Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

Considering your reasoning is entirely unreasoned and has never been backed up by anything, this is hilarious.

If you're going to give marriage benefits to married people, gays have as much right to them as anyone else. The individual benefits are not fundamental rights. The lack of a distinction is the fundamental right. If all the so called benefits around marriage were removed, it would not violate anyone's fundamental rights. The argument in no way rests on that.

Edited, Aug 5th 2010 5:57pm by Xsarus

Huh?! Someone specifically asked for a list of the groups other than gay couples who were being denied access to a state issued marriage license. How the hell can it be a strawman to provide that list?



I've explained repeatedly why it's not meaningless. That you have chosen to close your brain off and refuse to even consider any argument other than the most moronically simple ones, isn't my fault.



Someone asked for a list of other groups who were excluded from obtaining marriage licenses. I answered that question. I'm not sure what you're going on about though...




That's not what I responded to.

No. I specifically asked for groups of people that are now not included in marriage that would be with my explanation of the core of marriage to alma. That's it. Not my problem you didn't bother to read the post. If you care, I quoted the first two above. No one asked for a list of groups that you provided.

Yes, it is. You directly quoted me and alma, and this is what we were talking about. The fact that you didn't go and actually read the full posts before is why you went off on this tangent.

I'll ask again. Given my core of marriage explanation, which groups would all of a sudden be included in marriage that are currently excluded?

Edited, Aug 5th 2010 6:04pm by Xsarus

Alma said that the list of exclusions was larger than what you were claiming. You asked for a list.

I answered.


And yes, one of those failings of your original assumption was that the list of people excluded from obtaining marriage licenses was within the set defined as "couples". I corrected that false assumption on your part. You can thank me later I suppose.

Nothing wrong with an orgy or five.

Given your core of marriage explanation, none of them are currently excluded.

Your "core of marriage" seems to be looking purely at the ability to enter into a marriage contract, which is not currently denied to gay couples. I've tried to explain this to you on several occasions btw.

these words don't mean the same to you as they do other people

You need to be more clear what you mean by "enter into marriage".



No. The state status which carries the label "marriage" can only be obtained by a couple consisting of a man and a woman. Prop8 in no way prevents gay couples from "entering into marriage".

I'll point out for the zillionth time that it's critical to understand the difference between a contract of marriage, and the state status of marriage. Those are two completely different things.



I've addressed this repeatedly. The criteria required to qualify for the state status of marriage (and the benefits it confers) includes a whole set of things. Those things are quite obviously aimed at encouraging heterosexual couples to enter into the contract of marriage. Those are not the same things. One is an incentive to get people do to the other, but it not required for it.



Yeah. We avoid it because it complicates the legal issues surrounding property and guardianship of children. Hence, why the form of marriage we encourage is the "simple" one, which maximizes the protections for children produced, minimizes the number of children born without said marriage contract, and only coincidentally excludes gay couples. It's meant to *encourage* straight couples to marry. The fact that it neither encourages nor discourages gay couples from doing the same does not constitute any violation of rights.

Oh gbaji. You're so cute, banging on about the same old nonsense ****. Someone get the boy a lollipop.

Alma is still just hopelessly stupid.

I missed you both. *tear*

You've heard it before? How about remembering it then?




To the degree that they can enter into a contract at all? No. Wasn't that your argument? You're spinning in circles now. You argue that these aren't really exclusions because they apply to contracts in general, and then when I point out that you're limiting yourself by only talking about the contract of marriage, you insist that suddenly these exclusions are specific to "marriage contracts".

The point which you missed is that gay couples are not excluded from entering into a marriage contract anymore than they are excluded from entering into any other form of contract. Yes. This is my "anyone can make a contract" speech. But you've heard it before, right?




What do you think this means? Stop being deliberately vague. What do you mean by "some parts of the marriage stuff"? If you're talking about some parts of the marriage contract, absolutely anyone (who can enter into any contract in the first place) can write up their own marriage contract. Or they can use one that matches that of the existing statutory marriage contract. Or, in a state like California, the government has written one up for them and saved them the time and trouble.

If you mean that they can enter into a contract, but *can't* get tax cuts and whanot, then that's a separate issue. And in that case, a whole lot more exclusions exist than just gay couples. As I've already detailed with my earlier list.


You're playing wordgames now. Be clear about what you are talking about please.

No they can't. The government stipulates what marriage entails. They can at best write a pre-nup so that in the event the marriage is ended, they don't have to split up their affairs though a messy court battle. Any home made contract is not recognized by the state as marriage

Edited, Aug 5th 2010 6:28pm by Xsarus