A lot like Texas.

Buisness men came in... told everyone was all cool.

Forced a king to sign a new constitution that gave up all their rights... got changed into a republic.

Later a Queen tried to change that.

Grover Cleveland tried to stop them and restore the Queen but it was blocked via John Tyler Morgan... another Democrat interestingly enough, though a confederate democrat.

It got stalled out and eventually instead of reinstalling the monarcy it was annexed by Mckinley.

It had to do with the service and commitment of the Hawaiian People in WWII, also their increased patriotism from their involvement.

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. ^[12] In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal.^[13]"  (sez Wikipedia)

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

I'm debating you, not Thomas.  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. 

They are however, more likely to invest it which also moves things in a positive direction.  Which is more effective is a matter of ideology, but I didn't come in here to start a fight, just supply the other half of the logic.

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. 

@Final-Fan

I'll argue with you on both points.  Feel free to rebute one of your choice.

On the wikipedia issue.  I will have to explain the concept of "popular history".  Popular history is history that is taken for granted to be true, even though it may not be.  Sometimes, wikipedia gets it right, and sometimes it doesn't.  Besides the point that almost anyone can modify almost any article does not make it a proper source for even an 8th grade paper.

One example of popular history is the immorality of the people of Rome.  The average family in Rome had what many would consider to be great family values.  Gay marriage in Rome is just an example of something that would be believed just because of what people thought Rome was like.

Thomas Sowell is a well known writer.  He is part of the Drudge Report community, I started reading his articles in an American Government college course.  From reading his bibliography, it can be deduced that he is well versed in many areas, even though his specialty is economics.

It is not a stretch to say that Thomas Sowell is a more legitimate source than wikipedia.  If you tell any professor otherwise, he would laugh at you.  If you said that almost any source was less legitimate than wikipedia, he/she would probably laugh at you.

"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. " Only a fool thinks he knows everything.  A wise man realizes how much he does know.  I see absolutely no correlation between the transition of solids into gasses and social studies.

I still stand by my statement that if a well known Phd whom states my stance does not convince you, I cannot.  I am not as good of a writer as he is.

My stance is that gay people should be given the same economic rights as heterosexual couples who are married.  But for those gay couples who want thier union to be called "gay marriage", they are more concerned with thier acceptance into society than thier rights.  I just wanted to make it clear I am not against giving gay couples thier rights.

"And I think you are talking completely out of your ass when you say that gays care less about equal rights than the word "marriage"." - I forgot about this one a couple of posts back.  You haven't said anything about how gay couples are more interested in thier rights.  You have simply been bashing my sources and questioning my intelligence regarding chemistry.  Saying that I am "talking completely out of [my] ass" is not a proper rebuttal.

I think that will be enough for now.

@Final-Fan

About 30 min after posting that last one, I decided it is about time to end this argument.  I don't think I will be convincing you of anything and you won't be presenting me with anything that will change my mind.  In the interest of not degrading into nuh-uhh and uhh-huhh's

I must admit, it was interesting arguing with you.  Most people on this forum aren't as good at arguing as you are.  The "talking out of my ass" commend was funny tho.

I won't be checking this thread again.  Have a nice day.