Tom Levenson's take at Balloon-Juice.

Post #373,083 by Another Scott 3/28/13 7:29:29 PM Reply	Tom Levenson's take at Balloon-Juice. http://www.balloon-j...ame-out-of-egypt/ An excellent read. Cheers, Scott.
Post #373,101 by mmoffitt 3/29/13 8:57:27 AM Reply	I hope that wasn't directed at me. I stopped right after reading the below quotation because it started to smack of "poor me. They're being mean to me." my wife and I are not of the same sex; I am a man and she is a woman. But we are infertile. We did not procreate. For the past nine years, we have been the adoptive parents of our daughter; we are legally her mother and father, but not biologically, and since Tuesday have been surprised and saddened to be reminded that for a sizable minority of the American public our lack of biological capacity makes all the difference Â and dooms our marriage and our family to second-class status. "Dooms our marriage and our family to second-class status." If what I've written and said about the centuries old tradition of marriage implying procreation offends him (and others like him), well, too bad. You don't get to have your own facts. And the plain, simple fact of the matter is that, traditionally, when a couple applied for a marriage license there was an implicit statement in that application that the couple was going to procreate. That is why (and no one has offered any rebuttal to this) the states required blood tests that would indicate problems with offspring as a part of the marriage license application. 40 years ago, Nevada was famous for not requiring a blood test for a marriage license and that's how it became the home of the "quickie wedding". I fail to see how the recognition of this long standing definition and understanding is somehow harmful to others or bigoted or equivalent to assigning any group "second-class status." I would like, however, to pre-emptively congratulate those who advocate for changing the definition of marriage. You're going to win. I have been unable to ascertain the exact value of the estate Windsor inherited, but from what I have been able to gather, it is measured in the millions. Couple that with the fact that estate taxes are only paid on about 0.2% of all estates and well, Windsor doesn't cut much of a sympathetic portrait to me. She is the epitome of a 1 per center and like every other toad in that cesspool known as New York, she went to court over a tax bill that she doesn't feel like paying. So, like most things, this all boils down to an Uber wealthy New Yorker rallying up the Useful Idiots and through misdirection executed supremely, is going to successfully avoid another $350,000 in taxes. So, well done valiant guardians of the ruling class. My hat's off to you. For those of you who think this had anything to do with equal protection or fairness, you've been had.
Post #373,103 by boxley 3/29/13 9:38:26 AM Reply	so she has to pay 350k because she was banging another chick and not a guy and you dont see equal protection coming into play. Good thing it was at least a white chick, that might have really set you off Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
Post #373,118 by mmoffitt 3/29/13 1:33:00 PM Reply	I see a "wrong" compounded. The guy should pay and so should she. We should rollback their tax rates to what they were before Reagan. That'd go miles and miles toward balancing the budget. I've got a personal question for you. This is, I think - just from memory - the second time you've suggested I have racist tendencies. You're entitled to think that if you want, obviously. But, for the record, it is total crap and I don't appreciate it.
Post #373,121 by boxley 3/29/13 1:41:00 PM Reply	nope, you are not a racist, I get that I am just pointing out that if the issue was white people didn't have to pay and black people did, you would get that. It is an equality issue. Stealing from the rich is still theft Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
Post #373,159 by mmoffitt 3/30/13 10:50:45 AM Reply	s/stealing from rich/recovering stolen from/
Post #373,104 by drook 3/29/13 9:41:24 AM Reply	Unfortunate fact of our legal system Poor people generally can't afford the lawyers it takes to get a case to the Supreme Court. So laws generally aren't challenged until they affect rich people, or some interest group is able to establish standing for a class action. And as for the blood test before marriage issue: Why the "Marriage Blood Test"? Some people believe that the premarital blood test is to check blood types to be sure you and your future spouse are biologically compatible. (So far, there is no test to determine whether you are otherwise compatible!) While checking the blood type may be helpful in the event of pregnancy Â and it is routinely checked then in case a transfusion is needed and to check the Rh type Â it is not part of the routine premarital blood test. It is perfectly safe and acceptable for a person of one blood type to marry another with the same or a different blood type. Another myth is that the required blood testing is to make sure you and your betrothed are not related. In fact, in most locations, the standard premarital blood tests check for evidence of syphilis (now or in the past) and rubella (German measles). Screening for other diseases in future newlyweds has in some cases included tuberculosis, gonorrhea, and HIV; of these, only HIV can be detected by blood tests. Only two states have passed legislation requiring HIV testing before marriage, but those laws did not last long at least in part because of very low detection rates. The Policy Behind Testing The reason for syphilis testing is that detecting this disease before people marry may allow the infected person to be treated before the partner becomes infected. In addition, detecting and treating syphilis in the woman can prevent transmission of the disease and its complications to her fetus in the event of future pregnancy. In this way, transmission through the population could be reduced or even eliminated (though, of course, this assumed that sexual activity was occurring primarily among married people). When these programs began in the 1930s and 1940s in the United States, syphilis and other sexually transmitted diseases were reportedly very common, especially in big cities. There was considerable fear that syphilis could spread throughout the population Â that is, it was truly a public health concern. The discovery of a blood test that could identify past or current exposure to syphilis led to widespread screening programs targeting those about to marry. If evidence of infection was discovered, treatment could be required before the couple could marry. The Truth About Premarital Blood Testing By Robert H. Shmerling, M.D. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center http://www.intelihea...l?d=dmtHMSContent In other words, premarital blood testing was to prevent the spread of syphilis. Full stop. Unless you can show otherwise ... ? (More detail here, if you want: http://www.straightd...tal-blood-testing ) -- Drew
Post #373,105 by Another Scott 3/29/13 10:48:48 AM Reply	Thanks.
Post #373,115 by mmoffitt 3/29/13 1:01:53 PM Reply	You're almost too easy. Your link is sufficient. Your link acknowledges the Rubella test - which is what my wife had to have and what I alluded to earlier. Why test for German measles in an adult who has clearly survived the disease? Because it is very dangerous for - wait for it - fetuses! I admit your selected quote's author argues against it, but even he concedes that the rationale for ever having a Rubella test as a part of a marriage license application only makes sense if by applying for a marriage license, you are implicitly stating you are going to procreate. Which was my point in its entirety. So, thank you. This is from your link: Although rubella is typically a minor condition in adults, it is serious disease for a developing fetus, especially during the first trimester. It is associated with a high rate of birth defects. Identifying women who are not immune (from previous infection or vaccination) can determine who needs vaccination before pregnancy, a practice that could reduce the chances that a fetus will be affected. If a woman is not immune and has not been vaccinated prior to pregnancy, she will be instructed to avoid anyone who might have the disease. Q-E-fricking-D. :0)
Post #373,126 by drook 3/29/13 2:35:19 PM Reply	Your "tradition" goes back ... three generations? Also in that link, they didn't start the testing until the 30s, and it was started primarily because of syphilis. It's a tradition that doesn't go back all that far, and that was only secondarily about children. Note that the assumption they were making wasn't that you were getting married to have children, you were getting married to have sex. -- Drew
Post #373,129 by mmoffitt 3/29/13 3:16:19 PM Reply	Ya lost me. Note that the assumption they were making wasn't that you were getting married to have children, you were getting married to have sex. You don't care about Rubella results if you're only going to have sex. You care about Rubella results only if there's going to be a fetus. Sherif Girgis makes a pretty good case here in defense of traditional marriage: http://www.c-spanvid.../program/310722-1
Post #373,134 by drook 3/29/13 4:20:54 PM Reply	Repeat after me: syphilis It's why they started doing it. If you're going to make some point about the blood test "proving" what the "intent" of marriage "traditionally" is, you have to be talking about the reason they started doing it. Not the reasons they added on after. -- Drew
Post #373,137 by boxley 3/29/13 4:44:13 PM Reply	Marriage is because syphillis? kewl :-) Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
Post #373,160 by mmoffitt 3/30/13 10:52:14 AM Reply	Okay. They started Rubella testing because there was the presumption that marriage => children. Better?
Post #373,162 by crazy 3/30/13 11:04:41 AM Reply	Another slice off the shifting platform Don't want to be seen (don't care if you are) as a bigot (no matter how many passes you get from box when you doth protest so loudly) so you moved to the protect the fragile people who's lives will be destroyed when they see a gay couple kissing (ooo, how'd that statement FEEL. Gut level disgust. 2 gay GUYS now, not hot chicks). See how I don't need to bother to respond when you misquote other people to support your silliness? They show up and point out your bullshit sooner or later. kiss kiss.
Post #373,163 by drook 3/30/13 11:08:55 AM Reply	Marriage leads to children != marriage is for children -- Drew
Post #373,164 by crazy 3/30/13 11:12:54 AM Reply	Yup Too bad some people don't understand cause and effect, at least as represented by stats.
Post #373,106 by Another Scott 3/29/13 10:51:14 AM Reply	It was part of the discussion. I thought it was an interesting rebuttal to the argument presented in the Supreme Court that marriage was all/mostly/importantly/traditionally about procreation. It wasn't directed at you specifically. Sorry if you took offense, but I thought it was a well-stated case on the consequences of accepting that line of argument. Cheers, Scott.
Post #373,110 by crazy 3/29/13 12:25:56 PM Reply	I stopped reading at this point . You don't get to have your own facts. And the plain, simple fact of the matter is that, traditionally, As the fiddler said: TRADITION http://www.stlyrics....oof/tradition.htm Of course, it was being used to explain why you are not allowed to ask question and do as you're told. Your "facts" are cultural traditions you are attempting to ensure are always there. You don't have facts. You have traditions. So, you've abandoned your procreation control stance (others beat that very well for me, so no matter how many times you claim I don't respond to your particular line of bullshit at the moment, it doesn't matter when I don't bother), and you don't have facts, you have traditions. As just stated. Cool. Moving along. Thanks.
Post #373,116 by mmoffitt 3/29/13 1:02:40 PM Reply	Zing. http://forum.iwethey...iwt?postid=373115 Thanks again drook. ;0)
Post #373,165 by crazy 3/30/13 11:14:48 AM Reply	Yup, thanks where he corrects you. AGAIN. http://forum.iwethey...iwt?postid=373134
Post #373,139 by Ashton 3/29/13 5:47:26 PM Reply	As to Why Marry? and ... it's All about the cheeldrun? Variations on the 'data' within this thread, seem to be of the Class, Everything not prohibited is mandatory. Sub-Class: 'Course too ... All generalizations are false. Including this one. What it may be about (for a %sufficient?): see below Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.

Welcome to IWETHEY!