Maine's Question 1

[Alcon]

Why is Yes on 1 asking university students to vote?

Meh.  This is the same issue that came up when we were deciding whether to dispatch sign-wavers to an intersection by a megachurch/Christian academy.  If the anti-gay people are going to have visibility there, visibility is already established; the wrong people are already being reminded about the election, so at that point it becomes a resource allocation issue.  If you can get better raw numbers than, say, by dispatching volunteers to a small church, it's smart enough.  Plus it gives a sense of social viability in a voting population group inclined toward apathy.

Also, some strategists are morons who think that visibility is inherently good, as if pro-X people are reminded by a "VOTE FOR X" sign and anti-X people don't see the sign or something.  It's always possible that it's that.

[Alcon]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

Explain how gay marriage affects anyone?  Seriously?

[Alcon]

This measure has nothing to do with defining a lifestyle. Nor does marriage have anything do do with falling in love.

This affects federal tax benefits, which obviously affect people.  Recognition of gay marriage would remove an implied cultural inferiority that has emotional value.

Essentially everything affects something.  You may personally consider those things unimportant, but why is your opinion -- especially on an issue that does not affect you -- paramount?

Visiting in a hospital has nothing to do with marriage - there are easy ways to remedy that situation.  It's an overplayed issue by the gay marriage side.

Have you seen what's involved?  It's not especially easy, and hospitals can freely choose to ignore it (and sometimes do to avoid liability.)

[Alcon]

So why not focus instead on removing those unnecessary benefits from married people?

I would be happy to, but that political position is dead in the water.

Why not equality for single people? Seriously? Who cares if it's two people or three people or one person? How should a relationship status play a role in government benefits?

There are some rational arguments for the financial situation of partnered persons being different from that of non-partnered persons.  But none of the rational arguments apply to separating any such recognition by sexual orientation.  I would love if government got out of the "marriage" business.  But if they won't, and they certainly won't if we keep voting for "marriage = man + woman" resolutions.  Gay marriage not be the ideal situation, but it is more equitable and is less likely to complete eliminate the consideration of alternative arrangements than "marriage = man + woman + state."

[Alcon]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

[Alcon]

Why does polling matter? We should focus on doing what is right and just, not what is "politically viable." Politically viable gave us unions, the Federal Reserve, and the Iraq War.

The thing that has the best results is what is just.  What value is principle when it is completely ineffective, and there are benevolent actions that will actually have results?  None; the only result of seeking "higher ideals" is greater suffering and every negative, and just pursuing ideals with no context has no positive means.  You're speaking in mantras.

[Alcon]

No. That is wrong. Seeing as the government IS deciding what is a marriage, and our government is by the people, and the people ultimately side against gay marriage even in California and Maine, I don't see gay marriage as politically viable. Even so, no marriage is more viable and less intrusive. It comes down to whether you want individuals or angry mobs telling you what you can and can not do.

What is wrong?  That gay marriage is "more viable"?  An issue that polls in the low twenties (no marriage) in the only poll I've seen is more viable because...gay marriage isn't viable (ignoring all trending) and therefore everything else is automatically more viable than it?  Again, what.

I also don't understand what you mean by "it comes down to whether you want individuals or angry mobs telling you what you can and can not do."  It's like you're regurgitating arbitrary parts of high school essays on the Federalist Papers.

[Alcon]

Individuals have the right to dictate their own communal partners and define the terms of their own contracts. When you get the government involved, you are now working in the context of a democratic process. You net results such as this and Prop 8.

Yes...which is why I wish the government would butt out.  But that does not mean I find the arbitrary institutional disclusions of gays a moral non-issue.  To me, it's like being OK with banning blacks from buses because you don't like the government being involved in public transit.

That doesn't answer anything about your ridiculous comments about non-marriage being more "viable," or why we should completely ignore the ends and just pursue our utopian visions even if we know that it will result in more evil.

[Alcon]

How can no marriage result in "evil"? You're being ridiculous. Also, your argument about blacks on buses is not analogous to my argument, it would be clearly unconstitutional and violation of equal rights for all citizens.

It might help if you put more energy into understanding what I'm posting than replying to it hyper-fast.  Pursuing no marriage instead of gay marriage results in more evil because it is a completely doomed political proposition, or close to it.  There is no trending, and as long as >50% of the electorate is unwilling to view marriage in a non-traditionalist way, it will continue to be doomed.

(I) Results of pursuing gay marriage: The trends are with us.  It starts off as a more popular issue.  It's supported by a cohesive subset of the political landscape, which makes advocating for it vastly easier.  Elimination of a bigoted distinction in an institution I think is treated imperfectly (marriage) and unneededly.

(II) Results of pursuing no marriage: No real trends.  Less popular.  No cohesive political subset to activate and advocate.  The result is no political change, and the continuing win of traditionalist , while we wax frustrated on Internet message boards about how rational the position is but nobody will support it.  Yet.  Because you're letting carte blanche traditionalism win.

The ends of (II) being successful would be better than (I) being successful.  But (I) is much more plausible than (II), and thus chances are the outcome of pursuing (I) would be better than pursuing (II).  So, (I) is better than (II) because we cannot magically cause utopia to happen.

The fact that that separation would be Constitutionally addressed does not mean they're not analagous in my moral view.  "Analagous" does not mean identical; you can't demand a tautology.

[Alcon]

It won't be that hard to find out age demographics.  I can't imagine that Maine's voter database doesn't contain DOB and voter credit information.

It's worth mentioning that kids who attend college tend to be more liberal, and even beyond that, college students who register to vote at their university's address tend to be even moreso.  Don't ask me why.

[Alcon]

Arguing on the Internet that something is too unimportant to fight for seems a mite hypocritical

[Alcon]

No. Not just one person. It was an organization on campus. Even then, the Prop 8 opposition and supporters in my city were both very violent and despicable.

What, a majority of the anti-Prop. 8 voters in your city were violent?  And this was a trait not possessed by a meaningful number of their pro-Prop. 8 counterparts?  And now you must harness the power of an Internet forum to get the word out about how the Bakersfield Prop. 8 opposition's argument was wrong darn it, and by the way they're bad people, and that has something to do with gay marriage somehow, and getting this info out there is important while this whole gay marriage issue is "objectively nothing"?

Do you realize how hilarious your posts become cumulatively when you don't think before you post?

[Alcon]

Think before YOU post. Notice I said opposition AND supporters. And no, not a majority. But the face of the campaign. And yes, it is important, because it overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides.

More a matter of misreading than not thinking.

So basically, some people who feel strongly about gay marriage are sometimes asses, which you're bringing up because...you believe it's unique to this issue?

And you're presumably bringing up the campus organization's stupid opinion for some reason, unless you're under the impression that stupid opinions are unique to this issue, or that the stupid opinions having been voiced to you somehow make them significant ().  I'm lost on what that was meant to demonstrate.

And it's important that it "overwhelmingly reflects poorly on both sides?  First of all, anyone who thinks such people are the "face of the issue" clearly have had little actual ground-level involvement in "the issue."  With few exceptions, those types are kept away from any position of influence.  Bakersfield State University campus organizations are not exactly top-tier campaign officials.  Second, maybe it does...that sucks, and boo people, but what does that have to do with "the issue"?

(You never did reply to this, by the way, you've just re-asserted your contention that it's a non-issue.)

[Alcon]

I didn't feel the need to respond to that at the time, for it would require too much typing from me. As you can tell, I prefer to make very short posts.

My overarching point is that both sides are treating it as if it's the end of the world. It's not. It's nothing. I'm refusing to pick a side as a protest. And I honestly do not care one bit whether marriage is this or that or the other thing. I don't believe in any marriage. I'm not gay, I'm not getting married, I'm not religious, and I don't believe the state has the right to issue marriage licenses to ANYONE. Period. None of the arguments on either side have been particularly convincing.

You just reiterated your argument without responding to anything I said about it

[Alcon]

Why would it being a vote on a hypothetical make it a poor comparison?  If anything, that would make the comparison stronger because the differences would only serve to make the shift even greater.

[Alcon]

And you think that completely eliminates a 20-point gap?