage is a matter of family law that has very little to do with sex.

No, they're the ones who think it has something to do with equality, which is an entirely separate and irritating argument in its own right.
 
Marriage is not now and has never been a "basic human right" and Loving v. Virginia did not make it so. It ruled, very specifically, that marriage could not be denied to otherwise legal applicants on the basis of race.

Because the court concluded that marriage is a basic human right. That was the entire foundation of the "Loving" decision.
 
Which is to say, believing that only heterosexuals are fit to raise children and that only heterosexuals deserve to be able to legally designate their next of kin. That sounds very suspiciously like having a serious dislike of people who are not heterosexuals, especially when all available scientific evidence contradicts the first point.

So those who disprove of polygamous marriages dislike traditional Mormons or any other group of people who engage in polygamous marriages? I seriously doubt most of the 47% of voters in Maine would vote to legalize polygamist marriages.Someone disapproves of single people being able to adopt kids so that must mean they hate single people or someone disapproves on non-seniors getting a seniors discount then that person must dislike people under 60?
 
I just dont get it to be honest.

On one hand the US prides it self on freedom, liberty, equal rights and so on, and with the other hand it denies the very same thing to a minority of its population...

I guess soon we will see segregation laws proposed again in some states..

Soon??

They're called domestic partnership laws. Separate but (not really) equal.

I am more optimistic than most about the CA case working it's way through the federal courts. I think it was Scalia who acknowledged that same-sex marriage and gay rights would have strong case if it were an equal protection issue.
 
That is the problem. "An ancient institution" needs not to be changed at all. Churches and preachers can deny marrying gay people all they want, as it is a religious thing. If the gays want to get married in a church.. start your own church or find a preacher/church that is open to such things!

Now the legal aspect of marriage is not a religious thing. This has to do with taxes, inheritance and so on and that is all civilian law... heck even marriage is that these days too.. you need a licence for example and can skip the whole church thing if you want.

But the debate in the US (like it was in Europe) has been hijacked by especially the radical religious right and together with the radical gay movement, it has turned into something that it, it is in reality not.
exactly. thanks.
 
So, in your opinion its the people who exist to service a state: government institutions and officials (government, courts, police, army) who should empose their will on the said public by means of laws that do not represent the interests of the majority of the society? Is that so? Is that what America is about? Where is democracy coming into play?

Like I said Elena....you need to take some basic American Civics lessons.
The United States is not a pure democracy. If so, everything would be put to a simple majority vote. The foundation of our government, specifically the Constitution is that there are core aspects of our society that should not be put to a simple majority vote. The Constitution exists to protect the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority, which is why a Constitutional amendment requires a 2/3's vote.
Sadly, many states lag behind and allow basic human rights to be put to a simple majority vote. That is very sad to see in America today.
 
So those who disprove of polygamous marriages dislike traditional Mormons or any other group of people who engage in polygamous marriages?

Prohibiting polygamy does not prevent Mormons from marrying, nor does it deny their children the social and economic benefits of being raised within a household that is secured by the bonds of matrimony. And, as much as I personally support polygamy, the arguments against it are more sound than the arguments against gay marriage and there is no scientific evidence to contradict them.

Someone disapproves of single people being able to adopt kids so that must mean they hate single people...

One of the primary purposes of marriage is to facilitate raising children. Denying adoption to people who are not legally married makes sense and is supported by scientific evidence that demonstrates that children raised in single parent households are at a distinct disadvantage compared to children raised by married couples, and it does not prevent those single people from getting married and adopting children later when they are married.

... or someone disapproves on non-seniors getting a seniors discount then that person must dislike people under 60?

The fact that you would even compare the institution of marriage to something as trivial as a senior citizens' discount suggests to me that you do not take the institution seriously enough for your opinion on it to be worthy of consideration. That's almost as bad as all the libertarians whose "solution" to the argument is to abolish legal marriage and the entire canon of law pertaining to it entirely.
 
Because the court concluded that marriage is a basic human right. That was the entire foundation of the "Loving" decision.

You ignored the rest of my post.

Can you please explain how marriage can be a "basic human right" when it is routinely denied on all of the grounds I listed in the post you are replying to?
 
Do I have to answer your little "I don't know what objection I can come up with, so I will just pretend to be slow on the uptake"?


Am I? Thank you, o, Septic Peg, for clarifying it for me!
default.jpg


Is it a traditional American way of holding a debate: mouthing off for your opponent?

You're the only one being rude here, Elena. You need to reel it in.


I voted NO which is to say I voted YES for allowing gay marriage.

And I wonder how many people did not vote as they wished to simply because the question was worded confusingly. Intentionally, I am sure.

Also, ads were all over the T.V. trying to persuade people that their kids were going to be taught deviant things from kindergarten, onward if the law remained intact. I say Hurray for Mainers that so many people saw their way through the morass of misinformation and came out 47% for tolerance.

Those questions are always worded terribly.

As far as the ads go, I saw equal amounts on both sides. I got equal amount of recorded phone messages, too.
 
You ignored the rest of my post.

Can you please explain how marriage can be a "basic human right" when it is routinely denied on all of the grounds I listed in the post you are replying to?

Basic human rights are not without limits under the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. It simply requires the government to establish either a legitimate, important or compelling state interest in the limitation. Not every limitation is treated exactly the same, it depends on the nature of the right and the limitation that is sought to be imposed.
 
Just goes to show no one can legislate loves and hatreds. Gays are repulsive no matter how who says or does what. Women dressing like men and men in little dresses is vulgar in every direction. The very fact (FACT) that they are biologically and mentally screwed has to serve to keep them separate from the normal humans all over the world. Homosexuality is punishible by death in many countries and justifyably so.
 
Just goes to show no one can legislate loves and hatreds. Gays are repulsive no matter how who says or does what. Women dressing like men and men in little dresses is vulgar in every direction. The very fact (FACT) that they are biologically and mentally screwed has to serve to keep them separate from the normal humans all over the world. Homosexuality is punishible by death in many countries and justifyably so.

Is this a sad attempt at satire?
 
Just goes to show no one can legislate loves and hatreds. Gays are repulsive no matter how who says or does what. Women dressing like men and men in little dresses is vulgar in every direction. The very fact (FACT) that they are biologically and mentally screwed has to serve to keep them separate from the normal humans all over the world. Homosexuality is punishible by death in many countries and justifyably so.


Wow, just wow. :shock: Let me make it clear, I am not associated with these comments in any way due to both of us being self proclaimed conservatives.


j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom