Posts by Carl Fisher7

Joshua Jones13 said:Carl Fisher7, you started out just sharing your thoughts on marriage, but then you moved toward quoting various definitions to push the idea that a sexless marriage isn't actually a marriage. You basically argued that even if it’s legally binding, it clashes with the legislator's sense of morality and ethics. It feels like you're just interpreting the law however you want.
Here is a copy-paste from one of your rather typical posts:

Now, am I truly being a demagogue? Or is it perhaps the whole notion that a marriage—contractually entered into by two heterosexual people where it's pre-agreed there will be no sex, and consequently no children resulting from sexual intercourse—is somehow in obvious conflict with the moral and ethical understanding of the legislator...

Claiming it clashes with the legislator's morality and ethics isn't some "arbitrary interpretation"—and let's not forget what we're actually fighting about here:
dustyranger64 — everything hinges on whether the legislator assumes sexual relations are part of a marriage in the first place...
There were also cases mentioned regarding people getting married with a six-month divorce already planned. I pointed out that the law is crystal clear there—it doesn't allow it—and I added that you can certainly debate the morality and ethics of such a union, especially when the motives have to be hidden from, say, a county clerk 😁. If you feel like it, go back and read my previous posts. By the way, I have zero intention of continuing this specific debate; if anyone is confused, they can go do their own research and read up. My goal here is simply to file an appeal against the moderation. After exchanging emails, the moderator directed me to file a formal complaint regarding the restriction and redirection of the discussion by banning any legal interpretation —which is exactly what the moderator was doing in that very same post (followed by those ironic Orwellian references, accusations of lying, demagoguery, and so on). I shouldn't have to keep repeating myself, right?

dustyranger64 said:And since it’s already been explained to you multiple times here and even via DM, let me say it one last time:

Even if the law assumes sexual intimacy exists within a marriage, if two people decide together they don't want it, the government can't and shouldn't step in. That is still a totally valid, legitimate marriage. And that's exactly what everyone has been trying to tell you for pages now, only to be met with your excuses about how it "isn't a real marriage" because of what the law assumes.

The forum users have spent more than enough pages explaining the obvious. Between those explanations and the moderator warnings and DMs I've sent personally, I'm done. I'm out.

The bolded part is basically the crux of the issue—it's what everyone has been fighting over, debating, doubting, misinterpreting, or using to insult me by calling me a demagogue or a liar.

Let me repeat (and yeah, I'd probably say it for the 100th time after the 77th): I never said that kind of marriage isn't legitimate. In fact, I explicitly stated that such a marriage *is* legal. Expressing my opinion and stance clearly didn't break any forum rules, which is why you haven't actually punished me—and frankly, there's no reason to. You don't have the right to try to discredit me or steer me toward other topics. If this thread doesn't belong here, the mods should have just moved it themselves instead of making it an issue.

Besides, I don't see much point in us going back and forth on this PDF since we could have just kept arguing on the original thread anyway. So, I'll just ask you:

- By banning the interpretation of the law while simultaneously interpreting it yourself in the same post, did you actually make a mistake?
- Do you consider yourself biased or objective? As a mod, you're supposed to be neutral.

Joshua Jones13 said:Carl Fisher7, dustyranger64 laid out his moderation reasoning on this thread pretty clearly, so I don't really have much else to say. I'm on his side, especially regarding this point:

Neither the legislature nor I am doing that. If I haven't made myself clear by now, I doubt I ever will be.

Let me sum this up in a nutshell—if you’re going to ban people from interpreting the law, then you don't get to claim that right for yourself.

Honestly, I don't need your apologies. As for legal interpretations, here’s my suggestion: go find someone who actually understands family law instead of constantly putting words in my mouth—or rather, under my keyboard—that I never even uttered. That’s pure demagoguery because I never actually stated that sex within a marriage is legally mandated by the state or that it's a requirement —all I said was that the law (via family law) takes it for granted. Do you see the distinction there? I could go on about this forever—it's a waste of breath. By the way, you seem to only write comments on things that fit your specific narrative, while skipping or ignoring everything else.

It's true, Tupelo doesn't moderate the forum—I was just pointing out that different moderation standards are being applied within the same forum.

And frankly, it would be nice if you'd tone it down and stop being so rude. You're a moderator; you're supposed to be setting the example here.

Btw, you told me in a DM that the next step is filing an appeal with the oversight board, only to have you handle it again. Is that like when the fox is in charge of guarding the henhouse? If that's how it works, we might as well end this now, because it feels pretty Orwellian.

dustyranger64 said:Look, you can't just go around cherry-picking snippets of legal code or twisting the definition of marriage to fit whatever narrative you’re pushing—whether you're doing it on purpose or just being careless. It doesn't work that way. This is the part that’s giving the moderators a hard time. Consider this the final warning. From here on out, we aren't just hitting the delete button on this kind of behavior—it’s much more permanent than that. Alright, let's call it a night on this debate over marriage law interpretation. We're done here.

Interesting take. Smod bans us from quoting or interpreting the law and marriage rights, yet here they are doing exactly that in the very same post?!...

dustyranger64 said:Legislators really shouldn't be allowed to just assume there’s a sexual component baked into marriage by default. It's a pretty bold assumption to make—as if a legal contract automatically dictates what happens behind closed doors.

And that’s just plain wrong. Plus—as the guy himself pointed out—apparently the mods are having "issues" with how they interpret the rules? So, what happens next? They just take their own version of the law and force it on everyone as if it’s some absolute, unchangeable decree. It effectively shuts down any actual discussion regarding marriage law, because at that point, nobody is going to risk speaking up if they know they'll just get flagged for it. It basically kills the conversation entirely since, naturally, everyone just stops responding. I don't get it. What kind of "problems" could the moderation team possibly be having? Because apparently, when a mod misinterprets the rules, suddenly everything is fine.

Since the rules on this forum start out like this...

Just so we’re all on the same page—here are the ground rules for the forum:
Breaking federal laws.

I’m just hoping that includes a spot-on interpretation of American law, too.

Look, I’m not going to waste my breath trying to explain why this interpretation is dead wrong—mostly because the mods have already shut that down—but if the forum editorial staff wants a real answer, they should probably go find someone who actually understands marriage law, rather than someone who just skims the legal code. It would be nice if the moderation here focused more on fostering actual, reasoned debate instead of throwing out incorrect claims and bad examples like the one below...

dustyranger64 said:You can technically call it a marriage even if it started because someone lost a bet involving a pre-planned six-month divorce. It’s still a marriage. At the end of the day, nobody else gets to step in and decide what makes a relationship "meaningful" or whether it counts as a "real" marriage or some lesser version of one.

Look, you can't exactly walk down the aisle with an ulterior motive like that. Marriage isn't some temporary contract or a deal with a built-in expiration date—you can't just add fine print and conditions to it. A marriage is supposed to be a permanent commitment. With the primary goal of making things last forever. "Till death do us part"—which, let’s be honest, is really just a fancy way of saying marriage is intended to be permanent—doesn't mean it's an unbreakable bond, since we actually have the legal option of divorce here in the States. Now, if someone enters a marriage under false pretenses—basically lying to the officiant about their actual intentions—that's a whole different ballgame. In a case like that, any commentary should really just come down to your own personal moral compass and what you believe is right. Anyway, I'll drop a guide on where to post this stuff in a bit...

dustyranger64 said:If you actually want to have a decent conversation about the moral purpose of marriage—or why people bother getting hitched at all—you’d be better off heading over to a sociology seminar than trying to hash it out on this forum.

Yeah, true—the OP actually started this thread right here, but I honestly don't see how you can have any kind of spark in a marriage without love and sex—which basically means there's zero romance involved (so, no LJES). Honestly, maybe the mods should have just moved this whole discussion over to the social sciences section or some other appropriate sub-forum.

Here’s another look at how inconsistent the moderation rules—and the actual writing standards—can be around here...

dustyranger64 said:I have never read such a massive pile of nonsense in my entire life... seriously.

Carl Fisher7 said:That whole argument you're making? It’s—how should I put this—pure, unadulterated, old-school stupidity.

There’s absolutely no difference between those two statements—even if the context isn't visible here, I'm not cherry-picking bits to make things look different than they actually are—but the mod is typing it out like it's some huge deal, while I’m getting hit with a (totally justified) penalty along with a full-blown explanation...

Tupelo said:Chatting with people instead of actually sticking to the topic gets labeled as trolling just because it drags the conversation off-track.

The exact same moderator is running interference on that controversial thread—you know, the one about arranged marriages—and they’re basically handing out free passes for trolling, insults, and straight-up harassment. Instead of actually doing their job by issuing a warning or a ban, they’re actually jumping in to join the fray. They hit me with this massive, condescending wall of text, grading my entire contribution like some middle school teacher while digging up old posts just to twist my words. It's honestly absurd.

The law is pretty damn clear on this one—it doesn't leave much room for debate. So, here’s a thought—technically speaking, sexual intimacy within a marriage isn't actually defined by the law. Which means, if you look at it strictly from a legal standpoint, it doesn't fall under the official set of rights and obligations that two people sign up for when they walk down the aisle. It's one of those weird gaps where the legalities just... stop.

The legal system just sits there—completely unresponsive to this kind of interpretation. It’s like shouting into a void while the rules get twisted right in front of you. Even if a ridiculous loophole like that actually existed in our laws—which, let’s be honest, it doesn't. I'm not going to list all the other examples—I don't want to get bogged down in the weeds here.

What exactly do we mean by "moderation" here? Is it actually objective? Unbiased? Are we even following a set of rules that applies to everyone equally?