scrappy

You'll need to document your accusation. I just reviewed my posts in this thread and found nothing untoward or illogical. Maybe you and yours just can't stand the heat of a rational challenge. And you don't? How do you differentiate a good opinion from a bad one on this thread? Is a bad opinion, as iNow believes, one that runs contrary to your own? You mean if someone claims support from "the majority of the population," but can only account for 22% of it, that he/she has done any "intellectual work"? That's ridiculous. Prove it. You're entitled to your opinion. Is there something else beside opinion that anyone here has to offer concerning the OP question: "Should the government drop the word "marriage" ?

Now that's a perfect example of a troll's post. iNow, if you are unable to contribute rationally in this discussion then please leave this thread. Otherwise, a moderator may need to the bad finger on you.

By my calculation, 22% falls a little short of "the majority of the population." Yes, perhaps, 22% is not a very convincing "majority of the population." So what's you point? And how does it relate to the OP question "Should the government drop the word "marriage"?

You'll need to support your statement that I've bolded with some facts. I seriously doubt if the majority of the population cares one twit about the sex of a priest. Furthermore, could you cite a law that makes any reference at all to priests of either sex? I think the majority of the population cares much more about the homosexual activities of priests, especially the pedophilic ones.

Dudde, I didn't intend to ignore all the good points in your posts. I understand where you're coming from. I'd actually like to help you with your argument, because I think it needs fixing. But, please, ask me a specific question and I'll try to answer it specifically. Personally, I think the gay cause, which I mostly support, is going about its equal-rights business the wrong way. The gay cause, especially the SSM cause, would succeed much better if it did a few simple things: Emphasize what I will call the Barney Franks of the gay movement, including the children being adopted from stressed-out places like Romania by gay foster parents, add anything else that makes a positive case for gays in the hearts and minds of all those stupid Americans, and deemphasize the need to call their fully legalized domestic patnerships "marriages." Here's a sneaky idea: The gays declare their support for DOMA and come up with a name that's even better than "marriage." Follow my plan and see where they go. And don't make anymore movies like "Milk."

Your insecurity is causing you to lose your cool. I think you've gone hysterical:

Do any existing/original laws explicitly state that you can't marry your pet frog or your dead aunt?

So can the GLBT people. They, too, can get married, just like nudists. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWords matter. All along I've made it clear that I support same-sex domestic partnerships. I wouldn't call that "marriage" because it isn't, not according to my definition of the word. But what's in a word? The word "marriage" is causing all the problems on this thread. We'll never satisfy everyone. That is why the government needs to drop the word "marriage" from the laws. Let the separation of church and state be unambiguous from that point onward, and turn the job of marriage over to the private sector: churches, casinos, dog tracks, gypsy parlors, et al. Then we'll look back and ask why. I'll say it was because the marriage institution was already in such a bad way from all the abuse by heterosexuals that we finally decided to share the misery.

No. Blocking same-sex domestic partnerships would impact SSM couples. Blocking marriage would not be possible because marriage (the 94% definition) is a CU between one and one woman. No. Legalizing same-sex CUs would take care of the matter entirely. There's no need for the law to call them married, not as long as they are granted their legal rights. I agree that you are entitled to your opinion. Do you happen to have an opinion on how badly the polygamists are being discriminated against? The nudists? The atheists? The skinheads? The Hara Khrisnas? The mushroom foragers? We have no shortage of miserable minorities that squirm and yelp for attention.

iNow, can you differentiate a fact from an opinion? The point is that your opinion is fine and fair and fully justified, to you, but it may not be so to others. What is a "MEASURABLE IMPACT"? Who defines that? If what you say is a fact in truth, then why are so many states—all 94% of them—blind to this truth? What's the matter with everybody? Are they all nuts? Are we all Flatlanders living in a two-dimensional world when there's a much better third dimension for us to live in? And who decides that? (I happen to prefer the fourth dimension). I'm glad you agree that it's all about opinion. I don't think it helps your arugument to play those cards. Now you're scaring me. Doesn't my opinion count for anything? Or is any opinion contrary to yours bigoted, hypocritical, and troll-like? Well, my hippie days are long gone and fondly remembered. One thing I remember is that all good hippies were philosophers at heart and questioned everything. I don't recall any subject that was off limits, otherwise we'd be hippie hypocrites.

It's a question of whose beliefs are to be imposed upon whom. I believe pot should be legalized, and I see no harm to society by doing so. In fact, I see a huge net benefit. But I sill have to live in a society where it is illegal. The majority of public opinion on that matter runs counter to mine. But, hey, that's life in a constitutional republic that operates on the principles of democracy. Why should SSM be treated differently? Because they've intruded on the definition of marriage. That's my opinion on the matter. How have they intruded? By offending the DOMA. If you don't agree with the DOMA then you won't feel any intrusion. Do you think the DOMA people have intruded on the SSN people? Same question in reverse. DOMA doesn't bother me, so why should it bother you? Dudde, are you forgetting that even the SCOTUS is a body of human beings? Sure there are biases. What would you expect? And if those biases ran in your favor, would you be out banging the gong for unbiased court opinions? I hold an opinion on the matter. You hold an opinion on the matter. Why should your opinion be any better than mine? And if you reject the courts' opinions after they have made their interpretations of the Constitution, why is your opinion any better than theirs? Bottom line: SSM v. DOMA is a battle of hearts and mines. I don't see how the SSM people can win this battle with any of the arguments put forward here or elsewhere. Time to change your battle plan. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Then maybe you ought to go look for a country that operates differently from the US of A. I know it's a hard reality to face, but majority opinion matters in this country. And if the same-sexers want to change that they need to cop a different attitude, one that isn't fueled by self-righteous indignation. Maybe it's time to face up to the fact that there are many, many, many minorities in this country that pose the same question. Any minority so disfavored will make that claim. Even the nudists claim that current laws on nudity offend their rights. Why should nudity be intrusive to anyone? How does it harm them? And what about your neighbor who raises puppies for barbequeing purposes? Why should that bother you? Why shouldn't his minority opinion trump the majority opinion on that matter? I was uninformed on this important change in our government. When did we stop being a constitutional republic that operates on the principles of democracy? So, are you against putting this to a test by either popular vote or a court decision? Why? Doesn't the Constitution apply equally to both of us? Wrong attitude, if changing hearts and mind are important. People who support the DOMA feel the same way. Who's right and who's wrong? Better to let the public vote decided, and then turn it over to the courts. If you can't abide with that then you're living in the wrong country. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No such luck for me; I'm a blood, guts, and glory American (except that I am still a hippie at heart).

You're probably right. I'd do it on principles that made sense to me. And I haven't yet seen a principle supporting SSM that makes any sense to me. But, hey, it must be peculiar to me (the rest of the 94% notwithstanding). That's a relief. I've been married three time already and I really don't know why anybody, especially the intelligent same-sexers, would even want to do it. The success rate of marriages is about 50%. Would you buy a car that promised that kind of performance? Welcome aboard, matie! Oops. Hold on. I would hazard a guess that many, many, many people of the DOMA mentality feel intrusion from the same-sexers. One person's intrusion might be another person's delight. Are you going to ask a Hells Angel to stop revving up his bike because the noise is intrusive to your peace and quite? He might not share your acoustical values and it would be foolish to fight him over them. The courts are the only thing we have in a constitutional republic to settle this matter of SSM. Let's see what happens.

A lamp post you say? Well, I'm sure he's a very nice lamp post: tall, bright, and upstanding. Congratulations! But why do I have to prove harm over such a marriage. Of course your marriage won't bother me, because I don't let absurd things like that bother me. And you're not out to do they same thing? Whatever the Constitution allows is fair. If a state supreme court or the SCOTUS decides it's fair then I'm on board. The real question is this: Will you abide with a high court decision on SSM? Or are your opnions above the law? But who decides what's fair. I'm happy to let the courts decide. Are You? Please be very careful with your answer.

Well, Poe's Law is a new one one me. I was responding satirically to the OP, which asserted that no evidence exists for evolution. Since the fossil record is the best evidence we have, I was making fun of the fact that fossils don't evolve...'cuz they're just deal old fossils...ah, never mind.

I agree. All those fossils collected by all those paleontologists never evolved into anything.

Still waiting for that "proof." And your link doesn't do it, because only 2 states out of 50 (and also DC) have chosen SSM over DOMA. I don't consider such a 6% choice a very convincing trumping of DOMA, not when 94% of the states continue to play their DOMA cards with impunity. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Then stop lecturing me. I will respond to any reasonable argument at least once. It's your job to posit one. Or maybe you think it's your job to go tattle on those who you can't defeat in a fair and reasonable argument. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Now wait. First I am accused of not defending my definition of marriage, and now I am accused of pushing my definition on others? Wha? Prop 8 seems to matter to people in CA. Redux: SSM is like Scientology, and therefore it should be legalized. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Because the law universally affects everyone. Take "marriage' out of the law and I have no problem whatsoever with: "gay marriage," "sibling marriage," "pet marriage," or any other kind of "marriage" you can think of. If "marriage" became a strictly religious institution then I wouldn't care who or what gets marriage, because of I'm not religious and I don't care what the churches do (up to the point of abusing animals, children, or the mentally infirm). And I respect yours. When we have to two opposing opinions on an issue, how do we decide which one is right? In this country we take a vote. Right now the vote is 96% in my favor and 6% in yours (based on DOMA states v. SSM states). That's why my opinion is superceding yours.

I'm not yet clear why I can't hold an opinion on this matter, just like you. Why is your argument any better than mine? It's just an opinion, isn't it? I'm being asked here to change my definition of "marriage." I don't agree with the arguments put forth by those who advocate such a change. What more can I tell you; they're lousy arguments. Marriage, to me, means a CU between one man and one woman. If it means something different to you, well, then, fine. Let's tally up the votes on our opinions at the end of the day and see where we stand. Fair enough?

And I absolutely agree with you. And I don't consider sodomy among consenting adults behind closed doors to be anyone's business but their own. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I wouldn't know how it could, unless you had a religious objection to it. It doesn't fit my definition of "marriage," however, which makes a particularly important difference to me.

I, too, fail to see the connection. It's like trying to connect astrology to astronomy.

Nothing in your linked article convinces me that SSM should trump DOMA. What we have here is a polarized spectrum of opinions. Nothing more. No proofs of anything. The truth is that SSM must be convincing at the opinion level, even maybe the SCOTUS opinion level, eventually. So, how do you change the opinions of those who oppose SSM in favor of DOMA? You can't do it by saying "But gay people want to marry the ones they love, just like straight people." It's an emotional argument when it needs to be a judicial argument, and it's clear by a margin of 94% that state courts are not agreeing that SSM should trump DOMA. If you want SSM to succeed you'll have to take it up with the supreme courts, and this is happening right now in CA. I anxiously await the SCOCA opinion on Prop 8. If the SCOCA rules against Prop 8, I'll be more than happy to see Chuck and Larry tie the knot. And I'll be happy for everybody like them, too, because I'm all for happy people. But if SCOCA rules in favor of Prop 8, I'll also be happy, because the matter will be solved for good...until it is kicked all the way up to the SCOTUS. Won't it be fun to learn what the SCOTUS thinks about SSM trumping DOMA? My best guess is that the SCOTUS will not issue a ruling on this matter, but instead defer it back to the states. I could live with that.

Take a look at this list, which differentiates DOMA states from states allowing SSM. I count only two states and the District of Columbia that allow SSM. The rest clearly do not allow it. That means that only about 6% of state laws support your argument and about 94% support mine. So, what remains is a huge credibility gap in the support for SSM. Why do you suppose DOMA is upheld so overwhelmingly by state laws? Could it be that the SSM people have not yet made a convincing argument for their cause. And whose fault is that? No one on this thread has yet proven that SSM should trump DOMA. Please, please, please explain why it should. And please make your explanation more compelling than a 3:51 success ratio.

What constitutional rights? Did either the SCOCAL or the SCOTUS rule on same-sex marriage without me hearing about? And if either or both rule against SSM, what then? Will the Constitutional Republic of the United States of American be wrong? Something like Hitler's Germany?

I do acknowledge what you say. There are no proofs on either side of this argument, only OPINIONS. Soon, iNow, you will have to face what you fear most: public opinion, and even worse state supreme court opinion, or maybe even a SCOTUS opinion. Will you abide with their decisions? Or will say that you know more about the Constitution that any supreme court does?

Whadda ya think of the Toshiba S4? Why couldn't these little nukes be used in any community as a local power source? It could dramatically alter our energy infrastructure and our dependence on foreign oil. Safer and cleaner. I'm not so sure about cheaper. But maybe the Toshiba S4 has more universal application than just the Yukon. I like the concept.

Ah, really? I'm not at all clear why I need to prove anything. Isn't that the job of those who want to change existing laws? Besides, proof isn't even an active ingredient in this silly pudding. It's ALL about opinion. There are no facts here, other than what can be determined to be constitutional by either a state supreme court or SCOTUS. But not even that would be good enough you, because if SCOTUS were to support an affirmative ruling on Prop 8 you and your ilk would not accept it. And by doing so, you and your ilk would be practicing bigotry.