• 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

WTF are you even talking about. This was in no way what Catz was talking about.


Catz was telling me that in your country the will of majority and minority is held equal. I found it grotesquely funny, hence my illustration.
 
Catz was telling me that in your country the will of majority and minority is held equal. I found it grotesquely funny, hence my illustration.

That's because you didn't understand. The rights of the majority and the rights of the minority are held equal.
 
Injustice is in the eye of the beholder...............

Injustice is in the suppression of exercise of rights. It's an absolute scale on this one.
 
That's because you didn't understand. The rights of the majority and the rights of the minority are held equal.

And you don't understand how we settle issues in this country when a small minority try and take over...........
 
Sometimes a candidate with a plurality vote wins. (Not a majority.)

I am not American... Let's see, "plurality" -- The number by which the vote of the winning choice in such a contest exceeds that of the closest opponent.

Nope, still a majority.
 
And you don't understand how we settle issues in this country when a small minority try and take over...........

First off, it's not a small minority. This is almost 50/50 + noise. Second, you don't understand the fundamentals of this country. We establish the free exercise of the rights of the People, all the People. The system was set up not to be direct democracy (as that is mob rule), but rather a democratic Republic in which we have checks to ensure the rights of the minority are not trampled. If you wish to move against the rights of the minority, you are in the wrong, you are practicing evil.
 
It has happened before like in the case of Loving vs Virginia.

I've already shown you that Loving has no bearing on same sex marriage according to the New York Court of Appeals.
 
I am not American... Let's see, "plurality" -- The number by which the vote of the winning choice in such a contest exceeds that of the closest opponent.

Nope, still a majority.

49% to 45% say (like similar to the NY election) is plurality without majority.
 
Was it your expression of humour??? Sorry to hear it...

Okay, so maybe you don't have a sense of humor. *yawn*

You are a very angry woman.
 
49% to 45% say (like similar to the NY election) is plurality without majority.

You can call it a shoe box if you want, but 49 is still bigger than 45.
 
You can call it a shoe box if you want, but 49 is still bigger than 45.

Of course it is. Do you read and comprehend things which are put down on this site. The question was difference between majority and plurality. Plurality does not necessarily mean majority.
 
That's because you didn't understand. The rights of the majority and the rights of the minority are held equal.

Then why, expressed by voting the rights of majority prevail?
 
I am not American... Let's see, "plurality" -- The number by which the vote of the winning choice in such a contest exceeds that of the closest opponent.

Nope, still a majority.

Majority means they got one vote over 50% of votes. Plurality could be any percentage, depending upon the number of candidates. For example, the minimum percentage for a plurality with ten candidates would be one vote over 10%.

I've already shown you that Loving has no bearing on same sex marriage according to the New York Court of Appeals.

And the law has no bearing on right and wrong. The fact that judges do not recognize the analogy between miscegenation and SSM does not make it false.
 
I've already shown you that Loving has no bearing on same sex marriage according to the New York Court of Appeals.

1. Ill wait fot the SCOTUS to rule.

2. NP said sue the goverment and I pointed out people had and won.
 
Catz was telling me that in your country the will of majority and minority is held equal. I found it grotesquely funny, hence my illustration.

Do you have an understanding as to how and why the Senate was created to have the same number of representatives from each state no matter how many people populate the state?
 
And if the will of the people were to vote your 2nd amendment rights away? Marriage is a right too.
Ah! You have yet -another- chance to counter this argument:

Marriage is a legal status created by the state, and, as such, is necessarily a privilege conferred by the state, not a right.

Dont worry -- I have no doubt that you will continue to dodge this argument.
 
Then why, expressed by voting the rights of majority prevail?

The rights of the majority don't prevail over the rights of the minority. The rights of the majority are equal to the rights of the minority. The wishes of the majority prevail so long as those wishes do not infringe upon the rights of the minority.
 
I've already shown you that Loving has no bearing on same sex marriage according to the New York Court of Appeals.

Yes. That is a valid statement. According to that court.
 
FWIW I just heard anywhere from 53-60% of registered voters turned out in Maine yesterday. No doubt this issue brought them.
 
Back
Top Bottom