From Scotusblog today

[PattyHill]

SCOTUS is hearing arguments on same sex marriage today. Scotusblog is blogging as much as they can. From the blog:

Bonauto closed her argument with a neat turn of phrase. The Court had said that the question is "who decides" whether same sex marriage will be lawful: the courts or the states? She responded that the choice is not between the Court and the state, but instead whether the individual can decide who to marry, or whether the government will decide for him. -

See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_Obergefell_v_Hodges#sthash.r6hBm1Tr.dpuf

Thought that was a nice response!

[Common]

They are actually hearing and will make decisions on two cases.

1. Do states have to honor the same sex marriages of other states.
2. Is same sex marriage constitutionally protected

It would seem if they voted its constitutional then the states rights are already trumped.

I think they will vote yes to both.

[Chris]

She responded that the choice is not between the Court and the state, but instead whether the individual can decide who to marry, or whether the government will decide for him.

It should be left to the individual. That is, it should be left to society. Keep government out of our private lives!

On that same line of reasoning it should also be up to each and every individual whether they participate in or contribute to any marriage. If I don't want to marry someone, provide flowers for, bake a cake for, whatever, and for what ever reasons, or beliefs, or feelings, I should not be forced to.

Keep government out of our private lives!

[texan]

I am so tired of this drumbeat.

[nic34]

And some say voting for president doesn't matter....

[PattyHill]

They are actually hearing and will make decisions on two cases.

1. Do states have to honor the same sex marriages of other states.
2. Is same sex marriage constitutionally protected

It would seem if they voted its constitutional then the states rights are already trumped.

I think they will vote yes to both.


Good clarification, Chris. I think they will vote yes to both as well. #1 is causing too many problems already, when states don't recognize SSM from other states. And as far as #2 - keeping people from marrying is really denying them a fundamental right.

[Howey]

They are actually hearing and will make decisions on two cases.

1. Do states have to honor the same sex marriages of other states.
2. Is same sex marriage constitutionally protected

It would seem if they voted its constitutional then the states rights are already trumped.

I think they will vote yes to both.

Of course they will. Equality is near.


It should be left to the individual. That is, it should be left to society. Keep government out of our private lives!

On that same line of reasoning it should also be up to each and every individual whether they participate in or contribute to any marriage. If I don't want to marry someone, provide flowers for, bake a cake for, whatever, and for what ever reasons, or beliefs, or feelings, I should not be forced to.

Keep government out of our private lives!

Golly gee. That's the same thing white racists said in the thirties, forties, and fifties! And states proved it by passing massive Jim Crow laws.

[Common]

Good clarification, Chris. I think they will vote yes to both as well. #1 is causing too many problems already, when states don't recognize SSM from other states. And as far as #2 - keeping people from marrying is really denying them a fundamental right.

I disagree that two men marrying is a fundamental right. I personally have stated many times I am not for gay marriage. I believe its ridiculous for two men to marry and be husband and husband and I believe it completely demeans marriage. Having said that I still believe it will be legalized and It wont change my life either way.

[Chris]

Of course they will. Equality is near.



Golly gee. That's the same thing white racists said in the thirties, forties, and fifties! And states proved it by passing massive Jim Crow laws.


You're mistaken, Howey. Enough said.


Seems everyone you disagree with is a liar or troll or racist or teabagger or etc. After a while your name calling really becomes meaningless.

[Chris]

Good clarification, Chris. I think they will vote yes to both as well. #1 is causing too many problems already, when states don't recognize SSM from other states. And as far as #2 - keeping people from marrying is really denying them a fundamental right.

Chris Common. :-)

[Susan B. Anthony]

I wonder why she said, "...or whether the government will decide for him."

It just seems so sexist of her to exclude women from the statement.

[Mac-7]

but instead whether the individual can decide who to marry, or whether the government will decide for him. -



If the libertine marries his horse will Christian bridal shops be required to make a dress for the poor nag?

[Common]

Chris Common. :-)

whats with bringing my name into your conversation

[Chris]

whats with bringing my name into your conversation

She was replying to your post is why. Go back and look before you leap.

[Chris]

I wonder why she said, "...or whether the government will decide for him."

It just seems so sexist of her to exclude women from the statement.



Because that's what the Court should decide between, leave it to individuals or leave it to government.

Sad facts is won't decide that, it'll decide who in government decide for us.

[Susan B. Anthony]

Because that's what the Court should decide between, leave it to individuals or leave it to government.

Sad facts is won't decide that, it'll decide who in government decide for us.

Apparently she only wants the court to decide for him, but not her.

I'm pretty outraged at the blatant and overt sexism portrayed in this statement.

[PattyHill]

She was replying to your post is why. Go back and look before you leap.

Whoops, good catch, Chris.

And thanks to Common for his post!

[The Sage of Main Street]

I wonder why she said, "...or whether the government will decide for him."

It just seems so sexist of her to exclude women from the statement. He has always meant "he or she." It means "this person" and is related to here, "this place." The unnecessary and strangely irregular word she was forced into the language later as a result of indigestion from eating a rotten apple.

[Susan B. Anthony]

He has always meant "he or she." It means "this person" and is related to here, "this place." The unnecessary and strangely irregular word she was forced into the language later as a result of indigestion from eating a rotten apple.

If everyone isn't as outraged as I am it's because they are as sexist as that elderly white lady lawyer.

[del]

If everyone isn't as outraged as I am it's because they are as sexist as that elderly white lady lawyer.

or perhaps they have an iq above room temperature

[PattyHill]

or perhaps they have an iq above room temperature

And perhaps no one else has the need to stir up trouble over nothing that Susan seems to have.

[Susan B. Anthony]

or perhaps they have an iq above room temperature

It's freezing in here.

[Common Sense]

I am so tired of this drumbeat.

Then don't listen.

[del]

It's freezing in here.

i bet it is

have you considered numismatics?

you suck at trolling

[Susan B. Anthony]

i bet it is

have you considered numismatics?

you suck at trollingThey call you the Linda Lovelace of trolls.

[exotix]

Just heard from Roberts scoffing at the whole thing ... basically citing *What proof is there that Gay Couples are are even remotely amoral* ?

[Safety]

Interesting.

[Peter1469]

Sounds reasonable to me.

[Susan B. Anthony]

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who often is seen as the swing vote, said gay marriage has been debated for only a decade and wondered aloud whether scholars and the public need more time. He said marriage has been understood as one man and one woman for “millennia-plus time.”
"It's very difficult for the court to say `We know better,"' Kennedy told Mary Bonauto, a lawyer representing same-sex couples.


Chief Justice John Roberts said gay couples seeking to marry are not seeking to join the institution of marriage.
"You're seeking to change what the institution is," he said.

[exotix]

Why Chief Justice John Roberts Might Support Gay Marriage

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/28/opinion/why-chief-justice-john-roberts-might-support-gay-marriage.html

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/04/27/401970435/same-sex-marriage-in-the-justices-words



http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/04/24/ap69368287310_wide-812fe700524d371090fe944d1d5f1ca7ca7f7840-s800-c85.jpg

[Peter1469]

And the question of States rights is out there.

[exotix]

And the question of States rights is out there.
They're always there until they need the Feds.

[Peter1469]

They're always there until they need the Feds.

Public school education, I know.

[exotix]

Public school education, I know.
I was thinking more of Baltimore.

[Peter1469]

I was thinking more of Baltimore.

Thinking?

[Blackrook]

Changing the definition of what marriage is opens it up to more changes from other people who feel discriminated against: fundamentalist Mormons and Muslims, who feel entitled to have more than one wife, is one example.

[del]

Thinking?

give it a shot

[Peter1469]

give it a shot

It is Exo.

[del]

It is Exo.

uh huh

[Common]

Changing the definition of what marriage is opens it up to more changes from other people who feel discriminated against: fundamentalist Mormons and Muslims, who feel entitled to have more than one wife, is one example.

Be happy you can marry your favorite goat or hog that hangs out around you trailer now

[The Sage of Main Street]

If everyone isn't as outraged as I am it's because they are as sexist as that elderly white lady lawyer. "He or she" is unnecessary and clumsy, which forced timid conformists into using they with a singular antecedent instead. Illogical grammar leads to unstructured thought processes, which is the whole purpose of this sneaky Orwellian Newspeak.

In order to further the brain damage, the malevolent mavens would purposely take a sentence like "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" and re-structure it. Then they'd present the mind-bending version to their helpless captive audience as "If someone lives in a glass house, they shouldn't throw stones."

This subtly coerced New Age grammar also leads to its opposite, as in "All femininnies are a liar."

[Susan B. Anthony]

"He or she" is unnecessary and clumsy, which forced timid conformists into using they with a singular antecedent instead. Illogical grammar leads to unstructured thought processes, which is the whole purpose of this sneaky Orwellian Newspeak.

In order to further the brain damage, the malevolent mavens would purposely take a sentence like "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" and re-structure it. Then they'd present the mind-bending version to their helpless captive audience as "If someone lives in a glass house, they shouldn't throw stones."

This subtly coerced New Age grammar also leads to its opposite, as in "All femininnies are a liar."

If someone lives in a glass house, she shouldn't throw stones.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Why Chief Justice John Roberts Might Support Gay Marriage

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/28/opinion/why-chief-justice-john-roberts-might-support-gay-marriage.html

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/04/27/401970435/same-sex-marriage-in-the-justices-words



http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/04/24/ap69368287310_wide-812fe700524d371090fe944d1d5f1ca7ca7f7840-s800-c85.jpg In those cassocks, the SCROTUS gang looks like pedophile priests.

[domer76]

I wonder why she said, "...or whether the government will decide for him."

It just seems so sexist of her to exclude women from the statement.
Jesus Christ! Get a life!

[Susan B. Anthony]

In those cassocks, the SCROTUS gang looks like pedophile priests.

Ginsburg got drunk just to stay in character.

[domer76]

Apparently she only wants the court to decide for him, but not her.

I'm pretty outraged at the blatant and overt sexism portrayed in this statement.
Jesus Christ! Get a life!

[Susan B. Anthony]

Jesus Christ! Get a life!

Misogynist. ^^

[domer76]

If everyone isn't as outraged as I am it's because they are as sexist as that elderly white lady lawyer.
Jesus Christ! Get a life!

[Susan B. Anthony]

Jesus Christ! Get a life!

Sexist. ^^

[Bob]

And some say voting for president doesn't matter....

I don't know the percentage of those who can't name the Justices, but i believe those who can name even one are very low and those naming all are under 10 percent.

[domer76]

And the question of States rights is out there.

States don't have rights. People do.

[domer76]

Public school education, I know.

Ask for your money back from ypur private school

[Bob]

Good clarification, Chris. I think they will vote yes to both as well. #1 is causing too many problems already, when states don't recognize SSM from other states. And as far as #2 - keeping people from marrying is really denying them a fundamental right.


Why do homosexuals want to get married?

[Captain Obvious]

Why do homosexuals want to get married?

Why do heterosexuals want to get married?

[nic34]

I don't know the percentage of those who can't name the Justices, but i believe those who can name even one are very low and those naming all are under 10 percent.

Sooooo?

People don't chose justices, the President does.

Get it now bob?

[Bob]

Of course they will. Equality is near.



Golly gee. That's the same thing white racists said in the thirties, forties, and fifties! And states proved it by passing massive Jim Crow laws.

You are in the camp, i believe, who approves bigamy / polygamy and as one justice brought up, adult incest marriages.

Even a homosexual man can marry his willing brother.

[Bob]

I disagree that two men marrying is a fundamental right. I personally have stated many times I am not for gay marriage. I believe its ridiculous for two men to marry and be husband and husband and I believe it completely demeans marriage. Having said that I still believe it will be legalized and It wont change my life either way.

They are all asking "government" to decide.

In the era of the founders, the "government" was understood to be of, by and for the people.

Today due to the Democrats, it no longer has that meaning imo.

If I am wrong, government will keep a marriage defined as it has been globally for tens of thousands of years.

If they mess up, they will include much more than homosexuals in marriage.

I believe homosexuals crave this due to the federal income tax laws and for no other reason.

[Bob]

Sooooo?

People don't chose justices, the President does.

Get it now bob?

You missed the point. Thanks for giving it your best shot.

[Bob]

Changing the definition of what marriage is opens it up to more changes from other people who feel discriminated against: fundamentalist Mormons and Muslims, who feel entitled to have more than one wife, is one example.

They will have to strike all bigamy laws.

Communities can marry.

Such as swinging communities or hippy communes who don't mind sharing hook ups.

[domer76]

Sexist. ^^
^^Fake butthurt or overly sensitive.

[The Sage of Main Street]

They're always there until they need the Feds. If marriage is covered under States' Rights, why doesn't Mormon Utah have legalized polygamy?

[Bob]

If marriage is covered under States' Rights, why doesn't Mormon Utah have legalized polygamy?

In 1890, the Federal government stomped all over Utah and took away the rights of women to share the same husband.

Seems they should have then sued the government.

[The Sage of Main Street]

If someone lives in a glass house, she shouldn't throw stones. Some penis-envy piranhas live in a glass aquarium.

[Bob]

Why do heterosexuals want to get married?

It has to do with tradition, legal coverage of the triangle of him, her and children. Been that way for tens of centuries.

[Captain Obvious]

In 1890, the Federal government stomped all over Utah and took away the rights of women to share the same husband.

Seems they should have then sued the government.

:biglaugh:

This is why we have social laws.

[Bob]

:biglaugh:

This is why we have social laws.

I had not asked you, however ty.

[del]

Why do heterosexuals want to get married?

to throw their ex to the sharks?

[domer76]

Why do homosexuals want to get married?
Ask one.
But why shouldn't they be allowed to?

[Bob]

to throw their ex to the sharks?

Since I and my ex wife divorced in 1989, since after that i had a number of women friends, if you think that hurts me, it does not.

I object to this attempt to insult. My daughter matters to me. The former wife is dead. I have no doubt she is dead.

Think when you insult. I don't insult you nor your family. Will you please end your smarmy attempts to insult my former family and my daughter?

[domer76]

Some penis-envy piranhas live in a glass aquarium.
Are you saying she smells like a fish? Sounds like a hygiene problem to me

[The Sage of Main Street]

Ginsburg got drunk just to stay in character. It looks to me like Alan Greenspan sneaked his way onto SCROTUS by having a sex change.

[Captain Obvious]

to throw their ex to the sharks?

http://media.giphy.com/media/HhTXt43pk1I1W/giphy-facebook_s.jpg

[Bob]

Ask one.
But why shouldn't they be allowed to?

The question has been put to all homosexual members.

My reply to your question is there are reasons why couples marry and it's called children.

Marriage is not a two way street. Marriage is a triangle. But for children, there is no need for anybody to marry.

[Captain Obvious]

It has to do with tradition, legal coverage of the triangle of him, her and children. Been that way for tens of centuries.

We've been shitting in the woods for far, far longer than we've been using plumbing too.

[Bob]

We've been shitting in the woods for far, far longer than we've been using plumbing too.
http://media.giphy.com/media/HhTXt43pk1I1W/giphy-facebook_s.jpg

[del]

The question has been put to all homosexual members.

My reply to your question is there are reasons why couples marry and it's called children.

Marriage is not a two way street. Marriage is a triangle. But for children, there is no need for anybody to marry.

so fertility tests should be mandatory before a marriage license is issued, right?


find another dog, bobby, this one won't hunt

[Bob]

so fertility tests should be mandatory before a marriage license is issued, right?


find another dog, bobby, this one won't hunt


Absolutely not little man. Not at all.

[domer76]

The question has been put to all homosexual members.

My reply to your question is there are reasons why couples marry and it's called children.

Marriage is not a two way street. Marriage is a triangle. But for children, there is no need for anybody to marry.
The children smokescreen is nothing but feces. Plenty of heteros get married with no intention or even ability to have kids. Try that BS elsewhere. It falls flat

[Chris]

Criminy, all this scatological speculation here! :poopfan:

[Bob]

The children smokescreen is nothing but feces. Plenty of heteros get married with no intention or even ability to have kids. Try that BS elsewhere. It falls flat

You are not required to have children, but heteros are the only group who has children.

This was also brought up in the SCOTUs so it is not BS.

[Ivan88]

To stop the drama, all the states have to do is stop issuing marriage licenses and let people decide what marriage is for themselves.

[nic34]

The question has been put to all homosexual members.

My reply to your question is there are reasons why couples marry and it's called children.

Marriage is not a two way street. Marriage is a triangle. But for children, there is no need for anybody to marry.

Bob, are older people allowed to marry, even if they cannot have children? So everybody should just live together if they don't want kids?

Yours is a very confused world....

[Bob]

Bob, are older people allowed to marry, even if they cannot have children? So everybody should just live together if they don't want kids?

Yours is a very confused world....

Are they allowed in your world?

[Common Sense]

Are they allowed in your world?

Are they in yours?

So once the kids are raised and off to school, I guess marriage is pointless?

My wife and I don't have children, is my marriage pointless?

[Bob]

Are they in yours?

So once the kids are raised and off to school, I guess marriage is pointless?

My wife and I don't have children, is my marriage pointless?

Let me help you with law.

Take the case of the 21 year old male that kills. The law to put him in prison does not apply to you.

The speeding ticket is handed to the driver, not the passengers. (technically, all occupants of said car travel over the posted speed limit.)

Who wanted marriage prior to it being law?

Was it the men? When he had kids, then he could claim it is about children. Was it to please the woman? Well, if women actually had a lot of power, then you can say it was over women.

Women could always do what no man can do. She bears children. Men for some reason enjoy heirs. They like to leave behind for a legacy, witnesses. When they die, the witnesses tell us all about the father.

In ways, men are very vain to want their names left for a legacy. But if you study marriage, you learn that but for women and children, there is no real purpose of marriage.

This does not compel a married couple to have children, but if both die, who inherits the estate? This means laws such as wills are needed.

It has a lot to do with estates, legacy, wills and so forth.

But marriage is not force as you suggest.

I suggest those who are not believers google ancient roman laws on marriage. Romans kept great written records and would reflect more ancient thinking than those living today.

[Bob]

Are they in yours?

So once the kids are raised and off to school, I guess marriage is pointless?

My wife and I don't have children, is my marriage pointless?

Was your stay in the "Rock Room" pointless?

[domer76]

You are not required to have children, but heteros are the only group who has children.

This was also brought up in the SCOTUs so it is not BS.
Yeah, except the person who brought it up also said it is a smokescreen.

You confuse marriage with procreation. Try to learn the difference.

[Bob]

Yeah, except the person who brought it up also said it is a smokescreen.

You confuse marriage with procreation. Try to learn the difference.

No, I assure you that is not the case. I am if anything very well versed in marriage and it's laws from ancient to contemporary.

[Common Sense]

Was your stay in the "Rock Room" pointless?

I'll just pretend you didn't say that.

[Safety]

No, I assure you that is not the case. I am if anything very well versed in marriage and it's laws from ancient to contemporary.

How does a SSM affect your marriage?

[Bob]

How does a SSM affect your marriage?

This is not the point.

[Common Sense]

How does a SSM affect your marriage?

He can't answer that because it doesn't.

[Bob]

How does a SSM affect your marriage?

This question is bogus.

Compare that to laws against corporate fraud. When corporations get away with fraud, it has no impact on me, my marriage or children. But the law is needed.

[Safety]

This question is bogus.

Compare that to laws against corporate fraud. When corporations get away with fraud, it has no impact on me, my marriage or children. But the law is needed.

Deflection. Try again?

[Bob]

Deflection. Try again?

No, you asked a whimsical question. I dealt with your question as I deal with such whimsy.

[PattyHill]

It has to do with tradition, legal coverage of the triangle of him, her and children. Been that way for tens of centuries.


Hint, Bob. Lesbians and gays want to marry their partners for all the same reasons that straight people want to marry their partners. Sometimes it's kids - and yes, lesbians/gays can have kids - sometimes it's financial, but most of the time it's so they can be recognized in the eyes of the law for all the reasons that that makes sense.

[Common Sense]

This question is bogus.

Compare that to laws against corporate fraud. When corporations get away with fraud, it has no impact on me, my marriage or children. But the law is needed.

Corporate fraud is illegal because in essence it's theft. So it does impact people.

How does SSM effect people in a negative way?

Corporate fraud has victims. Who are the victims of SSM?

[Bob]

Corporate fraud is illegal because in essence it's theft. So it does impact people.

How does SSM effect people in a negative way?

Corporate fraud has victims. Who are the victims of SSM?

See, that is again a bogus argument.

We know this form of argument by the title of strawman.

I suggest you study debate rules.

[del]

No, I assure you that is not the case. I am if anything very well versed in marriage and it's laws from ancient to contemporary.

lol

seldom right, but never in doubt

[Bob]

Corporate fraud is theft. Still in no way does it impact on me nor my marriage.

[del]

Corporate fraud is theft. Still in no way does it impact on me nor my marriage.

are you on your third or fourth divorce?

[Bob]

Hint, Bob. Lesbians and gays want to marry their partners for all the same reasons that straight people want to marry their partners. Sometimes it's kids - and yes, lesbians/gays can have kids - sometimes it's financial, but most of the time it's so they can be recognized in the eyes of the law for all the reasons that that makes sense.

Forget your gays.

Explain to me why any man wants to marry a woman or vice versa.

[Common Sense]

See, that is again a bogus argument.

We know this form of argument by the title of strawman.

I suggest you study debate rules.

So you can't answer the question.

You brought up the straw man comparison.

It's not a bogus argument. You just don't have an answer.

[Common Sense]

Forget your gays.

Explain to me why any man wants to marry a woman or vice versa.

Love? Maybe you've heard about it on TV or in your case the radio?

[Safety]

See, that is again a bogus argument.

We know this form of argument by the title of strawman.

I suggest you study debate rules.

How is it bogus if you introduced the argument as support for your position?

[Bob]

are you on your third or fourth divorce?

How is your emu? Did you know if you get an ostrich, they now have a special night pillow for the head to help it pretend it buried it's head in the sand?

[Safety]

Corporate fraud is theft. Still in no way does it impact on me nor my marriage.

Nor does SSM.

[del]

How is it bogus if you introduced the argument as support for your position?

i think you answered your own question

[del]

How is your emu? Did you know if you get an ostrich, they now have a special night pillow for the head to help it pretend it buried it's head in the sand?

fifth?

[Bob]

How is it bogus if you introduced the argument as support for your position?

I did not say a thing about hurting my marriage. I believe it was you making such a claim.

[Safety]

i think you answered your own question

Damn, I did.

[Common Sense]

I did not say a thing about hurting my marriage. I believe it was you making such a claim.

Can you tell us why SSM should not be legal and available to those who want it?

[Bob]

So you can't answer the question.

You brought up the straw man comparison.

It's not a bogus argument. You just don't have an answer.

You have no point. If you have a point, I surely will try to help you find the answer.

[Safety]

No, I assure you that is not the case. I am if anything very well versed in marriage and it's laws from ancient to contemporary.


I did not say a thing about hurting my marriage. I believe it was you making such a claim.

No, you didn't. But you said you were well versed in it, so I asked how your marriage would be affected by SSM.

I figured an expert on the subject would be able to enlighten me.

[Common Sense]

You have no point. If you have a point, I surely will try to help you find the answer.

Lame, Bob...Just be honest and say you have no argument.

[Bob]

Love? Maybe you've heard about it on TV or in your case the radio?

I was waiting for that.

Love is an emotion.

Laws are never passed merely to support emotion. That is similar to laws passed to favor religion.

[Common Sense]

So weird...

[PattyHill]

Forget your gays.

Explain to me why any man wants to marry a woman or vice versa.


I listed a few reasons in my post. There are lots more. Maybe you should google it if you don't know.

[Bob]

Nor does SSM.

OK ..., were that one of my points, perhaps you would get a prize. Since It has never been my case it harms marriage, not sure why you brought it up.

My argument is not close to your argument.

Mine goes more like this.

Marriage is first about men.

Men who want a legacy. They produce an heir to their estate or property.

Since they want others to respect the form of ownership, the woman and child must first have cover of law.

This cover is called marriage. Marriage for the man/woman couple covers not merely the two of them, but the children.

Boiled down, man knows man dies. Man leaves son who has man's name. Man has found a path where in his own mind, eternal life. man is that vain.

[Bob]

fifth?

Thanks for telling me how you handle stress.

[Bob]

Can you tell us why SSM should not be legal and available to those who want it?

Yes, first may I direct you to my comments to Safety? I outlined the actual purpose of marriage.

[Common Sense]

OK ..., were that one of my points, perhaps you would get a prize. Since It has never been my case it harms marriage, not sure why you brought it up.

My argument is not close to your argument.

Mine goes more like this.

Marriage is first about men.

Men who want a legacy. They produce an heir to their estate or property.

Since they want others to respect the form of ownership, the woman and child must first have cover of law.

This cover is called marriage. Marriage for the man/woman couple covers not merely the two of them, but the children.

Boiled down, man knows man dies. Man leaves son who has man's name. Man has found a path where in his own mind, eternal life. man is that vain.

Are you sure you're not in your 170's?

[del]

OK ..., were that one of my points, perhaps you would get a prize. Since It has never been my case it harms marriage, not sure why you brought it up.

My argument is not close to your argument.

Mine goes more like this.

Marriage is first about men.

Men who want a legacy. They produce an heir to their estate or property.

Since they want others to respect the form of ownership, the woman and child must first have cover of law.

This cover is called marriage. Marriage for the man/woman couple covers not merely the two of them, but the children.

Boiled down, man knows man dies. Man leaves son who has man's name. Man has found a path where in his own mind, eternal life. man is that vain.

lol

[Bob]

No, you didn't. But you said you were well versed in it, so I asked how your marriage would be affected by SSM.

I figured an expert on the subject would be able to enlighten me.

I gave you causes to marry. (I should have copied the link but it is perhaps in this same thread you will find my argument over true purposes of marriage)

I used the long standing discussion it is for couples ie. male/female

I don't see myself as the expert that a court of law would recognize. but since I have debated this same thing what seems like a million times, i have honed my comments to a sharp edge.

I spot fraud in question quickly.

Such as one marriage must either help others marriages or harm them.

If i get married, it will not help other married people. It won't harm them.

SSM simply in the context of the legal word marriage is an oxymoron.

[Common Sense]

lol

...I'd love to hear his views on dowry and what sort of recourse the groom would have if indeed the bride is proven to not be a virgin or if indeed she fails to produce a male heir.

[Mac-7]

lol

Since you have no counter argument to Bob a lib "lol" is better than nothing I suppose.

[del]

^

sharp edge

[Bob]

Are you sure you're not in your 170's?

I beat you so you resort to insult. Sorry but I told you the truth.

[PattyHill]

OK ..., were that one of my points, perhaps you would get a prize. Since It has never been my case it harms marriage, not sure why you brought it up.

My argument is not close to your argument.

Mine goes more like this.

Marriage is first about men.

Men who want a legacy. They produce an heir to their estate or property.

Since they want others to respect the form of ownership, the woman and child must first have cover of law.

This cover is called marriage. Marriage for the man/woman couple covers not merely the two of them, but the children.

Boiled down, man knows man dies. Man leaves son who has man's name. Man has found a path where in his own mind, eternal life. man is that vain.


Luckily, marriage has changed and is no longer all about a man and his legacy.

Welcome to the 21st century.

[Common Sense]

I beat you so you resort to insult. Sorry but I told you the truth.

LOL...I asked because your views on marriage are archaic. Truth? Your truth perhaps.

[Bob]

I listed a few reasons in my post. There are lots more. Maybe you should google it if you don't know.

Yours was post 118. Will you tell me the post number and also is it in this threat PattyHill?

My question to remind you is why would a male /female wish to marry each other?

[Safety]

I gave you causes to marry. (I should have copied the link but it is perhaps in this same thread you will find my argument over true purposes of marriage)

I used the long standing discussion it is for couples ie. male/female

I don't see myself as the expert that a court of law would recognize. but since I have debated this same thing what seems like a million times, i have honed my comments to a sharp edge.

I spot fraud in question quickly.

Such as one marriage must either help others marriages or harm them.

If i get married, it will not help other married people. It won't harm them.

SSM simply in the context of the legal word marriage is an oxymoron.

Great, so you understand how SSM absolutely has no effect on traditional marriage. That was an argument used for so long, now it's the whole "procreation" or "kids" meme. Keep setting them up Bob, they'll keep getting knocked down.

[Bob]

LOL...I asked because your views on marriage are archaic. Truth? Your truth perhaps.

In some of my arguments, as to purpose of marriage ... male to female, I have indeed said it is tradition.
I believe some authors have long noted that the duty of the "left" is to break down family values. I know the tactic they use.

[Mac-7]

I beat you so you resort to insult. Sorry but I told you the truth.

Common Sense butts into American issues that are none of his damn business and then insults Americans who disagree with him.

[Bob]

Great, so you understand how SSM absolutely has no effect on traditional marriage. That was an argument used for so long, now it's the whole "procreation" or "kids" meme. Keep setting them up @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013), they'll keep getting knocked down.

I have never at any time used your argument that SSM harms my marriage. It knocks down nothing for me since I don't use such arguments.

Actually I reached back to Roman law years ago to study why they married. It is old as one poster says. But it is correct.

I believe you told me kids do not matter. This is how you tried to gun me down by arguing points I simply won't make. Ever.

[del]

Common Sense butts into American issues that are none of his damn business and then insults Americans who disagree with him.

would you feel better if i insulted you?

my people go back to the mayflower

[Common Sense]

In some of my arguments, as to purpose of marriage ... male to female, I have indeed said it is tradition.
I believe some authors have long noted that the duty of the "left" is to break down family values. I know the tactic they use.

Sounds like emotion to me.

How does same sex marriage "break down family values"?

Isn't it really that you just don't like or approve of SSM?

[Bob]

Common Sense butts into American issues that are none of his damn business and then insults Americans who disagree with him.

I gave him excellent travel tips (his words not mine) and I realize it did not get me a friend, but I was not expecting Jesse James to come gunning for me either.

[Common Sense]

Common Sense butts into American issues that are none of his damn business and then insults Americans who disagree with him.

Oh my god...not Americans? Who will stop this travesty??? Americans are being insulted!!!!

[PattyHill]

Yours was post 118. Will you tell me the post number and also is it in this threat @PattyHill (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1335)?

My question to remind you is why would a male /female wish to marry each other?

I am so sorry, Bob. I guess I should have concern for your ancient brain and not expect you to remember a post THAT YOU RESPONDED TO AND QUOTED. Shame on me for expecting you to have read my post before you responded.

You know, you can always follow the trail back by clicking the icon next to the name of the person in the quote. See? you have tools available!

But here, since apparently you aren't capable of using forum tools or remember what you quoted, here is where you quoted my post - with the reasons in it

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/43687-From-Scotusblog-today?p=1069042&viewfull=1#post1069042

And now, please google "why get married" and you'll get LOTS more reasons without me wearing out my fingers typing them for you

[Bob]

Sounds like emotion to me.

How does same sex marriage "break down family values"?

Isn't it really that you just don't like or approve of SSM?

This is as silly as me asking you how polygamy hurts your marriage. How does adult to adult incest hurt your marriage. I suppose you simply don't approve either of them.

[Common Sense]

I gave him excellent travel tips (his words not mine) and I realize it did not get me a friend, but I was not expecting Jesse James to come gunning for me either.

Don't take it personally. You're insulting me as much as I insult you...you're just being a bit of a cry baby over it.

I asked for your travel tips as a way of being nice. My trip was fully planned.

Side note: I am jealous of you. I really enjoyed California.

[Safety]

In some of my arguments, as to purpose of marriage ... male to female, I have indeed said it is tradition.
I believe some authors have long noted that the duty of the "left" is to break down family values. I know the tactic they use.

So, those who have gotten married when the woman asks the guy, does that make the marriage invalid? Or how about when the father of the bride doesn't pay for the wedding? What if the bride doesn't wear white?

How simple are you willing to take the argument?

[del]

So, those who have gotten married when the woman asks the guy, does that make the marriage invalid? Or how about when the father of the bride doesn't pay for the wedding? What if the bride doesn't wear white?

How simple are you willing to take the argument?

rhetorical question, amirite?

[Mac-7]

would you feel better if i insulted you?

my people go back to the mayflower

Your ideas can be pretty crazy at times but as an American you are entitled to push them on other Americans.

As for the insults, intolerance is a personality flaw that libs of every nationality seem to share.

[del]

Your ideas can be pretty crazy at times but as an American you are entitled to push them on other Americans.

As for the insults intolerance is a personality that libs of every nationality seem to share.

i not only tolerate you, i laugh my ass off at you.

you're welcome

[Common Sense]

This is as silly as me asking you how polygamy hurts your marriage. How does adult to adult incest hurt your marriage. I suppose you simply don't approve either of them.

You made the allegation that the left was trying to break down family values. How are they doing that? By advocating that two people who love each other be allowed to marry?

[Safety]

Common Sense butts into American issues that are none of his damn business and then insults Americans who disagree with him.

I invited him to the party, you going to take your ball and go home?

[Safety]

rhetorical question, amirite?

Very.

[Common Sense]

I invited him to the party, you going to take your ball and go home?

It's his only recourse. Apparently Americans and American views and values are quite delicate...and an anonymous Canadian on a message board is a serious threat. ;)

[del]

It's his only recourse. Apparently Americans and American views and values are quite delicate...and an anonymous Canadian on a message board is a serious threat. ;)

i don't believe you're canadian

i think you're a newfie

:)

[Safety]

It's his only recourse. Apparently Americans and American views and values are quite delicate...and an anonymous Canadian on a message board is a serious threat. ;)

Makes sense, can't argue the message, must attack the messenger.

[Common Sense]

i don't believe you're canadian

i think you're a newfie

:)

Them's fightin words...

I like to call my wife a Newfie...but she's from Nova Scotia. It drives her nuts.

[Bob]

I am so sorry, Bob. I guess I should have concern for your ancient brain and not expect you to remember a post THAT YOU RESPONDED TO AND QUOTED. Shame on me for expecting you to have read my post before you responded.

You know, you can always follow the trail back by clicking the icon next to the name of the person in the quote. See? you have tools available!

But here, since apparently you aren't capable of using forum tools or remember what you quoted, here is where you quoted my post - with the reasons in it

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/43687-From-Scotusblog-today?p=1069042&viewfull=1#post1069042

And now, please google "why get married" and you'll get LOTS more reasons without me wearing out my fingers typing them for you

Patty, you made a circular argument.

When i see a circular argument, i still ask questions.

So, the taunt and insult is your tactic of choice. Too bad PattyHill.

A couple (Male/Female) primarily marry due to children.

Love is a more recent addition but in general property is the purpose they marry.

A man also likes a legacy. I am not sure a woman cares since she often takes the man's last name and not her fathers name.

Look at naming conventions. The male of the family carries the fathers last name. The fathers daughters rarely keep the fathers name. Why his when they now have a new male to use his name?

Legacy is a good cause as believed for eons.

Then the male wants his male heirs to also keep property he earned and he wants them to have it. Modern law also includes the girls of the man's family.

[Bob]

You made the allegation that the left was trying to break down family values. How are they doing that? By advocating that two people who love each other be allowed to marry?

Males and females can marry. Why doesn't that work for you?

The left breaks down family values in a lot more ways than marriage. Take Welfare, this breaks down family values. Take guns, this breaks down family values as crafted by Democrats. Freedom depends on those like me to try to keep the lamp lit and expose what the Democrats in America do.

[Safety]

Patty, you made a circular argument.

When i see a circular argument, i still ask questions.

So, the taunt and insult is your tactic of choice. Too bad PattyHill.

A couple (Male/Female) primarily marry due to children.

Love is a more recent addition but in general property is the purpose they marry.

A man also likes a legacy. I am not sure a woman cares since she often takes the man's last name and not her fathers name.

Look at naming conventions. The male of the family carries the fathers last name. The fathers daughters rarely keep the fathers name. Why his when they now have a new male to use his name?

Legacy is a good cause as believed for eons.

Then the male wants his male heirs to also keep property he earned and he wants them to have it. Modern law also includes the girls of the man's family.

If it was truly about "man's legacy" then why does the female remove her name and take the man's? It seems that if a man has a daughter, then his legacy through her is destroyed once she marries. Why would God allow a man to have a daughter in that case if his legacy is going to be destroyed by another man? Your logic would seem to only work in spanish cultures where the children have both parent's last names and the wife keeps hers intact.

[Mac-7]

I invited him to the party, you going to take your ball and go home?

Are you in charge of the US refugee program?

[Common Sense]

Are in charge of the refugee program?

You're so delicate.

[PattyHill]

This is as silly as me asking you how polygamy hurts your marriage. How does adult to adult incest hurt your marriage. I suppose you simply don't approve either of them.

It doesn't, and it's legal in New Jersey
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2015/01/incest_qa_daughter_plans_to_marry_dad.html


Can't get married, but can have sex

[PattyHill]

Patty, you made a circular argument.

When i see a circular argument, i still ask questions.

So, the taunt and insult is your tactic of choice. Too bad @PattyHill (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1335).

A couple (Male/Female) primarily marry due to children.

Love is a more recent addition but in general property is the purpose they marry.

A man also likes a legacy. I am not sure a woman cares since she often takes the man's last name and not her fathers name.

Look at naming conventions. The male of the family carries the fathers last name. The fathers daughters rarely keep the fathers name. Why his when they now have a new male to use his name?

Legacy is a good cause as believed for eons.

Then the male wants his male heirs to also keep property he earned and he wants them to have it. Modern law also includes the girls of the man's family.

This is so funny, and so not applicable to today.

My husband & I didn't have kids. Should we not have married?

He has no property to pass down to his kids - and if he did, they are girls, he has no male heirs. I have a legacy, but I'm giving it away to charity.

I kept my own name. My sister's oldest child has her last name.

Property is one of many reasons people marry. Get over it, Bob. It's changed. It's not the patriarchal institution you knew and loved.

[Safety]

Are in charge of the US refugee program?

Not at the moment, but you can call this number and ask for Jenny: 867-5309

[Bob]

So, those who have gotten married when the woman asks the guy, does that make the marriage invalid? Or how about when the father of the bride doesn't pay for the wedding? What if the bride doesn't wear white?

How simple are you willing to take the argument?

1. no
2. no
3. no

Simple? I believe legacy is complex. I believe making the man pass his property to his sons is a bit complex. I believe the girls getting married taking the name of the new male is a bit complex. You might wonder why she won't keep her own fathers last name.

Nobody promised you it is simple.

[Safety]

1. no
2. no
3. no

Simple? I believe legacy is complex. I believe making the man pass his property to his sons is a bit complex. I believe the girls getting married taking the name of the new male is a bit complex. You might wonder why she won't keep her own fathers last name.

Nobody promised you it is simple.

It comes from a tradition where the woman was presented to the marriage as little more than a bargaining chip. You know, from the times where a woman was supposed to be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen making the man a sandwich.

Times change Bob, and so does traditions/legacy/or whatever the argument is next.

[Common Sense]

This is so funny, and so not applicable to today.

My husband & I didn't have kids. Should we not have married?

He has no property to pass down to his kids - and if he did, they are girls, he has no male heirs. I have a legacy, but I'm giving it away to charity.

I kept my own name. My sister's oldest child has her last name.

Property is one of many reasons people marry. Get over it, Bob. It's changed. It's not the patriarchal institution you knew and loved.

Bob lives in the 1600's.

[Bob]

This is so funny, and so not applicable to today.

My husband & I didn't have kids. Should we not have married?

He has no property to pass down to his kids - and if he did, they are girls, he has no male heirs. I have a legacy, but I'm giving it away to charity.

I kept my own name. My sister's oldest child has her last name.

Property is one of many reasons people marry. Get over it, Bob. It's changed. It's not the patriarchal institution you knew and loved.

Patty .... nobody forces you to have kids. Maybe your husband does not mind ending his legacy upon death. You nor I am why marriage exists. No individual couple is the reason for marriage.

If your husband had property, he can will it to his daughters. Not knowing your state, in CA, the children, male and female have equal rights to Dad's estate upon death. Your state may have the same law. Check it out. Yes, you keep your fathers name. But you don't keep your mothers maiden name. She took your fathers.

I said all along property is a major reason why the man marries the woman.

In the case of the homosexuals, they have wills.

To help them with their multiple problems, here in CA I personally voted for them to have civil unions. There they had rights. But they crapped on us and demanded not civil unions, but marriage. There i drew the line.

[Mac-7]

Not at the moment,

Which means you have no authority to help CS sneak into the country and insult Americans.

[Common Sense]

Patty .... nobody forces you to have kids. Maybe your husband does not mind ending his legacy upon death. You nor I am why marriage exists. No individual couple is the reason for marriage.

If your husband had property, he can will it to his daughters. Not knowing your state, in CA, the children, male and female have equal rights to Dad's estate upon death. Your state may have the same law. Check it out. Yes, you keep your fathers name. But you don't keep your mothers maiden name. She took your fathers.

I said all along property is a major reason why the man marries the woman.

In the case of the homosexuals, they have wills.

To help them with their multiple problems, here in CA I personally voted for them to have civil unions. There they had rights. But they crapped on us and demanded not civil unions, but marriage. There i drew the line.

So marriages could simply be done away with and replaced with wills.

Why did you draw the line at marriage? Why are civil unions acceptable but not marriages?

[Common Sense]

Which means you have no authority to help CS sneak into the country and insult Americans.

I'm not in your country. You're in my country.

How dare you come here into Canada and spew your nonsense!

[Safety]

Which means you have no authority to help CS sneak into the country and insult Americans.

You going to find the Cat5 cable that he is using to sneak in?

[Bob]

It comes from a tradition where the woman was presented to the marriage as little more than a bargaining chip. You know, from the times where a woman was supposed to be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen making the man a sandwich.

Times change @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013), and so does traditions/legacy/or whatever the argument is next.

Is that what modern marriage between men and women means to you? She is a virtual slave of her husband?

[Chris]

Which means you have no authority to help CS sneak into the country and insult Americans.

No authority is required, mac. Put a lid on it.

[Dr. Who]

Common Sense butts into American issues that are none of his damn business and then insults Americans who disagree with him.
It's a forum Mac - everyone with an opinion can post it. Registration doesn't require proof of citizenship. If you disagree, dispute it or ignore it.

[Safety]

Is that what modern marriage between men and women means to you? She is a virtual slave of her husband?

Make up your mind Bob, you are wondering.

You are harping about legacies and traditional marriage, now you want to bring it back to 2015?

[Common Sense]

I think it's funny when he cries about my citizenship.

[Chris]

You going to find the Cat5 cable that he is using to sneak in?

Hey, I just bought a crimper and tester and learned how to crimp connectors on.

[Dr. Who]

Patty, you made a circular argument.

When i see a circular argument, i still ask questions.

So, the taunt and insult is your tactic of choice. Too bad @PattyHill (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1335).

A couple (Male/Female) primarily marry due to children.

Love is a more recent addition but in general property is the purpose they marry.

A man also likes a legacy. I am not sure a woman cares since she often takes the man's last name and not her fathers name.

Look at naming conventions. The male of the family carries the fathers last name. The fathers daughters rarely keep the fathers name. Why his when they now have a new male to use his name?

Legacy is a good cause as believed for eons.

Then the male wants his male heirs to also keep property he earned and he wants them to have it. Modern law also includes the girls of the man's family.
Not always and increasingly people are unable to have children. Why do people in their 50's marry - certainly not to have children.

[Safety]

Hey, I just bought a crimper and tester and learned how to crimp connectors on.

Running switches or just changing for more security?

[nic34]

Make up your mind @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013), you are wondering.

You are harping about legacies and traditional marriage, now you want to bring it back to 2015?

Poor bob...

https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/p/2/005/081/0ae/1209307.jpg

[Dr. Who]

Patty .... nobody forces you to have kids. Maybe your husband does not mind ending his legacy upon death. You nor I am why marriage exists. No individual couple is the reason for marriage.

If your husband had property, he can will it to his daughters. Not knowing your state, in CA, the children, male and female have equal rights to Dad's estate upon death. Your state may have the same law. Check it out. Yes, you keep your fathers name. But you don't keep your mothers maiden name. She took your fathers.

I said all along property is a major reason why the man marries the woman.

In the case of the homosexuals, they have wills.

To help them with their multiple problems, here in CA I personally voted for them to have civil unions. There they had rights. But they crapped on us and demanded not civil unions, but marriage. There i drew the line.
Define the difference between marriage and civil union (AKA secular marriage)?

[PolWatch]

It is embarrassing when a furinner knows more about your nation than you do....makes some sensitive.

[Safety]

Define the difference between marriage and civil union (AKA secular marriage)?

http://media.tumblr.com/2813158aa1e45a4796921724e4a8424f/tumblr_inline_njbwu51aXh1qegzff.gif

[Bob]

So marriages could simply be done away with and replaced with wills.

Why did you draw the line at marriage? Why are civil unions acceptable but not marriages?

WOW, I find I am defending your own marriage. I don't know Canadian law. We use Common law in much of the USA and out west we use some of that and then spanish laws we inherited in the 1800 era.

To solve problems for homosexuals, I believed I owed it to them to help them handle legal issues. I wanted them not to struggle to leave property and the civil union solved that for them.

Even in the CA Supreme Court, the justices there ruled that Civil Union solved the problem. It was only later at the Federal level a homosexual justice ruled civil unions did not work. Sort of biased on his part don't you think?

[Mac-7]

Define the difference between marriage and civil union (AKA secular marriage)?

Legally none.

Which is why homosexuals should stop harassing Christians and just accept civil unions.

[Bob]

Define the difference between marriage and civil union (AKA secular marriage)?


http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/civil-unions-and-domestic-partnership-statutes.aspx

[Bob]

It is embarrassing when a furinner knows more about your nation than you do....makes some sensitive.

When i served in the Army in Germany in 62-4, it was common for Germans to know more about the USA than we troopers knew of our own country. Sure shook me up.

[Chris]

Running switches or just changing for more security?

Nothing so elaborate. At home I switched back from WiFi to cable and the little catches on the connectors break off:

http://i.snag.gy/8p2oF.jpg

[Chris]

Legally none.

Which is why homosexuals should stop harassing Christians and just accept civil unions.

Why can't everyone call it what they want? No one owns the word.

[Safety]

Nothing so elaborate. At home I switched back from WiFi to cable and the little catches on the connectors break off:

http://i.snag.gy/8p2oF.jpg

LoL, gotcha.

You really get more bandwidth with cat5 anyway. I really notice the slow down when everyone is on their ipad or phone at the same time.

[Mac-7]

Why can't everyone call it what they want? No one owns the word.

Is this an official transmission under your authority as a mod?

[Safety]

Is this an official transmission under your authority as a mod?

Give it a rest, Mac.

[Peter1469]

Is this an official transmission under your authority as a mod?


Warning: If you think something is mod action, PM another mod. Discussing it in the open leads to thread bans or an infraction.

[Bob]

Not always and increasingly people are unable to have children. Why do people in their 50's marry - certainly not to have children.

Marriage is a very old tradition. Rooted in ancient laws. When we older types marry, it often is for a companion, a lover a person to talk to.

Marriage is already part of law. We use the law.

[PattyHill]

Patty .... nobody forces you to have kids. Maybe your husband does not mind ending his legacy upon death. You nor I am why marriage exists. No individual couple is the reason for marriage.

If your husband had property, he can will it to his daughters. Not knowing your state, in CA, the children, male and female have equal rights to Dad's estate upon death. Your state may have the same law. Check it out. Yes, you keep your fathers name. But you don't keep your mothers maiden name. She took your fathers.

I said all along property is a major reason why the man marries the woman.

In the case of the homosexuals, they have wills.

To help them with their multiple problems, here in CA I personally voted for them to have civil unions. There they had rights. But they crapped on us and demanded not civil unions, but marriage. There i drew the line.


As I said before, Gays/Lesbians marry for the same reasons Straight people marry - and those reasons are many and complex.

If civil unions are "good enough" for gays/lesbians, they should be good enough for straights.

You might as well admit - you have no valid reason to be against SSM except "ick".

Give it up. history has moved on. You are behind.

[Bob]

Why can't everyone call it what they want? No one owns the word.

Chris, have you ever read Black's law dictionary? Blacks is used by attorneys, judges and those engaged in law.

Blacks is specific.

What i am telling you is words do matter.

[Bob]

As I said before, Gays/Lesbians marry for the same reasons Straight people marry - and those reasons are many and complex.

If civil unions are "good enough" for gays/lesbians, they should be good enough for straights.

You might as well admit - you have no valid reason to be against SSM except "ick".

Give it up. history has moved on. You are behind.

You claim they use the same reasons.


That is not true.

I believe the SCOTUS will teach you a valuable lesson.

[PattyHill]

LoL, gotcha.

You really get more bandwidth with cat5 anyway. I really notice the slow down when everyone is on their ipad or phone at the same time.


So the slowest device on the WIFI sets the speed for everyone else. We have two wifi networks in our house because of that. We also have cabled connections for certain purposes where we need speed.

[Bob]

Patty Hill, I don't understand why you believe a civil union is defective? Can you explain why you do not agree with the CA supreme court ruling that declared they are very bit as good?

[Dr. Who]

http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/civil-unions-and-domestic-partnership-statutes.aspx
In France they only have civil unions. If you want to get "married" you go to a church. It has no legal ramifications. The problem with civil union in many states was this: but none of the federal protections (such as Social Security survivor benefits), and there is no guarantee that the unions will be recognized by other states or the federal government.

This was the intrinsic reason that gays have been lobbying for legal marriage as opposed to some cut rate version called civil union. Being legally bound with few of the legal rights that are conferred upon marriage is just silly. It grants all of the liabilities without most of the benefits. Consider two individuals who are retired and it takes both incomes to pay the taxes and maintain a home. One dies and suddenly the survivor has to sell their home or condo because on half the income, they cannot afford the place. Not a very nice thing to do to someone who is grieving, lonely and depressed and of an age where these kind of upheavals can cause health problems.

[PattyHill]

Patty Hill, I don't understand why you believe a civil union is defective? Can you explain why you do not agree with the CA supreme court ruling that declared they are very bit as good?


"separate but equal"

ring a bell?

everyone should get married or everyone should do civil unions.

[Bob]

In France they only have civil unions. If you want to get "married" you go to a church. It has no legal ramifications. The problem with civil union in many states was this: but none of the federal protections (such as Social Security survivor benefits), and there is no guarantee that the unions will be recognized by other states or the federal government.

This was the intrinsic reason that gays have been lobbying for legal marriage as opposed to some cut rate version called civil union. Being legally bound with few of the legal rights that are conferred upon marriage is just silly. It grants all of the liabilities without most of the benefits. Consider two individuals who are retired and it takes both incomes to pay the taxes and maintain a home. One dies and suddenly the survivor has to sell their home or condo because on half the income, they cannot afford the place. Not a very nice thing to do to someone who is grieving, lonely and depressed and of an age where these kind of upheavals can cause health problems.

The Federal Government makes a huge mistake being involved in marriage.

When i got married both times. i was not aware the Feds had any say over my marriage.

By the way, Homosexuals could have asked the Feds to cut them in on SS but hell no, they went after marriage.

Per your comments, it is over money. I had not thought of marriage as being about money. As I said my research cleared that part up as to estates and inheritance laws.

[Chris]

Chris, have you ever read Black's law dictionary? Blacks is used by attorneys, judges and those engaged in law.

Blacks is specific.

What i am telling you is words do matter.


Posited law is hardly natural moral law.


Nor did you answer my question.

[Bob]

"separate but equal"

ring a bell?

everyone should get married or everyone should do civil unions.

Lady what you ask for will be the ruin of this country.

You open the doors for a lot of forms of marriage.

You won't recognize marriage when you get done with it.

[Safety]

The Federal Government makes a huge mistake being involved in marriage.

When i got married both times. i was not aware the Feds had any say over my marriage.

By the way, Homosexuals could have asked the Feds to cut them in on SS but hell no, they went after marriage.

Per your comments, it is over money. I had not thought of marriage as being about money. As I said my research cleared that part up as to estates and inheritance laws.

The interesting thing is, that people only think the Feds made a mistake of being in the business of marriage when SSM came about and the LGBT community wanted equal consideration. Shocking, right?

[Bob]

Posited law is hardly natural moral law.


Nor did you answer my question.

I have not claimed what you said in comment 1.

I will try to find where you asked me a question.

[Mac-7]

"separate but equal"

ring a bell?

everyone should get married or everyone should do civil unions.

Marriage is performed in a church where neither libs, homosexuals or the government has jurisdiction over.

[maineman]

Marriage is performed in a church where neither libs, homosexuals or the government has jurisdiction over.

marriage is also performed by JP's who have nothing to do with the church.

[maineman]

Lady what you ask for will be the ruin of this country.

You open the doors for a lot of forms of marriage.

You won't recognize marriage when you get done with it.
as long as it's between consenting adults, why in the world would you care one way or the other?

[Bob]

The interesting thing is, that people only think the Feds made a mistake of being in the business of marriage when SSM came about and the LGBT community wanted equal consideration. Shocking, right?

According to Dr. Who, it is over social security. Tell me this much. Was Social Security contained in the Constitution of the USA? Can you show me a clause about social security and it being part of taxes?

I believe that post Civil War, Democrats managed to damage a lot of this country. Especially from 1913 forward.

Look at the size of the national debt for openers. i mean look at how long Democrats dominated the USA and how long the congress belonged to the Democrats. I think when you check you will get my point. FDR installed socialism. This no doubt is part of the homosexual problem. Dr. Who talked of it.

[Safety]

Marriage is performed in a church where neither libs, homosexuals or the government has jurisdiction over.

If that's what you are hung up on, then call getting married in a church "Marriage", and getting married anywhere else a civil union. Separate the church from the state.

[Chris]

I have not claimed what you said in comment 1.

I will try to find where you asked me a question.

Bob, throughout you defending posited law. How can man-made anything be a defense?

The question you replied to was why not let everyone call it what they want?

[PattyHill]

Lady what you ask for will be the ruin of this country.

You open the doors for a lot of forms of marriage.

You won't recognize marriage when you get done with it.


I look forward to that, Bob. But I'm done discussing it with you.

[Mac-7]

as long as it's between consenting adults, why in the world would you care one way or the other?

Those consenting adult continue to push their perverted sex habits to small children on TV and in the public schools.

[Bob]

as long as it's between consenting adults, why in the world would you care one way or the other?

Hoo buoy....

Now it is only up to me to have proper laws. beats all I have read.

[PattyHill]

The interesting thing is, that people only think the Feds made a mistake of being in the business of marriage when SSM came about and the LGBT community wanted equal consideration. Shocking, right?

Amazing how that happened, huh?

[Mac-7]

If that's what you are hung up on, then call getting married in a church "Marriage", and getting married anywhere else a civil union. Separate the church from the state.

Some people have suggested that.

But there is some thought that homosexuals want to use marriage as a way to destroy the Christian church and so gays will demand marriage instead of civil unions.

[Peter1469]

It seems as if J. Souter may vote no.

[Bob]

I look forward to that, Bob. But I'm done discussing it with you.

At least you stopped with the insults. Thanks for that.

Look, i have not promised to change your mind. I don't mind what you think. I try to be dispassionate and explain law for the most part.

[del]

Lady what you ask for will be the ruin of this country.

You open the doors for a lot of forms of marriage.

You won't recognize marriage when you get done with it.

since you failed at it twice, maybe giving marriage advice isn't the best use of your time.

[PolWatch]

Some people have suggested that.

But there is some thought that homosexuals want to use marriage as a way to destroy the Christian church and so gays will demand marriage instead of civil unions.

wily people those gays....to pretend to like others of the same sex just so they can destroy the Christian church.

[Safety]

According to Dr. Who, it is over social security. Tell me this much. Was Social Security contained in the Constitution of the USA? Can you show me a clause about social security and it being part of taxes?

I believe that post Civil War, Democrats managed to damage a lot of this country. Especially from 1913 forward.

Look at the size of the national debt for openers. i mean look at how long Democrats dominated the USA and how long the congress belonged to the Democrats. I think when you check you will get my point. FDR installed socialism. This no doubt is part of the homosexual problem. Dr. Who talked of it.

http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/grasping-at-straws.jpg

[PolWatch]

Democrats? Civil War? National Debt?

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.bTHZyF%2fV0F8gkCuLuqKhEg&pid=15.1&rs=1&c=1&w=183&h=121

[Bob]

Bob, throughout you defending posited law. How can man-made anything be a defense?

The question you replied to was why not let everyone call it what they want?

I hope i understand what you are angling for.

Part one is clear on posited law. The part of man made is not hitting me quite well.

In my law courses, which were years ago, I believe we more than learned some laws, we studied the formation and basis of law. I also realize that USA law no doubt is different than law you will find in various nations of the world.

For instance we do not use a firing squad to execute you for dealing in heroin. Indonesia does.

For me to cling to USA law is no vice. This country has not as a nation legalized homosexuals to marry. Some states have but most have not.

[Dr. Who]

Marriage is a very old tradition. Rooted in ancient laws. When we older types marry, it often is for a companion, a lover a person to talk to.

Marriage is already part of law. We use the law.
Don't you think that gay people have the same need for companionship, a lover and a person to talk to? Gays and Lesbians are still people with the same needs as the rest. The English marriage has more than one definition. It doesn't just have a religious definition - it also means:

a combination or mixture of two or more elements.
"a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel"
synonyms: union, alliance, fusion, mixture, mix, blend, amalgamation, combination, merger
"a marriage of jazz, pop, and gospel"

[Chris]

I hope i understand what you are angling for.

Part one is clear on posited law. The part of man made is not hitting me quite well.

In my law courses, which were years ago, I believe we more than learned some laws, we studied the formation and basis of law. I also realize that USA law no doubt is different than law you will find in various nations of the world.

For instance we do not use a firing squad to execute you for dealing in heroin. Indonesia does.

For me to cling to USA law is no vice. This country has not as a nation legalized homosexuals to marry. Some states have but most have not.



Angling? LOL.

Posited means man-made.

Man is flawed therefore his laws are. They are no defense of your preferences on marriage.


"The question you replied to was why not let everyone call it what they want?" Still no response. Starting to seem like you want to use law to force others to follow your preferences.

[GRUMPY]

Angling? LOL.

Posited means man-made.

Man is flawed therefore his laws are. They are no defense of your preferences on marriage.


"The question you replied to was why not let everyone call it what they want?" Still no response. Starting to seem like you want to use law to force others to follow your preferences.

are all of mans laws flawed or just those you don't like....

[Bob]

since you failed at it twice, maybe giving marriage advice isn't the best use of your time.

I have not given anybody marriage advice. Since you troll daily, why don't you advise trolls on different forums?

[Chris]

are all of mans laws flawed or just those you don't like....

All posited laws. So much for that gotcha.

[Safety]

are all of mans laws flawed or just those you don't like....

Man is flawed, that's why he must confess his sin to a higher power. Therefore, if man made a law, it too is flawed. Can you suggest a perfect law man has made?

[GRUMPY]

Good clarification, Chris. I think they will vote yes to both as well. #1 is causing too many problems already, when states don't recognize SSM from other states. And as far as #2 - keeping people from marrying is really denying them a fundamental right.

what problems does this cause....

[Bob]

Angling? LOL.

Posited means man-made.

Man is flawed therefore his laws are. They are no defense of your preferences on marriage.


"The question you replied to was why not let everyone call it what they want?" Still no response. Starting to seem like you want to use law to force others to follow your preferences.

I knew what posited means. Angling as to what is your angle?

Man has made every law. And I would not go so far as to claim that 100 percent of them are flawed, not the way you mean it.

Your question of why not let any word be used? Suppose i name it rodeo. Would you defend that use? (Blacks happens to be the best way to define legal terms)

I am still clinging to this silly idea that a man with his woman has children and he wants his legacy and wants to leave his stuff to his family and I am not ashamed to defend the family.

For the record, this is just an opinion forum. I won't change minds no more than you change minds. I see you try and try though.

[GRUMPY]

I disagree that two men marrying is a fundamental right. I personally have stated many times I am not for gay marriage. I believe its ridiculous for two men to marry and be husband and husband and I believe it completely demeans marriage. Having said that I still believe it will be legalized and It wont change my life either way.

wrong....many have for a couple generations at least, argued that social issues should be left to the individual....unfortunately while i strongly believe in the rights of the individual i also recognize that the values, traditions, institutions, history and law are the threads that bind this nation....as one by one we strip the threads from this cloth we most assuredly work to destroy the republic....marriage, gay, straight or whatever is simply not a constitutional issue...gay marriage seeks to legitimize mental infirmity as normal....

[Bob]

Make up your mind @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013), you are wondering.

You are harping about legacies and traditional marriage, now you want to bring it back to 2015?

No, i try to stick to my own points. You and others try to force me to use your pet arguments.

Why do you object to marriage?

[Chris]

I knew what posited means. Angling as to what is your angle?

Man has made every law. And I would not go so far as to claim that 100 percent of them are flawed, not the way you mean it.

Your question of why not let any word be used? Suppose i name it rodeo. Would you defend that use? (Blacks happens to be the best way to define legal terms)

I am still clinging to this silly idea that a man with his woman has children and he wants his legacy and wants to leave his stuff to his family and I am not ashamed to defend the family.

For the record, this is just an opinion forum. I won't change minds no more than you change minds. I see you try and try though.



Man has made all laws? natural law? Physical law? Thought you believed in God's law. Man's laws a mere approximations of those laws.


You're not answering the question. How does letting everyone call marriage what they want detract from your beliefs and legacy? It doesn't.


(Stop talking about talking, Bob. It gets boring.)

[del]

I have not given anybody marriage advice. Since you troll daily, why don't you advise trolls on different forums?

i do

it's a paid subscription service

[GRUMPY]

Of course they will. Equality is near.



Golly gee. That's the same thing white racists said in the thirties, forties, and fifties! And states proved it by passing massive Jim Crow laws.

unfortunately to some degree the white racists were right.....nothing positive has been spawned due to the civil rights movement or the civil rights act of 1964....i am not saying that i oppose civil rights....what i am saying is that programs such as affirmative action and busing have been destructive failures and an obvious affront to the constitution as are concepts of protected minorities, disparate outcome etc...the civil rights act laid waste to private property rights....how about this for a civil rights act...1 public accomadations must be equally available to all of the public without differentiation....that is all that was needed and all that was constitutionally able...we would today be much better for it....

[Bob]

wrong....many have for a couple generations at least, argued that social issues should be left to the individual....unfortunately while i strongly believe in the rights of the individual i also recognize that the values, traditions, institutions, history and law are the threads that bind this nation....as one by one we strip the threads from this cloth we most assuredly work to destroy the republic....marriage, gay, straight or whatever is simply not a constitutional issue...gay marriage seeks to legitimize mental infirmity as normal....

I believe that too.

I was chatting today with Louise. To tell those who don't know who I mean, she pays me rent to keep her own business working.

I told her of this argument. Asked her what she thinks of homosexuals marrying. She says it is a mental illness.

So who is this woman. She is in her late 60s, has two adult sons and a husband. She was raised as a Jew in MA though she tells me she really was not into being a Jew. She holds two masters degrees. I hold no university degrees. I however have attended college for many credits. I free ranged so much I did not get a degree in a particular subject. I am a jack of all trades in effect.

I know that psychiatrists claim it is no mental illness. i believe at one time they said it was fine to own slaves too.

[Common]

wrong....many have for a couple generations at least, argued that social issues should be left to the individual....unfortunately while i strongly believe in the rights of the individual i also recognize that the values, traditions, institutions, history and law are the threads that bind this nation....as one by one we strip the threads from this cloth we most assuredly work to destroy the republic....marriage, gay, straight or whatever is simply not a constitutional issue...gay marriage seeks to legitimize mental infirmity as normal....

No I am not wrong and you saying so doesnt make it so.

[Chris]

wrong....many have for a couple generations at least, argued that social issues should be left to the individual....unfortunately while i strongly believe in the rights of the individual i also recognize that the values, traditions, institutions, history and law are the threads that bind this nation....as one by one we strip the threads from this cloth we most assuredly work to destroy the republic....marriage, gay, straight or whatever is simply not a constitutional issue...gay marriage seeks to legitimize mental infirmity as normal....

Two thoughts.

1) Things change. Inflexible you break.

2) You're not really for individual rights. You're a statist.

[GRUMPY]

No I am not wrong and you saying so doesnt make it so.

yes and of course it does....for i am the one and the only one for there can be but one....I AM GRUMPY.....

[Bob]

Man has made all laws? natural law? Physical law? Thought you believed in God's law. Man's laws a mere approximations of those laws.


You're not answering the question. How does letting everyone call marriage what they want detract from your beliefs and legacy? It doesn't.


(Stop talking about talking, Bob. It gets boring.)

You thought I believe in GOD's law?

Where did that come from?

The term law is used in various fields. When i speak of physics I don't mean what you read in Blacks law dictionary.

Law of physics is not the same thing. Natural law? Define that.

Man holds meetings. Man talks of legal problems. Man selects options. Man announces new laws.

While man made, if you wish to test man made laws, rush through your city at 150 miles per hour.

I have never made this statement.


You're not answering the question. How does letting everyone call marriage what they want detract from your beliefs and legacy? It doesn't.

I don't know how to reply when you allege I said a thing but I know I never said that to anybody.

I don't believe there is an addition nor a detraction.

Chris, I am well aware of how you play games. Won't work on me Chris.

[GRUMPY]

Two thoughts.

1) Things change. Inflexible you break.

2) You're not really for individual rights. You're a statist.

no son, i believe in this constitutional republic.....if you want to amend the constitution to address marriage in anyway you wish, then garner the needed support and have at it....

[Bob]

Luckily, marriage has changed and is no longer all about a man and his legacy.

Welcome to the 21st century.

Show me proof. Wait, you fled.

[Bob]

Two thoughts.

1) Things change. Inflexible you break.

2) You're not really for individual rights. You're a statist.

Can I using my rights, impose on you and impact your own rights?

[PattyHill]

what problems does this cause....


So for those who don't remember back to the first few posts....

Grumpy is asking what problems this is causing - "1. Do states have to honor the same sex marriages of other states. "

When states don't honor marriages from other states, then the people involved run into issues when, for example, they want to divorce. There are issues for anything where the state grants benefits, or obligations, based on marital status. There are child custody issues.

You might want to do some google'ing Grumpy, but these are real problems happening to couples right now.

[PattyHill]

I believe that too.

I was chatting today with Louise. To tell those who don't know who I mean, she pays me rent to keep her own business working.

I told her of this argument. Asked her what she thinks of homosexuals marrying. She says it is a mental illness.

So who is this woman. She is in her late 60s, has two adult sons and a husband. She was raised as a Jew in MA though she tells me she really was not into being a Jew. She holds two masters degrees. I hold no university degrees. I however have attended college for many credits. I free ranged so much I did not get a degree in a particular subject. I am a jack of all trades in effect.

I know that psychiatrists claim it is no mental illness. i believe at one time they said it was fine to own slaves too.

Wow. Well, if Louise doesn't like it, then well - we must not let SSM happen! (eye roll)

Bob, all of your arguments have failed. Louise doesn't prove you right. How many colleges you have gone to doesn't prove you right.

Marriage has changed. It's not longer the patriarchal, feudal thing that you seem to prefer.

Get over it. Move on to another topic.

And now, I swear, I will not respond anymore. But the "louise" card was just too amazing to not respond to.

[PattyHill]

Show me proof. Wait, you fled.


I gave you proof from my own life. You choose to ignore it. Yes, I'm fleeing because obviously I will never change your mind, and I don't believe in beating my head against a brick wall

But you are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

[Dr. Who]

The Federal Government makes a huge mistake being involved in marriage.

When i got married both times. i was not aware the Feds had any say over my marriage.

By the way, Homosexuals could have asked the Feds to cut them in on SS but hell no, they went after marriage.

Per your comments, it is over money. I had not thought of marriage as being about money. As I said my research cleared that part up as to estates and inheritance laws.
Estates and inheritance laws have no effect on government pension rights. Private pensions can be directed, however government pension follows law. Many people live on a combination of private and government pension.

[Bob]

Estates and inheritance laws have no effect on government pension rights. Private pensions can be directed, however government pension follows law. Many people live on a combination of private and government pension.

I don't understand your desire that homosexual A engages with Homosexual B and per your desire, B has a problem and you want A to collect B's social security.

This makes no sense to me.

Government is not there to unjustly enrich some at the expense of others.

[Bob]

Wow. Well, if Louise doesn't like it, then well - we must not let SSM happen! (eye roll)

Bob, all of your arguments have failed. Louise doesn't prove you right. How many colleges you have gone to doesn't prove you right.

Marriage has changed. It's not longer the patriarchal, feudal thing that you seem to prefer.

Get over it. Move on to another topic.

And now, I swear, I will not respond anymore. But the "louise" card was just too amazing to not respond to.

My arguments when comprehended do not fail. At least not to this point.

You declaring victory does not make it true.

Marriage has not changed. If you want to claim perceptions by some changed, sure. That is true.

[Bob]

So for those who don't remember back to the first few posts....

Grumpy is asking what problems this is causing - "1. Do states have to honor the same sex marriages of other states. "

When states don't honor marriages from other states, then the people involved run into issues when, for example, they want to divorce. There are issues for anything where the state grants benefits, or obligations, based on marital status. There are child custody issues.

You might want to do some google'ing Grumpy, but these are real problems happening to couples right now.

If I am not mistaken, there are 37 states that do not agree with your view.

But pretend it is one or two.