Respect For Marriage Act

[Capitalistliberals]

It is a ridiculous quibble elevated to the extent that it hijacks the entire debate, and as such, it is an insult to the real lives that are involved in this issue in reality-land.

You're right about that. I'll get off it.

We have legal gay marriage in Canada. We seem to have a few things concerning "liberties" that the U.S.A. should have, but doesn't. Gay marriage is a good example. I don't get it...

Well we solved the problem with the Defense of Marrige act. That should've layed the issue to rest but it keeps up like a disease that goes dormant before becoming active again.

ohh yeah just like how we solved discrimination with seperate but equal in the 19th and mid 20th century just because we make a law doesnt mean we did the right thing....

[New Xania]

It is a ridiculous quibble elevated to the extent that it hijacks the entire debate, and as such, it is an insult to the real lives that are involved in this issue in reality-land.

You're right about that. I'll get off it.

We have legal gay marriage in Canada. We seem to have a few things concerning "liberties" that the U.S.A. should have, but doesn't. Gay marriage is a good example. I don't get it...

Well we solved the problem with the Defense of Marrige act. That should've layed the issue to rest but it keeps up like a disease that goes dormant before becoming active again.

ohh yeah just like how we solved discrimination with seperate but equal in the 19th and mid 20th century just because we make a law doesnt mean we did the right thing....

DOMA was the right thing. Seperate but equal wasn't because we said it would be equal but made sure it wasn't. Here we are saying one thing and standing by it.

[Gauntleted Fist]

It is a ridiculous quibble elevated to the extent that it hijacks the entire debate, and as such, it is an insult to the real lives that are involved in this issue in reality-land.

You're right about that. I'll get off it.

We have legal gay marriage in Canada. We seem to have a few things concerning "liberties" that the U.S.A. should have, but doesn't. Gay marriage is a good example. I don't get it...

Well we solved the problem with the Defense of Marrige act. That should've layed the issue to rest but it keeps up like a disease that goes dormant before becoming active again.

ohh yeah just like how we solved discrimination with seperate but equal in the 19th and mid 20th century just because we make a law doesnt mean we did the right thing....

DOMA was the right thing. Seperate but equal wasn't because we said it would be equal but made sure it wasn't. Here we are saying one thing and standing by it.

So it's okay to discriminate as long as we're saying we're discriminating?

What a nice thought.

[New Xania]

It is a ridiculous quibble elevated to the extent that it hijacks the entire debate, and as such, it is an insult to the real lives that are involved in this issue in reality-land.

You're right about that. I'll get off it.

We have legal gay marriage in Canada. We seem to have a few things concerning "liberties" that the U.S.A. should have, but doesn't. Gay marriage is a good example. I don't get it...

Well we solved the problem with the Defense of Marrige act. That should've layed the issue to rest but it keeps up like a disease that goes dormant before becoming active again.

ohh yeah just like how we solved discrimination with seperate but equal in the 19th and mid 20th century just because we make a law doesnt mean we did the right thing....

DOMA was the right thing. Seperate but equal wasn't because we said it would be equal but made sure it wasn't. Here we are saying one thing and standing by it.

So it's okay to discriminate as long as we're saying we're discriminating?

What a nice thought.

Which is why the government needs to only recognize civil unions and that goes for both gays and straights.

[Kashindahar]

Since you obviously still don't get it, despite my, Murv's and Tek's efforts, I'll break down the chain of events and examine the cause and effect through each link.

1. Gay marriage is legalized.
2. A gay couple in KMA's locale gets married.
3. They have a wedding reception after the wedding.
4. A guest at the reception gets drunk.
5. Said guest drives home drunk.
6. On the way home, drunk guest hits and kills KMA's dog.

For added clarity I'll go through the steps from end to beginning...
5->6 OK, so far so good definite cause and effect relationship here, because while it is possible for you to hit somebody's dog while driving sober it is much more likely to happen if you are drunk.
4->5 Again, cause and effect is fine, and actually no question what-so-ever on it. You get drunk and then drive you are definitely going to be driving drunk.
3->4 Cause and effect is a little shaky here, but it is common to drink at wedding receptions so this passes muster (barely).
2->3 Here's where the cause and effect is shot down. Wedding receptions are a common feature of straight weddings as well, so while the cause and effect relationship on wedding->wedding reception is fine, it is not something which would only happen if it was a gay wedding. I'll continue on regardless...
1->2 As with 4->5 there is no question on this one, since without the legalization of gay marriage a gay wedding is not going to take place.

I understand your argument. What you don't understand is that it's irrelevant. If 1 causes 2, and 2 causes 3, and 3 causes 4, and 4 causes 5, and 5 causes 6, then in this instance 1 has some causal responsibility for 6. That you cannot extrapolate from this instance to all other instances doesn't negate this chain of causality.

[Kashindahar]

It is a ridiculous quibble elevated to the extent that it hijacks the entire debate, and as such, it is an insult to the real lives that are involved in this issue in reality-land.

You're right about that. I'll get off it.

We have legal gay marriage in Canada. We seem to have a few things concerning "liberties" that the U.S.A. should have, but doesn't. Gay marriage is a good example. I don't get it...

Well we solved the problem with the Defense of Marrige act. That should've layed the issue to rest but it keeps up like a disease that goes dormant before becoming active again.

ohh yeah just like how we solved discrimination with seperate but equal in the 19th and mid 20th century just because we make a law doesnt mean we did the right thing....

DOMA was the right thing. Seperate but equal wasn't because we said it would be equal but made sure it wasn't. Here we are saying one thing and standing by it.

So it's okay to discriminate as long as we're saying we're discriminating?

What a nice thought.

If civil unions are the same in all ways except for the name, is it actually discrimination? It doesn't stop you from having a marriage ceremony. Hell, you could have a gay wedding now in most places; it just wouldn't have any legal impact.

[The Black Forrest]

It is a ridiculous quibble elevated to the extent that it hijacks the entire debate, and as such, it is an insult to the real lives that are involved in this issue in reality-land.

You're right about that. I'll get off it.

We have legal gay marriage in Canada. We seem to have a few things concerning "liberties" that the U.S.A. should have, but doesn't. Gay marriage is a good example. I don't get it...

Well we solved the problem with the Defense of Marrige act. That should've layed the issue to rest but it keeps up like a disease that goes dormant before becoming active again.

ohh yeah just like how we solved discrimination with seperate but equal in the 19th and mid 20th century just because we make a law doesnt mean we did the right thing....

DOMA was the right thing. Seperate but equal wasn't because we said it would be equal but made sure it wasn't. Here we are saying one thing and standing by it.

So it's okay to discriminate as long as we're saying we're discriminating?

What a nice thought.

If civil unions are the same in all ways except for the name, is it actually discrimination? It doesn't stop you from having a marriage ceremony. Hell, you could have a gay wedding now in most places; it just wouldn't have any legal impact.

So bible boy. Why so hung up on the words of marriage and wedding?

[Kashindahar]

So bible boy. Why so hung up on the words of marriage and wedding?

Notice how I asked a question, rather than making a statement? Notice how I didn't assume things about other people? Notice how you don't actually know what you're talking about?

[Gauntleted Fist]

It is a ridiculous quibble elevated to the extent that it hijacks the entire debate, and as such, it is an insult to the real lives that are involved in this issue in reality-land.

You're right about that. I'll get off it.

We have legal gay marriage in Canada. We seem to have a few things concerning "liberties" that the U.S.A. should have, but doesn't. Gay marriage is a good example. I don't get it...

Well we solved the problem with the Defense of Marrige act. That should've layed the issue to rest but it keeps up like a disease that goes dormant before becoming active again.

ohh yeah just like how we solved discrimination with seperate but equal in the 19th and mid 20th century just because we make a law doesnt mean we did the right thing....

DOMA was the right thing. Seperate but equal wasn't because we said it would be equal but made sure it wasn't. Here we are saying one thing and standing by it.

So it's okay to discriminate as long as we're saying we're discriminating?

What a nice thought.

If civil unions are the same in all ways except for the name, is it actually discrimination? It doesn't stop you from having a marriage ceremony. Hell, you could have a gay wedding now in most places; it just wouldn't have any legal impact.

I am not very concerned with the name part; I am concerned with the benefits received for being in a marriage/civil union/whatever we end up calling it.

[Kashindahar]

So I thought about this a little on the train, and I came to a conclusion: Dyakovo and the rest are arguing their point from what is generally true, while I am arguing from what is true specifically in this instance.

While it is generally true that a reception can follow either a straight wedding or a gay wedding, assuming both are legal, the reception that we are talking about specifically, in this instance, follows a gay wedding because it is the reception for a gay couple. It is not a generalised idea of a reception, it is an specific reception. If the wedding wasn't for this specific gay couple, the reception would not exist.

If gay marriage is not legal, then this specific wedding does not occur. If this specific wedding does not occur, then the reception does not occur. If the reception does not occur, then the driver doesn't get drunk, and doesn't hit the dog, and the dog doesn't die.

If one of these links does not exist, then the dog doesn't die. That's why each link has some level of causal responsibility for the next, and so on, and so forth.

[Treznor]

So I thought about this a little on the train, and I came to a conclusion: Dyakovo and the rest are arguing their point from what is generally true, while I am arguing from what is true specifically in this instance.

While it is generally true that a reception can follow either a straight wedding or a gay wedding, assuming both are legal, the reception that we are talking about specifically, in this instance, follows a gay wedding because it is the reception for a gay couple. It is not a generalised idea of a reception, it is an specific reception. If the wedding wasn't for this specific gay couple, the reception would not exist.

If gay marriage is not legal, then this specific wedding does not occur. If this specific wedding does not occur, then the reception does not occur. If the reception does not occur, then the driver doesn't get drunk, and doesn't hit the dog, and the dog doesn't die.

If one of these links does not exist, then the dog doesn't die. That's why each link has some level of causal responsibility for the next, and so on, and so forth.

The flaw in your logic is that there's nothing in this chain of causality that couldn't have resulted from heterosexual marriage. In order to make the claim that gay marriage is at fault in this logic chain, it must be demonstrate that the event would not have happened without gay marriage. Otherwise I can build a similarly hypothetical chain of events that puts you at fault merely for your existence, justifying the need to remove you from existence.

[Kashindahar]

The flaw in your logic is that there's nothing in this chain of causality that couldn't have resulted from heterosexual marriage. In order to make the claim that gay marriage is at fault in this logic chain, it must be demonstrate that the event would not have happened without gay marriage. Otherwise I can build a similarly hypothetical chain of events that puts you at fault merely for your existence, justifying the need to remove you from existence.

The only way the bolded part of your post makes sense is if you think that I'm arguing against gay marriage. I can't be bothered counting, but I'll guesstimate: For the eighth time, I am not arguing against gay marriage.

The flaw in your logic is that there's nothing in this chain of causality that couldn't have resulted from heterosexual marriage. In order to make the claim that gay marriage is at fault in this logic chain, it must be demonstrate that the event would not have happened without gay marriage.

Well, for one, the marriage wouldn't have happened, because the couple in the hypothetical is gay. Yes, you could posit a different hypothetical that might have similar results, but that's irrelevant; in this specific instance, the chain leads back to gay marriage, and not to heterosexual marriage.

[Treznor]

The flaw in your logic is that there's nothing in this chain of causality that couldn't have resulted from heterosexual marriage. In order to make the claim that gay marriage is at fault in this logic chain, it must be demonstrate that the event would not have happened without gay marriage. Otherwise I can build a similarly hypothetical chain of events that puts you at fault merely for your existence, justifying the need to remove you from existence.

The only way the bolded part of your post makes sense is if you think that I'm arguing against gay marriage. I can't be bothered counting, but I'll guesstimate: For the eighth time, I am not arguing against gay marriage.

The flaw in your logic is that there's nothing in this chain of causality that couldn't have resulted from heterosexual marriage. In order to make the claim that gay marriage is at fault in this logic chain, it must be demonstrate that the event would not have happened without gay marriage.

Well, for one, the marriage wouldn't have happened, because the couple in the hypothetical is gay. Yes, you could posit a different hypothetical that might have similar results, but that's irrelevant; in this specific instance, the chain leads back to gay marriage, and not to heterosexual marriage.

To create a situation where gay marriage can be justified in being blamed for affecting someone's life, you have to create a scenario where gay marriage is the only reason that chain of events began. There is nothing so unique about gay marriage that it can be considered the lynchpin whereupon the chain of events fall apart without it. Whether or not you're defending the argument to ban gay marriage, you're defending the argument used to attack it.

[Kashindahar]

To create a situation where gay marriage can be justified in being blamed for affecting someone's life, you have to create a scenario where gay marriage is the only reason that chain of events began. There is nothing so unique about gay marriage that it can be considered the lynchpin whereupon the chain of events fall apart without it. Whether or not you're defending the argument to ban gay marriage, you're defending the argument used to attack it.

Going back to my example before:

If gay marriage is not legal, then this specific wedding does not occur. If this specific wedding does not occur, then the reception does not occur. If the reception does not occur, then the driver doesn't get drunk, and doesn't hit the dog, and the dog doesn't die.

Oh, hey, would you look at that.

And I have never in this entire goddamn thread said that gay marriage being legal is the only reason that the dog dies. What I have actually said is that gay marriage being legal has some causal responsibility for the death of the dog in this instance, which is true. If gay marriage isn't legal, the dog doesn't die. If it is, it does. It's not the only reason, but it's one of them.


What I'm attacking is a bad argument.

Wait, I forget, it's okay to use bad arguments as long as you're attacking the republicans.

[Treznor]

To create a situation where gay marriage can be justified in being blamed for affecting someone's life, you have to create a scenario where gay marriage is the only reason that chain of events began. There is nothing so unique about gay marriage that it can be considered the lynchpin whereupon the chain of events fall apart without it. Whether or not you're defending the argument to ban gay marriage, you're defending the argument used to attack it.

Going back to my example before:

If gay marriage is not legal, then this specific wedding does not occur. If this specific wedding does not occur, then the reception does not occur. If the reception does not occur, then the driver doesn't get drunk, and doesn't hit the dog, and the dog doesn't die.

Oh, hey, would you look at that.

And I have never in this entire goddamn thread said that gay marriage being legal is the only reason that the dog dies. What I have actually said is that gay marriage being legal has some causal responsibility for the death of the dog in this instance, which is true. If gay marriage isn't legal, the dog doesn't die. If it is, it does. It's not the only reason, but it's one of them.


What I'm attacking is a bad argument.

Wait, I forget, it's okay to use bad arguments as long as you're attacking the republicans.

The argument is that without gay marriage, the dog wouldn't have died. In order to demonstrate that, you have to demonstrate that the dog wouldn't have died under similar circumstances beginning with a heterosexual marriage. It's like saying children shouldn't be allowed to go to public schools because they might have a peanut allergy. It's a bad argument to begin with.

[Muravyets]

It is a ridiculous quibble elevated to the extent that it hijacks the entire debate, and as such, it is an insult to the real lives that are involved in this issue in reality-land.

You're right about that. I'll get off it.

We have legal gay marriage in Canada. We seem to have a few things concerning "liberties" that the U.S.A. should have, but doesn't. Gay marriage is a good example. I don't get it...

Well we solved the problem with the Defense of Marrige act. That should've layed the issue to rest but it keeps up like a disease that goes dormant before becoming active again.

Yeah, giving the bigots what they wanted at the federal level just wasn't enough. They had to go on to keep attacking gays at the state and local levels, too, the greedy dogs. So I'm glad we're finally saying fuck 'em, and I strongly support taking away that disgusting compromise Clinton signed to appease them. You give some people an inch, and they'll take a mile. Better to give them nothing. Go RFMA!

[Muravyets]

So bible boy. Why so hung up on the words of marriage and wedding?

They make folks like him feel special and privileged and better because it's a toy they get to play with that those icky gays aren't allowed to touch. It's not discrimination against gays at all. No, it's just them desperately holding onto something that lets them paint themselves as holier and more beloved of their god than gays, and thus more the keeper of ancient (though not really) and thus more real traditions of all of society (though not really).

[Intangelon]

KMA's claim that he is somehow affected by gay marriage and, thus, has a right to control whether gays can marry legally or not, has to be backed up by a REAL AND REASONABLE argument.

AWESOME. YOU STILL HAVE NO COMPREHENSION OF MY ARGUMENT.

WAIT, THAT'S NOT AWESOME, THAT'S BAD-WRONG. I AM NOT SUPPORTING KMA'S CLAIM. I AM ARGUING AGAINST A SPECIFIC ARGUMENT BEING USED AGAINST HIS CLAIM. TO SAY THAT THESE ARE THE SAME THING MEANS THAT YOU HAVE NO READING COMPREHENSION.

What you're doing is elevating the inconsequential. "No effect at all" IS NOT MEANT to be an axiom or provable logical statement. It's one hell of a lot easier than "no effect at all beyond that which could be raised by any other event that happened in place of a gay marriage currently not recognized by law".

I simply can't grasp why you're picking this nit so intently -- you KNOW what was meant, but you're so desperate to be correct at all costs, that you're shredding your credibility for an infinitesimal point.

[Intangelon]

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Anything else is pretty much a mockery, which I cannot respect or support.

Marriage is a contract. Anything that limits it to between a man and a woman is pretty much a mockery, which I cannot respect or support. /shrug

An excellent volley, right down the line.

[Dyakovo]

To create a situation where gay marriage can be justified in being blamed for affecting someone's life, you have to create a scenario where gay marriage is the only reason that chain of events began. There is nothing so unique about gay marriage that it can be considered the lynchpin whereupon the chain of events fall apart without it. Whether or not you're defending the argument to ban gay marriage, you're defending the argument used to attack it.

Going back to my example before:

If gay marriage is not legal, then this specific wedding does not occur. If this specific wedding does not occur, then the reception does not occur. If the reception does not occur, then the driver doesn't get drunk, and doesn't hit the dog, and the dog doesn't die.

Oh, hey, would you look at that.

The dog didn't die because of a gay marriage, hell it didn't even die because of a marriage or wedding reception, it died because of a drunk driver.

And I have never in this entire goddamn thread said that gay marriage being legal is the only reason that the dog dies.

You have, however said that it is one of the reasons, which is false.
There is nothing about the marriage being a gay marriage that makes any of the rest of the events automatic, or even more likely.
There is nothing about the party being a wedding reception (regardless of whether it is one for a gay marriage or a straight marriage) that makes that following events automatic or more likely.
The only things which which make the following events more likely is the first one (legalization of gay marriage) and the guy getting drunk and then driving.
I'll say this one more time in the hopes that you get it: The marriage being a gay one is not a valid causal factor because the the events that followed could have occured because of a straight wedding.

What I have actually said is that gay marriage being legal has some causal responsibility for the death of the dog in this instance, which is true.

No, it isn't; see above.

If gay marriage isn't legal, the dog doesn't die. If it is, it does. It's not the only reason, but it's one of them.

Again, see above.

What I'm attacking is a bad argument.

You're attacking what you think is a bad argument with an invalid hypothetical.

Wait, I forget, it's okay to use bad arguments as long as you're attacking the republicans.

[Kashindahar]

The dog didn't die because of a gay marriage, hell it didn't even die because of a marriage or wedding reception, it died because of a drunk driver.

Who got drunk at a wedding reception for a gay wedding. The one causes the next which causes the next which causes the next which causes the death of the dog.

And I have never in this entire goddamn thread said that gay marriage being legal is the only reason that the dog dies.

You have, however said that it is one of the reasons, which is false.
There is nothing about the marriage being a gay marriage that makes any of the rest of the events automatic, or even more likely.
There is nothing about the party being a wedding reception (regardless of whether it is one for a gay marriage or a straight marriage) that makes that following events automatic or more likely.
The only things which which make the following events more likely is the first one (legalization of gay marriage) and the guy getting drunk and then driving.
I'll say this one more time in the hopes that you get it: The marriage being a gay one is not a valid causal factor because the the events that followed could have occured because of a straight wedding.

No, they couldn't. The couple is gay. The events would not have been the same events. They would have been different.

What I have actually said is that gay marriage being legal has some causal responsibility for the death of the dog in this instance, which is true.

No, it isn't; see above.

If you were saying that this specific reception might have happened regardless of whether or not the gay wedding happened, then your argument would have merit. You aren't. You're saying that if a different wedding took place, then a different reception might take place and similar events might follow.

[Milks Empire]

The dog didn't die because of a gay marriage, hell it didn't even die because of a marriage or wedding reception, it died because of a drunk driver.

Who got drunk at a wedding reception for a gay wedding. The one causes the next which causes the next which causes the next which causes the death of the dog.

It's been shown to you where the chain of causation falls apart. The fucker could have been drinking elsewhere just as easily. That's why the setting doesn't matter.

And I have never in this entire goddamn thread said that gay marriage being legal is the only reason that the dog dies.

You have, however said that it is one of the reasons, which is false.
There is nothing about the marriage being a gay marriage that makes any of the rest of the events automatic, or even more likely.
There is nothing about the party being a wedding reception (regardless of whether it is one for a gay marriage or a straight marriage) that makes that following events automatic or more likely.
The only things which which make the following events more likely is the first one (legalization of gay marriage) and the guy getting drunk and then driving.
I'll say this one more time in the hopes that you get it: The marriage being a gay one is not a valid causal factor because the the events that followed could have occured because of a straight wedding.

No, they couldn't. The couple is gay. The events would not have been the same events. They would have been different.

Everything from before the drunk guy gets into the car is 100% moot.

What I have actually said is that gay marriage being legal has some causal responsibility for the death of the dog in this instance, which is true.

No, it isn't; see above.

If you were saying that this specific reception might have happened regardless of whether or not the gay wedding happened, then your argument would have merit. You aren't. You're saying that if a different wedding took place, then a different reception might take place and similar events might follow.

See immediately above. Setting and circumstances of said dipshit getting plastered don't matter.

[Kashindahar]

The dog didn't die because of a gay marriage, hell it didn't even die because of a marriage or wedding reception, it died because of a drunk driver.

Who got drunk at a wedding reception for a gay wedding. The one causes the next which causes the next which causes the next which causes the death of the dog.

It's been shown to you where the chain of causation falls apart. The fucker could have been drinking elsewhere just as easily. That's why the setting doesn't matter.

If he was drinking elsewhere, it's a different chain of events entirely.

And I have never in this entire goddamn thread said that gay marriage being legal is the only reason that the dog dies.

You have, however said that it is one of the reasons, which is false.
There is nothing about the marriage being a gay marriage that makes any of the rest of the events automatic, or even more likely.
There is nothing about the party being a wedding reception (regardless of whether it is one for a gay marriage or a straight marriage) that makes that following events automatic or more likely.
The only things which which make the following events more likely is the first one (legalization of gay marriage) and the guy getting drunk and then driving.
I'll say this one more time in the hopes that you get it: The marriage being a gay one is not a valid causal factor because the the events that followed could have occured because of a straight wedding.

No, they couldn't. The couple is gay. The events would not have been the same events. They would have been different.

Everything from before the drunk guy gets into the car is 100% moot.

Bullshit. There are causes prior to getting into the car; it doesn't happen in a vacuum.

What I have actually said is that gay marriage being legal has some causal responsibility for the death of the dog in this instance, which is true.

No, it isn't; see above.

If you were saying that this specific reception might have happened regardless of whether or not the gay wedding happened, then your argument would have merit. You aren't. You're saying that if a different wedding took place, then a different reception might take place and similar events might follow.

See immediately above. Setting and circumstances of said dipshit getting plastered don't matter.

Well, no, you're wrong. The driver was at the reception. If he didn't drink there, he didn't drink at all. Again, you can posit a different chain of events, where the driver drank at a different place. This would be entirely irrelevant to whether or not in this chain of event the driver could have gotten drunk elsewhere.

I mean, he could have gone off after the reception and gotten drunk at a bar, but then he wouldn't have been on the road when the dog was.

[Tekania]

Well, no, you're wrong. The driver was at the reception. If he didn't drink there, he didn't drink at all.

Actually, you can not posit this logically. Your theory does not allow you to postulate what the driver would have been doing had this wedding/reception not taken place...

See, you can say with 100% certainty that if the drunk driver had not been driving through that particular area at that particular time, that KMA's dog would not be hit by that particular driver at that particular time.... What you cannot say with any certainty, however, is that that drunk driver would not have been driving through that particular area at that particular time if that particular reception had not taken place for those particular reasons...

[Kashindahar]

Well, no, you're wrong. The driver was at the reception. If he didn't drink there, he didn't drink at all.

Actually, you can not posit this logically. Your theory does not allow you to postulate what the driver would have been doing had this wedding/reception not taken place...

See, you can say with 100% certainty that if the drunk driver had not been driving through that particular area at that particular time, that KMA's dog would not be hit by that particular driver at that particular time.... What you cannot say with any certainty, however, is that that drunk driver would not have been driving through that particular area at that particular time if that particular reception had not taken place for those particular reasons...

This is true.

Happily, the probability of an event happening, when measured after the fact, is 1.

But disregarding this, perhaps if the driver hadn't gone to the wedding aliens would have blown up the street that the dog was on.

I guess nothing caused the death of the dog, after all.