Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You did notice the "plainly put" part, correct? In other words, a simplified explanation of Loving? And where the hell did I mention Massachusetts?> Maybe you should go back and read the topic. The reason the Loving decision was brought up was because someone tried to compare it to what is happening in Massachusetts now.
Originally Posted By ecdc The problem here Doug is that your position demonstrates a danger in our Democracy. If people refuse to believe even the most obvious things that the law says, then it creates a potential for justification of lawbreaking. At some point, people have to agree what the law says and what changes have taken place just to make our democracy and society work. I know we're just a few schlubs on a message board - nobody's curing cancer here. But I do think that if you were to step back and apply your remarkable ability to dig in your heels and insist the most obvious of statements don't mean what they say to our larger government, we'd be screwed. You can play word games all you want, but cultures have to be made up of reasonable people willing to say "Yep, that's what that means" without questioning every definition of every word, every meaning of every sentence, and challenging anything that could possibly, perhaps, be the tiniest of roadblocks to one's own opinion. There are better ways to go about arguing your opinion and your side of the debate than losing credibility for yourself by essentially saying 2+2 doesn't equal 4. That's what you've done throughout this discussion.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That's what you've done throughout this discussion.> No, I haven't.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Loving was more than that. Prior to Loving, an interracial couple couldn't even live together, let alone be married. > That is correct, but that doesn't mean that marriage wasn't part of the equation, or that SCOTUS' decision didn't affect marriage or change its definition. <<It is only you who has done so.>> <No, it's not.> Everyone else understands the Loving did in fact change the definition of marriage in Virginia. You've had to torture logic to try to pretend it didn't. <<Your "reason" was that previously, blacks and whites could both marry; just not each other.>> <No, it wasn't.> What was it, then? Because that was your most recent "reason" for why Loving somehow didn't change marriage in VA. <<No one here but you has done so.>> <I disagree.> Wow, that's persuasive. <Amongst people who can't understand simple statements, distort the facts to suit there agenda, and repeat their opinions in some misguided belief that eventually they'll be proved right? Oh well.> Talk about projecting. We're into this because you can't understand the simple statement that Loving changed the definition of marriage in VA - or WON'T understand it. "The reason the Loving decision was brought up was because someone tried to compare it to what is happening in Massachusetts now. " Loving and Massachusetts are not exact analogues, only similar. Every case is unique. And for at least the last 50 posts, we've been arguing whether Loving changed the definition of marriage in VA, not what might or might not happen in Mass. Bottom line: SCOTUS, every law school in the country, and half a dozen or more people here understand that Loving did change the definition. Yet, you alone think you know the "truth." LOL!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Again, using Douglas' line of reasoning, the definition of marriage didn't change because blacks could marry, whites could marry. Just not each other. A former poster used the same line of reasoning, saying that current marriage law was fair and equitable because if gay men want to, they can marry a woman just like straight guys can. Both arguments make complete, total sense if you take a big swig from the little bottle labeled 'DRINK ME' on your way down the rabbit hole. Otherwise, these drawn out sidebars are nothing but a distraction from the actual subject at hand -- a useless word-game trap set to ensnare logic and beat it senseless. It becomes more a battle of wills at some point, and if you can't get someone to understand what is nakedly apparent to the rest of the world... a. They must be a genius, able to see things you aren't. b. They're delusional and will never see it your way in spite of logical reasons why they should, making more than a few posts on a topic not worth the effort. c. They're just quibbling for the sake of it, and have dug their heels in so deep that there is no face-saving way to get out of it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That is correct, but that doesn't mean that marriage wasn't part of the equation, or that SCOTUS' decision didn't affect marriage or change its definition.> Nor does the mention of marriage in the Loving decision mean that it redefine marriage. <Everyone else understands the Loving did in fact change the definition of marriage in Virginia.> Once, again, Dabob, you are not "everyone". Trying to claim that everyone has the same opinion as you do could make you a laughingstock. <You've had to torture logic to try to pretend it didn't.> No, I haven't. <What was it, then?> An attempt to explain something else. <Wow, that's persuasive.> It wasn't meant to be. Unlike some, I realize that repeating my opinion is not persuasive. <We're into this because you can't understand the simple statement that Loving changed the definition of marriage in VA - or WON'T understand it.> No, we're into this because you can't understand that is an opinion that you can't prove. <Loving and Massachusetts are not exact analogues, only similar.> I disagree. <Bottom line: SCOTUS, every law school in the country, and half a dozen or more people here understand that Loving did change the definition.> You have no idea what SCOTUS or every law school believes about this. I've given the reasons why I hold my opinion. You haven't refuted one of them.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Again, using Douglas' line of reasoning, the definition of marriage didn't change because blacks could marry, whites could marry.> That's not the reason I gave.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<That is correct, but that doesn't mean that marriage wasn't part of the equation, or that SCOTUS' decision didn't affect marriage or change its definition.>> <Nor does the mention of marriage in the Loving decision mean that it redefine marriage.> But of course it did. <<Everyone else understands the Loving did in fact change the definition of marriage in Virginia.>> <Once, again, Dabob, you are not "everyone". Trying to claim that everyone has the same opinion as you do could make you a laughingstock.> Obviously, I meant everyone else here. And let's see, there's SPP, Kar2oonman, ecdc, inlandemporer, bluedevilsf, gurgitoy2, and mrichmondj - all of whom have weighed in here recently, and all of whom agree with me about Loving. The people here who agree with you about that... <crickets> <<You've had to torture logic to try to pretend it didn't.>> <No, I haven't.> Most of the people above have pointed out that you have. <<What was it, then?>> <An attempt to explain something else.> No, I meant what was your explanation for why Loving did not change the definition of marriage in VA? All I've seen is: (more recently) that blacks and whites could still get married, just not to each other. But since post-Loving they COULD get married to each other, that makes no sense as an explanation of anything not changing. The only other thing you offered was an attempt to say that because OTHER definitions of marriage didn't change, the definition as a whole did not. But that flunks Logic 101, which tells us that if any part of a whole changes, the whole changes. Was there some other reason you gave? Because those two don't hold up, and I've said why. You can repeat them all you like, but the facts will remain. So was there some other reason? <<Wow, that's persuasive.>> <It wasn't meant to be. Unlike some, I realize that repeating my opinion is not persuasive.> It helps to have the facts in order to be persuasive. Which you don't have here. <<We're into this because you can't understand the simple statement that Loving changed the definition of marriage in VA - or WON'T understand it.>> <No, we're into this because you can't understand that is an opinion that you can't prove.> It's been proven nine ways to Sunday. It's not "opinion" that the definition of marriage changed in VA. The mere fact that inlandemporer's aunt and uncle could get married post-Loving but not pre-Loving IS proof. <<Loving and Massachusetts are not exact analogues, only similar.>> <I disagree.> More meaningless words. <<Bottom line: SCOTUS, every law school in the country, and half a dozen or more people here understand that Loving did change the definition.>> <You have no idea what SCOTUS or every law school believes about this.> I know what SCOTUS believes because I've read the decision. I believe SPP when he says what is taught in law schools because that's his area of expertise, and it only makes sense. <I've given the reasons why I hold my opinion. You haven't refuted one of them.> On the contrary, I refuted both of them above.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 Honestly, is this a serious argument? I'm just scratching my head trying to figure out why this topic has so many posts. Unless it's just arguing for the heck of it...if that's the case, it's pretty boring. Even as a casual observer of the laws, I can see that the facts have been presented for the change in the definition in marriage in VA. How anybody is being accused of twisting the facts is beyond me...it's pretty straightforward if you ask me. It's not exactly simple, but it's certainly not worth arguing for 228 posts.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>That's not the reason I gave.<< Yes, and these aren't the droids I'm looking for.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But of course it did.> I disagree. <Most of the people above have pointed out that you have.> They may have claimed I have, but I don't really care about what they feel. I care about what the facts are. Again, if someone shows me the statute which defined marriage in Virginia pre-Loving, and then shows me that it was changed due to Loving, then I'll agree Loving changed the definition of marriage. <I meant what was your explanation for why Loving did not change the definition of marriage in VA?> Reread post 138. That's my most elaborate explanation. <It helps to have the facts in order to be persuasive. Which you don't have here.> And neither do you. But you keep trying to make square pegs fit into round holes. They don't. <It's been proven nine ways to Sunday.> No, it hasn't. <I know what SCOTUS believes because I've read the decision.> I've read the decision as well. It doesn't say what you're claiming it says.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<But of course it did.>> <I disagree.> Stop the freakin' presses. <<Most of the people above have pointed out that you have.>> <They may have claimed I have, but I don't really care about what they feel. I care about what the facts are.> Funny - they have the facts and you don't. <Again, if someone shows me the statute which defined marriage in Virginia pre-Loving, and then shows me that it was changed due to Loving, then I'll agree Loving changed the definition of marriage.> I haven't been able to find it on google, but it really isn't necessary. Pre-Loving, blacks and whites could not get a license. After Loving, they could not be DENIED a license. Does that not tell you the law changed, and that the definition of what was a valid marriage in VA changed? <<I meant what was your explanation for why Loving did not change the definition of marriage in VA?>> <Reread post 138. That's my most elaborate explanation.> Just reread it. It doesn't really say anything that you didn't repeat elsewhere. And it doesn't hold water. Yes, there were other requirements for marriage, but being of different races was one of them. Post-Loving, not so. You've already admitted that if the component that changed was allowing polygamy, then the defintion of marriage would have changed. Well, it wasn't that one, it was a different one - but one that was every bit as much a part of the (old) law as any other. <<It helps to have the facts in order to be persuasive. Which you don't have here.>> <And neither do you. But you keep trying to make square pegs fit into round holes. They don't.> All I'm doing is saying what the situation was in the real world pre-Loving and post-Loving. That's just the facts. <<It's been proven nine ways to Sunday.>> <No, it hasn't.> To anyone not living in Dougworld, it has. <<I know what SCOTUS believes because I've read the decision.>> <I've read the decision as well. It doesn't say what you're claiming it says.> All I'm claiming it says is that people of different races can no longer be denied the right to marry in VA.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Funny - they have the facts and you don't.> I disagree. <Does that not tell you the law changed, and that the definition of what was a valid marriage in VA changed?> It tells me that laws were changed, and that more marriages were valid in Virginia. I've never argued otherwise. <It doesn't really say anything that you didn't repeat elsewhere.> And yet you still managed to mischaracterize what I had said. <Well, it wasn't that one, it was a different one - but one that was every bit as much a part of the (old) law as any other.> I disagree. <All I'm doing is saying what the situation was in the real world pre-Loving and post-Loving.> Again, I disagree. I think you're doing something else. <To anyone not living in Dougworld, it has.> Nonsense. <All I'm claiming it says is that people of different races can no longer be denied the right to marry in VA.> That's not all you were claiming earlier.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I'll say it. Doug is so full of b.s. on this one it isn't even funny. And that's not an insult, it's the truth. Close the thread already.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I really don't care Doug, I really don't. It's black letter law, and you're a black hole.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Nonsense. But please, continue to insult rather than to come up with an actual argument.
