I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang
My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang
But just look at your last statement. A number of people do want homosexual committed couples to have all the "sameness" of heterosexual committed couples, but what relevantly matters is the subset of those people who are indeed homosexuals who want that "Sameness".
The problem is that "marriage", by long-standing humanity definition is "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".
To accomplish what a number of people want, gay activists have to either 1) redefine the word marriage or 2) work for decades likely to get homarriage civil union domestic partnerships implemented in all 50 states.
Tack number 1 is not only based on a ludicrous premise, it will piss off a comparative very large segment of the population, a lot larger than the segment it will help.
Tack number 2 will take a very long time without help from the opposition who's blockading that effort.
It just seems to me that a win-win situation can be had by gay activists letting go of the ludicrous attempt at redefinition of the word "marriage" in exchange for the support of their opposition to rush through homarriage civil union domestic partnerships in all 50 states and whatever's required federally.
That's a win-win solution regarding the true goals of each side.
You have a problem with that win-win solution that not only respects words and their meaning but really makes everyone reasonably happy?
Last edited by Ontologuy; 08-06-12 at 06:57 PM.
When the election is over and we open our eyes, it will sadly be too late to wonder what the hell just happened.
And no, the federal Constitution as written does not confer judicial review. That is a power the court took as Jefferson so rightly claimed.
Not to mention the fact that the logic of your argument would fail you if applied to, say interracial marriage. After all, when interracial marriage was legalized throughout the nation in 1967, the subset of blacks and whites who would enjoy the benefits of getting married was minuscule, compared to the much larger segment of the population that was pissed off by it. Do you stand by the logical corollary of your argument; that blacks and whites should have fought for a state-by-state recognition of interracial civil unions without being marriage?
You seem convinced that homarriage civil union domestic partnerships is a win-win. I don't know how many different ways to tell you the same thing, but it's only a win to your side. Do you understand that?
And no worries about the ad hominem attack. I'm quite confident you're capable of making arguments in a civilized way. There have been times when I could have made fun of you personally for saying such silly things as you have, but I'm not big on ad hominems. I suggest you stick to attacking my arguments.
Last edited by Miguel17; 08-06-12 at 07:26 PM.
Neither process skirts the state's constitution because in every case those processes came about by amending the state's constitution to allow the process.
My own state, Oregon, was the second to adopt the initiative and the referendum process (1902). We have been a model for all those that came after. It was actually called the Oregon System.
Last edited by clownboy; 08-06-12 at 07:38 PM.
Find a way around (an obstacle).
So you're saying that establishing state initiatives or referendums to pass or strike down laws did not entail not finding a way around (I gave you the definition to make sure we're on the same semantic page) the federal constitution, which confers upon state legislatures the power of passing or striking down laws? The fact that it conveys the will of the people is as true as it is irrelevant to my claim, which you seem intent upon attacking on semantic grounds instead of fighting the losing battle on SSM.
By the way, did you jump off the sinking ship of the debate we were having twenty minutes ago? Are you still digging up that scientific evidence of your anecdotally based claims? Or did you give up on a losing argument and move onto another one?
Last edited by clownboy; 08-06-12 at 08:07 PM.