Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Because it does define marriage. Not in its totality, which I never claimed.>> <If it doesn't define marriage in its totality, it doesn't define marriage.> You're going with that? Really? Wow. Semantics King, AND the spork of spin. <<There you go, being cute in your cluelessness again.>> <There's nothing clueless about me. Sorry.> Your posts show otherwise. Sorry.
Originally Posted By inlandemporer Just getting to this thread, but of course Loving vs Virginia changed the definition of marriage in Virginia. I should know. My aunt married a black man IN Virginia in 1970. Before the Loving case, they just couldn't have done that. So of course the definition of marriage was changed. A little common sense, DouglasDubh?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You're going with that?> It's the truth. <Your posts show otherwise.> No, they don't.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <A little common sense, DouglasDubh?> If others here applied a little common sense, and read my statement in context, this argument would have been over pages ago.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<You're going with that?>> <It's the truth.> And here we see the essence of DouglasDubh. After losing the argument, he falls back on semantics or something that is technically true (the anti-miscegenation law didn't define EVERYTHING about marriage), but utterly fails the common sense test on the issue at hand (thank you, inlandemporer); Loving DID change the definition of marriage in Virginia, even if it didn't change every definition. Even Logic 101 tells you that if any part of a whole has changed, the larger whole has indeed changed. Unless you're in Dougworld. <<Your posts show otherwise.>> <No, they don't.> See above.
Originally Posted By inlandemporer Oh well, I tried. I guess my aunt and uncle could have gotten married before the Loving decision if they'd insisted on getting a marriage license in Doug's "context". Right.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <After losing the argument, he falls back on semantics or something that is technically true (the anti-miscegenation law didn't define EVERYTHING about marriage), but utterly fails the common sense test on the issue at hand (thank you, inlandemporer); Loving DID change the definition of marriage in Virginia, even if it didn't change every definition.> Nonsense.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I guess my aunt and uncle could have gotten married before the Loving decision if they'd insisted on getting a marriage license in Doug's "context".> Nice strawman. Too bad that's never been my argument.
Originally Posted By inlandemporer Your argument was that the Loving decision didn't change the definition of marriage in Virginia. In the real world my aunt and uncle lived in, of course it did. For them, it changed everything.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<After losing the argument, he falls back on semantics or something that is technically true (the anti-miscegenation law didn't define EVERYTHING about marriage), but utterly fails the common sense test on the issue at hand (thank you, inlandemporer); Loving DID change the definition of marriage in Virginia, even if it didn't change every definition.>> <Nonsense.> Nice one-word non-response. Face it, Loving did change the definition of marriage in Virginia. If one part of a whole is changed, the whole has changed. That's logic 101, but it seems to elude you.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Try repeating yourselves one more time. Perhaps I'll change my opinion then.
Originally Posted By jonvn He's only repeating the truth. OK, and here's your response: "No, he isn't."
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Try repeating yourselves one more time. Perhaps I'll change my opinion then.<< I'm telling you. Douglas is funnier when Republicans lose. That's a major bonus to the whole "we're no longer completely screwed" thing we get when Republicans lose.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Douglas is funnier when Republicans lose.> I'm still the same. I think you've just loosened up, now that your guys have power.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Try repeating yourselves one more time. Perhaps I'll change my opinion then.> No, you won't. Even though I'm right. And everyone who's weighed in here agrees I'm right. Nor is it a right/left issue. It's simple logic; you can not change part of the law and pretend the law as a whole hasn't changed, nor change part of the definition of what constitutes a valid marriage and pretend that the definition of a valid marriage hasn't changed.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <No, you won't. Even though I'm right.> If you were right, you could do more to refute me than repeat your opinion. <And everyone who's weighed in here agrees I'm right.> "Everyone" is wrong then. <It's simple logic; you can not change part of the law and pretend the law as a whole hasn't changed, nor change part of the definition of what constitutes a valid marriage and pretend that the definition of a valid marriage hasn't changed.> Since I'm pretending neither of those things, I'm not sure what your point is.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<No, you won't. Even though I'm right.>> <If you were right, you could do more to refute me than repeat your opinion.> I have. I've shown your logical flaws (see below). <<And everyone who's weighed in here agrees I'm right.>> <"Everyone" is wrong then.> Except they're not, of course. <<It's simple logic; you can not change part of the law and pretend the law as a whole hasn't changed, nor change part of the definition of what constitutes a valid marriage and pretend that the definition of a valid marriage hasn't changed.>> <Since I'm pretending neither of those things, I'm not sure what your point is. > Okay, what semantics are you trying to hide in now? You keep saying that Loving did not change the definition of marriage. I keep pointing out that if you change part of the definition of what constitutes a valid marriage, then yes you have changed the definition, in that state anyway. So how are you going to try to weasel out of this one?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Okay, what semantics are you trying to hide in now?> I'm not the one playing semantics. You are the one trying to say I've said things I haven't by adding words I haven't used. It's not that difficult. Pre-Loving, Virginia marriage law consisted of several parts. One of those parts defined marriage. One of those parts stated that interracial were not valid. Other parts defined the various terms that were used. Some parts spelled out the punishment for not following other parts. The Loving decision struck down part of the law, but it did not change the basic definition of marriage - that it was between a man and a woman who were unmarried, unrelated, and of legal age. As for the rest of your post, you're still wrong.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Okay, what semantics are you trying to hide in now?>> <I'm not the one playing semantics. You are the one trying to say I've said things I haven't by adding words I haven't used.> You've said flat out many times that Loving did not change the "definition of marriage." You are wrong. <It's not that difficult. Pre-Loving, Virginia marriage law consisted of several parts. One of those parts defined marriage. One of those parts stated that interracial were not valid. Other parts defined the various terms that were used. Some parts spelled out the punishment for not following other parts. The Loving decision struck down part of the law, but it did not change the basic definition of marriage - that it was between a man and a woman who were unmarried, unrelated, and of legal age.> Okay, now I know how you're going to try to weasel out of it. It is you who has now added a new word we haven't seen before - "basic." And you're simply wrong in trying to claim what (in YOUR view) was the "basic" definition of marriage. I defy you to find that word in the VA law. That's YOUR spin. To Virginians of that day, that whites could not marry blacks was just as "basic" as being of legal age. <As for the rest of your post, you're still wrong.> No, as everyone else also sees, you are. If you change part of the definition of a valid marriage, you have changed the defintion as a whole. Sorry.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I only added the word "basic" after you tried to claim I said something different than I did. Take it out, I don't care. I stand by what I've said. I think it's right, and you can tell me I'm wrong a million times, but all you have to back you up is opinion. To change my mind, you'll have to produce more.
