Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

Elena · Nov 4, 2009

Ikari said:
Whew, it's impossible to get the point across. "

So what it's going to be, "both" as you said, or "plurality" as others say? :lol:

Scorpion89 · Nov 4, 2009

Elena said:
What declaration by Southern states preceded the war?

Well there is a very long list but off the top of my head here are just a few, Wilmot Proviso, Kansas-Nebraska Act, Fugitive Slave Act,Lecompton Constitution,Ostend Manifesto and the 1860 Election leading to seven Southern States declairing session from the USA

Elena said:
When slavery was abolished in the US?

As already posted else where in this thread Slavery in the North for the most part had already been outlawed but you seem to have missed that part. As for when Slavery was abolished well that would be Sept. 22 1862 then in 1865 the 13th Adm was passed but it wasn't till the 14th Adm being passed in 1868 then Slavery was officially dead in the United States

Elena said:
When did the war begin, and when did it end?

Well if you want the actual shooting War then you have to say Nov. 22 1855 when the Wakarusa War Started the first Confederate shots were fired April 12 1861 at Fort Sumter the War officially was over in on Nov. 6 1865 when the Confederate ship CSS Shenandoah surrender in Liverpool England.

So do you still want to discuss the US Civil War or you ready to admit that you really have no clue about the US Civil War.

Elena · Nov 4, 2009

Scorpion89 said:
the 1860 Election leading to seven Southern States declairing session from the USA

As for when Slavery was abolished well that would be Sept. 22 1862 then in 1865 the 13th Adm was passed but it wasn't till the 14th Adm being passed in 1868 then Slavery was officially dead in the United States

the first Confederate shots were fired April 12 1861 at Fort Sumter the War officially was over in on Nov. 6 1865 when the Confederate ship CSS Shenandoah surrender in Liverpool England.

So do you still want to discuss the US Civil War or you ready to admit that you really have no clue about the US Civil War.

No, because you already said it all:

in 1860 Southern States declaired session from the Union;
in 1861 the war begun;
as for slavery, it existed way into after the war.

If freeing slaves was really an issue what was stopping the North to abolish it prior to the war?

scourge99 · Nov 4, 2009

****, Just lost my whole reply because the idiot blackberry designers thought putting the back and delete key on the same button was a smart idea.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Then there's no problem with them simply being married.

No, no problem. Except its not legally recognized. That requires passing a law.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Yes, it's called making same sex marriage legal.

I agree. Get it passed as law in your state.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Really, why not? It's not like you have to get married if you don't want to.

Personally I don't think anyone but those with dependents should get tax benefits.
Also, I think gays should have the expediant government process of marriage that heteros get. I've voted for it everytime its come up.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
But if it's offered to one group, but not another, it's discriminatory and hence probably in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Please cite the clause it is in violation of then. There is no violation.

Discrimination is legal. We do it for many laws: medicare, social security, drinking age, tax bracket, citizenship, etc.

Scorpion89 · Nov 4, 2009

Elena said:
No, because you already said it all:

in 1860 Southern States declaired session from the Union;
in 1861 the war begun;
as for slavery, it existed way into after the war.

If freeing slaves was really an issue what was stopping the North to abolish it prior to the war?

See here is the problem it's not that simple all of item went into the Civil War do you know any History of the Civil War I'm not trying to be arse I 'm trying to understand your background.

Yes in 1860 Seven Southern State declaired session but that was far from the start of it all, you have to go back and understand the dynamics of the makeup of the USA during that time period. All the items I listed had some sort of direct effect on what happen in the 1860 Elections.

No the War actually started in 1855 once again you lack of knowledge on the subject is showing.

The North did abolish Slavery in the North but you do understand we have a Federal Govn. which choice not to Abolish Slavery, see there is this thing called the 10th adm. which the Northern State's used to created there own Slave Laws hence why they got around Federal Laws.

So I ask again do you really want to discuss the US Civil War if so I suggest you bone up on the subject before we start.

Elena · Nov 4, 2009

I still didn't get answers to my question "Does the expression "plurality of people" exist?"

Well, it doesn't. Why? Because a term "plurality" can not be used outside of describing particulars of your voting system. As I pointed out right at the start of our argument, you use the words "majority" and "plurality" as terminology tied to your voting system. I use these words in their common definition. And in common definition both of them mean "greater number".

Elena · Nov 4, 2009

Scorpion89 said:
See here is the problem it's not that simple all of item went into the Civil War do you know any History of the Civil War I'm not trying to be arse I 'm trying to understand your background.

The North did abolish Slavery in the North but you do understand we have a Federal Govn. which choice not to Abolish Slavery, see there is this thing called the 10th adm. which the Northern State's used to created there own Slave Laws hence why they got around Federal Laws.

I understand that civil wars are never simple; I also understand that skimershes were common well before the war actually begun...

"The North did abolish slavery, but not really, because in fact it was abolished years after the war, all because a Federal Govn. and Federal Laws, etc., etc.," THE NORTH MADE DESCISION TO GO TO WAR for the sake of abolition of slavery, but it could not make a descision to change few laws (on its own territories!!!) that at that time were very new as was the country itself??!! Please, don't.

But when I hear that your civil war was about noble agenda of freeing the slaves, I feel compelled to ask why didn't the North abolish slavery until after the war, if that was the reason it started the war in the first place?

Elena · Nov 4, 2009

When politically correct brigade comes across rejection of their dogmas, all Ikaris, apses, Catzes and hazlnuts mob together; and when they run out of arguments (about the third page of this thread) they resort to personal attacks – the lowest of the low techniques in order to win an argument (so common among politicos).

Catz, you were jumping out of your skirt calling to protect peoples rights and spread democracy in Iran, yet you would not recognise democracy if it came and hit you on a head! Democracy is based on principles of freedom: freedom to have and express one’s opinion; freedom to disagree; freedom to defend your views by means of voting. But when you are faced with people rejecting politically correct dogmas you adhere to, you and the likes of you howl on every corner of “injustices” and the “bigotry” of your opponents.

If you are so democratic, why do you deny the right of those who oppose your views to do so and to win in a fair democratic vote? Is it the case, that politically correct gestapo recognises and promotes democracy only when it supports politically correct agenda?

You lot eroded the very principles of what you profess to hold dear – democratic freedoms. Pathetic.

Harshaw · Nov 4, 2009

Actual "freedom" means there are things which no majority can vote to deny you.

jackalope · Nov 4, 2009

Elena said:
I still didn't get answers to my question "Does the expression "plurality of people" exist?"

Well, it doesn't. Why? Because a term "plurality" can not be used outside of describing particulars of your voting system. As I pointed out right at the start of our argument, you use the words "majority" and "plurality" as terminology tied to your voting system. I use these words in their common definition. And in common definition both of them mean "greater number".

Of course the expression "plurality of the people" exists. A google search brings up over 12 million hits. As to the rest ...

What you said:

Elena said:
So, who wins in the end: a candidate with the MAJORITY vote, or the one with the MINORITY vote?

jackalope said:
Sometimes a candidate with a plurality vote wins. (Not a majority.)

You then proceeded to march thru pages of silliness, failing to provide a link to your definition page (even after being asked four? times). Please provide your link. I'm confident even your own source will prove you wrong.

A plurality can exist without a majority existing. It's quite simple.

As to the conversation that preceeded it, Ikari was absolutely right. Minority rights are not less than majority rights. They are equal. There have been occasions in our history where minority rights have been trampled, you can find them by finding cases where the Supreme Court has overturned itself. However, those cases represent wrongs righted, they do not mean that minority rights are not equal to majority rights.

As someone said, majority wishes prevail; unless they trample on minority rights.

jackalope · Nov 4, 2009

Elena said:
When politically correct brigade comes across rejection of their dogmas, all Ikaris, apses, Catzes and hazlnuts mob together; and when they run out of arguments (about the third page of this thread) they resort to personal attacks – the lowest of the low techniques in order to win an argument (so common among politicos).

The people you cited have very little in common, politically. Perhaps what it means is you're arguments were profoundly unpersuasive.

Elena · Nov 4, 2009

jackalope said:
What you said:

As someone said, majority wishes prevail; unless they trample on minority rights.

As I said, a term "plurality" can not be used outside of describing particulars of your voting system. As I pointed out right at the start of our argument, you use the words "majority" and "plurality" as terminology tied to your voting system. I use these words in their common definition. And in common definition both of them mean "greater number".

And did majority wishes in this case trample on minority rights or minority wishes?

jackalope · Nov 4, 2009

Elena said:
As I said, a term "plurality" can not be used outside of describing particulars of your voting system. As I pointed out right at the start of our argument, you use the words "majority" and "plurality" as terminology tied to your voting system. I use these words in their common definition. And in common definition both of them mean "greater number".

And did majority wishes in this case trample on minority rights or minority wishes?

You are not correct. Will you now provide the link you used for your definition, so even your own source will prove you incorrect?

Elena · Nov 4, 2009

jackalope said:
The people you cited have very little in common, politically. .

The people I cited have one thing in common: adherence to political correct dogmas and rejection of any opinion otside of it. It's enough.

Elena · Nov 4, 2009

jackalope said:
You are not correct. Will you now provide the link you used for your definition, so even your own source will prove you incorrect?

Have you got fingers? Have you got a keyboard?

Type in "majority definition of", then "plurality definition of", choose from the options available and read.

jackalope · Nov 4, 2009

Elena said:
Have you got fingers? Have you got a keyboard?

Type in "majority definition of", then "plurality definition of", choose from the options available and read.

I want YOUR source. Link, please?

jackalope · Nov 4, 2009

Elena said:
The people I cited have one thing in common: adherence to political correct dogmas and rejection of any opinion otside of it. It's enough.

They do not have that in common.

Scarecrow Akhbar · Nov 4, 2009

scourge99 said:
****, Just lost my whole reply because the idiot blackberry designers thought putting the back and delete key on the same button was a smart idea.

No, no problem. Except its not legally recognized. That requires passing a law.

Yes, I said "married", not "cohabiting".

I used the word correctly.

scourge99 said:
I agree. Get it passed as law in your state.

Works for me.

Then the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will make it legal in your state.

scourge99 said:
Personally I don't think anyone but those with dependents should get tax benefits.

Personally, I don't a person should be penalized for not being married, regardless of how many offspring they can claim.

scourge99 said:
Also, I think gays should have the expediant government process of marriage that heteros get. I've voted for it everytime its come up.

Yep, IMO it's more important for this issue to be passed and done away with so the politicians will no longer have this false issue to wave when they want to hide something else.

scourge99 said:
Please cite the clause it is in violation of then. There is no violation.

I"m glad I used the word probably, because I haven't read that law in years, and could easily be wrong. I'll let you have that point, because I'm not going to torture myself reading it again.

It is a violation of the American sense of fair play, though, and clearly also violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

scourge99 said:
Discrimination is legal. We do it for many laws: medicare, social security, drinking age, tax bracket, citizenship, etc.

Age based eligibilities are one thing, there are rational arguments for each of the items on that list.

There are no rational arguments in opposition to same sex marriage.

Not one.

Scorpion89 · Nov 4, 2009

Elena said:
And did majority wishes in this case trample on minority rights or minority wishes?

Here let me answer this for you in reguards to the OP no what happen was the citz. of the State of Maine once again got tired of the Jack-Offs who were elected passing stuff with-out ask what the Citz. of Maine thought, hence you had it put on the ballet and the Citz. of Maine used their 1st Adm. Right to freely decide this matter.

Now do you understand that if not then your a lost cause.

Elena · Nov 4, 2009

jackalope said:
I want YOUR source. Link, please?

plurality - Definition of plurality at YourDictionary.com

plu·ral·ity (plo̵o ral′ə tē)

noun pl. pluralities -·ties

1. the condition of being plural or numerous
2. a great number; multitude
3. the holding of two or more church benefices at the same time
any of the benefices so held
4. ☆ the number of votes in an election that the leading candidate obtains over the next highest candidate if candidate A gets 65 votes, B gets 40, and C gets 35, then A has a plurality of 25
5. majority (sense )

plurality - definition of plurality by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

plu·ral·i·ty (pl-rl-t)
n. pl. plu·ral·i·ties
1. The state or fact of being plural.
2. A large number or amount; a multitude.
3. Ecclesiastical
a. Pluralism.
b. The offices or benefices held by a pluralist.
4.
a. In a contest of more than two choices, the number of votes cast for the winning choice if this number is not more than one half of the total votes cast.
b. The number by which the vote of the winning choice in such a contest exceeds that of the closest opponent.
5. The larger or greater part.

jackalope · Nov 4, 2009

Thankyou. Those definitions for plurality prove you wrong. Where is your definition for majority, and why did you not provide the link for the definitions you first used:

Elena said:
Majority --
1. The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total.
2. The amount by which the greater number of votes cast, as in an election, exceeds the total number of remaining votes.

Plurality --
A large number or amount; a multitude
The number by which the vote of the winning choice in such a contest exceeds that of the closest opponent.

Note that it does not specify by how many % or points, etc. it should be bigger; it simply says "greater", "more than half", "exceeds"...

Please provide a link for this copy/paste, as not sourcing copy/pastes is plagiarism.

Scorpion89 · Nov 4, 2009

Elena said:
I understand that civil wars are never simple; I also understand that skimershes were common well before the war actually begun...

"The North did abolish slavery, but not really, because in fact it was abolished years after the war, all because a Federal Govn. and Federal Laws, etc., etc.," THE NORTH MADE DESCISION TO GO TO WAR for the sake of abolition of slavery, but it could not make a descision to change few laws (on its own territories!!!) that at that time were very new as was the country itself??!! Please, don't.

But when I hear that your civil war was about noble agenda of freeing the slaves, I feel compelled to ask why didn't the North abolish slavery until after the war, if that was the reason it started the war in the first place?

First off just stop now you don't know anything about the subject alright can you at least admit that. Because if you knew anything about the US Civil War you would know that the NORTH DIDN'T START THE WAR , the first shot's were fired by General Pierre G.T. Beauregard commander of the South Carolina Brigade.

As for the rest of your post I have already answer your Question on why the North couldn't just free the slaves. Also the Civil War wasn't just fought over Slavery there were many reason behind I suggest you go and try to learn some of the History behind the US Civil War before trying to discuss it any futher.

Elena · Nov 4, 2009

jackalope said:
Thankyou. Those definitions for plurality prove you wrong. .

They sure do!

Let me repeat them for you:

plurality - Definition of plurality at YourDictionary.com[/url]

plu·ral·ity (plo̵o ral′ə tē)

noun pl. pluralities -·ties

1. the condition of being plural or numerous
2. a great number; multitude
3. the holding of two or more church benefices at the same time
any of the benefices so held
4. ☆ the number of votes in an election that the leading candidate obtains over the next highest candidate if candidate A gets 65 votes, B gets 40, and C gets 35, then A has a plurality of 25

5. majority (sense )

plurality - definition of plurality by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

plu·ral·i·ty (pl-rl-t)
n. pl. plu·ral·i·ties
1. The state or fact of being plural.
2. A large number or amount; a multitude.
3. Ecclesiastical
a. Pluralism.
b. The offices or benefices held by a pluralist.
4.
a. In a contest of more than two choices, the number of votes cast for the winning choice if this number is not more than one half of the total votes cast.
b. The number by which the vote of the winning choice in such a contest exceeds that of the closest opponent.
5. The larger or greater part.[/QUOTE]

Number "4" gives the definition as a term; while number "5" gives a definition of "plurality" as majority.

If you can't see it, I am not your oculist.

jackalope · Nov 4, 2009

Elena said:
They sure do!

Let me repeat them for you:

I didn't ask for a repeat, I asked for your source for the definition of majority you provided. Further, you have not provided any definition for majority in your repeat :lol:.

Last, do the math in your definition example. In the case of voting, which is the context in which you used the word, a minority candidate who wins a plurality can be the winner.

I'm just wondering what, actually, it will take, for you to concede error. I'm thinking nothing

Pretty much a perfect example of a hack.

jackalope · Nov 4, 2009

Scorpion89 said:
First off just stop now you don't know anything about the subject alright can you at least admit that. Because if you knew anything about the US Civil War you would know that the NORTH DIDN'T START THE WAR , the first shot's were fired by General Pierre G.T. Beauregard commander of the South Carolina Brigade.

As for the rest of your post I have already answer your Question on why the North couldn't just free the slaves. Also the Civil War wasn't just fought over Slavery there were many reason behind I suggest you go and try to learn some of the History behind the US Civil War before trying to discuss it any futher.

I'm thinking neither history, nor definitions, nor math, are the forte of the poster in question :rofl

Maine voters repeal gay-marriage law

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot