idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I'm sorry, I should have been clear. I want "proof" in the form of primary sources, court documents, speeches, or anything to suggest that this was actually a reason the laws were created.
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?
"Proof" does not refer to op-eds, editorials, or opinion pieces, and you are @#%^ing idiot for continuing to link them.
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 **** hand here?
Not only did you link me three articles of these sorts, you linked them from absurdly biased sources.
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?
The only scholarly source you offered is one you clearly didn't read, otherwise you'd have realized it was discussing Transsexual marriage. The absolutely hilarious part was that they declared that a male-to-female transexual and male person had every right to marry, despite having no sexual ability to produce children. Why? Because they determined that there was no aspect of the marriage contract that demanded the ability to produce children, should both partners be in a state to accept that.
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.
When we began to marry for love, we left this system behind us.
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.