Email this topic to a friend Printer-friendly version of this topic Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)		Previous Topic | Next Topic
Conferences Off-Topic Forum (Protected)
Original message

HobbsofMI 15881 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-30-13, 09:20 AM (EST) "Marriage Without Pregnancy" Let our legal eagles break this down: New tack taken in briefs opposing gay marriage for the Supreme Court cases sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman   Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Subject     Author     Message Date     ID    As long as it applies to heterosexu... Estee 01-30-13 1  RE: Marriage Without Pregnancy AyaK 01-30-13 2    RE: Marriage Without Pregnancy Estee 01-30-13 3        RE: Marriage Without Pregnancy AyaK 01-30-13 7  RE: Marriage Without Pregnancy kidflash212 01-30-13 4    RE: Marriage Without Pregnancy Estee 01-30-13 5  RE: Marriage Without Pregnancy dabo 01-30-13 6  abolish marriage now! bondt007 01-30-13 8    RE: abolish marriage now! Estee 01-30-13 9        RE: abolish marriage now! bondt007 01-30-13 10            RE: abolish marriage now! AyaK 01-30-13 11                RE: abolish marriage now! cahaya 01-31-13 14                    RE: abolish marriage now! AyaK 01-31-13 15                        RE: abolish marriage now! Snidget 01-31-13 16                            RE: abolish marriage now! AyaK 01-31-13 17                                RE: abolish marriage now! Snidget 01-31-13 19                            RE: abolish marriage now! dabo 01-31-13 18                                RE: abolish marriage now! kidflash212 02-01-13 25                                    RE: abolish marriage now! dabo 02-01-13 26                        RE: abolish marriage now! kidflash212 01-31-13 20                            RE: abolish marriage now! AyaK 01-31-13 21                                Hitler Ate Sugar. Estee 01-31-13 22                                    RE: Hitler Ate Sugar. AyaK 02-01-13 23                                        RE: Hitler Ate Sugar. Estee 02-01-13 24                                            RE: Hitler Ate Sugar. AyaK 02-01-13 27                                                RE: Hitler Ate Sugar. cahaya 02-01-13 29                                                    Not Just The Crust. foonermints 02-01-13 30                                RE: abolish marriage now! dabo 02-02-13 31                                    RE: abolish marriage now! cahaya 02-02-13 32                                        RE: abolish marriage now! Starshine 02-03-13 33                                            RE: abolish marriage now! cahaya 02-03-13 34                                                RE: abolish marriage now! Starshine 02-03-13 35                                                    RE: abolish marriage now! cahaya 02-03-13 36                                                        Coincidence! Starshine 02-04-13 37                                                            RE: Coincidence! Estee 02-04-13 38                                                                RE: Coincidence! Starshine 02-04-13 39                                                                    RE: Coincidence! Estee 02-04-13 40                                                                        RE: Coincidence! Snidget 02-04-13 41                                                                            RE: Coincidence! cahaya 02-04-13 42                                                RE: abolish marriage now! AyaK 02-05-13 44                        RE: abolish marriage now! cahaya 02-01-13 28                            RE: abolish marriage now! AyaK 02-05-13 43                                RE: abolish marriage now! cahaya 02-05-13 45  Shazam! dabo 01-30-13 12  RE: Marriage Without Pregnancy foonermints 01-30-13 13

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Messages in this topic

Estee 53782 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-30-13, 09:46 AM (EST) 1. "As long as it applies to heterosexuals too. " So if you're female and can't carry or male without active sperm, you can't marry. If you're seniors who fall in love, you can't marry. If you're already married and suffer an injury which removes your ability to help conceive or carry, you are under immediate obligation to divorce. Sound fair? And by the way, this obligates teenagers to have lots and lots of unprotected sex. Not because many religions forbid use of birth control, but because it'll set them up perfectly and force them to get married! ...I could be reading this the wrong way, but... Next up: honeymoon suites, overbooking of. Hotels have no right to make money!   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

AyaK 9876 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-30-13, 11:51 AM (EST) 2. "RE: Marriage Without Pregnancy" LAST EDITED ON 01-30-13 AT 11:54 AM (EST) Actually, that's only a new tactic in Susan Estrich's mind. The idea that marriage is integrally linked to procreation has been at the center of all the legal arguments and court cases on gay marriage. Estrich, a Harvard Law grad, should know that, but maybe she was under deadline and out of ideas. What that argument addresses is that there ia a nondiscriminatory reason that states would choose to limit marriage to heterosexual couples -- because marriage provided a way to ameliorate the effects of unplanned pregnancy. The fact that some heterosexual couples are infertile is irrelevant; only heterosexual couples can have unplanned pregnancies. Thus, because there is a reason other than anti-homosexual animus that the state would choose to limit marriage to heterosexual couples, such a limitation on marriage is not illegal discrimination and should be permitted to stand. (However, the argument has no relevance to the question of whether DOMA should be permitted to stand, which is a federalism argument.) I can't say too much about this case because of my involvement in a related case, but I just want to say that, unlike Ms. Estrich's claim, I have NEVER seen a brief filed by the parties opposing gay marriage that claimed that "homosexuality is immoral." Do you know why? Because such an argument would be certain to lose. That doesn't mean that politicians haven't argued that (right, ex-Sen. Santorum?). But no court case has.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Estee 53782 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-30-13, 12:20 PM (EST) 3. "RE: Marriage Without Pregnancy" Because such an argument would be certain to lose. For an atheist, you have a disturbing amount of faith. Personally, I'm waiting on the 'health care goes against religious freedom' cases.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

AyaK 9876 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-30-13, 02:43 PM (EST) 7. "RE: Marriage Without Pregnancy" LAST EDITED ON 01-30-13 AT 03:00 PM (EST) You're right. Let me rephrase that: Because such an argument would be certain to lose before the Supreme Court. After all, the DC Circuit just bought the argument that the vacancies filled by recess appointments had to occur during the recess, an outside-the-mainstream argument discussed here.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

kidflash212 3556 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Thong Contest Judge" 01-30-13, 01:54 PM (EST) 4. "RE: Marriage Without Pregnancy" Polygamous opposite sex relationships could produce unintended pregnancies. Couldn't those children be burden on society as their argument states? Wouldn't allowing polygamy serve the state's interest in ameliorating the effects of unplanned pregnancy? I would say no since civil marriage has more to do with inheritance and other next of kin issues than it does with procreation. Capn2patch put me in motion!   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Estee 53782 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-30-13, 02:36 PM (EST) 5. "RE: Marriage Without Pregnancy" Don't forget tax breaks. I'm convinced there's at least a few politicians out there protesting marriage equality because they don't want to lose the extra income.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

dabo 24271 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-30-13, 02:40 PM (EST) 6. "RE: Marriage Without Pregnancy" Ah, the "threat of irresponsible procreation." It's not even an argument against "irresponsible procreation." Just an argument against allowing marriage in certain cases (same-sex marriage) where there is no presumed "threat of irresponsible procreation." If anything, this is simply an argument for continuing to allow marriages between opposite-sex couples. Grasping at straws.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

bondt007 3318 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Car Show Celebrity" 01-30-13, 02:44 PM (EST) 8. "abolish marriage now!" My DD is getting married in June. I am working on phrases like "...would you like fries with that" and "that's on aisle 3". No marriage = no wedding = ability to retire before 77. >Issued by "Q" and RollDdice   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Estee 53782 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-30-13, 03:29 PM (EST) 9. "RE: abolish marriage now!" Given your support of cutting back working hours in order to avoid petty benefits, try "Welcome to Walmart!" You'll fit right in. It sounds like you're paying for most of the wedding. Five figures or six? And if it's six, why?   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

bondt007 3318 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Car Show Celebrity" 01-30-13, 05:09 PM (EST) 10. "RE: abolish marriage now!" Excellent suggestion… I’ll get a discount on guns that way. Certainly not six figures. But even five on the lower side is meaningful, what with all of the state (California) and federal taxes sucking me dry... And when you add the word "Wedding" on to anything, it's different pricing. "I'd like 200 cupcakes, please" "OK, that'll be $300" "They are for a wedding" "...I mean $1300..."   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

AyaK 9876 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-30-13, 05:42 PM (EST) 11. "RE: abolish marriage now!" I told my daughters to elope.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

cahaya 18280 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-31-13, 02:35 AM (EST) 14. "RE: abolish marriage now!" LAST EDITED ON 01-31-13 AT 02:57 AM (EST) Marriage is about being partners in life with free expression of love for each other. Procreation is shared in marriage for those people who are capable of it and (we hope) who take care of the responsibilities that come with bringing new life into this world. Not always, though, is procreation desired between two people, one or both of whom are not ready to meet the responsibilities that come with it. Thus, birth control and legally defined abortions, even for those who might think that life begins with conception. Although procreation has long been associated with marriage, legally, socially and religiously, it is still only one facet of a lifetime partner commitment between two (and in some cultures, possibly more) people who wish to do so. And procreation does occur outside of marriage (for better or worse). Marriage and procreation are two completely different events, one marks a highly personal, legal, social and possibly religious milestone, while the other marks the event of a potential new life. Although my daughter is still only 8 years old, I think that I would advise her to follow both her heart and her mind, and where they don't agree, look more closely. When the time comes, it will be her life choice.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

AyaK 9876 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-31-13, 04:25 PM (EST) 15. "RE: abolish marriage now!" That's a nice theory of life . . . but legally irrelevant. The legally relevant question is why do states give special legal treatment to married couples? It can't be because of religion, because that would be an improper state purpose. Providing for children, however, is a proper state purpose. And it's hard to deny that there has been a traditional link between children and marriage -- to the extent that in many states a child born during a marriage was deemed to be the product of that marrriage EVEN IF the father could prove that he was not the biological father of the child. (In a handful of states, that irrebutable presumption lasted until this century.) The logic behind such a presumption was that the state didn't want to delve too deeply into the marital relationship -- which is why the marital right of privacy later provided the framework for the Supreme Court to strike down state restrictions on birth control in Griswold v. Commecticut.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Snidget 42611 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-31-13, 05:55 PM (EST) 16. "RE: abolish marriage now!" LAST EDITED ON 01-31-13 AT 05:56 PM (EST) While I do think that children may be a big part of why marriage got special status in societies, I have yet to hear of a tradition (legal, religious, moral, or cultural) where people unable to bear kids or that had all their kids die or any other thing that stops them from being a man and a woman with a kid(s) removes all the benefits of marriage. Now some of that may be that for a long time a woman had to be the property of some man or other and didn't matter if she was making babies at the time or not. Cutting 'em all loose because of a lack of babies probably was more a problem for society than just keeping 'em married to some dude or other that would have to feed them and keep them in line. If you say those people aren't procreating so they can't be protected then it seems only fair to say all people who aren't procreating must also give up all the protections that are only have ever been about children.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

AyaK 9876 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-31-13, 06:10 PM (EST) 17. "RE: abolish marriage now!" When my first wife and I married, we fully intended to have children. We found out two years into the marriage that, for reasons that I don't want to go into here, my wife was unable to have children. So, by your logic, should we have been given an automatic divorce at that time? If that's your argument, you can kiss the right of marital privacy (and, for that matter, Roe v. Wadee, which extended that concept to nonmarital opposite-sex relationships) goodbye.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Snidget 42611 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-31-13, 06:23 PM (EST) 19. "RE: abolish marriage now!" LAST EDITED ON 01-31-13 AT 06:25 PM (EST) I just don't think anyone wants to live with the consequences of "if you aren't procreating there is no reason to be married" even if a lot of marriage benefits were because it benefits the children and as a by-product just happens to benefit the adults even in cases where there are no kids. Just a word of warning, never try to run for office in NC if you are married to a woman you can't have kids with. Because if you did that here you would be declared a homosexual, they haven't yet figured out how to make that so you can't have the benefits of being married to a woman when you clearly have to be gay, yet, but they sure will try to keep you from being elected. ETA: I'm just saying if you are arguing marriage requires kids and if those individuals can't make biological baby without interference can't be married, what do you do with all the other people that can't make a biological baby without interference, why one group gets benefits and the other does not?   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

dabo 24271 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-31-13, 06:20 PM (EST) 18. "RE: abolish marriage now!" LAST EDITED ON 02-01-13 AT 03:56 PM (EST) Traditionally it's not the marriage issue but the family issue. Think The Waltons, large family, three generations in one house on property that provides the family with their livelihood. Now imagine the extended family (don't know Waltons trivia enough to take examples from the show), Grampa has a sister somewhere who married but never had children and so on. Her husband dies and Aunt May ends up moving in with her brother and his family. Mrs. Walton's brother and sister-in-law die in a terrible accident leaving two small children orphans, they go to live with the Waltons who are now their guardians. Grampa has passed along the property and business to his son who will pass it all on to his son (or sons) who wish to remain there and take charge, or perhaps to a daughter whose husband is interested in the lumber business. If Mr. and Mrs. Walton had never had children of their own they still had extended family and the prospect of becoming guardians, or of an adult nephew or niece wishing to come live on the mountain, and on and on. Marriage -> Family -> Extended Family   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

kidflash212 3556 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Thong Contest Judge" 02-01-13, 02:21 PM (EST) 25. "RE: abolish marriage now!" And why should there be a distinction between planned and unplanned pregnancies? If the states interest is providing for support of children there is no reason to differentiate between the two.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

dabo 24271 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 02-01-13, 02:49 PM (EST) 26. "RE: abolish marriage now!" The distinction in the brief is between, really, the possibility of pregnancy and the impossibility of pregnancy. Unplanned pregnancy, "irresponsible procreation," is simply language. Whether a pregnancy is planned or unplanned is of no interest to the state. What is of interest to the state is knowing the identity of the baby's father when the baby is born. Where a man and a woman are legally married the presumption is that the husband is the biological father. When the woman is unmarried the state still wants to know who is the biological father, takes her word for it. (DNA paternity testing wasn't in existence until recently to help out in this determination.)   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

kidflash212 3556 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Thong Contest Judge" 01-31-13, 07:26 PM (EST) 20. "RE: abolish marriage now!" The legally relevant question is why do states give special legal treatment to married couples? It can't be because of religion, because that would be an improper state purpose. Providing for children, however, is a proper state purpose... As unromantic as it sounds, I think the states give special treatment to married couples to provide orderly succession rights for property and estates. As I said above, polygamy is illegal even though children can result from those relationships. I believe the states interest in making polygamy illegal is keeping the courts from being clogged with cases deciding which spouse gets the house, which spouse gets the car, etc.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

AyaK 9876 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-31-13, 09:20 PM (EST) 21. "RE: abolish marriage now!" LAST EDITED ON 01-31-13 AT 09:23 PM (EST) I always think of King David and Osama bin Laden as examples of the problems of polygamy. The Torah/Bible goes on at length in 2 Samuel about all the problems caused by David's many children prior to his death. For example, Ammon raping his half-sister Tamar and then being killed in revenge by her full brother Absalom, which made Absalom the popular choice as successor. Of course, David couldn't stand for that, and ultimately came an uprising, in which David eventually prevailed. That left David's son Adonijah as the clear successor. But Bathsheba, who became David's favorite wife, wanted her own son Solomon to be David's successor instead of Adonijah -- and she finally got her wish with David's dying command. Solomon was so grateful that, instead of being merciful to Adonijah as his mother urged, he instead put Adonijah to death. Nice guy. Wise? Not so much. We saw something similar play out with Osama bin Laden, who was one of at least 54 children that his father had between wives and mistresses, and we know how he turned out. So forgive me, but I'll leave the polygamy to other societies. We already have enough murders.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Estee 53782 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-31-13, 09:33 PM (EST) 22. "Hitler Ate Sugar." For the record: I just rolled my eyes so hard, I sprained something. It's a trope. It applies.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

AyaK 9876 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 02-01-13, 02:06 AM (EST) 23. "RE: Hitler Ate Sugar." You didn't think I was seriously going to debate polygamy, did you?   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Estee 53782 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 02-01-13, 09:09 AM (EST) 24. "RE: Hitler Ate Sugar." I wasn't expecting you to suggest it's a prerequisite for murder either.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

AyaK 9876 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 02-01-13, 06:49 PM (EST) 27. "RE: Hitler Ate Sugar." Prerequisite? No, there are plenty of murders committed by non-polygamists as well.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

cahaya 18280 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 02-01-13, 09:49 PM (EST) 29. "RE: Hitler Ate Sugar." LAST EDITED ON 02-01-13 AT 09:50 PM (EST) Okay, looks this up, more murders committed by married or unmarried offenders? I don't have a solid clue, but I am certainly curious. No doubt the polygamists are almost invisible on the pie graph.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

foonermints 11742 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 02-01-13, 09:59 PM (EST) 30. "Not Just The Crust." »No doubt the polygamists are almost invisible on the pie graph.« They get all the pie points too. tiny little devil: Mommy said life was unfair, didn't she?   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

dabo 24271 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 02-02-13, 00:54 AM (EST) 31. "RE: abolish marriage now!" LAST EDITED ON 02-02-13 AT 02:13 AM (EST) Rulers killing off rival challengers is as old as the Bible. Even with a ruler clearly naming a successor the danger was still very real. Part of the problem, of course, was waiting for the old guy to die, no transition of power. The Ottoman Dynasty had a pretty fun very chaotic rule of succession for a couple of centuries, basically it was open warfare. How it worked was when a Sultan died every one of his sons who wanted the throne would be prepared with their followers to take it by force, the rivals would go to battle, when one son captured another son he would execute his brother (or half-brother), and when only one was left standing he would be Sultan. It only makes sense, the Sultan would never be safe otherwise.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

cahaya 18280 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 02-02-13, 01:13 AM (EST) 32. "RE: abolish marriage now!" Then, as Starshine would be glad (or not) to remind us, is the War of the Roses, Lancasters and Plantagenets, where England had no clear ruler of the throne.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Starshine 4796 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Stuff Magazine Centerfold" 02-03-13, 02:44 PM (EST) 33. "RE: abolish marriage now!" Wars Lancaster and York, they were both Plantagenets. Both counties still use their roses as their symbols Aye or Stephen vs Matilda It's interesting that in some cultures, for example Ancient Egypt or Greece one used ones family members to spread and enforce ones power by giving them important governmental/religious posts, whereas in others like Ancient Persia or the Ottomans one had to eliminate ones family to hang on to power.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

cahaya 18280 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 02-03-13, 03:13 PM (EST) 34. "RE: abolish marriage now!" My wargaming friends and I often played this Kingmaker game, based on the War of the Roses, white and red, now considered a long-time classic board game.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Starshine 4796 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Stuff Magazine Centerfold" 02-03-13, 03:56 PM (EST) 35. "RE: abolish marriage now!" Oh I hadn't thought of that for ages, it really was a great game. My main memory was that Warwick the Kingmaker is a winning piece!   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

cahaya 18280 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 02-03-13, 06:27 PM (EST) 36. "RE: abolish marriage now!" And there are game rules about convening and holding Parliament and handing out titles, which requires some player-with-player negotiation in forming a majority. Here's a good pair of Kingmaker war offices that, if you can get them both, you can win the game. I think we went way off-topic from the OP here, but hey, this is OT.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Starshine 4796 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Stuff Magazine Centerfold" 02-04-13, 08:25 AM (EST) 37. "Coincidence!" A skeleton found beneath a Leicester car park has been confirmed as that of English king Richard III. The last of the Lancastrian Kings! A little OT I suppose   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Estee 53782 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 02-04-13, 09:13 AM (EST) 38. "RE: Coincidence!" How much did they charge him for parking?   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Starshine 4796 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Stuff Magazine Centerfold" 02-04-13, 10:12 AM (EST) 39. "RE: Coincidence!" Less than they charged this chap   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Estee 53782 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 02-04-13, 10:35 AM (EST) 40. "RE: Coincidence!" I don't get it. If that happens in Manhattan, no one works around the vehicle. Someone picks the car up, throws it into the East River, and tells the driver to go fetch. And this is accepted as the price you pay for parking in that kind of spot -- unless you're from out of town, in which case, you retire to Kansas and spend the rest of your life voting against anyone who's ever been to a coast. But if you're a native, you know it's just what happens. And so is punching out the operator of the car flinger. In friendlier cases, should you park in a work zone or any area which is about to be used by the city's duly-paying triplicate filers -- studio shoots, street fairs, foot or bike races, politicians invading, and so on -- the city will not always tow your car to the impound yard. Sometimes they'll just tow it to the nearest open parking spot and leave it there. Without telling you. And if you get back and figure out what happened, your job is then to locate said nearest open parking spot. Which, given that you're in Manhattan, could be Hoboken. Scavenger hunt!   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Snidget 42611 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 02-04-13, 01:25 PM (EST) 41. "RE: Coincidence!" Small town version. Was at a friend's house for a party, it seemed it was not the only party on the block as the street was pretty full. Neighbor walked over as we were outside and looked really tired and stressed. We asked if we needed to turn it down and she said no, just her baby was sick and someone parked across the end of her driveway so she can't get the baby more medicine and did any of us owned the car. None of us did, but it was a small car, and several of the guys at the party were large and burly. So they just went out front, picked up the car and put in an open spot nearby and across the street, facing the original direction which was now the wrong direction.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

cahaya 18280 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 02-04-13, 04:57 PM (EST) 42. "RE: Coincidence!" KL version. Live half a block next to a grade school and cars are parked illegally everywhere nearby and in your driveway at very certain times of the day. I got to know some of the school parents by being outside with them when school let out and I never had any trouble getting in or out when I needed to. One time, though, a guy parked in front of our house, for a day-long school event and I left him a kind note on the windshield.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

AyaK 9876 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 02-05-13, 03:48 PM (EST) 44. "RE: abolish marriage now!" Kingmaker was one of the few Avalon-Hill games that I could stand.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

cahaya 18280 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 02-01-13, 09:14 PM (EST) 28. "RE: abolish marriage now!" That's a nice theory of life . . . but legally irrelevant. We both already know that it's not a theory. It's a practice, a longstanding historical practice with precedence. You ask why special legal treatment is given to married couples, and I'll tell you that it is less related to religion and various worldview traditions than it is to economics. We can debate this point if you want to, but I think this is something we agree on. Looking at the Griswold case, I do agree with the courts regarding marital privacy, but I leave open the question of the rights of the father in terms of co-equal creation of a new life resulting in pregnancy. In simple ethics, it takes two to create one, and these two share equal decision-making responsibilty.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

AyaK 9876 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 02-05-13, 03:45 PM (EST) 43. "RE: abolish marriage now!" >We can debate this point if you want to, but I think this is something we agree on. If your argument is that we view a family as a separate economic unit, akin to a partnership, then we agree. Looking at the Griswold case, I do agree with the courts regarding marital privacy, but I leave open the question of the rights of the father in terms of co-equal creation of a new life resulting in pregnancy. In simple ethics, it takes two to create one, and these two share equal decision-making responsibilty. How do you break a tie vote in this simple ethics case? Say equal decision-making participant #1 wants to keep the baby and equal decision-making participant #2 does not. Is there a default rule? Is there a tiebreaking procedure? Does the gender of equal decision-making participant #1 and #2 matter? Does fetal health matter?   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

cahaya 18280 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 02-05-13, 04:24 PM (EST) 45. "RE: abolish marriage now!" Yes on all counts. The court has decided that, all other things being equal, including the decision-making of both partners in creating a new life, the one who bears a new life within their bodily being assumes the greatest responsibility.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

dabo 24271 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-30-13, 08:44 PM (EST) 12. "Shazam!" Jim Nabors gets married despite inability to irresponsibly procreate. Said Nabors, "I've never made a huge secret of it at all." No word mentioned about whether he would be changing his name to Cadwallader.   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

foonermints 11742 desperate attention whore postings DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold" 01-30-13, 11:49 PM (EST) 13. "RE: Marriage Without Pregnancy" tiny little devil: sometimes things go wrong   Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Lock | Archive | Remove

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Select another forum Lobby The Amazing Race Message Board Forums (Conference)   |--The Amazing Race Fanatics Forum (Protected)   |--The Amazing Race Basher Forum (Protected)   |--The Amazing Race Spoiler/Speculation Forum (Protected) American Idol Message Board Forums (Conference)   |--American Idol General Discussion Forum (Protected)   |--American Idol Individual Contestant and Judge Discussion Forum (Protected) The Apprentice Message Board Forums (Conference)   |--The Apprentice General Discussion Forum (Protected)   |--The Apprentice Spoilers/Speculation Forum (Protected)   |--The Apprentice: Martha Stewart General Discussion Forum (Protected) Big Brother Message Board Forums (Conference)   |--Big Brother Fanatic Forum (Protected)   |--Big Brother Bashers Forum (Protected)   |--Big Brother Live Feed Updates And Spoilers (Protected) The Mole Message Board Forums (Conference)   |--The Mole General Discussion Forum (Protected)   |--The Mole Clues & Spoilers Forum (Protected) Survivor Message Board Forums (Conference)   |--Survivor Fanatic Forum (Protected)   |--Survivor Basher Forum (Protected)   |--Survivor Spoilers Forum (Protected)   |--Survivor Games Forum (Protected)   |--Spoiler Island Fantasy Game Forum (Protected)   |--Survivor 6 Spoiler/Speculation Forum (Protected)   |--Survivor 8 Spoilers Forum (Protected)   |--Survivor Book Forum (Protected)   |--SurvivorMarket Forum (Public) Other Reality TV Shows (Conference)   |--America's Got Talent Forum (Protected)   |--America's Next Top Model Forum (Protected)   |--The Bachelor / The Bachelorette Forum (Protected)   |--The Biggest Loser Forum (Protected)   |--Dancing with the Stars Forum (Protected)   |--Flavor of Love / I Love New York Forum (Protected)   |--I'm a Celebrity... Get Me Out of Here! Forum (Protected)   |--Jon & Kate Plus 8 Forum (Protected)   |--Hell's Kitchen Forum (Protected)   |--HGTV Design Star Forum (Protected)   |--Laguna Beach / The Hills Forum (Protected)   |--Project Runway Forum (Protected)   |--The Real Housewives Forum (Protected)   |--The Real World / Road Rules Forum (Protected)   |--So You Think You Can Dance Forum (Protected)   |--Top Chef Forum (Protected)   |--Trading Spouses / Wife Swap Forum (Protected)   |--Other Reality TV Shows Forum (Protected) Non-Reality TV Shows Forums (Conference)   |--24 Forum (Protected)   |--Desperate Housewives Forum (Protected)   |--Grey's Anatomy Forum (Protected)   |--Heroes Forum (Protected)   |--Lost Forum (Protected)   |--Other Non-Reality TV Shows Forum (Protected)   |--Non-Reality Daytime Soap Shows Forum (Protected) Off Topic (Conference)   |--Temporary Off Topic Forum (Protected)   |--The Help Forum (Protected)   |--Off-Topic Forum (Protected)   |--Off-Topic Sports Forum (Protected)   |--Story Competitions Forum (Protected) Other Inactive Reality TV Shows (Conference)   |--Age Of Love Forum (Protected)   |--Average Joe Forum (Protected)   |--Beauty and the Geek Forum (Protected)   |--Beg, Borrow, & Deal (Protected)   |--The Benefactor Forum (Protected)   |--Boy Meets Boy Forum (Protected)   |--The Casino Forum (Protected)   |--The Contender Forum (Protected)   |--Cupid Forum (Protected)   |--Fame Forum (Protected)   |--For Love Or Money Forum (Protected)   |--Joe Millionaire Forum (Protected)   |--Grease: You're the One That I Want Forum (Protected)   |--Kid Nation Forum (Protected)   |--Last Comic Standing Forum (Protected)   |--Mad Mad House Forum (Protected)   |--My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance Forum (Protected)   |--Nashville Star Forum (Protected)   |--Next Action Star Forum (Protected)   |--On The Lot Forum (Protected)   |--Outback Jack Forum (Protected)   |--Paradise Hotel Forum (Protected)   |--Pirate Master Forum (Protected)   |--Playing It Straight Forum (Protected)   |--The Rebel Billionaire Forum (Protected)   |--Rock Star (Protected)   |--Skating With Celebrities Forum (Protected)   |--The Simple Life (Protected)   |--Superstars of Dance Forum (Protected)   |--The Surreal Life Forum (Protected)   |--Treasure Hunters Forum (Protected)   |--Wickedly Perfect Forum (Protected)   |--Joe Schmo Forum (Protected)   |--Todd TV Forum (Protected)   |--The Real Gilligan's Island (Protected)   |--Forever Eden Forum (Protected) Starting Over Message Board Forums (Conference)   |--Starting Over General Discussion Forum (Protected)   |--Starting Over Individual Houseguest Discussion Forum (Protected)   |--Starting Over Spoilers Forum (Protected) TemptationIslandSucks.com Message Board Forums (Conference)   |--Temptation Island Everything (Protected) TheOsbournesSucks.com Message Board Forums (Conference)   |--The Osbournes Everything Forum (Protected) BootCampBites.com Message Board Forums (Conference)   |--Boot Camp Spoiler/Speculation Forum (Protected)   |--Boot Camp Rant/Rave Forum (Protected) LoveCruiseSinks.com Message Board Forums (Conference)   |--Love Cruise Everything (Protected) Push-Nevada.net.com Message Board Forums (Conference)   |--Push, Nevada General Discussion Forum (Protected)   |--Push, Nevada Clue & Hint Forum (Protected) Inactive Forums (Conference)   |--BlowsVivor Forum (Protected)   |--2002 RealityTVWorld Blowie Award Nomination Forum (Protected)   |--September Eleven Forum (Protected)   |--Cornertime Forum (Public)   |--OLD The Amazing Race Basher Forum (Protected)   |--Survivor II: The Australian Outback Forum (Protected) TEMPORARY FORUMS (Conference)   |--Temporary The Amazing Race Fanatics Forum (Protected)   |--Temporary The Amazing Race Basher Forum (Protected)   |--Temporary The Amazing Race Spoiler/Speculation Forum (Protected)   |--Temporary America's Next Top Model Forum (Protected)   |--Temporary American Idol General Discussion Forum (Protected)   |--Temporary American Idol Individual Contestant and Judge Discussion Forum (Protected)   |--Temporary The Bachelor / The Bachelorette Forum (Public)   |--Temporary The Biggest Loser Forum (Protected)   |--Temporary Laguna Beach / The Hills Forum (Protected)   |--Temporary Other Reality TV Shows Forum (Protected)   |--Temporary Non-Reality TV Shows Forum (Protected)   |--Temporary Survivor Basher Forum (Protected)   |--Temporary Dancing with the Stars Forum (Protected)   |--Temporary Top Chef Forum (Protected)   |--Temporary Survivor Spoilers Forum (Protected)   |--Temporary Survivor Fanatic Forum (Protected)