Originally Posted By ecdc >>Nonsense. But please, continue to insult rather than to come up with an actual argument.<< Douglas, there's nothing to argue. That's the whole problem with your approach. Again, you might as well ask SPP to make an argument that 2+2=4. That's how obvious this is - and you know it, but you won't back down. The ridiculous thing is that if you'd just acknowledge that SCOTUS changed the definition of marriage in Loving, it wouldn't have to change your perspective on gay marriage at all. Your inability to see the larger picture is truly astounding.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "The ridiculous thing is that if you'd just acknowledge that SCOTUS changed the definition of marriage in Loving, it wouldn't have to change your perspective on gay marriage at all." BINGO. That's truly at the heart of it. ANY acknowledgement that Loving shifted the tectonic plates of marriages will forever erase any hope of prohibiting gay marriage, and THAT'S truly at the core of Doug's refusal to admit the sky is blue, much less that there's a rainbow. There's language all over Loving about marriage being a fundamental right and the insidiousness of discrimination based on race. It's just as insidious to discriminate vis a vis sexual preference and that scares the hell out of people like him, so they go into Baghdad Bob/Denial Doug mode. Get used to it Doug, it's coming.
Originally Posted By club33azz "Nonsense. But please, continue to insult rather than to come up with an actual argument." DouglasDubh, you mean an actual argument like these gems? "No, it isn't", "Nonsense", "I disagree" ad infinitum. You argue like Michael Palin and John Cleese in the old 'Argument Sketch' from Monty Python. And you're the John Cleese character whose only function is contradiction. It was funny when they did it. It's lame and pathetic now. Couple of shout outs. Dabob2, I read with great comfort and pride your take down of the aforementioned DouglasDubh. You get my vote for GLAAD President, sweetie! I bet you're hot too! To my old friend jonvn - baby, you are the best and if I ever see you in person I'm giving you a hot, sloppy, wet one right on the kisser!
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That's how obvious this is - and you know it, but you won't back down.> I disagree.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Funny - they have the facts and you don't.>> <I disagree.> And you're wrong. <<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.> But you've argued that the definition of marriage didn't change in VA, and you seemingly can't - or, more probably, won't - see the disconnect between that and what you just said above. Who is allowed to marry each other in any given state or country is part and parcel to how that entity defines what a valid marriage is. So if more people than previously were allowed to marry in VA, ergo the definition of marriage changed. <<It doesn't really say anything that you didn't repeat elsewhere.>> <And yet you still managed to mischaracterize what I had said.> You keep saying that, but never say how. <<ou'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.>> <I disagree.> It really doesn't matter if you disagree on this one. You're making a value judgement that multiple marriage has more weight than race, but the VA law did not. And logic tells us that if any part of the whole has changed, the whole has changed. So your disagreement doesn't stand up to either VA law OR logic. <<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.> See below. <<To anyone not living in Dougworld, it has.>> <Nonsense.> Even the other people here who disfavor gay marriage haven't backed you up here. You're really arguing against fact. <<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. > How Loving does and does not apply to possible laws on gay mariage is another topic - we've debated it before, and I'm happy to do so again. But the past 50 posts have been simply "did Loving change the definition of marriage in VA?" Posts 240 and 241 pretty much spelled out why you're so loathe to admit it did - it's actually YOU who's more obsessed with gay marriage here lately than anyone else. You COULD simply say "yes, Loving changed the definition of marriage in VA, but that doesn't necessarily apply to gay marriage..." but you're claiming it didn't change the definition at all. Which is what makes you look so obtuse and unwilling to face simple facts.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <ou get my vote for GLAAD President, sweetie! I bet you're hot too! > If desperately average-looking people are hot, baby I'm smokin'!
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <ANY acknowledgement that Loving shifted the tectonic plates of marriages will forever erase any hope of prohibiting gay marriage, and THAT'S truly at the core of Doug's refusal to admit the sky is blue, much less that there's a rainbow.> What nonsense, and irrelevant nonsense at that. <There's language all over Loving about marriage being a fundamental right and the insidiousness of discrimination based on race.> Of course marriage is a fundamental right. No couple should be forbidden from having a relationship, forming a family, and holding assests in common, as the state of Virginia tried to keep the Lovings from doing. But in every state in the Union right now, no gay couple is being prohibited from having a relationship, forming a family, and holding assests in common. Loving wasn't about the state recognizing a marriage, it was about the state forbidding one. It's simply not relevant to the leaders of the Massachusetts legislature refusing to allow a vote as called for by the state's Constitution, and being called out for doing it by the state's Governor. You can try all you want to make this topic about Loving vs Virginia, and the definition of marriage there, or about my debating style, but it's really irrelevant.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <DouglasDubh, you mean an actual argument like these gems? "No, it isn't", "Nonsense", "I disagree" ad infinitum. You argue like Michael Palin and John Cleese in the old 'Argument Sketch' from Monty Python. And you're the John Cleese character whose only function is contradiction. It was funny when they did it. It's lame and pathetic now.> I've explained why I say the things I say. The people who are lame and pathetic are the ones that keep repeating their opinions as if they are fact.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I can read and think as well as an lawyer; I have no doubt that I could have become one if I wanted." That's funny.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And you're wrong.> See? Lame and pathetic. <But you've argued that the definition of marriage didn't change in VA, and you seemingly can't - or, more probably, won't - see the disconnect between that and what you just said above.> There is no disconnect. <You keep saying that, but never say how.> If you can't see the difference between what I've said (which is still available for review) and what you've said I've said (likewise), then my trying to explain it to you is pointless. <It really doesn't matter if you disagree on this one.> It must, otherwise you wouldn't keep repeating your opinion to me. Unless you're just saying it to convince yourself. <And logic tells us that if any part of the whole has changed, the whole has changed.> But not all the parts have. <Even the other people here who disfavor gay marriage haven't backed you up here.> Again, I don't care what other people believe, or say. Appeals to authority are a logical fallacy. <You're really arguing against fact.> No, I'm disagreeing with your opinion. <But the past 50 posts have been simply "did Loving change the definition of marriage in VA?"> And you're claiming it did, which is more than simply "claiming it says is that people of different races can no longer be denied the right to marry in VA". <You COULD simply say "yes, Loving changed the definition of marriage in VA, but that doesn't necessarily apply to gay marriage..." > I could, but I don't believe that Loving changed the definition of marriage in VA.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<And you're wrong.>> <See? Lame and pathetic.> That would be your "arguments" here. <But you've argued that the definition of marriage didn't change in VA, and you seemingly can't - or, more probably, won't - see the disconnect between that and what you just said above.> <There is no disconnect.> I notice you just say that, but don't (typically) respond to the other part of that section where I show WHY it's a disconnect. "Who is allowed to marry each other in any given state or country is part and parcel to how that entity defines what a valid marriage is. So if more people than previously were allowed to marry in VA, ergo the definition of marriage changed." Care to respond? <<You keep saying that, but never say how.>> <If you can't see the difference between what I've said (which is still available for review) and what you've said I've said (likewise), then my trying to explain it to you is pointless.> Talk about lame and pathetic. I ask you for a specific example, and you can't provide it. <<It really doesn't matter if you disagree on this one.>> <It must, otherwise you wouldn't keep repeating your opinion to me. Unless you're just saying it to convince yourself.> I'd still like to think that you're not Beau - that you CAN see logic sometimes. Perhaps I'm wrong on that. <<And logic tells us that if any part of the whole has changed, the whole has changed.>> <But not all the parts have.> Nor did I say they did. Besides, that's not what the axiom says. It's not "ALL parts of the whole must change," it's that "if ANY part of the whole has changed, the whole has changed." <<Even the other people here who disfavor gay marriage haven't backed you up here.>> <Again, I don't care what other people believe, or say. Appeals to authority are a logical fallacy.> Sure, but I'm not appealing to authority. I'm pointing out that plenty of other people here don't agree with gay marriage; however, apparantly they all understand that Loving changed the definition of marriage in VA. <<You're really arguing against fact.>> <No, I'm disagreeing with your opinion.> Many things are opinion. That Loving changed the definition of marriage in VA is not one of them. <<But the past 50 posts have been simply "did Loving change the definition of marriage in VA?">> <And you're claiming it did, which is more than simply "claiming it says is that people of different races can no longer be denied the right to marry in VA".> They are part and parcel - this is what you don't, or won't, understand. If people of different races can no longer be denied the right to marry, then the definition of marriage DID change. Sheesh. <<You COULD simply say "yes, Loving changed the definition of marriage in VA, but that doesn't necessarily apply to gay marriage..." >> <I could, but I don't believe that Loving changed the definition of marriage in VA.> You might as well "believe" that 2 and 2 don't equal four. "Believe" it all you like, but be prepared to be called out for your foolishness.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <But in every state in the Union right now, no gay couple is being prohibited from having a relationship, forming a family, and holding assests in common. > Not really true. We can hold assets in common - sort of - but they're not treated the way common assets are between a married couple. For instance, if a (straight) married spouse dies, the survivor can keep their house tax-free, the government quite rightly seeing them as a unit. With us, nope. Even if the will is completely in order, the house (or half of it) is "given" to the survivor (who is treated as a stranger) as a "gift" and is subject to taxation. If the survivor can't handle the sometimes-hefty tax bite, he/she can lose the house, after having just lost their spouse. Happens every day. And don't get me started about the lack of protections and how different it is from legal marriage if there are children involved.
Originally Posted By jonvn Here is a question: Why can't gay people who wish to get married adopt one another? Is that not a legal way to create a family bond?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That would be your "arguments" here.> I disagree. <I notice you just say that, but don't (typically) respond to the other part of that section where I show WHY it's a disconnect.> I responded to it the first time you brought it up. <Talk about lame and pathetic.> Lame and pathetic is asking for something that is obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension. <It's not "ALL parts of the whole must change," it's that "if ANY part of the whole has changed, the whole has changed."> And if I was arguing that that whole hasn't changed, then the axiom would apply. Since I'm not arguing that, it doesn't. <Sure, but I'm not appealing to authority.> Yes, you are. You're saying that because certain people believe something, it must be true. That's an appeal to authority. <That Loving changed the definition of marriage in VA is not one of them.> I believe it is. <They are part and parcel - this is what you don't, or won't, understand.> I don't "understand" things that are not so. <You might as well "believe" that 2 and 2 don't equal four.> I don't believe a set of complex laws is at all analogous to a mathematical equation.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<That would be your "arguments" here.>> <I disagree.> See: presses, freakin': stop. <<I notice you just say that, but don't (typically) respond to the other part of that section where I show WHY it's a disconnect.> > <I responded to it the first time you brought it up.> Really where? I don't think you responded to that specifically. Show me where, please? <<Talk about lame and pathetic.>> <Lame and pathetic is asking for something that is obvious to anyone with basic reading comprehension.> Since no one else here sees your "obvious" points, I would say no. I would also say that "lame and pathetic" is writing a snarky remark rather than simply typing a 3-digit post number. <<It's not "ALL parts of the whole must change," it's that "if ANY part of the whole has changed, the whole has changed.">> <And if I was arguing that that whole hasn't changed, then the axiom would apply. Since I'm not arguing that, it doesn't.> The "the whole" in question that changed is "the definition of marriage in the state of VA," then yes - you were arguing that the whole hadn't changed. <<Sure, but I'm not appealing to authority.>> <Yes, you are. You're saying that because certain people believe something, it must be true. That's an appeal to authority.> Since when are posters here any sort of "authority?" LOL! I was pointing out that even other people who agree with you generally on gay marriage weren't agreeing with you on this point. That doesn't prove the point, but it was worth pointing out. <<That Loving changed the definition of marriage in VA is not one of them.>> <I believe it is.> You're wrong. As ecdc and SPP have pointed out, you can't "believe" what a particular law says. <<They are part and parcel - this is what you don't, or won't, understand.>> <I don't "understand" things that are not so.> Back to lame and pathetic. <<You might as well "believe" that 2 and 2 don't equal four.>> <I don't believe a set of complex laws is at all analogous to a mathematical equation. > Settled law is pretty close.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Really where? I don't think you responded to that specifically. Show me where, please?> You brought it up in post 233, and possibly elsewhere. I responded to it in post 234, and possibly elsewhere. <Since no one else here sees your "obvious" points, I would say no.> Another fault appeal to authority. <I would also say that "lame and pathetic" is writing a snarky remark rather than simply typing a 3-digit post number.> I tried that already. If I'm being snarky, it's because I'm responding to people being snarky. <The "the whole" in question that changed is "the definition of marriage in the state of VA," then yes - you were arguing that the whole hadn't changed.> Then yes, I am arguing that the whole hasn't changed. As I've already said, the laws governing what was a valid marriage in Virginia changed, but the statute defining marriage did not. Thus the axiom does not apply. <I was pointing out that even other people who agree with you generally on gay marriage weren't agreeing with you on this point. That doesn't prove the point, but it was worth pointing out.> Why is it worth pointing out? Is it more important to be wrong in a group than right alone? <You're wrong. As ecdc and SPP have pointed out, you can't "believe" what a particular law says.> I don't think I'm wrong. A law says what it says, but people can disagree about what it means, or how it applies. <Back to lame and pathetic.> More snarkiness. <Settled law is pretty close.> It's settled law that Loving established that states cannot forbid couples from getting married. That's about all it settled.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "You can try all you want to make this topic about Loving vs Virginia, and the definition of marriage there, or about my debating style, but it's really irrelevant." Talk about lame and pathetic.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Really where? I don't think you responded to that specifically. Show me where, please?>> <You brought it up in post 233, and possibly elsewhere. I responded to it in post 234, and possibly elsewhere.> No, that can't be it. Post 234 is when you first brought up what I pointed out was a disconnect, so you couldn't have responded to it there. <<Since no one else here sees your "obvious" points, I would say no.>> <Another fault appeal to authority.> Not in this case. You were taking a lame and pathetic shot at my "reading comprehension;" I was pointing out that apparently mine surpasses yours since the only sample we have was reading it closer to my way than yours. <<I would also say that "lame and pathetic" is writing a snarky remark rather than simply typing a 3-digit post number.>> <I tried that already. If I'm being snarky, it's because I'm responding to people being snarky.> We're both capable of it; but when asked to point out where you addressed something, all it takes is three keystrokes to post the thread number. Of course, it helps if it's the RIGHT thread number, or if you have indeed responded to what you were asked about. <<The "the whole" in question that changed is "the definition of marriage in the state of VA," then yes - you were arguing that the whole hadn't changed.>> <Then yes, I am arguing that the whole hasn't changed. > Which is why you're wrong. <As I've already said, the laws governing what was a valid marriage in Virginia changed, but the statute defining marriage did not. Thus the axiom does not apply.> Of course it does, because you cannot separate the two, much as you'd like to. Perhaps SPP can tell you what legal principal that violates; but it doesn't take a legal degree to see that if the laws governing what constitutes a valid marriage changed, then yes the definition of marriage in that state changed. You admitted that would be the case if the polygamy rule had changed; yet you insist that it isn't here - that simply won't fly. <<I was pointing out that even other people who agree with you generally on gay marriage weren't agreeing with you on this point. That doesn't prove the point, but it was worth pointing out.>> <Why is it worth pointing out? Is it more important to be wrong in a group than right alone?> No - it's quite possible to be the lone person in a group with the right answer. However, if enough people, including those in the legal profession, were to tell ME I had something wrong, I'd at least consider it. I don't think you have; you just cling to "I'm right, and that's it." <<You're wrong. As ecdc and SPP have pointed out, you can't "believe" what a particular law says.>> <I don't think I'm wrong. A law says what it says, but people can disagree about what it means, or how it applies.> And in that case, it goes to the supreme court. But SCOTUS is who GAVE us Loving, so there's nowhere else to appeal, I'm afraid. You can disagree on how it might apply to a future case involving gay marriage, but NOT on what it means for the definition of marriage in the state of VA. <<Back to lame and pathetic.>> <More snarkiness.> Only answering yours. <<Settled law is pretty close.>> <It's settled law that Loving established that states cannot forbid couples from getting married. That's about all it settled.> It settled the definition of marriage in VA vis a vis race - which was different from its definition before the decision.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Whatever. I'm done with this thread. You can all insult me as much as you want, and tell me that I'm wrong as much as you want, but that won't make your opinions right.
