Yes, I know.
Which is why I have said repeatedly in this thread that they are being honored.
Let's call this Topic A.

Yes, I know.
Which is why I never once said that they were legally valid.
Let's call this Topic B.

So it appears that you agree with what I said, even though you won't admit it, because you have let your "fun through disagreement" run away with you.

I hadn't set out to prove anything, FX.
I simply made a statement of fact about Topic A.

You disagreed with it, by citing Topic B, a topic I never mentioned.
I provided a link to prove my statement on Topic A is correct, and requested that we stick to talking about topic A.

You disagreed with me again, by insisting on talking about Topic B.
So I once again tried to get you back on topic, but I see you still refuse.

It's hard to understand why you would behave like this, especially given your recent statement here:

See what happens when you try to use an argument about Topic B to try to prove your opponent's position about Topic A wrong?

One topic per debate. That's not my rule, that's good debate etiquette.

Now, is there any chance you will admit that we are in agreement, as I illustrated above? Or do you want to go on trying to find "fun through disagreement" here?

It seems you didn't read the first posts in this thread then. It would have saved us both a LOT of typing.....
The thread is clearly about a story where a gay couple wed in MA but can't get a divorce in RI. That's a fact.
Let's go through your first post in the thread and see what you said and my rebuttal....
You said...
RI made waves last year when they moved to legally honor gay marriage performed in Mass, but that apparently doesn't mean they will dissolve said marriages.

And I said...
That's just it, RI never decided to honor those marriages. They have a law that specifically deems marriage a male/female union. So they "can't" honor a divorce for a couple that legally aren't married in the first place.

I clearly pointed out that even though they may have "made moves", they never did legally decide to honor them. So they can't legally divorce a couple that they don't recognize as married in the first place.


I don't see where you can find that your information on this story contradicts what I have said, but you have to be more clear. Ever since post 3 ini this thread, I have only pointed out that you have not provided a sliver of information that verifies whether RI has legally recognized those marriages. And I still haven't seen where I was trying to "change the subject".

The fact remains RI does not legally recognize the marriage, so they can't divorce. Even if the "moved" to recognize them, they stopped short somewhere during that movement, so this couple is caught in a predicament they brought upon themselves.

And I find your statement in your last post..
Which is why I never once said that they were legally valid.

To be totally opposed to this statement from your second post...
RI made waves last year when they moved to legally honor gay marriage performed in Mass, but that apparently doesn't mean they will dissolve said marriages.

and your words in post number 4
I wouldn't have said it if it wasn't true.

which were the answer to my comment
That's just it, RI never decided to honor those marriages.


I have to ask you what you are trying to prove? I can't believe you are accusing me of letting my "fun through disagreement" get away from me. I'm just wondering if you even know what you are saying in the first place. I'm not "disagreeing" anymore, I'm just watching you bounce off your own words trying to find a way to prove me wrong. You disproved your own words with the link you provided. It has me concerned.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

Wow. I didn't read your latest post at all, I just skipped to the end, because there is nothing left to debate here.

But, once again, I am not trying to prove anything, whatever that even means to you.

I simply made a statement of fact that you, for whatever reason, have fixated on trying to refute. Since you can't, once again, you have derailed an entire thread to step in and try to "win" on something that is completely beside the point.

Shame on me for entertaining you in this pointless time-wasting semantics-strangling exercise a second time.

So once again, I will be the bigger man, and grant you another "victory," so you can finally drop this non-issue. Congrats.

That's just it, "your statement of fact" was incorrect. RI never "made moves" to legally recognize those marriages. The attorney general just gave an opinion that wasn't legally binding.

There's no point in "refuting" false information. THAT'S what I've been trying to tell you. Your information isn't factual in the first place.

As for semantics, I really don't know what you are saying there either. Either the state legally recognizes the marriages or they don't. The Supreme Court and your link clearly says they don't. No semantics involved at all.

And I don't see where THIS thread was derailed...every post in a thread about a couple who can't divorce in RI is about RI not recognizing their marriage in the first place. I fail to see where this thread was derailed. What else is there to discuss about this story? If you consider discussing the legal validity of their marriage in RI "derailing", then you started it in your post #2.

"Bigger man" LOL....I could go in so many directions with that, but after our discussion yesterday, I would hate to think I was "dehumanizing" you.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)