• 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

jackalope said:
The difference was explained by Ikari many posts ago. Majority is one more than half. Perhaps your sticking point is in identifying what is the whole? The whole is all votes cast for a particular office or issue. Percents are whatever percent various candidates or positions get. If the winner with the most votes gets more than half, they've won a majority. If the winner with the most votes gets less than half, they've won a plurality.

Actually, I kind of think you do know the difference, b/c you've failed to provide your definition link, even after being asked twice. I think your link will explain to you why you're wrong, as well.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Ikari said:
49 is larger, but it's not greater than half since half is defined at 50.
Click to expand...

:roll:

50 what?

If %%, then any original number is 100%, half of that number will be your 50%.

If 4 is 100%, then 50% of it will be 2.

If 94% of total voters is 100% of those who voted, then 47% of 94% of total voters will be 50% of those who voted. And 49% of 94% of total voters would be bigger than 47% of 94% of total voters that formed 50% of those who voted.

:roll:
 
Charles Martel said:
Those are government contracts?
Click to expand...

They could be contracts. The right to contract isn't just limited to contract with the government. All contract is at some point legally recognized and binding. Which is why when contract is violated, you can take it to court.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Well hello Homophobe-- is this your first gay thread?

Gestapo? A nazi reference-- very good. Beck has taught you well.:roll:
 
Elena said:
So did your country have slavery when slavery was accepted by the majority of your country? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

What overturned slavery in the U.S., Elena? Just a tip...it wasn't a majority vote.
 
Ikari said:
They could be contracts. The right to contract isn't just limited to contract with the government. All contract is at some point legally recognized and binding. Which is why when contract is violated, you can take it to court.
Click to expand...

You mentioned government contracts, not me. You stated marriage is nothing but a government approved contract. I'm asking why I cannot enter into this contract with my sister.
 
Elena said:
:roll:

50 what?

If %%, then any original number is 100%, half of that number will be your 50%.

If 4 is 100%, then 50% of it will be 2.

If 94% of total voters is 100% of those who voted, then 47% of 94% of total voters will be 50% of those who voted. And 49% of 94% of total voters would be bigger than 47% of 94% of total voters that formed 50% of those who voted.

:roll:
Click to expand...

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.
 
Charles Martel said:
You mentioned government contracts, not me. You stated marriage is nothing but a government approved contract. I'm asking why I cannot enter into this contract with my sister.
Click to expand...

It is a government contract. States, however, have made incest illegal. At least in terms of being formally recognized. There are biological reasons for that related to reproduction. Those arguments don't exist for same sex marriage.
 
Elena said:
Precisely the point!

Then why do we have to be subjected to "Gay Pride" marches, gay awareness at schools or quotas for gay people at work?

If gays have a right to rub their gayness into our faces, then we have an equal right to oppose it.
Click to expand...

Do you feel the same way about people of color?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
No. She doesn't even understand representative democracy and the rule of law.

:doh
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you'd have success with someone with this level of ignorance towards fractions. The backtracking is astounding. And the irony is all the effort going into her trying not to look like a dumbass is having the opposite effect.
 
Ikari said:
It is a government contract. States, however, have made incest illegal. At least in terms of being formally recognized. There are biological reasons for that related to reproduction. Those arguments don't exist for same sex marriage.
Click to expand...

Excuse me.....the Defense of Marriage Act signed by Bill Clinton is a federal law.

And biological reasons did you say?

oops.
 
Elena said:
And the Earth is flat.
Click to expand...

I would not be surprised if you believed that. Flat, and created 6,000 years ago seems to be in the intellectual level you occupy.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
No. She doesn't even understand representative democracy and the rule of law.

:doh
Click to expand...

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.
 
Charles Martel said:
Excuse me.....the Defense of Marriage Act signed by Bill Clinton is a federal law.

And biological reasons did you say?

oops.
Click to expand...

The Defense of Marriage Act was a way to amend the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution without amending the Constitution. One could question the validity of it. And biological reasons yes, that was the original intent; biological reasons which do not exist for same sex couples. The essence is that this all became rather complicated when the Marriage License was first invented (it did not exist at the beginning, the Founders did not ask government's permission to be married). As long as the marriage license exists, denying same sex couples a marriage license is infringing upon their right to contract.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
One could question the validity of it. And biological reasons yes, that was the original intent; biological reasons which do not exist for same sex couples.
Click to expand...

"Biological reasons"...interesting, so you're not concerned with government intrusion as you agree biological reasons should be given for not allowing intrafamily marriages. Whay say I'm already in this government marriage contract with another, can I still marry?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
You want to believe that the U.S. is governed by majority rule, but it isn't.
Click to expand...

No, I don't. I know that the US is governed by corporate interests. But you pride yourselves on being a DEMOCRACY, which means -- rule of majority!

What you have done to the principles of the said democracy is your problem.
 
Elena said:
Are you telling me a person who will get 3% of votes will win against a person who will get 33% of votes?
Click to expand...

Are you telling me that legislation which receives 100% of the vote can't be overturned by the courts as unconstitutional?
 
Charles Martel said:
"Biological reasons"...interesting, so you're not concerned with government intrusion as you agree biological reasons should be given for not allowing intrafamily marriages. Whay say I'm already in this government marriage contract with another, can I still marry?
Click to expand...

You can question the biological reasons. 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. That argument does not exist for same sex couples. The marriage contract details estate (property) issues between two people. As for polygamy, I have nothing inherently against it. If you want to talk about it as sanctioned by the federal government; there precedent against it if you wish to evoke it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom