Zenin isn't in marketing, he's a software developer (it was obvious from his post history). His view of productive work likely doesn't actually include anything the marketing department actually does.

I really think the Firefox people think of it like hiding an option to make your feet a valid target on a hypothetical "smart" shotgun. It's an intentional user interface failure because they actually don't want you to shoot yourself in the foot. Of course, if you're a professional who "knows what you're doing", then you can easily change a text file or install No Script.

This isn't going anywhere. I've already shown that you distorted your opponents position and shown how your accusation of falsehood, is in itself, false.

I don't know how you can maintain that "It's not equal" and "It doesn't exist" are logically the same statement, but if you are that devoid of understanding and so belligerent that you must constantly hurl undignified accusations and insults at anyone who dares to disagree with you, I can only conclude that it is pointless to discuss this further.

Sure you did, however, that's not a proper argument. You are supposed to actually say which fallacies and how they apply. Otherwise you're no better than a little child who screams "I'm right and you're wrong because I said so". Which, considering your behaviour to date, isn't actually surprising from you.

Once again, this in unbecoming behaviour from someone who wishes to present himself as a model for rhetorical argument. Rather than hurling insults because you can't form a coherent argument, you should just admit that you were wrong.

Since you did not even attempt to refute my argument, I'll take it that you are gracelessly conceding the point.

I wrote:

He wrote:

You wrote:

and

Your argument is clearly a strawman because the OP said they weren't equally biased and you accused him of saying they weren't biased at all. It's obvious that you failed to understand what was written before you and then you descended into belligerence and profanity to conceal your failure. Clearly, you are a paragon of rhetorical argument.

Contrary to what the AC wrote, the AG was enforcing the law. She has chosen, however, not to continue arguing with the courts after they have ruled the law unconstitutional. Given your conviction that "It isn't her job to determine whether something is unconsitituional or not" she has already fullfilled her obligation by defending the law in court once. There courts judgement is, in her professional opinion, fair and there seem to be no obvious grounds for appeal that are likely to succeed.

From this sentence, it appears that you do not know what a theocracy is because the sentence simply doesn't make sense, given the facts of the case.

Why indeed, I wonder why the Prop 8 supports, many of them from Utah, even bothered to spend so much money getting an obviously discriminatory law passed.

That would be a bad precedent but as far as I am aware, that is an entirely fictional scenario that has nothing to with the present case, where the AG defended in court the legislation constitutionality, lost, and accepted the court's verdict.

That's actually a strawman argument. He didn't claim they were unbiased, he claimed they weren't equally biased.

You really should not throw stones in your glass house.

Look at the TV News ratings. Soon enough no one will be watching anyway.

I suspect that Massachussetts is legally required to recognize that you have a permit to carry a concealed weapon in Texas.

The circumstancial evidence is that it is most likely genetic. Studies on indentical twins separated at birth found that if one was openly homosexual the other twin was about 80% likely to also be openly homosexual.

Just like Communism and Libertarianism work until you add people, I don't think your simple workaround has a chance in hell of working once it's actually exposed to irrational people. Here's the thing I realized nearly a decade ago, no lesbian bridezilla is ever going to be content with a civil union. Her childhood fantasies are about the perfect wedding, not a "civil union". And if you try to tell her she's not allowed to have her marriage, she will gut you like a fish before you can get the words "civil union" out of your mouth.

The emotional attachment is to the word marriage. Changing the name won't satisfy anyone who's already up in arms about not being allowed to marry (they'll just see it as continued discrimination). Worse, your plan will upset a lot heterosexual formerly married couples, and would give the populists something really big to rant about. They'd be all over the blogosphere, the TV, the radio and the newspaper screaming mad over how you (personally) stole the marriages of millions of decent Americans. You could become the most hated man in America.

Additionally step 4 is counter-productive. Religious ceremonies should have no impact on the state. Instead during or after the ceremony the couple signs the paperwork for their civil union and it gets sent to city hall for registration. Which, I think, is exactly what happens now.

So what you've done is incurred great cost in changing the words used, pissed off a lot of people who are going to vote to rescind your changes and you've accomplished nothing at all other than creating a lot of very angry people who hate you (specifically) and you've guaranteed that your political party won't be elected again for a generation. Is it really worth all that to try and appease a group who, if you plan actually succeeded, would simply start complaing that gays should be allowed to have civil unions?

Until religious people start claiming that civil unions are defined by God? Then what?

Wouldn't the proper thing be for the Federal Government to simply recognize the marriages authorized by the states?

There's an even simpler solution. You don't allow gay couples to sue a church that refuses to perform a religious ceremony for them. I see no reason why a church should be forced to marry anyone as long as they can make a reasonable argument that the ceremony runs counter to their religion. I see no reason why any couple needs religious approval for a marriage, it's a civil matter. Churches are only in charge of the "religious ceremony" part of a marriage. The ceremony means nothing without the civil paperwork and the paperwork can be signed without a priest looking over your shoulder.

Of course, after a church has refused to many a couple, maybe the couple will take their faith and donations to a church that doesn't hate them.