IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New How about mine?
I divorced my wife of 20 years a few years ago. We had a miserable time together, I stayed until the kids were grown up.

THEN I married my true love, who I also had kids with, who are also grown up (hey, kids, the next generation, without marriage, what a concept). I had a vasectomy before it, so according to the supreme court argument from "your" side, I would not qualify for a real marriage.

It was the best experience of my life, and every day I am more and more happy with the decision.

Without it, I'd certainly be a drag on society. I'd be costing you in taxes like you would not believe.

But as far as you are concerned, no benefit.
New No societal benefit != no benefit.
I'm happy for you. I mean that. I honestly don't think that personal relationships have any place in the drafting of public policy. What I'm trying to say (and not well at all apparently) is that when the reasonableness of presumptions about human relationships change and there are policies that have been drafted regarding those relationships as a consequence of the reasonable assumptions about those relationships, then the policies must change.

If we wipe all "marital benefits" from the law, we might be a better society. We might draft legislation in their sted that supported families. I'm not saying same-sex married couples cannot contribute to society. I'm saying that their "marriage" cannot contribute in the same way that heterosexual marriage can contribute. And because existing "marriage laws" were drafted with the expectation that children would result, those laws are no longer sane. But that might be a good thing, if we're not afraid to change the laws that were based nominally on "marriage". Instead, we could draft laws on what society actually cares about: a continuing of society.
     Survey on DOMA. - (Another Scott) - (114)
         Done. -NT - (mmoffitt)
         Done. -NT - (hnick)
         Also done. -NT - (Andrew Grygus)
         Done also. -NT - (a6l6e6x)
         Seriously done! -NT - (folkert)
         Check - (drook) - (106)
             Affects the tax base. - (mmoffitt) - (11)
                 Bzzzzt, thank you for playing - (drook) - (9)
                     I think he means the actual case at hand. - (Another Scott) - (7)
                         That's *her* standing - (drook) - (6)
                             I think the argument is... - (Another Scott) - (5)
                                 Even if true ... - (drook)
                                 That's as may be... - (malraux) - (3)
                                     Now you're getting there. But, ... - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                         why pay a penalty for not being single? -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                             There's a negative economic impact in cohabitation. - (mmoffitt)
                     I was unclear. - (mmoffitt)
                 costly to the taxpayer? It's not your money - (boxley)
             But it *will* affect you! - (pwhysall) - (6)
                 Are you SURE you don't live here? - (hnick) - (5)
                     Even up in the north... - (folkert) - (4)
                         Huh, wha? I've never been to the Netherlands! -NT - (CRConrad) - (3)
                             Ummm... - (folkert) - (2)
                                 I've never Reformed any Churchies either! -NT - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                     Jussa so's yews noes... - (folkert)
             WOW. - (mmoffitt) - (86)
                 Um... Justice? - (hnick) - (85)
                     Nonsense. Did they have kids? - (mmoffitt) - (84)
                         Really? - (Another Scott) - (2)
                             Maybe in the short term. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                 The number you want is "new household formation". - (Another Scott)
                         so you are one of them - (boxley)
                         Re: Nonsense. Did they have kids? - (hnick) - (58)
                             Sans kids, what are the societal benefits of marriage? - (mmoffitt) - (57)
                                 I remember arguing with Ben why atheists want to marry - (boxley) - (1)
                                     Man, I am *NOT* making my point about marriage. - (mmoffitt)
                                 Re: Sans kids, what are the societal benefits of marriage? - (Another Scott) - (54)
                                     So what? - (mmoffitt) - (53)
                                         Re: So what? - (Another Scott) - (52)
                                             :0) - (mmoffitt) - (51)
                                                 That's rough. - (Another Scott) - (50)
                                                     I don't think your marriage is a sham marriage. - (mmoffitt) - (49)
                                                         How about mine? - (crazy) - (1)
                                                             No societal benefit != no benefit. - (mmoffitt)
                                                         I wasn't pointing at you specifically. - (Another Scott) - (46)
                                                             No. Come on, Scott, have I really been that unclear? - (mmoffitt) - (45)
                                                                 There's a difference between "expected" and "the purpose" - (drook) - (3)
                                                                     Thank you. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                                                         I think it went off the rails here. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                                             Yep, that was subjective. - (mmoffitt)
                                                                 We're talking past each other. - (Another Scott) - (40)
                                                                     I think that's slightly disingenuous. - (mmoffitt) - (39)
                                                                         See above. I don't know how to say more... -NT - (Another Scott) - (27)
                                                                             Dude, Seriously? - (mmoffitt) - (26)
                                                                                 Expectations change. - (Another Scott) - (25)
                                                                                     An equal protection claim assumes the result. - (mmoffitt) - (24)
                                                                                         you are confused - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                                             Yeah, I didn't get a call. Stupid b*stards. :0) -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                                                         BZZT - sorry, elementary logic lacking. - (CRConrad) - (21)
                                                                                             on A3) dont forget to steal all their stuff as well. -NT - (boxley)
                                                                                             First, I never said "reproduction was a requirement". - (mmoffitt) - (19)
                                                                                                 On your addendum. - (Another Scott)
                                                                                                 Yes you did. But never mind that; let's talk people in stead - (CRConrad) - (17)
                                                                                                     My last bit. A little clarification. - (mmoffitt) - (16)
                                                                                                         Wake up. - (Another Scott) - (9)
                                                                                                             Racial discrimination is a different issue entirely. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (7)
                                                                                                                 Equal protection is Equal protection. QED. -NT - (Another Scott) - (6)
                                                                                                                     Can we discriminate against polygamists? - (mmoffitt) - (5)
                                                                                                                         Is polygamist marriage legal in the US? - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                                                                                             How about Amendment 10? - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                                                                                                 was legal in utah before statehood - (boxley)
                                                                                                                         uh, no. Just wont allow them to get stamped by the gummint -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                                                                             Concur. The state no longer has an interest in marriage. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                                                                             Re: Wake up. ... Interesting that they cited Korematsu - (Ashton)
                                                                                                         A distinction without a difference. - (CRConrad) - (4)
                                                                                                             And there it is. - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                                                                                                 Not assume, *declare* - (drook) - (2)
                                                                                                                     Oh, he won't answer this one - (crazy)
                                                                                                                     Where and when was this declaration made? - (mmoffitt)
                                                                                                         Sorry, you still lost about six levels ago. - (CRConrad)
                                                                         state involvement in marriage was about division of property - (boxley) - (10)
                                                                             Among DESCENDANTS, right? - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                                                                 absolutely, now with dna you dont need contracts to - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                                     I'm with you. - (mmoffitt)
                                                                             <sigh> - (Another Scott) - (6)
                                                                                 why, I was right that time as well :-) -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                                     Heh. No. :-) -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                                                 How'd I miss that thread? ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                                                                     Just lucky I guess. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                                                         The best part is... - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                                                             Indeed! -NT - (Another Scott)
                         Things we have: "adoption", "artificial insemination"... - (malraux) - (20)
                             Adoption and Artificial insemination rely on others. - (mmoffitt) - (19)
                                 "Zero chance" is BS - (malraux) - (18)
                                     Drop it, it's not about sex - (drook) - (9)
                                         He's only talking about the sex. -NT - (CRConrad) - (8)
                                             No, I'm not. Everyone else is. - (mmoffitt) - (7)
                                                 now I'm confused - (boxley) - (1)
                                                     No. - (mmoffitt)
                                                 Yes you are, of course. Straight hetero making-babies sex. - (CRConrad) - (4)
                                                     Um, No. - (mmoffitt) - (3)
                                                         thats one convert :-) -NT - (boxley)
                                                         Succinct, sure -- but above all, WRONG. - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                             I'm aware of the shady company I'm keeping. - (mmoffitt)
                                     I'll answer. Again. - (mmoffitt) - (7)
                                         what savings - (boxley) - (1)
                                             I'm on your side. - (mmoffitt)
                                         That sounds convoluted and far-fetched. - (CRConrad) - (4)
                                             no, he is pissed because he cant steal dead peoples money -NT - (boxley)
                                             I'm a homophobe because I want ... - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                                 Back-pedaling much? - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                     If you change premises, you have to change conclusions. -NT - (mmoffitt)
         Done ... to a crisp. - (Ashton) - (1)
             Methinks this thread (also) is done to a crisp. - (Ashton)

Eschew obfuscation.
129 ms