holmes responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Grow up. If you don't like my comments, then don't read them. Nobody forces you to do anything you don't want to do. I will respond to whatever post I wish to until such time as the moderators let me know that I have overstepped the bounds.
When you hit reply to my post, an indicator pops up that I have a response to one of my posts. All I asked, and this appears to be yet something else you couldn't understand, is that you not hit reply to my posts.
Here's the part you're not getting:
I don't care.
If you are annoyed that you get a message saying that you have a response to a post of yours only to find out that it's from me, then it is your responsibility to turn off that message, not mine to coddle you.
Grow up. I will respond to whatever post I wish to until such time as the moderators let me know that I have overstepped the bounds.
quote:
If you want to comment on things I say that is fine by me, just hit the general reply at the bottom of the page instead of my post.
No. The ability to trace the thread back through the convenient links put in by the software at the bottom of the page indicating what message I am replying to is more important than your pwecious widdle feewings.
Grow up.
quote:
quote:
What, specifically, would be different about the administration of marriage if we changed the words "husband" and "wife" for the word "spouse"?
NOTHING... HOW MANY TIMES MUST I WRITE THIS ANSWER BEFORE I GET YOU TO ACKNOWLEDGE I HAVE ANSWERED IT!!!!?????
The problem isn't the number of times you say it.
Instead, the problem is that you then turn around and say the exact opposite...that same-sex marriage would require changes in marriage.
For example, here is a comment you made to crashfrog:
In some states as well there are required blood tests. Since gays cannot have children are they exempt from this, or do we force them to have it anyway because that is what is on the perreqs to get a license because they assume reproduction...
So you're saying that in order to put in same-sex marriage, we would have to rewrite the laws requiring blood tests.
Do I need to point out the numerous times you whine about how those who claim that same-sex marriage changes marriage "less" than polygamy are ludicrous?
Since I have pointed out numerous administrative changes that would need to be dealt with when dealing with a trio, then your claim that same-sex marriage changes marriage at least as much as polygamy cannot be reconciled with any claim of yours that the administration of marriage wouldn't change by allowing couples of the same sex to marry.
Let's see if some symbology will help.
Let X be the set of rules and regulations that currently exist in marriage.
Let Y be the set of rules and regulations that would encompass same-sex marriage which also coincide with X. That is, Y is a subset of X.
If Y is identical to X, then X - Y = 0. In short, X and Y are of the same size and overlap precisely.
Let Z be the set of rules and regulations that would encompass polygamous marriage which also coincide with X. That is Z is a subset of X.
By inspection, X - Z > 0. Some rules and regulations that apply to two-person marriage cannot be extended to more-than-two-person marriage. In short, Z does not overlap X precisely...there exists an element of X that is not an element of Z.
Now, your claim is that X - Z <= X - Y. But if X - Y = 0, then the only way this can be true is if X - Z = 0. But as we have just shown, X - Z > 0. Thus, we have a contradiction.
Do you see why I keep coming back to the same question over and over again? How would you respond to someone who keeps saying one thing and then immediately contradicts that statement in the very next breath?
If same-sex marriage doesn't change marriage how can it not be "less" of a change than polygamous marriage, which does change marriage?
quote:
quote:
The closest you have done is to say that there would be printing costs reflecting the change in the law as if that actually had something to do with the rights and responsibilities that come along with the contract of marriage.
Well add to this the legislative sessions for creating actual wording for those states which need to make changes and that is it.
Again, you're acting like that actually has something to do with the rights and responsibilities that come along with the contract of marriage.
The question is not how many people in the legislature will go into a tizzy over this and require an hour of speaking time on the floor of the Assembly or how much ink and paper needs to be purchased to achieve parity.
The question is, given that "marriage" is defined as a legal contract with enumerated rights A, B, C, ... and enumerated responsibilities 1, 2, 3, ..., which of those rights and/or responsibilities would need to be altered in order to accomodate the substitution of "spouse" for "husband" and "wife"?
There are many of those alterations that would have to be made in order to accomodate polygamy. I have listed quite a number of them.
Ergo, if same-sex marriage doesn't cause any change in the administration of marriage and polygamy does, how can you possibly say that polygamy changes marriage "less" than same-sex marriage?
quote:
I SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE AND NOTHING WILL CHANGE AS FAR AS RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF MARRIAGE!!!!
So why do you keep saying that polygamy would change marriage less than same-sex marriage when it is clear by inspection that polygamy requires changes to the contract of marriage?
Did you or did you not say:
It is just to say ANY appeals to the idea that same-sex marriage is less a change to the concept and practice of marriage, than is polygamy, is fallacious
You see my dilemma. If same-sex marriage causes no change to the contract of marriage but polygamy does, as I have repeatedly shown, how can it be fallacious that same-sex marriage is less of a change to the concept and practice of marriage?
quote:
I simply made a correction that it does not require 0 change to laws.
But you are being truly disingenuous to say that the physical act of rewriting the laws to ensure they apply to same-sex as well as mixed-sex couples is a "change to laws."
The question before us is "Does marriage change?" That's what is meant by "marriage law." Marriage is a contract that comes with a set of rights and responsibilities. Do any of them change if we allow them to be applied to same-sex couples? No? Then there is no change to marriage law to apply them to same-sex couples. The physical act of substituting "spouse" for "husband" and "wife," "person" for "man" and "woman" is trivial.
You can understand my incredulity at your response that having to pay for printing costs is a "change" in a discussion about the status of marriage and whether it would change if extended to same-sex couples.
How's this for an analogy:
A student goes to school wearing a T-shirt that says, "Fuck you!" The administration objects and says that the kid will have to go home and change his shirt so that it has more appropriate content.
He comes back wearing another shirt that still says "Fuck you!" but this time it's in italics.
By your argument, he changed the content of his shirt. The previous one was in roman letters...now it's in italics. That's a change.
You can understand why everyone would look at you funny since it was clear that the problem was not the font of the message but rather the message, itself.
quote:
quote:
The current marriage laws don't specify what it is. They only recognize two people and thus there is no difference between the two arrangements. Your assumption that expansion of marriage to more than two people would be of a hub-and-spoke arrangement is precisely that: An assumption.
Not an assumption and your statement above just showed why.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
Hmmm, we both agree that the card the dealer just played face down could be a red card or a black card. We don't know which it is because it is undefined. You then go on to behave as if it were a black card.
How is that not an assumption on your part?
quote:
As it stands marriage contracts are just between two people.
Precisely. But is that contract a hub-and-spoke contract or a maximally interconnected contract? Turns out when you only have two, it doesn't really matter which one it is because they both result in precisely the same outcome. Therefore, there is no mention of which one it is anywhere to be found. The status is undefined.
For you then to proceed as if it were hub-and-spoke and to make comparisons to hub-and-spoke versions of polygamy is to make an assumption.
quote:
If you wanted to have a polygamous marriage it would require you to sign individual contracts between each spouse.
Or a single contract which all participants sign as a maximally interconnected arrangement. Why are you assuming hub-and-spoke? When four people get together to form Three Letter Acronym, LLP, they don't have to sign six contracts (A with B, A with C, A with D, B with C, B with D, and C with D). Instead, they all sign a single contract that binds them all together.
Why are you assuming that if A and B were married, B could marry C without needing A's consent? Why the assumption of hub-and-spoke?
quote:
In this way the rights/responsibilities will be clearly defined for each member of the polygamous marriage.
No, because if polygamy is a maximally interconnected relationship, why are there two contracts? There should be only one.
quote:
It is only if people want to create more encompassing marriage arrangements (many at one time) where new laws would need to be created.
But that's part of the definition of polygamy. You continue to use this bizarre, restricted version which does not encompass all arrangements that would be defined as "polygamy."
quote:
I assume they would take on the same form as businesses that form sort of multi-corporate entity.
But that goes to a maximally interconnected arrangement. You don't sign multiple contracts for each pair. Instead, all parties sign a single contract. When three entities go into a venture together, they do so
together otherwise they're not going in it
together.
quote:
Otherwise, it is just the same as signing contracts with different credit card and loan companies.
But who gets the lien? Marriage assigns exclusive rights to the spouse. When there is more than one spouse, who has the exclusive right?
quote:
They do not gain a rights/responsibility relationship with each other just because you signed and are financially responsible to them both.
They do if they all signed the contract. And there is a problem if you sign an exclusive contract with one and then sign the same exclusive contract with the other.
Why do you think SCO is suing Novell over patents with regard to UNIX? SCO thinks they have exclusive rights that Novell claims they don't have.
quote:
quote:
If a married person dies, his spouse has a right to survivor's benefits. If he is married to more than one person, do each of his spouses have an equal right or does he merely have a single benefit that will be divided amongst his spouses?
If you cannot answer this question, then it is your problem...
(*sigh*)
You really don't get it, do you? The problem is not that the question is unanswerable. The problem is that the answer to the question cannot be found in the current administration of two-person marriage due to the fact that the question is irrelevant to two-person marriage.
quote:
the same as me asking who is the wife in a gay wedding...
Such a question is meaningless unless one is satisfied with an answer of "both" or "neither."
quote:
or who leads when they dance?
"Lead" is not connected to sex. The one who leads is the one who leads, not "the man."
quote:
1) A has individual contracts with B, C, and D
Why? When was it agreed that polygamy was hub-and-spoke?
quote:
2) part of contract with each is that on death, assets will be given to the other.
But under current law, the spouse as an exclusive right.
How can a right be exclusive if there is more than one with the same exclusive right?
quote:
3) D dies. D's assets go to A. A can give then do with them whatever he wants.
Why? B and C have the identical rights to A. That's the point behind "community property." It is owned jointly and the property of D is also the property of A. And since the property of A is also the property of B, that means the property of D is necessarily the property of B, too. Similarly, the property of D is also the property of C. Unless a prenuptual agreement is made to override community property, D's assets aren't just A's.
quote:
4) More complex. A dies... oh my... assets equally divided between B, C, and D just as they would be if you went bankrupt and owed three different companies.
Why? B, C, and D each have exclusive rights, assuming we are using current marriage law and applying it to all.
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
™ Version 4.2
