• 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

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.

O, looky!

"On March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as President. In his inaugural address, he argued that the Constitution was a more perfect union than the earlier Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, that it was a binding contract, and called any secession "legally void".[75] He stated he had no intent to invade Southern states, nor did he intend to end slavery where it existed, but that he would use force to maintain possession of federal property." (Wiki) :lol:

He DID NOT INTEND TO END SLAVERY! Brilliant!

"The South sent delegations to Washington and offered to pay for the federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United States. Lincoln rejected any negotiations with Confederate agents because the Confederacy was not a legitimate government, and that making any treaty with it would be tantamount to recognition of it as a sovereign government..."

And so the South decided to take what was on THEIR TERRITORY!

Yeah...
 
I didn't ask for a repeat, I asked for your source for the definition of majority you provided. .

It's in the same links I already gave you, all you need is to type in "majority" instead of "plurality", but since one dictionary stated plurality as "The larger or greater part", while the other explicitly stated definition of "plurality" as "majority", you have to be really slow not to recognise it.

And you have to be really out of touch with any sense of personal dignity to continue with your charade. :D

Bye!
 
It's in the same links I already gave you, all you need is to type in "majority" instead of "plurality", but since one dictionary stated plurality as "The larger or greater part", while the other explicitly stated definition of "plurality" as "majority", you have to be really slow not to recognise it.

And you have to be really out of touch with any sense of personal dignity to continue with your charade. :D

Bye!

heh .... funny. Since you're talking about VOTING .... definitions that apply to VOTING are operative.

Also, you never did link up that majority definition. I think it's because it was even worse for your position than the plurality ones you did link. (Also, why no link to the original plurality def? :lol: )
 
O, looky!

"On March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as President. In his inaugural address, he argued that the Constitution was a more perfect union than the earlier Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, that it was a binding contract, and called any secession "legally void".[75] He stated he had no intent to invade Southern states, nor did he intend to end slavery where it existed, but that he would use force to maintain possession of federal property." (Wiki) :lol:

He DID NOT INTEND TO END SLAVERY! Brilliant!

"The South sent delegations to Washington and offered to pay for the federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United States. Lincoln rejected any negotiations with Confederate agents because the Confederacy was not a legitimate government, and that making any treaty with it would be tantamount to recognition of it as a sovereign government..."

And so the South decided to take what was on THEIR TERRITORY!

Yeah...

Oh so you really want to go here then alright then go back to my very first post on the subject and lets talk about the Kansas-Nebraska act along with the Wilmot Proviso don't start on something you have no concept about and no Wikki will not help you. As I also stated Slavery was just one part of the reason the Civil War started what do you know of the 10th Adm.

Oh and the NORTH DIDN'T STARTED THE WAR have you read all of Mr. Lincoln address nothing like taking one line out of the whole address. See he nor Congress could end slavery what part of the of how the US Govn works that you don't understand so we and other can help you to understand why the North nor Mr Lincoln couldn't abolish Slavery.
 
it's in the same links i already gave you, all you need is to type in "majority" instead of "plurality", but since one dictionary stated plurality as "the larger or greater part", while the other explicitly stated definition of "plurality" as "majority", you have to be really slow not to recognise it.

And you have to be really out of touch with any sense of personal dignity to continue with your charade. :d

bye!

who give a flying **** the bottom line is the citz of maine voted as a majority to abolish this law end of the discussion.
 
Yes, I said "married", not "cohabiting".

I used the word correctly.
Marriage has a different legal definition depending upon your state.

Then the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will make it legal in your state
Explain how. Or is this another "probably", a.k.a., "guess"?

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

It is a violation of the American sense of fair play, though,
What section of the constitution is that under exactly?

and clearly also violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
If you are so certain then you can explain how.

Age based eligibilities are one thing, there are rational arguments for each of the items on that list.
So you admit that certain types of discrimination is legal and constitutional?
There are no rational arguments in opposition to same sex marriage.
I agree that there are no valid arguments against homosexuality and cohabitation of consenting adults. There are, however, valid arguments for granting child rearing couples additional benefits or privlidges.
 
Last edited:
Oh and the NORTH DIDN'T STARTED THE WAR have you read all of Mr. Lincoln address nothing like taking one line out of the whole address. See he nor Congress could end slavery what part of the of how the US Govn works that you don't understand so we and other can help you to understand why the North nor Mr Lincoln couldn't abolish Slavery.

:lamo

If they could not abolish it, how did they manage to abolish it in the end? Then again, at the time proceding the war didn't the president state he DID NOT INTEND TO END SLAVERY where it existed?

Give it up, Scorpion89, your "Our civil war was all about freeing slaves" is as much of a bullsh*t as is your "war on terror" and the "spreading of something you yourselves are lacking -- democracy"! All lies and clumsy attempts to beautify a simple greed: greed for the riches of the Southern states then, greed for the riches of independent countries now.
 
who give a flying **** the bottom line is the citz of maine voted as a majority to abolish this law end of the discussion.

But was it "majority" or "plurality"? Aparently, it is very important! Then again, regardless of "majority" or "plurality" isn't it bigotry to reject what is politically correct?
 
But was it "majority" or "plurality"? Aparently, it is very important! Then again, regardless of "majority" or "plurality" isn't it bigotry to reject what is politically correct?

It isn't a matter of being politically correct. It a simple matter of fairness and what IS right.

What is right about certain citizens believing that they are entitled to rights while denying those same rights to others?
 
:lamo

If they could not abolish it, how did they manage to abolish it in the end? Then again, at the time proceding the war didn't the president state he DID NOT INTEND TO END SLAVERY where it existed?

Give it up, Scorpion89, your "Our civil war was all about freeing slaves" is as much of a bullsh*t as is your "war on terror" and the "spreading of something you yourselves are lacking -- democracy"! All lies and clumsy attempts to beautify a simple greed: greed for the riches of the Southern states then, greed for the riches of independent countries now.

Wow what part of the US Const. don't you understand unlike where your from the Dictator just can't say be done with this. In the USA we have rules and laws on how stuff is done. As I stated Mr. Lincoln on Nov 22 1862 ended Slavery in the USA with the Emancipation Proclamation.

As for the rest of your post please give it a rest or shall we talk about the Orange Movement in your Country and which Country supported it huh. The American Civil War had nothing to do with Southern Greed it had allot to do with State vrs. Federal Rights I suggest you go and learn something about the 10th Adm and how it applies to the US Civil War. Oh one other little unknow fact is that with in the Confederate State there was a discussion to free the Slave's first and then declare war on the Union, It's a well know fact that Southern Generals like Lee,Longstreet,Pickett,AP Hill were in favor of freeing the slave's.
 
It isn't a matter of being politically correct. It a simple matter of fairness and what IS right.

What is right about certain citizens believing that they are entitled to rights while denying those same rights to others?

Don't mix up "rights" with "wishes".
 
It isn't a matter of being politically correct. It a simple matter of fairness and what IS right.

What is right about certain citizens believing that they are entitled to rights while denying those same rights to others?

Are you talking about:
1) Medicare
2) Social security
3) Income taxes
4) Drinking age
5) Voting age
6) Citizenship
7) Gun rights
8) Drug rights
Or 9) marriage?

Because all of these are valid to what you said.

What "rights" does one get from marriage that can't be given through civil contract?
 
Last edited:
Don't mix up "rights" with "wishes".

I disagree but regardless....lets phrase it a different way.

What is right or just about a certain group wanting privileges for themselves while denying them to others?

Is is anything other than selfishness?
 
Are you talking about:
1) Medicare
2) Social security
3) Income taxes
4) Drinking age
5) Voting age
6) Citizenship
7) Gun rights
8) Drug rights
Or 9) marriage?

Because all of these are valid to what you said.

Those are all based on age. Hardly the same as denying an entire group rights/privileges forever.
 
Wow what part of the US Const. don't you understand

According to that constitution did Southern states have a right to leave the union, or not?
 
According to that constitution did Southern states have a right to leave the union, or not?

In a simple one answer for you YES
 
Those are all based on age. Hardly the same as denying an entire group rights/privileges forever.
Gun rights are not all age based.
Income taxes are not age based.
Social security is not strictly age based.
Citizenship is not age based.
Drug rights is not aged based.

What "rights" do married people get that non-married people cannot get through civil contract?
 
shall we talk about the Orange Movement in your Country and which Country supported it huh.

Ok... The US not only put around 1 billion into it, it also supplied Ukraine with the US State Department official as a wife of that brainless frog that passes for Ukrainian president.
 
In a simple one answer for you YES

Thank you.

If the president and the Northen states had no problem wiping their butts with their own constitution with regard to the rights of the Southern states, I can't see why they found it impossible to bend the laws a bit in order to free the slaves (if freeing the slaves was a real reason behind the war).
 
Thank you.

If the president and the Northen states had no problem wiping their butts with their own constitution with regard to the rights of the Southern states, I can't see why they found it impossible to bend the laws a bit in order to free the slaves (if freeing the slaves was a real reason behind the war).

See you still don't get it at all like I said just stop you have no idea about the subject and quite frankly I'm tired of trying to explain it to you.
 
Gun rights are not all age based.
Income taxes are not age based.
Social security is not strictly age based.
Citizenship is not age based.
Drug rights is not aged based.

What "rights" do married people get that non-married people cannot get through civil contract?

Plenty of PRIVILEGES are granted by the marriage license.
 
I disagree but regardless....lets phrase it a different way.

What is right or just about a certain group wanting privileges for themselves while denying them to others?

Is is anything other than selfishness?

Privileges come after responsibility. Can "married" gays fulfil the same responsibilities as a straight couple? No. Then why should they have the same privileges?

I want to have presidential privileges, but unless I can fulfil the responsibilities of a president I am not going to have the privileges.

Priviliges are not an automatic right.
 
Ok... The US not only put around 1 billion into it, it also supplied Ukraine with the US State Department official as a wife of that brainless frog that passes for Ukrainian president.

Hmm so your saying that Kateryna Yushchenko was a gift from the US State Dept to Viktor Yusgchenko who was born in Khoruzhivka and the last time I looked that was still part of the Ukraine not part of France.

It had nothing to do with the fact they meet fell in love and decide to get married right :doh
 
Privileges come after responsibility. Can "married" gays fulfil the same responsibilities as a straight couple? No. Then why should they have the same privileges?

I want to have presidential privileges, but unless I can fulfil the responsibilities of a president I am not going to have the privileges.

Priviliges are not an automatic right.

What are the responsibilities that you are speaking of that are incumbent to the privilege of marriage?
 
Back
Top Bottom