There is a valid analogy that you do not enter a cat in a dog show, and you don't, and it's not allowed, not because someone just "defined" the words "dog" and "cat", but because the inappropriate inapplicable behavior of entering a cat in a dog show is based upon what the words "dog" and "cat" having accurately meant, what they truly mean and have meant for a very long time.You know what? Some do think that. Too bad. The two arguments are not equal. No group has some exclusive right to define marriage. Marriage is not a word religious people own. This isn't an argument over WORDS, it's an argument over RIGHTS. In what ridiculous universe does the right to a definition supercede individual liberty?
Your "actuals" included the assertion that opponents of SSM are "much, much greater" in number than proponents of it. That's a demonstrably false assertion.
Polls of the population at large do not represent the attitudinal perspective of those who 1) hold the traditional institution of marriage valuable, and 2) those less than 2% of the population who really want to marry. The former is much, much greater in number than the latter, obviously.Your "actuals" included the assertion that opponents of SSM are "much, much greater" in number than proponents of it. That's a demonstrably false assertion.
Half of Americans Support Legal Gay Marriage
Majority of Americans support legalizing same-sex marriage, poll shows | The Ticket - Yahoo! News
New Poll: Americans Increase Support Of Marriage Equality to 54%
After President Obama’s announcement, opposition to gay marriage hits record low - The Washington Post
http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1137a2GayMarriage.pdf
USA TODAY/Gallup poll: 51% agree with Obama's gay marriage endorsement
How is stating a statistically verified fact a specious rally point?
I would try to understand the valid perspective of people who want to stop something that won't affect them in anyway, and for which they have no rational or logical reason to oppose it.
And while I'm not a philosopher or anything, I would wager that people who want marriage to include same-sex couples, and those who do not, might not have mutually achievable goals.
You offer as proof opinion polls. I've offered as proof actual election results. The opinion polls have already been demonstrated as false conclusions in light of the reality of the results of actual votes on the matter. Look back, how many states disallow gay marriage by a vote of the people? 29, plus 12 that have voted not to honor civil unions or gay marriages from other states. How many states have voted to allow gay marriage? That would be 6. Now, do your homework and take a look at the percentage those votes to allow won by.
People can and do say anything in those opinion polls. Heck, they'll respond differently depending upon who is asking the question or even who is listening in as they take the poll. But they're alone at the voting booth, that is the only result that counts for reals.
Polls of the population at large do not represent the attitudinal perspective of those who 1) hold the traditional institution of marriage valuable, and 2) those less than 2% of the population who really want to marry. The former is much, much greater in number than the latter, obviously.
Polls of the population at large, who include single people, those never planning on getting married, thus greater numbers of liberals who simply polly-parrot the cause of any so-called "disaffected" population sub-set, etc. do not reflect the size of the sides as I stated them previously.
Again, all you've done is played the rally-point game, in true activist form.
This is one of those issues where those who really have no real dog in the fight, who simply easily state their opinion over the phone to a pollster without ever having to worry about how the outcome will affect them, are really doing both sides a disservice.
My concern is for this matter to be resolved without creating lingering animosity on either side, where negative repercussions will thus not likely occur, and my concern is that both sides achieve their foundational goal.
I think that a great majority of people in America and in the world associate the word "marriage" with "a man and a woman as husband and wife", and understandably so...
Actually, it's you who's changing the goalposts.But you're changing the goalposts. In your first post, you said:
You never said anything about people who "value" marriage's meaning or anything else. That might have been what you meant, but you certainly didn't say it. All you said was that a "great majority of people in America" are opposed to SSM. You can't change the goalposts and then pretend that my evidence in invalid because no one has taken on the impossible task of polling only people who "hold the traditional institution of marriage valuable." You've changed the goalposts so that you can make the tautological claim that the majority of people who oppose SSM, oppose SSM.
And I think that the people who really have no dog in the fight are heterosexuals, since we will not be effected by the legalization of SSM. We are the people who should stay out and let a tiny minority have their equal rights.
Actually, it's you who's changing the goalposts.
You previously complained about "much, much greater numbers", but that comes from the following statement I made: "So the leaders of the "gay marriage" movement have taken what they deem to be the shortcut of redfining marriage, the only real chance for success and success soon .. much to the "don't steal our tradition from us" objection of much, much greater numbers of people who don't want their institution of marriage sullied."
Now you change the goalposts to my other statement: "I think that a great majority of people in America and in the world associate the word "marriage" with "a man and a woman as husband and wife", and understandably so." which, obviously, is quite different.
So again, you simply exemplify a win-lose activist's rally perspective for your side, caring not whether what you say is true.
In the latter quote listed here of mine, yes, I think a great majority of people in America do associate the word "marriage" with "a man and a woman as husband and wife". I also think a number of those people without a real dog in the fight are easily fooled/persuaded by activists' false rantings to change that association and redefine marriage.
I advocate a win-win solution here, which can still occur.
And, I am very concerned, what with the recent scientific revelations that sexual orientation has genetic precursors, the state of development of genetic-bioweapons, the ability to preventatively fight genetic "birth-defects" with "breakthoughs" in science-medicine .. that it's really best, nowadays, to create win-win solutions, espcially regarding highly emotionally charged matters as this one, without creating lingering animosity that could result in some eventual tragic "Dr. Mengele-ing" by the "losing" side .. especially if that losing side is large and has lots of money.
Win-win is always best.
Let's all find a way to do that.
I believe Ontologuy answered your misperception of the matter perfectly. There are also people who were okay with SSM four years ago who now, seeing the will of their initiative results are actively frustrated, are now against. I know of many folks in California, who voted against Prop 8, but are very pissed off that their electoral process has been frustrated by federal courts. Again, these are people who normally don't have a dog in the hunt where it comes to SSM, but they do have a huge interest in seeing that initiatives that are passed by the people aren't ignored by the feds.
The undenialable fact is 33 states have amendments voted for by the people saying that marriage is between a man and a woman....Two more will be added in November......If SSM is so popular with the American people why is it the only way it can be approved is by activist judges?
The undenialable fact is 33 states have amendments voted for by the people saying that marriage is between a man and a woman....Two more will be added in November......If SSM is so popular with the American people why is it the only way it can be approved is by activist judges?
Now you're not only obfuscating, you're being purposely obtuse .. also an activist rallying tactic in the win-lose battle. :roll:So when you're talking about "much, much greater numbers of people who don't want their institution of marriage sullied," you're referring exclusively to people who "hold the traditional institution of marriage valuable"? That was your great argument? That most people who believe in traditional marriage don't want traditional marriage to change? In that case, you're right and I was wrong. Your claim was merely a tautology, and I was stupid enough to assume you were making an assertion that was in anyway relevant to the SSM debate.
I have a tautology of my own to waste everyone's time with: the vast majority of people who believe that gays should have marriage equality, also support SSM. Anyone care to challenge me on this?
I have a feeling that the if the majority of people support SSM, as demonstrated by the polls I cited, then it isn't possible that the majority of Americans associate marriage with a man and a woman. We can argue semantics, but I don't think those two assertions are compatible, assuming that people who believe in marriage as between a man and a woman wouldn't support SSM, by definition.
I'm concerned that what you think a win-win is not a win-win, because many people who want marriage to include same-sex couples want those marriages to be the same, de facto and de jure, as heterosexual marriages.
"Activist judges" is a popular term to throw around. But the fact is that the constitution as it was written, explicitly and undeniably calls for the SCOTUS and other courts to play the role of deciding the constitutionality of laws. You know, like overturning SSM bans. The whole state referendum thing was put into place a century after the writing of the constitution by bleeding-heart progressives who wanted to circumvent the constitution to ban "social vices."
Now you're not only obfuscating, you're being purposely obtuse .. also an activist rallying tactic in the win-lose battle. :roll:
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?
I'm sorry Miguel, I'm really not trying to insult you here, but you really need to bone up on history before you continue to post such outright inaccuracies. State referendums (initiatives) were not created in the few states that have them to "circumvent the constitution". They only hold sway in the state itself and have nothing to do with addressing the federal constitution. They are the way voters can directly vote on legislation (bypassing the state legislature) dealing with STATE law and STATE constitution. They are the reflection of the direct will of the people. There are pros and cons to that and that's why only a few states have enacted an initiative process.
And no, the federal Constitution as written does not confer judicial review. That is a power the court took as Jefferson so rightly claimed.
I'm sorry Miguel, I'm really not trying to insult you here, but you really need to bone up on history before you continue to post such outright inaccuracies. State referendums (initiatives) were not created in the few states that have them to "circumvent the constitution". They only hold sway in the state itself and have nothing to do with addressing the federal constitution. They are the way voters can directly vote on legislation (bypassing the state legislature) dealing with STATE law and STATE constitution. They are the reflection of the direct will of the people. There are pros and cons to that and that's why only a few states have enacted an initiative process.
And no, the federal Constitution as written does not confer judicial review. That is a power the court took as Jefferson so rightly claimed.
They were created because the laws that progressives wanted passed (at the time, things like alcohol prohibition and female suffrage) weren't going to get passed in the legislature. You know, the constitutionally established way to pass laws? So the progressives established initiatives to get these sorts of things passed. Establishing laws in states without going through the constitutionally established process in the legislature is what I would call "circumventing the constitution." Shall I explain this in minute detail to you, or do you understand how going passing laws in a way the constitution does not envisage means circumventing the constitution?
Again, you have a spotty and unreliable view of history. We have no national referendum process (read that again and memorize it), so neither the initiative nor the referendum process has anything to do with alcohol prohibition or women's suffrage or any other FEDERAL law. There is a difference between the two btw (referendum and initiative are not interchangeable). Look it up.
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.
The state initiatives were used to prohibit alcohol and grant women the right to vote. Do I need to pull out the historical evidence for you, or are you familiar with these episodes in our history?
cir·cum·vent/ˌsərkəmˈvent/
Verb:
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?
Yes, you do. Show me where either the state initiative or the state referendum process was used to attempt either.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Neither process is designed to circumvent the FEDERAL constitution.
Which claims are you referring to? The debunked crap about polling being more accurate than actual voting results? That's already been provided for you. And btw, this little detour into the referendum and initiative processes doesn't help your point at all. Besides showing you have little knowledge of either (still haven't looked up the difference have you?), still confirms that the people, at the voting booth are against SSM in great number.
Woman Suffrage in Oregon | Oregon Encyclopedia - Oregon History and Culture
Since you were bragging about the history of the Oregon System and like to tell people to bone up on their history, I would have assumed you were familiar with your own history. Not only was it attempted several times and eventually passed (before the 19th Amendment) in Oregon, but the same process happened in several other states with the initiative process. I can document every single time it was attempted, and every single time it was successful in the history of the state initiative process, if you'd like. But I assumed I just need to prove you wrong on the point--although I'm sure you'll keep carping about how little I know about the history of state initiatives and referendums.
The problem that you never addressed is that you claim scientific polls from 2012 aren't valid, because of electoral results from four years ago. You intentionally ignore the fact that up to or even more than half of the people polled in the polls I reference aren't going to vote in this election. That's called a confounding variable in statistics, something you should familiarize yourself with before you make more absurd allegations. You made an attempt to provide evidence with anecdotal crap about "folks you know in California," but you failed to demonstrate why that is more valid than scientific polling. You haven't provided any evidence for anything you've argued, and you've rejected my evidence based on your personal feelings and anecdotal examples. The detour into referendums and initiatives, by the way, was me replying to someone else. You jumped on the thread, trying to prove me wrong, but I hope we can get back on the actual point of the thread.
Now you're simply obfuscating again, likely over-reacting to be called on your error of comparison.You're acting as though only the tiny minority of homosexuals are relevant to the debate. But quite obviously, most people who support SSM are not gay and are supporting it on moral grounds. Next, you pretend that what matters is comparing the numerical amount of homosexuals who want to redefine marriage to the people who don't, but that's a false comparison and is irrelevant. Then you act as though including SSM in the definition of marriage is wrong because the number of people who don't support SSM is greater than the homosexual population that does, even though you're ignoring the obvious and overriding fact that the majority of people in this country support SSM, even if they're straight. That means that, your irrelevant subset notwithstanding, more people will be happy with legalizing SSM than will be pissed off about it. You don't have a moral reason for opposing SSM, nor a legal reason, and even the public is not on your side anymore; so you have to make up the irrelevant arithmetic of "homosexuals approving of SSM" and "people who would be pissed off by SSM" and pretend that it's an argument.
Your implied analogy is baseless, as the reasons for the unjustified exclusions you cite had nothing to do with marriage being "between a man and a woman as huband and wife".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?
Absolutely it is.You seem convinced that homarriage civil union domestic partnerships is a win-win.
Absolutely false.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?
First, you are correct, that we did try to change the STATE constitution to allow women the vote in LOCAL and STATE elections. That was my error. Your error is in thinking that either process has anything to do with FEDERAL law or constitution.
You've gone on to blast the processes as being inconsistent with the FEDERAL constitution. Your argument almost flies with the initiative process, but absolutely fails on the referendum process (where the legislature writes the law and then puts it up for public vote).
Opinion polls are not facts, not in 2008 and not in 2012. And it's you who have ignored that a good number of those polled may not vote in whatever upcoming election. There is no "scientific evidence" that polling is more reflective of people's personal opinions than the result of a vote. You can't prove it, and I can't "prove" the negative. At least not by scientific standards. However, I "demonstrated" the point quite nicely by showing you the reality of the result garnered by the majority (of the voters to be sure, but that's the only majority that counts in this discussion).
Since you claim such a close knowledge of the initiative and referendum processes, please tell us, how many are on the ballot for 2012 looking to legalize SSM? Certainly if the majority that you claim through opinion polls is so for this, well, where are the initiatives, where are the referendums?
It's been a few dozen years since I had my last stats course, but I work with stats all the time in real life. Don't go trying to teach yer grandma how to suck eggs. :mrgreen:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?