The Grieving McCain-Voters Thread

[Final-Fan]

Senlis said:

Final-Fan said:

Senlis said:
I have never heard of this process sublimation. But it seems that it cannot be solid and and gaseous at the same time. It just has no liquid state in between.

As for the rest of my argument, I'll just let Thomas Sowell argue it for me.

"Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman.

"Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that law has not been based on logic but on experience. To apply a mountain of laws based specifically on experience with relations between a man and a woman to a different relationship where sex differences are not involved would be like applying the rules of baseball to football."

There is more, and if you disagree, you can send your arguments to Thomas.

Well boiling water isn't liquid and gaseous at the same time. It's liquid until it turns gaseous. In sublimation, it's solid until it turns gaseous. My point is that you say that gay marriage is as ridiculous a concept as boiling ice is; and yet here we have ice turning into steam. "There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

As for Tommy Boy, I guess he didn't get the bad news about Rome. "The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period.  In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal." (sez Wikipedia)

Apparently Greece, China, and Africa have all had gay marriage to some extent as well.

I'm debating you, not Mr. Sowell. If you can't think for yourself, feel free to email him yourself for a rebuttal to my post that he can give you to give me.

It's true, I do not know everything, and did not know about sublimation. I used boiling ice as an example; I was referring to water, but did not expressly state it.  My point is that by definition gay marriage is an oxymoron.  You can't just say that in some cases, boiling ice exists to defeat my argument.  You are side-tracking yourself.

Your point about marriage in Rome is enteresting, but citing Wikipedia is not impressive.  If you were to cite Wikipedia in a college course (or even in late high school), it is often an instant failure on the assignment.  I will not accept it either.  Cite a legit and well known source like I did when citing Thomas Sowell last post.

You may be debating me, but Thomas is much more knowledgeable than me about the subject and is more eloquent at expressing it.  Therefore, if after reading that artice you still do not agree, than nothing I can say will convince you.  You did read the article before replying, right? not just the little snippet I provided?  I read your article about sublimation.

Back on topic with the thread.  It seems to me that either way the economy goes, the democrats win.  There are two possibilities: 1) The economy recoveres on it's own and the Democrats take all the credit, even though they had nothing to do with it.  2) The democrats really screw up the economy, and then they say that there was nothing that could be done to prevent it.  The economy is probably going to recover as long as the Democrats do not screw it up trying to "fix" it.  We are not even in a recession yet.  Also, the Democrats are the ones responsible for the current economic "crisis" anyway.

Having read the full article, I am even more disdainful of his argument.

My point is that, just as you didn't know about sublimation, i.e. boiling ice, neither you nor Thomas Sowell knew about gay marriage in Rome.  At least, I hope he didn't, otherwise he's a damn liar. 

I don't know why you think a right-wing blogger with a degree in economics is a good authority on the history of marriage as it pertains to homosexuals.  He didn't cite a source; Wikipedia does.  Are you saying that the cited part of the Thodosian Code (9.8.3) is inauthentic?

As for why I didn't accept the redirect "why don't you go debate that guy", (A) he's not here and (B) he probably wouldn't respond to my email.  What I mean by (A) is that there are so many people with controversial opinions out on the Internet that it would be madness to go out and try to debate all of them.  I'm pushing it just debating ones I happen to run across on my favorite forum.

As for the rest, I disagree separately and strongly with every single one of your sentences -- but I don't feel like debating two subjects at once with you.