Why the Maine people's veto attempt on gay marriage will fail

[Kulindahr]

That very article says NOM contributed 500k, so that is indeed the rest.

I don't suppose we can dare to hope that NOM is broke.

BTW, I giggle every time I see that acronym -- too many visits to Ceiling Cat, I guess.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's funny Kulindahr that you are attacking me for a stance that is common, but while I am not budging you may have convinced 10 other people. Or is it that you feel you can pick on me because I am somewhat alone here but in the real world most people are overwhelmingly against you, including most gays? You are just incapable of engaging me logically on the issue. That is why there has been no progress. You mischaracterize everything I say, and accuse me of hate and discrimination and other fantastical nonsense, and on this issue that is an incorrigible problem on your part. But there is some satisfaction that while we are going to fight about this ad infinitum, it will never be your way, or at least not for an extremely long ass time, for good reasons. If you are going to bitch and moan and burn bridges the whole way, it will only take longer.

"Burn bridges"?

No more than the protesters who rightly point out that NOM <giggle> is trashing their love.

I haven't mischaracterized a thing: you reduce people to numbers, throw love out the window, define equality by arithmetic... and deny it.

And when you say that love is irrelevant, when talking about marriage, and that only two people can be allowed to marry, how am I to see that but as hateful? If it's hateful when the ReligioPublicans do it to gays (it is), then it's hateful when you do it to people who want to marry, but you say can't.

And now you express satisfaction that while you may get your equality, it won't come for others for a long time -- that's also hateful.

 

[Kulindahr]

Not excluding anybody from equal rights.

Then neither is NOM.

You are making a completely fallacious and illogical argument here. Numbers have everything to do with it. Two people are equal to two people, three are not.

This isn't about arithmetic -- it's about choice.
You only want to allow one choice, which is exactly the same thing NOM wants. But you don't want to allow any choice that you don't approve of.

We are talking about marriage. You are illogically and fallaciously comparing marriage to children and friends, and I won't let you get away with framing the debate as such.

Yes, we're talking about marriage, which you agreed has nothing to do with numbers. But you decided that this particular sort of human relationship does in fact have to do with numbers -- numbers of people -- in order for there to be equality.
Well, if you favor equality, then to be consistent, you can't stop with one kind of relationship, you have to cover all of them. You're the one who framed the debate this way, by defining equality in human relationships as being about numbers.

Spoken like a true bigot.

If in your eyes someone who believes in freedom of choice for all is a bigot, then you have a serious problem.

What is not a logical argument. What I am saying isn't false because you are reducing what I said to being an argument of numbers.

You made it about numbers -- you said that in order for it to be equal, the numbers have to be the same.

It is a non-sequitur, because HenryReardon is talking about who may marry. We are talking about how many may marry.

No it isn't a non-sequitur: you're defining the debate by numbers (while accusing me of doing so), and defining equality in terms of numbers. That restricts who may marry whom, just as Henry's definition does.
Marriage is not just between two people; marriage is between whoever wants to get together. Marriage doesn't consist in "two-ness", it consists in commitment. And when you tell three people that want to marry each other that they can't, you're talking about who can marry -- because you're telling one of them he's ineligible.

 

[Kulindahr]

Again you perpetuate the fallacious comparison of marriage to children and friends.

It isn't fallacious: you defined the essence of equality in human relationships as residing in numbers. All I'm saying is that you have to be consistent.

Tangential and ridiculous arguments are hardly the way to go about constructive debate. I am not talking about polyamory, we are talking about polygamy. You are still confusing the two. Equality in marriage means everyone marries the same number of people. Having more is having more and unequal rights.

I'm not confusing anything; you're making a false dichotomy. Equality in marriage, as with equality in all things, rests in everyone being able to choose whom to marry.
But if you want to talk about unequal, then it's you who wants more: with three people, they have to share each other more! So you should be pitying those poor people who want to settle for less.

Majority has nothing to do with it. But since you brought it up, a majority does not support polygamy. Again you draw the non-sequitur that who may marry is related to how many may marry.

So how do you define your "everybody is doing it" requirement? Does it have to be unanimous? In that case, you haven't got an argument at all, because there has never been a time in human history when what everybody was doing as far as marriage was the same.
"How many" is a matter of "who": it's a "who" that you're telling a threesome they have to kick out, a "who" that you're telling can't enjoy the intimate love you want to be able to (with government sanction).
What is it about freedom of choice that bugs you so????

 

[Kulindahr]

Tyranny is inequality, and it will always be.

Tyranny is not having free choice, but having someone else make decisions for you. In this discussion, you've opposed free choice, by insisting that everyone has to marry the same number of people.

That's not the definition of marriage at all, and that is not even my conception of it. The reason this argument is going nowhere is humorously obvious. You refuse to recognize that my opposition to polygamy is that it would create unequal rights.

No, the reason this argument is going nowhere is that you refuse to admit that your opposition to polygamy, etc., is against human rights, and in your reducing equality to a matter of arithmetic (inconsistently).

Again, you confuse polyamory and polygamy. They are distinct concepts.

Can't you see that your reasoning is exactly like the Right's? They'd say that you're confusing brotherly affection, or lust, with marriage, and that those are distinct concepts -- and therefore you shouldn't be allowed to marry!
People marry out of love -- that's what marriage (these days, anyway) is about. But you don't care about love (you said so!), you only care about the numbers. Three people can love each other, but only two can marry each other -- what a load of rot!
To quote a slogan I heard at a gay rights rally, love equals love. It isn't the place of anyone to dictate what form someone else's love may take, to forbid them to bond because of it, to say they are lesser and may not enjoy it as others do. But you want to do exactly that: you say that only two may be married, but that violates equality, because love equals love.

Your zeal is truly misplaced. You are a horrible advocate for polygamy. You alienate people.

I alienate people???
You're the one dumping on other people's love! You're the one saying that any form of marriage different than theirs is illegitimate!
My zeal is because I'm hearing from you the exact same shit I heard for years from the Religious Right before I realized it was shit: all kinds of rationalizations to justify your desire to enforce your way onto everyone else, to insist that your way is the one that brings equality, to say that your kind of love is fine but not some other, to pat others on the head and tell them it's okay for them to stay second-class citizens... and tell them that to do so is "equality".
What both messages boil down to is hate, and refusal to give everyone the basic human right of choice of partner(s) for life. Any time you tell someone, "Your love doesn't matter", you're being hateful -- and you said that very thing when you said "love is irrelevant". You might as well say, "Your love is shit", because that's the essence of your message to me and to those threesomes Pumpkin and I know.

 

[Kulindahr]

Stop right there. We are going to clear this up once and for all.

1) I do not view the definition of marriage as being between two people. In fact, the definition of marriage does not encompass who or how many may marry.

2) I do not, and will never, use history to prove my claims.

You say you don't view marriage as being two people, but then you turn around and say marriage can only be between two people. That's hypocritical sophistry.

You've made reference to history in your argument more than once, most notably in the one I've pointed out twice now and which appears in another form here:

Societies have always arbitrarily decided eligibility and purpose, but the definition of marriage has remained universal

Except that you have. Instead of denying it you should be researching why I feel so strongly about it, because you will see that a lot of the connections you are making in your mind do not really exist.

Sorry -- I've reviewed everything here, and what's going on is that you're refusing to see that you're being very authoritarian, and missing the implications of what you say.

You don't because you would like to abstain from a vote on gay marriage, and consider it to be a step backwards for society.

I want everyone to be able to marry as they please -- gays, or anyone else. that's called equality, and it doesn't have anything to do with numbers, it has to do with choice.
The gay marriage movement isn't interested in anything but getting the benefits and privileges straights now have, and they aren't even fighting for all gays, but only for those who prefer two-person relationships. That makes them a special interest, and what they're seeking is special treatment. Fights for equality and freedom cover everyone -- MLK knew that; he fought not just for blacks, but for Asians and others as well. The gay marriage movement isn't fighting for anyone but themselves.
And once they have their goodies, they won't care one bit what other people they've left out as they climbed into the wagon of privilege. That's a step backwards, because it isn't expanding liberty or freedom, it's expanding the privileged class.

 

[Kulindahr]

You are still perpetuating that marriage can be compared to kids and friends. It does not follow, as the Latin phrase non-sequitur literally means.

You decided that people in relationships are to be reduced to numbers, and that the numbers have to be equal for the relationships to be equal. You denounce the idea that some should have "more" than others.
It follows quite logically that no one, then, should have more in any kind of human relationship than anyone else, not just in marriage, if there's to be equality. All I'm doing is asking you to be consistent when I say you ought to be advocating the same number of kids, the same number of friends, etc.
It's especially true for kids, because how can two marriages be equal if the sets of parnters have different numbers of kids? Someone is obviously getting "more" than someone else, and that can't be allowed!

So you've managed to gather a small like-minded peanut gallery? Bravo Excuse me while I laugh at your appeal to numbers. You must not know just how large the margin of approval is on this issue, and when it is as large as it is, you have no room to be petulant.

I didn't make any appeal to numbers. And I didn't gather anyone; the observation was offered to me freely.

As for margins of approval, I don't really care what it is. Truth doesn't depend on majority; if it had, we'd all still be under the British Crown... and evolution wouldn't be true on this continent.

We aren't talking about definitions. We are talking about eligibility for marriage.

Sure we're talking about definitions: you want (in spite of your protests) to have marriage defined as two people, period.
As for eligibility for marriage, that's easy: anyone who wants to get married, may. And that means to whomever they please, because marriage falls under the right to freedom of association. And "whomever" cannot restrict number, because love and human choice don't care about number.

There is an equal right to it, and that is set at the number of people you may marry, the same as everyone else, one.

That takes us right back to Henry Reardon's position: gays already have the right to marry -- a woman, the same as everyone else.

But you reveal your authoritarian streak in that "same as everyone else". Your focus isn't on people or their wishes or choices, it's on conformity. Well, as someone who has fought a number of fights against conformity, I tell you that you can take your conformity and stuff it, because conformity is anti-liberty and anti-human.
The equal right lies in choice, not your dictation of numbers. And it lies in the fact that people have different wants and wishes, which aren't to be stuffed into boxes of your size and shape.

The fact is that the law is wrong, but you're arguing to fix one aspect -- but to perpetuate the essential wrongness. The law contravenes freedom of choice and freedom of association, and shouldn't be altered, but tossed out and replaced with one that honors what humans actually choose to do, whether that comes by twos or threes or twelves or whatever.

Yes, equality means numbers. Three is not equal to two. It's a fallacy that you are dismissing my argument because it involves numbers.

Then you're advocating we should all have the same number of cars, the same years of education, the same size house, the same number of pets... and the same number of kids and friends.
Don't try to dodge that again: you said flat out that equality means numbers. You can't pick and choose how to apply that.

I'm dismissing your argument because you reduce human wishes, hopes, desires, and love to numbers, and tell some people that theirs can be recognized while you tell others that theirs can't be. That's the very same thing NOM does.

Yes there is a great inequality. How is it fair that you can marry as many people as you want, when everyone else only does it to one person. Marriage is also a commitment between only two people for good reasons.

As Zingerific pointed out, my position is that everyone be allowed to marry as many as they please. That's quite fair; it honors choice, freedom of association, love, and all sorts of other human motives and reasons.

Only two people for good reasons?

You have some reasons you think trump individual choice, that trump love? Well, the NOM people will tell you that marriage is only between a man and a woman "for good reasons", too. What will you offer, to tell three people mutually in love that they can't have the same benefits and privileges that accrue to your committed relationship -- that their relationship somehow "harms" others?
There are no reasons you can offer which won't go the same route the procreation argument did before Judge Walker.

 

[Kulindahr]

You don't even know what you're talking about.
I'm not.
Does not make it part of the definition.

Sophistry.

As equality demands.

No, as your inconsistent definition which reduces human relationships to arithmetic demands.
Equality lies in equality of choice, not equality of outcome or even of status.

You think it's just my standard. I may be the only one here against legal recognition of polygamy, but I am not the only one against the legal recognition of polygamy.

So now you appeal to numbers... just what you accused me of, except you really did.
There is freedom of choice, and there is tyranny. There is respect for human relationships, and there is despite. You've demonstrated that you fall in the second categories, because you define things by numbers, not by the human heart, which you tossed out of consideration when you said that love is irrelevant.

Love is not irrelevant, and choice is not irrelevant, and equality is not about numbers.

And polygamy has just as much justification as gay marriage; it has been widespread throughout humanity over time, but more importantly, there are people who choose it. The only reason at all to oppose the "legal recognition of polygamy" (something I would not favor) is that you oppose others making choices too much different than yours.

The definition has nothing to do with numbers, but equality does.
You have to make a choice. Everyone else does. It's an equal right to marry one other person, just like everyone else.

No, equality doesn't have anything to do with numbers. You know that, or you'd be fighting for the same number of kids, and cars, and pets, and hours of vacation.

Most people choose to marry whom they love.
You want to deny that to some people.

If equality is being like everyone else, then you should be quiet, and forget about this whole gay marriage business -- after all, you can go marry a woman... just like everyone else.

Case in point. You mischaracterize what I have said.

I absolutely am not using history at all! In fact, I am so adamant about that I will concede this entire argument forever if you show me by quote where I have used history to back up my claims that marriage should only be between two people. That's right, you can't, because I haven't. History is completely irrelevant to any issues regarding equal rights. I don't know why you persist in trying to make my arguments about history when I never have, unless you think attacking the strawman is an effective argument.

I already quoted your own words to you about history, and you deny appealing to it -- those were your words there!

There is no difference in law. The law requires conformity to equality all across civil rights code. This is no different.

Really?
Does the law specify how big a union local is to be? Does it set a maximum number of employees for a business? Does it require that only so many miles per year be driven per person? Does it mandate that farmers have only so many livestock?

No, it doesn't -- it allows choice. The only thing it mandates is the quality of situations, nothing at all to do with the quantity. The quality aspect is taken care of in the 'freely consenting adults' aspect -- and that's all the farther civil rights can go.

You are making a fallacious comparison between marriage and friends. Friendships are not recognized by law, you have no right to file tax returns with a friend, you have no right to follow a friend to the hospital, you have no right to a friend's assets without a will, etc.

Now you're claiming that you've been just speaking for "the law" all along?
The comparison is only fallacious to a lawyer; it is quite sound otherwise: if one area of human relationship is equal only because of matching numbers, then the same applies to all areas of human relationships.

Not only that, but polyamory is not the same as polygamy.
It's not my preference, only a protection of the principle of equality.

I don't know what your polyamory/polygamy bit has to do with anything; we're talking about recognition of relationships before the law. Equality before the law has nothing to do with numbers, i.e. the quantity of a relationship, but with the quality. All committed relationships should have equal standing, or there is no equality -- just conformity.

This non-sequitur is getting old, Kulindahr. Who may marry is not the same test as how many may marry.

Yes, it is: you're telling someone that his love can't be recognized before the law, while yours can. That someone is a "who", not a statistic.

It's selfish that you expect to be granted more rights than other people.

You're the one who wants more, if anyone does: you want your qhile committed relationship to be recognized, but insist that others can only have part of theirs recognized.
I just want the same freedom to choose life partners -- and that choice is where the equality lies.

My version of equality means that rights are equal. You don't have the right to choose as many people as you want to be married.

Your definition of equality is inhuman: everyone has the right to choose as many people as he or she wants to marry.

You're not even debating what I considered to be irrelevant. You just think the work irrelevant is dirty, but you use irrelevant arguments all the time.

What you've been calling irrelevant in this thread have been attempts to get you to wake up and see that you're arguing an authoritarian, dictatorial, anti-choice approach to marriage. All I've followed is logical consequences of your position.

And when you declare love to be irrelevant, you show that you aren't caring about people and their concerns, but rather about phantoms and legal arithmetic.

You dish out the same arguments I've heard for years in the religious right. You do the same disrespect for other people and their love. And you think I'm going to take it because you say "two is not equal to three"?

The fight for gay marriage is about equal rights.

Not as presently constituted, it isn't.

 

[CaptainRush]

Definition of a Gallup Poll:

The Gallup Poll is the division of Gallup that regularly conducts public opinion polls in the United States and more than 140 countries around the world. Gallup Polls are often referenced in the mass media as a reliable and objective measure of public opinion

Is that where they got the recent poll numbers in Maine? How do they gather these and how accurate are they?

 

[hotatlboi]

Ok this is looking good so far.

I just made a donation to No on 1.

 

[Kulindahr]

Definition of a Gallup Poll:

Is that where they got the recent poll numbers in Maine? How do they gather these and how accurate are they?

How accurate polls are depends on who you ask; to a statistician, it's a matter of sampling and distribution, to a sociologist it's a matter of methodology, to a politician... well, who knows what a politician wants?

But there are rules and parameters for deciding how many people to ask, and how to pick them, and that provides a margin of error.

Accuracy also depends on things from how the people are picked, who they actually end up asking, to how the questions are worded.

Usually these are done by telephone, but not always; it sort of depends on how fast they want a result. Generally, you can go to the website of a polling organization and learn how they did any particular poll.

Then there's disagreement over which pollsters are more dependable; Zogby is frequently not trusted, Gallup is generally well-regarded, for example.

I don't know what polls are being referenced here, offhand, so I won't comment on the trustworthiness.

What I do know is that the trend has been favoring the gay marriage side, in small increments. I saw one a while ago that said 52% "No on 1" vs. 45% "Yes on 1" ("No" means keep the gay marriage law the legislature passed).

I'm sort of cheering for the "No" side, just to stick it to the religious bigots.

 

[Kulindahr]

Hey, hot -- do you know if the text of the legislature's law can be found on line?

 

[CaptainRush]

I'm sort of cheering for the "No" side, just to stick it to the religious bigots.

I knew I liked you.

I like you for picking the no side, not for saying you want to stick it to the bigots, as much as I sometimes want to.

 

[CaptainRush]

And thanks for the info.

 

[CaptainRush]

Ok this is looking good so far.

I just made a donation to No on 1.

Good for you.

 

[hotatlboi]

I don't, strictly speaking, know why Pumpkin left.

I think it's pretty likely that he left because of this.

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=281236

 

[Kulindahr]

I knew I liked you.

I like you for picking the no side, not for saying you want to stick it to the bigots, as much as I sometimes want to.

I grew up among the bigots, and was one of them for a long while. Matthew Shepard was one of the things that cracked my shell -- I saw that on the news and broke into tears, without understanding why. I even still have the tear-stained copy of the report in TIME magazine.

I can assure you, many of them need to be stuck -- hard, and long, and deep.
Especially the ones who saw the news about Matt, and figured he got what he deserved... along with the ones who still think so.

 

[hotatlboi]

Hey, hot -- do you know if the text of the legislature's law can be found on line?

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_124th/billtexts/SP038401.asp

 

[CaptainRush]

I grew up among the bigots, and was one of them for a long while. Matthew Shepard was one of the things that cracked my shell -- I saw that on the news and broke into tears, without understanding why. I even still have the tear-stained copy of the report in TIME magazine.

I can assure you, many of them need to be stuck -- hard, and long, and deep.
Especially the ones who saw the news about Matt, and figured he got what he deserved... along with the ones who still think so.

Thus is the power of Christianity. That is my belief.

 

[hotatlboi]

Thus is the power of Christianity. That is my belief.

You're quite correct in that.