Thread updated as states legalize same-sex marriage *USA*

[Socks]

wow

will of the people

however,

[spoiler]this is a little peculiar,

In a defiant speech to several hundred lingering supporters, No on 1 campaign manager Jesse Connolly pledged that his side ââ,¬Å"will not quit until we know where every single one of these votes lives.ââ,¬Â�[/spoiler]

[Daddy]

however,

[spoiler]this is a little peculiar,

In a defiant speech to several hundred lingering supporters, No on 1 campaign manager Jesse Connolly pledged that his side “will not quit until we know where every single one of these votes lives.”[/spoiler]

The issue is because the church and its funders probably brought in out of state resources.

see: Mormon Church and California.


It's not the will of the people when illegal conduct is taking place. It's illegal for a church(as it is tax exempt) to push its political agenda the way it did.

If the church wants  to give up its tax exemption then it can lead its sheep all it wants.


edit: also

We don't live in a democracy, we live in a democratic REPUBLIC. We use democratic processes, but have a constitution and bill of rights in place to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. A subtle but important difference.

why do you hate america?

[Socks]

The issue is because the church and its funders probably brought in out of state resources.

it's a vote jmv, about an unambiguous topic, "out of state resources" are not going to change perception of that issue.

see: Mormon Church and California.

see: more votes against legal gay marriage than in favor of

It's not the will of the people when illegal conduct is taking place.

come on, don't throw cluster fuck statements like this around. the people decide what's legal and what is not, simple, just by prevailing attitude. there is no list which shot out from the big bang's snatch that lists illegal and legal practices, i even hate using those words. it is because of this flimsy and arbitrary nature of the social binding order that I have begun more and more to act in a manner which conforms to the immediate senses and not to something which conflicts with that.

now, if you want to essentially burn bridges a la Thoreau and Whitman style, go ahead. you can criticize the masses all you want, spread doubt in the processes, seek justice for your beliefs, and validate your sense of being. however, do not try to make sense of the established order of things by choosing to explain this result as an anomaly, and improper, when in fact, it is neither.

why do you hate america?

you're an idiot. NOTHING in the Constitution is above being amended, thus above CHANGE. So, if a majority of the nation decided they want the President to be the man who can throw a rock the furthest, it can happen. every judicial and police body would have to then obey that... no matter how ridiculous you may find such a thing.

the supreme court has yet to say that this course of events is unconstitutional for gay citizens, leaving the issue up to the states and the people. even if they were to say such a thing, a constitutional amendment essentially telling them to STFU and reversing course is, theoretically, possible

how can you even consider the issue separate of Hobbes social contract?

[Daddy]

it's a vote jmv, about an unambiguous topic, "out of state resources" are not going to change perception of that issue.

If you have people who aren't really residents of maine voting in maine it does change the perception of that issue. That's what the person was implying.

see: more votes against legal gay marriage than in favor of

But not solely from residents of Maine.
If the Taliban poured resources and propaganda into a candidate in the US it doesn't somehow make him legitmate.

come on, don't throw cluster fuck statements like this around. the people decide what's legal and what is not, simple, just by prevailing attitude.

Clusterfuck statement? I'm willing to bet that almost every one of the voters who voted to ban it were religious. The support by their churches telling them to vote against it had a lot to do with it

Where is no list which shot out from the big bang's snatch that lists illegal and legal practices, i even hate using those words. it is because of this flimsy and arbitrary nature of the social binding order that I have begun more and more to act in a manner which conforms to the immediate senses and not to something which conflicts with that.

Uh, the IRS prohibits such conduct by non-profit organizations. The church classifies itself as one and uses that to gain tax exemption. 

now, if you want to essentially burn bridges a la Thoreau and Whitman style, go ahead. you can criticize the masses all you want, spread doubt in the processes, seek justice for your beliefs, and validate your sense of being. however, do not try to make sense of the established order of things by choosing to explain this result as an anomaly, and improper, when in fact, it is neither.

How many times was the catholic church mentioned in that article. It's improper for them to endorse political motives when they are claiming tax exemption.

The church can either take its moronic base and start paying taxes or it can stop injecting itself into politics in violation of IRS policy.

you're an idiot. NOTHING in the Constitution is above being amended, thus above CHANGE. So, if a majority of the nation decided they want the President to be the man who can throw a rock the furthest, it can happen. every judicial and police body would have to then obey that... no matter how ridiculous you may find such a thing.

Then how did Bush win? And 65% of the senators would have to support such, not the people.

the supreme court has yet to say that this course of events is unconstitutional for gay citizens, leaving the issue up to the states and the people. even if they were to say such a thing, a constitutional amendment essentially telling them to STFU and reversing course is, theoretically, possible

cjlubdoods;

how can you even consider the issue separate of Hobbes social contract?

How can you even defend depriving someone of their civil rights under the guise of religion?

[Title]

It's illegal for a church(as it is tax exempt) to push its political agenda the way it did.

When did that bill pass?

[ME##]

When did that bill pass?

@_@

Section 501(c)(3) organisations are subject to limits or absolute prohibitions on engaging in political activities.

501(c)(3) — Religious, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organisations

[Daddy]

It's okay, when you're a bigot you don't need facts.


So fuck both of you.

ok watch him ignore the fact that the law exists and pull out an ad hominem instead of maybe admitting that he didn't know something though i doubt that would happen because he needs to oppose liberalism.


Furthermore, I really want to know how this is defensible to either one of you since you don't even have the "lol skydaddy told me to" excuse.

[Daddy]

also 100 years ago what else was supported by "the majority":

-Women can't vote
-Segregation
-Lynching of blacks
-Mistreatment of Immigrants (hi socks. the majority says you have to work in unfair conditions lol)


Protip: Just because "the majority" vote says something doesn't mean shit when "the majority" is voting with their ignorance and bigotry.


unless you guys agree that somehow it was okay to segregate blacks then but now. just let me know what changed that suddenly made it ok

[ME##]

-Mistreatment of Immigrants (hi socks. the majority says you have to work in unfair conditions lol)

Also, no immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, Amurica's for good whites only

[Socks]

If you have people who aren't really residents of maine voting in maine it does change the perception of that issue. That's what the person was implying.

prove it. Bush won, twice.

Clusterfuck statement? I'm willing to bet that almost every one of the voters who voted to ban it were religious. The support by their churches telling them to vote against it had a lot to do with it

what makes you think I was even remotely interested in what motivated people to chose the way they did? this adds nothing to the discussion nor does it serve to strengthen your point. it is irrelevant why people voted the way they did, all that matters it that most Maine voters, for the time being, do not support making gay marriage legal. this is an inescapable fact that you're trying to conveniently ignore with your rants on religion, the tax status of churches, etc... as if it is important.

even if the RCC had to pay taxes, the result would not have been different. all that would change is you feeling perhaps a little glee about the fact that the RCC had one of it's privileges taken away.

And 65% of the senators would have to support such, not the people.

this is hypothetical James. if the issue was that polarizing and pressing, they would be voted out.

How can you even defend depriving someone of their civil rights under the guise of religion?

first, I am not depriving anyone of anything. second, I do not see the issue of gay marriage as a civil rights violation. third, I do not give a damn under what guise those people voted under, I can only speak for myself. so let me assure you, religion plays 0 role in my views. there is no need to either be a religious zealot or a platonic droid open to anything, even your brains falling out. i'm a man, inspired and influenced by many things, a product of my world. as such, i have no shame about my convictions.

Furthermore, I really want to know how this is defensible to either one of you since you don't even have the "lol skydaddy told me to" excuse.

once again i was never interested in defending anything, so i have nothing to explain on that end, much less to you. i was merely responding to your unwarranted astonishment and in a way taking preemptive action to the cries of foul that i was sure would come.

Protip: Just because "the majority" vote says something doesn't mean shit when "the majority" is voting with their ignorance and bigotry.

nothing means shit dude. the sun rises and sets, the world goes round and round. however, when you live in a society as ours, majority views do have sway. it's just hard for you to accept that a majority of people do not agree with your way of thinking. that will likely change. but you're trying to insist there is some universal truth here, some unquestionable moral aspect, some more righteous path... and that you have it and others don't. pardon me, but i have half a good mind to bust out laughing here. you're lucky the romantic in me still has some sway.

unless you guys agree that somehow it was okay to segregate blacks then but now. just let me know what changed that suddenly made it ok

it was OK for the people back then. that's all that frankly matters. social views change like the wind with each generation. who's to say something we hold today as a model and beacon of humanity won't be regarded in the future, by those that think even more highly of themselves, as a foolish endeavor. you're trying to deal in absolutes about something that's as fluid and subjective as it gets.

[wawi]

JMV, this is the only parts where the mention the church

The Yes on 1 campaign, led by the group Stand for Marriage Maine, built its lead by winning votes in rural Maine as well as in some larger towns such as the Roman Catholic and Franco-American stronghold of Lewiston.

ââ,¬Å"We went up against tremendous odds,ââ,¬Â� Marc Mutty, public affairs director for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland who has been on loan to the campaign, said from Portland. ââ,¬Å"We all know we were the little guy going up against the big guy, but we prevailed. We prevailed because the people of Maine ââ,¬â€� the silent majority ââ,¬â€� the folks back home spoke with their votes.

So considering the information above, the article is just telling us that Roman Catholic towns tended to favor Yes on 1 Campaign and Marc Mutty is a Roman Catholic who campaigned against gay marriage.

I'm willing to bet that almost every one of the voters who voted to ban it were religious. The support by their churches telling them to vote against it had a lot to do with it

Well considering the 53 percent to 47 percent vote, I'm sure there were religious people on both sides. So you must think every single nonreligious people supports gay marriage.

also 100 years ago what else was supported by "the majority":

-Women can't vote
-Segregation
-Lynching of blacks
-Mistreatment of Immigrants (hi socks. the majority says you have to work in unfair conditions lol)


Protip: Just because "the majority" vote says something doesn't mean shit when "the majority" is voting with their ignorance and bigotry.


unless you guys agree that somehow it was okay to segregate blacks then but now. just let me know what changed that suddenly made it ok

Socks make the point clear.

it was OK for the people back then. that's all that frankly matters. social views change like the wind with each generation. who's to say something we hold today as a model and beacon of humanity won't be regarded in the future, by those that think even more highly of themselves, as a foolish endeavor. you're trying to deal in absolutes about something that's as fluid and subjective as it gets.

It is very easy now to point out the social wrongdoings of the past. However, you must understand the view of the people.

[Daddy]

prove it. Bush won, twice.

Prove what? That people not from Maine voting will skew the results of a poll?

That doesn't look like winning

what makes you think I was even remotely interested in what motivated people to chose the way they did?

Because you don't care the issue doesn't exit?

this adds nothing to the discussion nor does it serve to strengthen your point. it is irrelevant why people voted the way they did, all that matters it that most Maine voters, for the time being, do not support making gay marriage legal. this is an inescapable fact that you're trying to conveniently ignore with your rants on religion, the tax status of churches, etc... as if it is important.

Uh it was religion that was the largest supporter of banning it.  

even if the RCC had to pay taxes, the result would not have been different. all that would change is you feeling perhaps a little glee about the fact that the RCC had one of it's privileges taken away.

If it had followed the law on its tax exemption it wouldn't be pushing its political goals.

this is hypothetical James. if the issue was that polarizing and pressing, they would be voted out.

65% voted out? I think not.

first, I am not depriving anyone of anything.

I never said you were

second, I do not see the issue of gay marriage as a civil rights violation.

Equality under the law?

third, I do not give a damn under what guise those people voted under, I can only speak for myself. so let me assure you, religion plays 0 role in my views.

I don't care about your views(except when I asked what argument you had). It's the fact the the views in this situation are religiously motivated.

there is no need to either be a religious zealot or a platonic droid open to anything, even your brains falling out. i'm a man, inspired and influenced by many things, a product of my world. as such, i have no shame about my convictions.

Because supporting equality and religious Freedom (because you know, not every religion is against homosexuality) is which of those?

once again i was never interested in defending anything, so i have nothing to explain on that end, much less to you. i was merely responding to your unwarranted astonishment and in a way taking preemptive action to the cries of foul that i was sure would come.

You don't like gay people.

nothing means shit dude. the sun rises and sets, the world goes round and round. however, when you live in a society as ours, majority views do have sway. it's just hard for you to accept that a majority of people do not agree with your way of thinking. that will likely change. but you're trying to insist there is some universal truth here, some unquestionable moral aspect, some more righteous path... and that you have it and others don't. pardon me, but i have half a good mind to bust out laughing here. you're lucky the romantic in me still has some sway.

"Tyranny of the majority" Does that mean anything to you?

I don't get why Title isn't on that either since it's a huge part in Libertarian views. If he really is "a libertarian" and not just some moron who bashes someone for liberalism then he would also see the problem with creating laws to restrict the actions of others.

it was OK for the people back then. that's all that frankly matters. social views change like the wind with each generation. who's to say something we hold today as a model and beacon of humanity won't be regarded in the future, by those that think even more highly of themselves, as a foolish endeavor. you're trying to deal in absolutes about something that's as fluid and subjective as it gets.

How the hell was that OK?

It was regarded as socially acceptable, but that was never OK.


Really, did you just argue that since society supported racism it was okay?

JMV, this is the only parts where the mention the churchSo considering the information above, the article is just telling us that Roman Catholic towns tended to favor Yes on 1 Campaign and Marc Mutty is a Roman Catholic who campaigned against gay marriage.

It was church groups that supported such.

Well considering the 53 percent to 47 percent vote, I'm sure there were religious people on both sides.

I never claimed otherwise.
Considering that atheists don't make up anything close to 47% of the population that should be a given fact. 

Most people who voted for the law != most religious people voted for the law

So you must think every single nonreligious people supports gay marriage.

Generally, a larger percent do since the most common arguments regarding such are religiously motivated.

Socks make the point clear.

That it's okay to be a bigot if the majority thinks it's ok?

It is very easy now to point out the social wrongdoings of the past. However, you must understand the view of the people.

It's just as easy to point out a social wrongdoing currently. I don't give a shit about the view of the people. If they don't believe in gay marriage, they don't have to get one.

[wawi]

It was church groups that supported such.

I never claimed otherwise.

Isn't everyone entitled to their opinions?

Considering that atheists don't make up anything close to 47% of the population that should be a given fact. 

I know. They are 17% of Maine's population.

Most people who voted for the law != most religious people voted for the law

I'm willing to bet that almost every one of the voters who voted to ban it were religious.

I don't know why but I see two conflicting statements. I'm probably just missing something blatantly obvious. lol

That it's okay to be a bigot if the majority thinks it's ok?

To compare it to other social issues, to fully understand what happened prior to the Civil War, you have to put yourself in the mindset of the southern plantation owners. They viewed slaves as property. That was the social norm. To most white people in the south it was normal. By today's standards, it is a ridiculous idea. Society's social views change all the time. In the future, gay marriages will most likely be allowed. However, in today's society, it isn't normal and the majority doesn't want it. Everyone has different, conflicting opinions.

It's just as easy to point out a social wrongdoing currently. I don't give a shit about the view of the people. If they don't believe in gay marriage, they don't have to get one.

Well in this country, the view of the people is what happens, whether if you agree with it or not. Unfortunately, it isn't always a good thing.

[Daddy]

Ok I can't quote your bullshit since I'm in my car

every INDIVIDUAL is entitled to their own opinion.  They are not entitled to legally enforcing it upon others. And groups LIKE THE CHURCH are banned from getting involved with such politically due to their taxation status. 

And you are missing something. Read it again. They support not contradict eachother.


And I still fail to see the argument that just because something is supported by mass bigotry it is a valid and okay thing

I disagree with religion but I wouldn't vote to ban it
I disagree with extreme promiscuity. I wouldn't vote to ban it
I disagree with raw foodism but I wouldn't ban that either

I CAN just use my opinion and not exercise those rights without touching anyone elses


Ok cars are moving brb

[rdl]

Who gives a shit, the vote is over. Like it or not people voted for it to be repealed. You can construe conspiracy theories as to why this happened, but the fact of the matter is that it happened, and that's that until a new proposition pops up to re-legalize gay marriage.