Gay Marriage - accepted or not?

[connermt]

You continue to say that there's no reason not to change the definition of marriage and that those who disagree are bigots.

That has two huge problems... advocates of change have the burden of persuasion and differences of opinion do not equate to bigotry. If you stay on that position all you do is alienate the large numbers of straight people you need to convice that change is a good thing. They will regard you as a snotty twerp and dig in after you call them bigots.

Not at all.
I'm saying that there is no good reason why someone wouldn't want gay people to marry (meaning gay marriage won't destroy society or cause harm to others in any other way traditional marriage does/would). In the light of this "no good reason", the only good reason is out of fear which eventually breeds hatred.

 

[obtuseobserver]

I wrote back your argument. You said no and then proceded to make the same argument I described. You start with the presumption that those hold differing opinions are "no good. (the opinions - and then move onto explaining that difference as a product of fear/hate etc.)" There's little reason to continue from that point because you've simply declared your opinion to be correct with your premise. How many of those 7,000,000 CA voters have you spoken with to arrive at your premise?

It's fine, you cannot understand how some people, free of any bigotry, could rationally believe that marriage as sanctioned by the state should be between one man and one woman. OK.

The problem I have, as I keep repeating is that you presume facts you cannot know and use that supposition to call those with whom you disagree scarity cat scarity cat bigots.

In any event, we disagree and we klnow why.

 

[TortoiseDream]

Based on your religion, do you think gay / same sex marriage accepted or not?
Fo me, it's not accepted. God created 2 type of gender. And the other reason is, same sex married surely can't produce a baby.
What do you think?

You're free to determine what is acceptable or unacceptable in your own private, personal life. You don't like gay marriage? Neither do I, I am not gay. However that doesn't give either of us the right to impose our beliefs in a violent fashion on other human beings who may see things differently, and wish to express those opinions in a peaceful way, perhaps not even publicly.

That's really the issue people confuse themselves with, private vs. public opinion.

 

[obtuseobserver]

However that doesn't give either of us the right to impose our beliefs in a violent fashion on other human beings who may see things differently, and wish to express those opinions in a peaceful way, perhaps not even publicly.

You'll have to hunt far and wide to find some one who'd disagree with that

That's really the issue people confuse themselves with, private vs. public opinion.

Now there's the rub. Each side is looking to have their position publicly endorsed by the state.

CA has civil unions (not identical to marriage but substantially so) so this really comes down to a word... I don't see why those in a state sactioned "domestic partnership" couldn't call themselves married nor why they shouldn't.

 

[connermt]

I How many of those 7,000,000 CA voters have you spoken with to arrive at your premise.

If there was a good reason for it not to be legal, it would be in the form of facts (not opinions) that show gay marriage being a negative force to society. I haven't seen any. Have you?

... The problem I have, as I keep repeating is that you presume facts you cannot know...

See above comment.

...use that supposition to call those with whom you disagree scarity cat scarity cat bigots.

In light of no good evidence, the only conclusion is that these people don't want gay marriage out of dislike for gay people.

 

[obtuseobserver]

If there was a good reason for it not to be legal, it would be in the form of facts (not opinions) that show gay marriage being a negative force to society. I haven't seen any. Have you?

1. Lack of harm is no basis for changing the most fundamental building block in human society.

2. Lack of harm is a thin reed. As easily swept away as it is resting upon it.

you need a strong positive basis rather than a claimn of no harm if you want this change ot be meaningful.

See above comment.
In light of no good evidence, the only conclusion is that these people don't want gay marriage out of dislike for gay people.

Well, I've offered up quite a few reasonable explanations for why the state or the people have the right to define marriage. That you reject it makes it no less rational nor do those whose opinions differ from you necessarily dislike gay people. That's an even thinner reed because you don't have evidence to back it up.

Get back to me after you've taled to a bunch of those 7,000,000 Californians

It is this simple, choosing the chocolate cake over the carrot cake does not equate to hating carrot cake.

 

[connermt]

1. Lack of harm is no basis for changing the most fundamental building block in human society.

What is a basis?
Your claim of a building block of society is simply an opinion. You would need to show verifiable proof that marriage is one of the 'greatest' cause of current society today.
Besides, legalizing gay marriage won't change marriage or society in any way other than terminology.

2. Lack of harm is a thin reed.

Call it what you want, it doesn't change the fact that unless there is provable harm done to society and/or its individuals, the only reason not to legalize gay marriage is personal preference.

you need a strong positive basis rather than a claimn of no harm if you want this change ot be meaningful.

Why? You don't. You claim that marriage is the be all end all building block of society and have offered to proof to that opinion. You make a claim, you need to back it up. As of yet, you haven't - it's only been double talk.

Well, I've offered up quite a few reasonable explanations for why the state or the people have the right to define marriage.

No you haven't. You've only offered your opinions, not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination.

Get back to me after you've taled to a bunch of those 7,000,000 Californians

Personal preferences haven't been a determining factor in human rights in the past, why should it be now? Oh yes, because some don't like "gay people". :unsure:
And you're right - it is simple: Not legalizing gay marriage without providing any legitimate reason (and no, the claim that it's not in the state's interest isn't reasonable because you haven't proved it to be the case) leaves only personal bias-ness to blame. Like it or lump it - that's the way it is.
So basically, you claim gay marriage not to be in the state's interest, and yet have only provided straw man concepts (no proof) for this to be the case (even though a state legalizing gay marriage could draw potential people to the state, as well as business, which equals money that would benefit the state). You can leave it at that.
It's your belief that it's not beneficial to the state. Even if that's true (which it isn't based upon your lack of provided facts), so what?

 

[obtuseobserver]

What is a basis?

A reason, a foundation of facts justifying an action.

Your claim of a building block of society is simply an opinion.

lol - actually it isn't an opinion. Societies around the globe have orgaized themselves at the most basic level into familes. Go check it out... take a look at the facts.

You would need to show verifiable proof that marriage is one of the 'greatest' cause of current society today.

No. I just need to point to the facts. Nearly every person to ever live has grown up in a family and then gone on to have a family with his/her spouse.

Besides, legalizing gay marriage won't change marriage or society in any way other than terminology.

Now that first part is an opinion (one I share but it sill is an opinion). The second is pretty much what I understand the practical issue in Prop 8 to be.

Call it what you want, it doesn't change the fact that unless there is provable harm done to society and/or its individuals, the only reason not to legalize gay marriage is personal preference.

And personal preferences matter.

Why? You don't. You claim that marriage is the be all end all building block of society and have offered to proof to that opinion. You make a claim, you need to back it up. As of yet, you haven't - it's only been double talk.

See above observation that nearly every human ever born was born into a family and then went on to have a family of his or her own. That's a readily observable fact we can just assert without any trouble.

No you haven't. You've only offered your opinions, not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination.

I've offered up the fact that children raised in a traditional nuclear family are generally more well prepared for becoming functioning members of society. That's not opinion it is fact. To illustrate... child growing up with three siblings. All other things being equal he'll have better odds at becoming a well functioning member of society if he grew up in a traditional nuclear family. The single mother or father, through no fault (necessarily) of their own will face a more difficult task raising four kids. Again, this is not to say that gay parents or single parents cannot be wonderful parents. They can. We are looking at this from a institutional basis not an individual basis.

Personal preferences haven't been a determining factor in human rights in the past, why should it be now?

Actually that's not true. Personal preferences (for state policies) in a Republic like ours are a direct result of personal preferences. Votes express preference.

Oh yes, because some don't like "gay people". :unsure:
And you're right - it is simple: Not legalizing gay marriage without providing any legitimate reason (and no, the claim that it's not in the state's interest isn't reasonable because you haven't proved it to be the case) leaves only personal bias-ness to blame. Like it or lump it - that's the way it is.

As I keep saying, if you build your nest on that reed of "tell me why I can't" then you are pretty much fucked when some one tells you why you can't.

Now, if you can explain why everyone should want this change you're on much more solid ground.

So basically, you claim gay marriage not to be in the state's interest, and yet have only provided straw man concepts (no proof) for this to be the case (even though a state legalizing gay marriage could draw potential people to the state, as well as business, which equals money that would benefit the state). You can leave it at that.

No, I said the state has an interest in endorsing the traditional family because it offers the chld the best shot at a decent life. I acknowledged point blank that gay or single parents can be and are great parents.

It's your belief that it's not beneficial to the state. Even if that's true (which it isn't based upon your lack of provided facts), so what?

No, I was pointing out why the traditional family is the preferred option amongst those available... not that the others are bad.

Just to toss this fact out again, the single most common feature of men in prison is growing up in a fatherless home.

 

[connermt]

A reason, a foundation of facts justifying an action.

So it's not reasonable to grant people the same legal benefits when there no facts showing it would be a negative impact on society?

Societies around the globe have orgaized themselves at the most basic level into familes.

LOL all you want, but that's not what you said here: "[gay marriage] changing the most fundamental building block in human society".
If gay marriage would destroy society (destroying the traditional family) why hasn't places where gay marriage is legal be in chaos now? What about other places where the traditional families are the majority - are those societies in chaos? See, it's a funny thing to say: Gay marriage will destroy traditional family structure which will destroy (negatively affect) society. There's nothing showing this possibility. There no proof of it or even of concept.

I just need to point to the facts.

Please do. So far, you've only supplied hypothesis and speculation.

Nearly every person to ever live has grown up in a family and then gone on to have a family with his/her spouse.

This wouldn't change if gay marriage is legalized.

I've offered up the fact that children raised in a traditional nuclear family are generally more well prepared for becoming functioning members of society.

Nope. Facts should include data. You have provided none.

Personal preferences (for state policies) in a Republic like ours are a direct result of personal preferences. Votes express preference.

Not at all. Some of the most recent civil rights weren't the part of the majority - nor of popular opinion. Shoot, in some places to this day, some of the rights are still questioned by many. This is no different.

...you are pretty much fucked when some one tells you why you can't.

But no one has said they can't based upon facts - just opinions and "Ews...I don't like gay people."

if you can explain why everyone should want this change you're on much more solid ground.

Everyone will never want the same thing. That's a pointless cause to take up.

Just to toss this fact out again, the single most common feature of men in prison is growing up in a fatherless home.

In order for this to be used successfully in your argument, you would need to show proof that this contributed to their delinquency. Otherwise, it's a red herring

 

[obtuseobserver]

So it's not reasonable to grant people the same legal benefits when there no facts showing it would be a negative impact on society?

The Domestic Partner law already did that.

The profferor of change has the burden of persuasion

LOL all you want, but that's not what you said here: "[gay marriage] changing the most fundamental building block in human society".
If gay marriage would destroy society (destroying the traditional family) why hasn't places where gay marriage is legal be in chaos now? So it's not reasonable to grant people the same legal benefits when there no facts showing it would be a negative impact on society?
LOL all you want, but that's not what you said here: "[gay marriage] changing the most fundamental building block in human society".
If gay marriage would destroy society (destroying the traditional family) why hasn't places where gay marriage is legal be in chaos now? What about other places where the traditional families are the majority - are those societies in chaos? See, it's a funny thing to say: Gay marriage will destroy traditional family structure which will destroy (negatively affect) society. There's nothing showing this possibility. There no proof of it or even of concept.

"destroy" is your word. Don't read things like that into my posts - especially when they are not there.

I said that changing the definition of marriage changes the most basic building block of society. And it would. Wheter that is good bad or indifferent I offered no opinion on.

What's funny is the fact that you needed to radically alter what I said in order to have something to argue about.

Please do. So far, you've only supplied hypothesis and speculation.

Such easily observed facts need no expert testimony. Do you really not believe that most people ever born were born into a family and then went on to have families of their own? If I said the sun is hot would you require case studies?

This wouldn't change if gay marriage is legalized.

true enough - I never argued to the contrary

Nope. Facts should include data. You have provided none.

Nor will I. You can reject it as silly if you wish. However, this is another of those readily observable facts...

Not at all. Some of the most recent civil rights weren't the part of the majority - nor of popular opinion. Shoot, in some places to this day, some of the rights are still questioned by many. This is no different.

You are describing preferences. Ugly preferences but they are still preferences. Majority/minority opinion isn't the point. The point is that they are preferences.

But no one has said they can't based upon facts - just opinions and "Ews...I don't like gay people."

That you refuse to accept the facts I gave you makes them no less true.

Everyone will never want the same thing. That's a pointless cause to take up.

True, you'll never get everyone to agree. But that isn't what I said. What I said is that if you can explain to everyone (some will disagree) why change is good you'll have a more solid foundation for change. Far from pointless I think it is vital. If you rely on a judge there's little reason to suppose another won't over rule him.

In order for this to be used successfully in your argument, you would need to show proof that this contributed to their delinquency. Otherwise, it's a red herring

No, I simply offered the fact that the single most common factor amongst male prison inmates is a fatherless home. There is a very strong and consistent correlation here. You may think it meaningless but having worked in prisons and on sending people to prison when you see the same issues arise time and time again it becomes fairly convincing.

prison facts

http://www.fathermag.com/news/2778-stats.shtml
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090606114150AACJ4TS

 

[connermt]

The Domestic Partner law already did that.

That's fine. Now, if only this would be enacted to the entire country, this would be a step in the right direction.

The [proffer] of change has the burden of persuasion

And this has been presented.

"destroy" is your word.

It is, which is whyI also included (which you did not) negatively effect

I said that changing the definition of marriage changes the most basic building block of society. And it would.

As a proffer of this claim, the burden of proof is on you. You haven't been able to show this to be true.

What's funny is the fact that you needed to radically alter what I said in order to have something to argue about.

See above

Nor will I. You can reject it as silly if you wish.

Yet, as the proffer, it's your responsibility to. And you refuse. Because there is no facts to support your theory

You are describing preferences. Ugly preferences but they are still preferences. Majority/minority opinion isn't the point. The point is that they are preferences.

And if left to these preferences, little to no civil rights would have been granted to black and women.

That you refuse to accept the facts I gave you makes them no less true.

Your "facts" are your opinions. You gave nothing in regards to facts. Verifiable facts. Nope. Not even one.

I simply offered the fact that the single most common factor amongst male prison inmates is a fatherless home.

Yes and that's all that this means. You infer that it means there more than it does. It doesn't mean that fatherless homes are a bad place to raise children.

You may think it meaningless but having worked in prisons and on sending people to prison when you see the same issues arise time and time again it becomes fairly convincing.

And I was raised in a single parent home. By your logic, I could use my experience, and all the other people I know raised in a single parent home as proof that it's a great place to raise kids. We both know that this isn't true.

 

[obtuseobserver]

And this has been presented.

"tell me why I cannot" and "it causes no harm" are not arguments that make out a prima facie case. The first simply attempts to switch the burden of persuasion and the second tries to do the same and offers no evidence that it is accurate in any case. It could well be. But we don't change things on the "it causes no harm basis."

It is, which is whyI also included (which you did not) negatively effect

?

As a proffer of this claim, the burden of proof is on you. You haven't been able to show this to be true.

lol... if you change the definition of something you change something by defintion. It needs no proof. It simply is.

See above

Nary a clue what you were getting at but just to iterate... please don't assign statements to me that I didn't make. Especially like the "destroy" comment.

Yet, as the proffer, it's your responsibility to. And you refuse. Because there is no facts to support your theory

You are needlessly arguing your credibility away. If you don't accept that most humans were born into a family and then had a family of their own later in life then you're really out there.

Do you have a mother and father? Children? Siblings? Ever notice anyone living in that type of arrangement? Maybe a neighbor or some one down the street?

And if left to these preferences, little to no civil rights would have been granted to black and women.

Hardly the point and way off topic. You said policy wasn't made through preferences and cited to the civil rights movement. You confused majority and minority views with the fact that both represent preferences.

Your "facts" are your opinions. You gave nothing in regards to facts. Verifiable facts. Nope. Not even one.

You refuse to believe the assertion that most people live in families. There's precious little reason to try to offer you any other facts if you're confused by that one.

Yes and that's all that this means. You infer that it means there more than it does. It doesn't mean that fatherless homes are a bad place to raise children.

Oh good lord. Don't read into my comments. I never said fatherless homes were inherently bad. Quite the contrary, at many times I have acknowledged that nontraditional family arrangements are not necessarily bad and in many cases are wonderful.

What I said is that most male prisoners came from fatherless homes. From that correlation it is a fair inference that males who grow up without a father in the home are more likely to go to prison than those who did grow up in a home with a father.

And I was raised in a single parent home. By your logic, I could use my experience, and all the other people I know raised in a single parent home as proof that it's a great place to raise kids. We both know that this isn't true.

You are arguing with yourself.

However, I want proof. Give me reports and studies. I doubt you grew up in a family without better evidence and proof. See how silly that sounds?

 

[connermt]

"tell me why I cannot" and "it causes no harm" are not arguments...

Those aren't the arguments. The idea is that marriage in the US brings along specific legal rights with it. For those who wish to be married and get those rights are being told "NO" because of a said definition of marriage. When asked "Why can't we get married?" the definition is cited. When asked "Why can't we change that definition?" the answer is "because that's the definition".
The whole idea of "the state's interest in marriage is for procreation" is moot for at least 2 reasons:
1) reproduction isn't hindered by marital status
2) if the "state's interest" is true, then divorce would be illegal.

Do you have a mother and father?

Every living person, gay or straight, has a mother and father. That's biology. That's so beyond a legit argument that's it's pointless to discuss it any further.

Hardly the point and way off topic.

It's sad you see it that way. The gov't is telling gay people "you can't get these special marital rights simply because you don't want to live your life with the opposite sex". It's a civil rights issue. Seeing it any other way is truly sad.

You refuse to believe the assertion that most people live in families.

I never once said that. Don't put words in my mouth. There are many different types of families. Because they don't fit into your parameters of family is your problem.

What I said is that most male prisoners came from fatherless homes. From that correlation it is a fair inference that males who grow up without a father in the home are more likely to go to prison than those who did grow up in a home with a father.

Yes, that's an inference, not a fact. That's an assumption that you gleamed from a statement. Nothing else. When you say "most male prisoners came from fatherless homes" that's what it means. Anything more is an opinion.


There is no facts that show that it is 100% true that growing up without a mother/father is 100% negative to the children. The biological part of family (mothers/fathers) is, in theory, a great way to raise a child. However,we don't live in a perfect world.
I'll 'bottom line it' for ya:
A good, responsible adult isn't solely due to having a mother and father in the child's life.
Love, discipline, rules and boundaries are what makes good children great people. Straight, married couples don't hold a monopoly on these traits.

 

[obtuseobserver]

Those aren't the arguments. The idea is that marriage in the US brings along specific legal rights with it. For those who wish to be married and get those rights are being told "NO" because of a said definition of marriage. When asked "Why can't we get married?"

I get it. You have no argument why the definition of marriage needs to be changed especially in light of the Domestic Partner law so you try to shift the argument and requiret those who are not seeking to change it defend why. Doesn't work that way.

the definition is cited. When asked "Why can't we change that definition?" the answer is "because that's the definition".
The whole idea of "the state's interest in marriage is for procreation" is moot for at least 2 reasons:
1) reproduction isn't hindered by marital status
2) if the "state's interest" is true, then divorce would be illegal.

These are poor arguments but looking at #2 some states still do not have no fault divorce (I was shocked to hear it actually.. NY is one of them). The reason for no fault divorce is that we don't want to force people to stay married if they don't wish to be married. Seems a pretty reasonable basis to me.

Every living person, gay or straight, has a mother and father. That's biology. That's so beyond a legit argument that's it's pointless to discuss it any further.

No one is discussing that issue.... other than you.

It's sad you see it that way. The gov't is telling gay people "you can't get these special marital rights simply because you don't want to live your life with the opposite sex". It's a civil rights issue. Seeing it any other way is truly sad.

Accept with the domestic partner law they have all the same rights (or nearly all - I'll give the caveat because there may be some exceptions I am unaware of.)

And don't attribute things to me that I have not claimed or stated I believe.

I never once said that. Don't put words in my mouth. There are many different types of families. Because they don't fit into your parameters of family is your problem.

Go reread your posts. You kept demanding I offer some kind of verifiable proof that most people live in families and I told you that it was reeadily verifiable by looking out your damn window. You looked like a fool when yuo kept doing that.

Lol... my defintion of family is p[retty broad. If you reread the thread I was simply saying that the state can resaonably endorce one form over another. I did not call those other forms "not family." That's an inference you made despite the pretty overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Yes, that's an inference, not a fact.

It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of male prison inmates came from fatherless homes. The inference is pretty fair. It means that it is very important to have a father in the home. Not all familes can do that. However, on balance, it is a good thing. There's nothing terribly controversial about any of that.

That's an assumption that you gleamed from a statement. Nothing else. When you say "most male prisoners came from fatherless homes" that's what it means. Anything more is an opinion.

lol - see above. On whole, better to have father in home than not. Pretty easy thing to assert and accept.

There is no facts that show that it is 100% true that growing up without a mother/father is 100% negative to the children.

Nor did I ever assert anything remotely resembling that. However, it is becoming pretty obvious you just plain do not understand what I'm saying.... so... have a nice day

 

[connermt]

I get it. You have no argument why the definition of marriage needs to be changed especially in light of the Domestic Partner law so you try to shift the argument and requiret those who are not seeking to change it defend why. Doesn't work that way.

No...no you don't get it. The rights need to be available for whomever wants to partake in the act of marriage.

These are poor arguments...

Reproduction being dependent on marriage? Absolutely.

...some states still do not have no fault divorce...

And common law marriage until relatively recently.

The reason for no fault divorce is that we don't want to force people to stay married if they don't wish to be married. Seems a pretty reasonable basis to me.

Not if the state's interest in marriage is to raise good/great/healthy/productive children it's not reasonable at all. Beyond that flawed thinking, I agree - if two people don't want to stay married OK then. Likewise, if two (gay or straight) people want to get married OK then as well. It doesn't hurt anyone (other than the people getting married :giggle

No one is discussing that issue.... other than you.

Then why feel the need to reply? Just to argue? Bored? :help:

Accept with the domestic partner law they have all the same rights (or nearly all - I'll give the caveat because there may be some exceptions I am unaware of.)

FMLA isn't covered under the domestic partner law. So no, not all rights/legalities are the same. Likewise, many would argue that there's no reason to create a special law simply for gay people just because others don't want them to be "married". That's not "being equal" as they say, but that's a different debate that I don't necessarily share.

You kept demanding I offer some kind of verifiable proof that most people live in families and I told you that it was reeadily verifiable by looking out your damn window.

That's not proof (or good spelling) friend. That's simply saying "look at your neighbors". Which, if I did, I would tell you that the neighbor next door is a single parent and raising their children(multiple kids) quite well. Four houses down, there's a mom and grandmother raising 2 children. Quite well. Across the street is a mother/father/child family doing quite well. This tells me that raising a good kid is independent of having a mother and father figure. Now, what's outside your window?

You looked like a fool when yuo kept doing that.

Spell check
is your friend (trust me, I know)

my defintion of family is p[retty broad.

That's great!

It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of male prison inmates came from fatherless homes.

Technically, you would have to quantify "overwhelming" as that's a subjective term. But I got what you were attempting to say. It's a good indication, but not a fact (unless one can show proof/data to support it).

Nor did I ever assert anything remotely resembling that.

And I never indicated you said that. Don't take things personally as my statement is just that - a statement. Which is why people who know, reference this as an "indication" not a fact. Listen to any documentary closely and you can hear that.

...it is becoming pretty obvious you just plain do not understand what I'm saying...

Not at all. You are just wanting to argue with grand assumptions, passing off opinions as facts, and no supporting data (which is fine, so long as it's stated as an opinion). So I know exactly what you are saying and, to a greater degree, why you're saying it.
And my last five or six days were great - I expect more great days to come! Thanks for the concern!

 

[obtuseobserver]

No...no you don't get it. The rights need to be available for whomever wants to partake in the act of marriage.

Well, that an opinion and the state of the law disagrees even without regard to same sex couples.

Reproduction being dependent on marriage? Absolutely.
And common law marriage until relatively recently.

You are not uynderstanding what I am saying (or deliberately mischaracterizing it).

Afaik, common law marriages are recognized in every state.

Not if the state's interest in marriage is to raise good/great/healthy/productive children it's not reasonable at all. Beyond that flawed thinking, I agree - if two people don't want to stay married OK then. Likewise, if two (gay or straight) people want to get married OK then as well. It doesn't hurt anyone (other than the people getting married :giggle

wow... you really don't get it.

you can disagree with me on policy all you want and I can respect that but you're trying to have your own set of facts and you don't understand the aruments I've made.

 

[connermt]

Well, that [is]an opinion...the state of the law disagrees even without regard to same sex couples.

Very good!:dance:

...common law marriages are recognized in every state.

Not in Ohio, where I'm at (at least in regards to certain marital rights - maybe in other areas).

...you can disagree with me on policy all you want...

Well thank you very much!

...but you're trying to have your own set of facts and you don't understand the aruments I've made.

And you don't want to understand what I'm saying. Which is obvious when you say I want my own set of facts when nothing I said was related to facts at all. I don't need facts to say "I think that there is no legitimate reason why gay marriage shouldn't be legal". Those who disagree with that need to provide facts otherwise.

 

[obtuseobserver]

Very good!:dance:
Not in Ohio, where I'm at (at least in regards to certain marital rights - maybe in other areas).
Well thank you very much!
And you don't want to understand what I'm saying. Which is obvious when you say I want my own set of facts when nothing I said was related to facts at all. I don't need facts to say "I think that there is no legitimate reason why gay marriage shouldn't be legal". Those who disagree with that need to provide facts otherwise.

you don't need facts to say you think the moon is made of green cheese either and its about as valuable of an assertion

common law marriages entered into in Ohio prior to date X in 1991 are valid, after that date they are not

 

[connermt]

...common law marriages entered into in Ohio prior to date X in 1991 are valid, after that date they are not

And being that 1991 is several years ago, that would equate to the fact that CLMs after 1991 (which include Aug 2010) are invalid, as I said.

...you don't need facts to say you think the moon is made of green cheese either...

Now you are learning :dance:
Saying "I think" is a lot different than saying "this is X". One requires facts, the other doesn't.
Your proposals are equal to the "I think" way, even though you like to state them as "this is X".
It's good to see people learn!

 

[obtuseobserver]

And being that 1991 is several years ago, that would equate to the fact that CLMs after 1991 (which include Aug 2010) are invalid, as I said.

You said

Not in Ohio, where I'm at (at least in regards to certain marital rights - maybe in other areas).

Using your "I think" system; you are claiming that it is fact that some parts of Ohio do not recognize common law marriages. Those areas being "where I'm at".

This is factually unsustainable. This misstates the law as well.

Common law marriages are recognized in the entire state of Ohio whether you are there or not.

Now you are learning :dance:

No, I am becoming increasingly frustrated in my efforts to explain to you how the law operates.

In this case common law marriage.

Saying "I think" is a lot different than saying "this is X". One requires facts, the other doesn't.
Your proposals are equal to the "I think" way, even though you like to state them as "this is X".
It's good to see people learn!

Saying, "I think" is a juvenile why to wiggle out of an assertion once it has been shown to be inaccurate. If you wish to cling to such a construct then for our purposes sentences where you employ, "I think" should simply be disregarded because you place them on par with saying you think the moon is made of green cheese.

It would seem unlikely for you to assert something you believe or think or claim or know or (insert your preferred verb here) to be untrue.

If you do we generally regarding asserting as true something one knows to be untrue as a lie. I have no reason to think you are a liar.