I knew it was going to happen, but...Follow

Trifecta!

How about the fact that he threatened to export his gay lover if he said anything, you fucking ******?

Except that's not what happened. It is the assumption many of you have leaped to based on your own biases. The only threat the sheriff sent did not mention deportation, and was related to his ex hacking into his web sites. There is *zero* evidence that this had anything to do with homosexuality, fear of exposure, or anything like that. You're filling in the gaps with your own biased assumptions.


That's why I keep saying this is circular. You assume all republicans must be anti-gay. Thus, you assume any gay republican must fear being exposed as gay. Thus, you assume that anything he did must have been motivated by that fear. Don't you see that if you eliminate the first assumption, all the others fall apart? Your own assumptions lead you to a conclusion which supports your own assumption. It's circular though. You assume the whole thing is about him being gay, while ignoring the evidence which says that it's about something else entirely.

Ignoring your absurd argument that the government created those things as an encouragement for marriages (which you've never once provided a shred of proof for, and I'm not at all interested in discussing it until you do)...

So you think it's okay for the government to implement a system, and then use it to police society? Why in the world is that superior to creating a law specifically to police society?

I vastly prefer the later. It's easier to combat if it's being abused.

Unless your argument is that tax benefits and such have accidentally added incentive to create nuclear families. But I doubt that's the case, considering its contrary to the argument you've been screaming for years.

Oh, no doubt that's exactly your intent

ITT: Gbaji doesn't understand the word "evidence".

That's only because the gay people want to get married, which in turn destroys the institution of marriage. If it wasn't for that, nobody would cheat and actually live up to "til death do we part".

Oh, you! That would only work for lesbians, duh.

What would you consider a primary source though? Speeches by whom? Aren't you just going to dismiss any source I use anyway?

The first link provides tons of court findings, including full citations. You should perhaps read it? Or perhaps read more of the links as well?



If someone else has assembled a set of the exact sources and cites that you are asking for, I could cut and paste their entire work *or* just link to it. How about you try reading some of the things I linked to and see if some of them contain information which might just match what you're looking for? Do I have to hold your damn hand here?





Any source agreeing with me on this would be considered by you to be biased though. So your opinion is somewhat meaningless, isn't it?



You didn't read the paragraph at the beginning, did you? While the abstract addresses the concept that the purpose and legal meaning of marriage has changed, it clearly states that what it changed *from* was one in which the states interest was illegitimate children *to* one where it focuses more on sexuality regardless of procreation. Regardless of the final position taken in the paper, it does support my position regarding the original state purpose for creating marriage licenses in the first place (in this case, to try to reduce the number of illegitimate children).
Furthermore, there are some great gems in the piece. For instance, the fact that Marriage is, in law and our society, a "status, not a civil contract." Well, there goes your argument that law is a civil contract and, therefore, equal to a civil union.



That addresses why people marry, but *not* why the state chooses to provide benefits to those who do. That's the part you seem to keep missing.



Are you incapable of thinking for yourself? I'm still waiting for *anyone* to propose and support an alternative explanation as to why the state would create those marriage benefits in the first place. And no: "Because people wanted them" isn't good enough. People want lots of things, but we don't give all of them to them. There is always a reason why we grant some benefits, but not others. I'm asking you to do your own thinking and try to figure out why this might be. Call it an assignment if you want.

Can you do this? I've asked for this repeatedly, but no one seems willing or able to do it. I just can't see how you can sit there shooting down my explanation, when you can't produce one of your own.

Are you REALLY asking me to define what a primary source is? No wonder you have such a terrible grasp of history, your teachers clearly sucked. I'd expect a high school freshman to understand this concept.

A primary source is one that goes to the root of the problem. Do I have to define root for you too? If you are discussing how literature has changed over a period of 100 years, the actual pieces of literature are your primary source. Literary critiques might be a secondary source. If you are discussing how literary critique had changed, then those critiques would be primary sources (and scholarly articles on these changes, or citing changes, would be secondary sources).

You are making a claim that these laws and benefits were established for a specific reason. A primary source goes back to the very root of those laws and benefits. A primary source might be text from the law, text from the court that passed the law (on it, obviously), content from speeches made concerning the law (by those who PASSED it or proposed it), house debates on it, etc.

Opinion pieces published in newspapers at the time would not be primary sources. Opinion pieces published now definitely aren't.

It's an incredibly simple concept. A primary source gives you a primary account of what you are studying.

And are you seriously going to deny that a source from the "Catholic Defense" blog, or the Marriage Law Foundation ("to defend and protect marriage between a husband and wife") aren't biased. Are you that ******* stupid?

If your point is obvious, is infallible, is so definitely true, then you should have no issues whatsoever in providing us with documents from the time of establishment that these laws/benefits were created for the reasons you describe.

This image has never been more relevant.