The Incomplete Cynic

Reblogged from clintirwin:

I have already described the rights the law insures regardless of where a couple is. We know thousands of churches, backed by the people of many places do discriminate against gays. We may not be able to change their opinions but we can insure that the courts and the law respect their rights and put a check on the mob.

You’ve done it again. “Thousands of churches…discriminate against gays.” How? What are they doing? And what would change if those gay couples had marriage licenses?

Are you implicitly admitting that the government has the monopoly?

No, you are. We have discussed this already. You can choose not to get the government involved, but if you do, you receive equal protection under the law.

Do you know what “implicit” means?

I have been very specific about these rights in this response and every other. You even pointed them out yourself : “equal protection granted by the acknowledgement of same-sex unions would be limited to things like hospital visitation, inheritance, and tax filing.” I also added divorce (division of property, dispute resolution) and where concerns court testimony. Every straight couple is afforded these in every state. Not all of them can be given just by “putting it in writing.” Why should gay couples be denied these rights unless they draw up special agreements?

I have mentioned taxes, visitation, and inheritance. You have added divorce. Well done. (I’m not quite sure what “where concerns court testimony” means)

A marriage license is, basically, a standard contract that includes these “special agreements”. Married people have go to a local courthouse and sign them (in the presence of a notary, I’m pretty sure) to guarantee them.

What law? Defined by who? Enforced by who? In what particular locality? 

Defined by the Constitution throughout the United States.

You answered your own question. I’m not sure why. Also, there are no laws in the Constitution, and marriage isn’t defined there.

holeycynicism

Until you point out what particular protection the state will provide under the law (again, something more specific than “rights”) I’m going to leave the equal protection statement alone. “Individuals can define marriage anyway they want,” but if they want a marriage license, they have to meet government requirements.

So what? Expand the definition of marriage to include gays and all couples get access to the legal system which guarantees their equal protection under the law

I’m going to have to ask again, are you implicitly acknowledging that the government has a monopoly? (Just to be clear, I’m saying it explicitly)

Also, your separation of this statement from the statement below demonstrates that you don’t actually understand what I’m saying.

holeycynicism

As whakahekeheke said originally, if the state didn’t have a monopoly, it would be a moot point. There would be no licenses, thus no requirements, thus nothing to change.

And everyone would be equal in having no protection under the law. Might makes right, discriminate as you like.

That’s exactly what I said, “Discriminate as you like.” I do it all the time personally…

holeycynicism

Personally, I believe homosexuality to be a sin,

Well, then there is no point going any further. You advocate a system where discrimination against gays will be de facto because you believe them to be sinners. So, I am talking to a religious bigot and will see no kind of reason from you on this. Cheers and good luck. I will waste my time no longer.

I think my favorite part of this one is how you not only completely ignored, but deleted the rest of my statement. It’s incredibly dishonest, and also demonstrates that you are unable to engage in a reasoned conversation with someone you disagree with. You took half of a sentence from 5 paragraphs, and are implying that you’ll see no reason from me?

I’ve given you reason and ideas, and you’ve repeated phrases like “equal protection under the law”, while suggesting that there are laws defined in the Constitution. You still haven’t explained how local churches are taking away peoples rights (you’ve just said that it’s happening), or how a marriage certificate will fix it.

You’ve maliciously distorted my position several times and, in this most recent case, exlcuded 90% of my final argument so you could suggest I hate homosexuals. That’s called “libel”. I wan’t going to respond again, but to see you trying to claim the high road was just too much to ignore.

(via clintirwin, whakahekeheke)