Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So what you are really asking me is if it were a biological male marrying a transgender female…would that be same sex marriage? I don’t really know what you are asking.No, that is why I asked. How does it compare with your definition of "same-sex" marriage?
Like leaving children alone to be children?Why don’t you leave others alone?
I was asking your opinion of recognizing fundamental differences between biological males and females in sports and government policy. I believe that, in both categories, biological differences should not be ignored in favor of political ideology.So what you are really asking me is if it were a biological male marrying a transgender female…would that be same sex marriage? I don’t really know what you are asking.
Women’s sports were created because the physiological differences between biological males and biological males made direct competition unequal. Transgender women are still physiological males so imo should not compete against biological females.
All that would add up to is civil war in all likelihood.I believe that we are rapidly approaching a vanishing point with respect to peaceful resolution of our political differences. It is clear that the Left wants to impose its will over the entire country, whereas the Right wants to be left alone to control its own destiny. That is why the Left opposes any type of political separation or self-determination while the Right generally supports these ideas.
The U.S. Constitution specifies a procedure for Amendment, either through Congress or by the States themselves. Because of rampant gerrymandering of House districts and the nationalization of Senate campaigns, the Congressional approach is no longer feasible. Instead, only a Constitutional Convention called for by 2/3 of State legislatures has any hope of settling our differences without physical conflict.
Since the core issue is political control, it seems that an agreement that allows each side to exercise democratic authority over areas of common interest would seem to be the best alternative to the current situation. This could be accomplished by establishing the authority of individual States to veto federal legislation that directly affects them. Such vetos could then be overridden by a 2/3 vote of the U.S. Congress.
Comments/alternatives?
That is what I would like to avoid.All that would add up to is civil war in all likelihood.
Well that isn't the way to avoid civil war, it would almost certainly expedite one taking place.That is what I would like to avoid.
A Constitutional Amendment would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the States, and the other 1/4 would be relatively unaffected. I would even support a National Moving Day, when disgruntled residents could move to another State.Well that isn't the way to avoid civil war, it would almost certainly expedite one taking place.
The country is more divided today than at any time since the Civil War so anything that passed would certainly lead to one side or the other getting extremely violent.
No insult intended but I think you're being way to naïve.A Constitutional Amendment would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the States, and the other 1/4 would be relatively unaffected. I would even support a National Moving Day, when disgruntled residents could move to another State.
