Don't Say Gay BillFollow

Have you ever dealt with a lawyer before?

That's why it cost 10,000 dollars to write the contract. But if you paid him that to write up a standard contract, he'll do that too. And once written, you can make copies and let anyone fill them out and file them. Just like any of a number of pretty standard contracts out there. Do you pay 10k to have a lawyer write a contract when you buy a home? No? Why not? Because mortgage contracts are standardized. Same deal with every time you take your car in for service and you fill out a service request form. Guess what? At some point in the past, someone hired a lawyer to figure out what needed to be on that form to protect both the customer and the mechanic. But today, you buy them in sheets of 50 for 10 bucks a pop (ok. I have no idea how much they cost, but whatever).


Why do you think this would be different?

Mortgage companies tend to have lawyers on retainer.

If home-buying contracts were as simple as you think they are, real estate lawyers would be out of a job. Markets always lead to the optimal solution, right?

Also, are you going to write your will with a lawyer in a box? It can't be that complicated, right? It's as simple as getting your car worked on!




Edited, May 5th 2011 12:45am by Sweetums

Wow, you're still butthurt over losing that? Hahaha... thanks for the morning laugh.

I assume most people would shrug since it wouldn't be the government denying you that right.

While I disagree that it's a good enough reason, it's at least more of a reason than Gbaji ever managed to come up with.

gbaji's point is going to be (after a few more pages) that marriage exists for a single reason: the potential to have children. He has said this in previous statements. As such, homosexuals should not get married nor receive the benefits of marriage, because there is no potential for children. Couples unable or unwilling to have children should still receive these benefits, because it's too difficult to actually take the time to find out if they do. Much easier to just say "Adoption is not an option here, you have different genitals, so you get benefits."

As he's been saying for the last 2 pages, it's arbitrary. Because in the end, everything is arbitrary - the less common use of which means "decided by a judge (an arbiter)." The problem being, gbaji's argument that marriage (and benefits) are about potential for children holds no legal substance. Many of the benefits have jack-all to do with kids as well. gbaji is incorrect in saying that all the benefits can be given by separate documents, primarily some are only given through marriage (being on your spouse's insurance, for example; changes in taxation for another).

So... what Joph said. In the end, his argument is "It's easier to continue to discriminate than to change what I feel is the meaning behind marriage" when in fact it seems obvious to most of us that it's easier to widen the view of marriage to stop this discrimination.

Also, gbaji's analogies suck.

Gbaji stumbles right out of the gate by claiming that benefits are an incentive and thinking them to be proactive. In reality, the benefits have all been reactive -- groups of people didn't like their options under marriage and petitioned for changes to taxes, inheritance law, property law or whatever else. When you inaccurately view them as proactive, you're left asking "What did they want to influence in future couples?" When correctly viewed as reactive, you can say "What were they responding to in their own couplings?" and pinpoint the causes of their discontent via news clippings, historical analysis and other means.

Unfortunately for Gbaji, those causes never come down to "They really wanted more people to get married before they have kids" and that's the entire foundation of his argument. So he's stuck continually arguing that it's all about creating some incentive and using a plaintive cry of "It's Obvious!" as his only evidence.

So why is that ok?

That's an entire different argument.



It's not that nonsense that you stated, because the authority to marry has nothing to do with love. You don't know who you might fall in love with.

You are denied the right to marry someone of the same sex. That's exactly what it is. No one cares if you do or don't love someone, except for religion.