• 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

Catz Part Deux said:
So, in elena world, the rights of the minority do not matter?
Click to expand...

Who said they don't matter? They do. But they are not held superior.

And if in your world the rights of minority take precedence, how can you explain that during your elections a candidate with the MAJORITY vote wins? Ever heard the word "logic"? Know what it means? Or is it back to the same: democracy is good when it supports agenda you aprove of?
 
CriticalThought said:
The demographics are on the same sex marriage side, and if the proponents are patient and vigilant, then they will succeed.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced nor are many that this is a civil rights issue.

you just know the intelligence level just isn't there yet in this country to win by reason.
Click to expand...

Next thing you know some no name from a corrupt political machine will spit a candidate out and some cute cliche like hope and change will see some lunatic win the Oval Office, a lunatic no one knows anything about.

So, I might agree the intelligence level may not be present in order to win by reason. BTW, who did you vote for in the 08 Presidential election, CT?

Watch this, this should be good.
 
Charles Martel said:
Those issues that should be defined by society are thus defined, many observers feel same sex marriage is a basic human right, the vast majority disagree.
Click to expand...

Words have meanings. In what hypothetical universe is 53% a "vast majority?"

The English language never did anything to you, to justify you abusing it in such fashion.
 
jackalope said:
No, also by legislatures.
Click to expand...

Activist legislators that will soon find themselves without a job if they keep going against the will of the people who elected them..............
 
Navy Pride said:
Activist legislators that will soon find themselves without a job if they keep going against the will of the people who elected them..............
Click to expand...

Part of the reason for the judiciary was to ensure the legislature and executive, which is to be more closely responsible to the People, act within the rights and liberties of the People on the whole. The "activist judge" thing, while some definitely have overreached has become a dismissive term used by people when a judge rules against their own ideals. However, if laws (no matter how popularly supported by the People) act against the rights and liberties of the individual it is the duty and power of the courts to strike down the laws. The majority isn't always to get its way. It may have its way so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of the minority.

And activist legislators is a new one to me. I thought they were supposed to....legislate.
 
Last edited:
Elena said:
how can you explain that during your elections a candidate with the MAJORITY vote wins
Click to expand...

Because that is part of our constitutional republic, we utilize the concept of representational democracy. Candidates are elected to represent the whole. However, those candidates have strictly defined roles. Their actions can be overturned by processes within our constitution, i.e., the veto of the president and/or an action by our supreme courts. Those decisions do not occur on the basis of majority rule, per se.

It's funny how you like to postulate about our system when it is clear you really don't understand how it operates.
 
Navy Pride said:
Activist legislators that will soon find themselves without a job if they keep going against the will of the people who elected them..............
Click to expand...

'Activist' legislatures? It is the job of the legislature to legislate.
 
Ikari said:
Part of the reason for the judiciary was to ensure the legislature and executive, which is to be more closely responsible to the People, act within the rights and liberties of the People on the whole. The "activist judge" thing, while some definitely have overreached has become a dismissive term used by people when a judge rules against their own ideals. However, if laws (no matter how popularly supported by the People) act against the rights and liberties of the individual it is the duty and power of the courts to strike down the laws. The majority isn't always to get its way. It may have its way so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of the minority.
Click to expand...

And it hasn't in this case...........

Bottom line in state after state the people have spoken and they want no part of gay marriage.........
 
jackalope said:
'Activist' legislatures? It is the job of the legislature to legislate.
Click to expand...

and to do the will of the people............Gay Marriage is NOT the will of the people...........
 
Navy Pride said:
And it hasn't in this case...........

Bottom line in state after state the people have spoken and they want no part of gay marriage.........
Click to expand...

Marriage is a state granted and recognized contract. Preventing two people from engaging in it (as it has several legal ramifications) infringes upon their right to contract.
 
aps said:
Oh gosh. I am heartbroken and pissed about this. I really hoped this would not be repealed.
Click to expand...
You have a history of being pissed when the will of the people doesnt go your way. I guess Democracy is a one-way street for you.
 
PeteEU said:
I guess soon we will see segregation laws proposed again in some states..
Click to expand...
Wow. Talk about a bigoted non-sequitur...
 
Catz Part Deux said:
No, they are held as EQUAL to the rights of the majority.
Click to expand...

Really?! Can I have a bit of what you are on?


Then why do you even bother to identify "majority" and "minority"? Why not take ALL your candidates for presidency and just make them all presidents? Imagine the bliss!

If you are right, can I come into your country and make you all to burn your Bibles and turn to Islam, not because you want to, but because I want it to be so? I will be in minority of one, surely my right to make you do so will be equal to the right of all of you not to do it? Wait, hold on a minute, if my right cancels your right, then who wins? Are you or are you not going to turn into Muslims? Because if you do, then MY right will be superior to yours, if you will not, then YOUR right will be superior to mine, -- either way, they will not be held equal.
 
Charles Martel said:
I'm not convinced nor are many that this is a civil rights issue.
Click to expand...

It became a civil rights issue in Maine the moment that Maine's legislative body created the statute that gave same sex couples the right to marry in that state. By definition, it is a civil right. What definition of civil right could you possibly be going by in which a legal guarantee by a state proposed to provide equal protection to a minority is not considered a civil right?

BTW, who did you vote for in the 08 Presidential election, CT?

Watch this, this should be good.
Click to expand...

While who I voted for has absolutely no relevance to the arguments I presented, and amounts to little more than an ad hominem attack on your part that proves my point about the intelligence level of this country, I'll inform you that I chose not to vote since none of the candidates represented my interests.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
You have a history of being pissed when the will of the people doesnt go your way. I guess Democracy is a one-way street for you.
Click to expand...

And if the will of the people were to vote your 2nd amendment rights away? Marriage is a right too.
 
Elena said:
a) Anal intercourse as well as w-on-w has nothing to do with logic, freedom or liberty;

b) the opposition to shoving "gayness" into everyone's face has nothing to do with religious bigotry;

c) And look what good politically correct promotion of "gayness" done to European societies: let's face it, Europe is going down the same road erosion of all moral principles and preoccupation with perversions took Ancient Rome;

d) Public cowardice before political correct gestapo is not a triumph of liberty.

And let's be clear on one thing: gay activism is not interested in EQUALITY. They are interested in PRIVILEGES. Why do I know it? Because no one has to even know who is or isn't gay. Sexual life of any individual is a private matter, unless that individual wants to flaunt it before everyone demanding everyone's approval, and when people object, use it as an excuse to claim victimhood and (in some cases) a compensation.
Click to expand...
:yawn::fart:fart:fart
 
Elena said:
Really?! Can I have a bit of what you are on?


Then why do you even bother to identify "majority" and "minority"? Why not take ALL your candidates for presidency and just make them all presidents? Imagine the bliss!

If you are right, can I come into your country and make you all to burn your Bibles and turn to Islam, not because you want to, but because I want it to be so? I will be in minority of one, surely my right to make you do so will be equal to the right of all of you not to do it? Wait, hold on a minute, if my right cancels your right, then who wins? Are you or are you not going to turn into Muslims? Because if you do, then MY right will be superior to yours, if you will not, then YOUR right will be superior to mine, -- either way, they will not be held equal.
Click to expand...

WTF are you even talking about. This was in no way what Catz was talking about.
 
PHP:
Ikari said:
Marriage is a state granted and recognized contract. Preventing two people from engaging in it (as it has several legal ramifications) infringes upon their right to contract.
Click to expand...


really the sue the government..........see how far you get.........

Your side lost again..........get over it.........
 
Navy Pride said:
PHP:


really the sue the government..........see how far you get.........

Your side lost again..........get over it.........
Click to expand...

Yay, let's cheer injustice. Pathetic.
 
Elena said:
So, who wins in the end: a candidate with the MAJORITY vote, or the one with the MINORITY vote?
Click to expand...

Sometimes a candidate with a plurality vote wins. (Not a majority.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom