350 (more) reasons to dislike Karen

Usual -- I ask again: if you don't believe there are privileges
to marriage, why should anyone go to the expense and trouble of
getting married?

I'll try to find the original article which estimates about 350
specific privileges -- I read it some time ago. I don't think
it really matters how many specific ones you find; certainly anyone
would agree there _are_ legal, financial, and social privileges
given to married couples which are denied to singles.
And why would the number of privileges given to married couples be
a reason to dislike me? I don't get any of them. Perhaps I should
say that they are a reason to dislike YOU, if you are married.

Rat
<snip>
 >> Stay informed about: 350 (more) reasons to dislike Karen 

Just Google on "350 privileges" and "marriage".

Turns out that was for the Civil Union in Massachusetts.
The actual number of benefits for marriage are more like
1,400 -- it's worse.
 >> Stay informed about: 350 (more) reasons to dislike Karen 

usual suspect wrote:

<snip>

> The question, for you, has already been answered at least twice.

Three times. I have married three times, the last being a successful
marriage of 20 years, to Swan.

> You
> know you can marry. You just don't want to live in society's norms.

I do live by society's norms. Swan and I live a very normal, very
ordinary, productive, middle-class life. The ONLY major difference
between us and the vast majority of other people around us is the
gender of our partner. Our marriage is just like that of other
people. It is just not recognized as such by law.

Rat
 >> Stay informed about: 350 (more) reasons to dislike Karen 

degeneRat wrote:
> Just Google on "350 privileges" and "marriage".

I did.

> Turns out that was for the Civil Union in Massachusetts.

You could at least give a link so we're on the same page.

> The actual number of benefits for marriage are more like
> 1,400 -- it's worse.

What I found after looking through several links was:
In the United States, marriage is a restricted institution in
which only one man and one woman may be joined. There are 1,049
federal statutes governing benefits, rights, and privileges for
such legally married couples, and every state has up to 350
similar laws.

It doesn't list any of them -- it just alludes to different statutes.
Knowing how Byzantine our laws and codes are, I think it's safe to
assume that many of those overlap each other. The point remains: I want
to know what those specific rights, benefits, and privileges are.
 >> Stay informed about: 350 (more) reasons to dislike Karen 

degeneRat & Skank wrote:

>> The question, for you, has already been answered at least twice.
>
> Three times.

No, twice.

> I have married three times,

Twice.

> the last being a successful

You mean "sham"...

> marriage of 20 years, to Swan.

It's not marriage in any sense of the word. Your state doesn't
acknowledge it -- though one of the more enthusaistic and less-bright
employees in Sandoval County just pulled a Newsom and has started
issuing licenses to homosexual couples. I wonder if Bill Richardson or
any of your other state officials will show bigger cajones than Arnold
has so far.

>> You know you can marry. You just don't want to live in society's norms.
>
> I do live by society's norms.

No, Karen, you are the most marginal person in usenet history.

> Swan and I live a very normal, very
> ordinary, productive, middle-class life.

No, you don't. Most normal, ordinary people don't abandon or hate
children or glorify bestiality or pedophilia. You're atypical and abnormal.

> The ONLY major difference
> between us and the vast majority of other people around us is the
> gender of our partner.

Sex, not gender.

> Our marriage is just like that of other
> people.

It's not a marriage.

> It is just not recognized as such by law.

Or by church, or by fellow citizen.
 >> Stay informed about: 350 (more) reasons to dislike Karen 

Rat & Swan wrote:
>
> Usual -- I ask again: if you don't believe there are privileges
> to marriage,

Strawman, bitch. He didn't say he doesn't believe
there are privileges to marriage.

Why did you lie? A strawman argument, which is what
you just did, is a form of lying. Why did you lie?

> why should anyone go to the expense and trouble of
> getting married?
 >> Stay informed about: 350 (more) reasons to dislike Karen 

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
> Just Google on "350 privileges" and "marriage".
>
> Turns out that was for the Civil Union in Massachusetts.
> The actual number of benefits for marriage are more like
> 1,400 -- it's worse.

No, you stupid lying cunt. That "1400" figure is the
same as what I elaborated from the GAO letter to Henry
Hyde, and as you *clearly* missed and STILL don't
comprehend:

Finally, no conclusions can be drawn, from our
identification of a law as one in which marital
status is a factor, concerning the effect of the law
on married people versus single people. A particular
law may create either advantages or disadvantages
for those who are married, or may apply to both
married and single people. For example, those who
are unmarried fare better than their married
counterparts under the so-called marriage penalty
provisions of the tax laws, while married couples
enjoy estate tax benefits not available to the
unmarried. Other laws apply both to married and
single people by virtue of terms like “survivors,”
“relatives,” “family,” and “household.”

You have lied again, Karen. This "1400" figure refers
to the 1,049 laws mentioned in the letter from Barry R.
Bedrick to Rep. Henry Hyde, and Bedrick makes
explicitly clear in his letter that one may NOT
conclude that these laws all are beneficial to married
couples; rather, one may conclude only that marriage
figures the wording of the law.

You're giving more and more evidence of your stupidity
and lack of intelligence and lack of attention to
detail every day. You still haven't read the letter,
and it's quite clear you haven't.

Support your claim that there are "more like 1,400"
laws that provide a BENEFIT to married people. Support
your claim, cunt: right now.
 >> Stay informed about: 350 (more) reasons to dislike Karen 

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>>
>> Just Google on "350 privileges" and "marriage".
>>
>> Turns out that was for the Civil Union in Massachusetts.
>> The actual number of benefits for marriage are more like
>> 1,400 -- it's worse.
>
>
> No, you stupid lying cunt. That "1400" figure is the same as what I
> elaborated from the GAO letter to Henry Hyde, and as you *clearly*
> missed and STILL don't comprehend:
>
> Finally, no conclusions can be drawn, from our
> identification of a law as one in which marital
> status is a factor, concerning the effect of the law
> on married people versus single people. A particular
> law may create either advantages or disadvantages
> for those who are married, or may apply to both
> married and single people. For example, those who
> are unmarried fare better than their married
> counterparts under the so-called marriage penalty
> provisions of the tax laws, while married couples
> enjoy estate tax benefits not available to the
> unmarried. Other laws apply both to married and
> single people by virtue of terms like “survivors,”
> “relatives,” “family,” and “household.”
>
> You have lied again, Karen. This "1400" figure refers to the 1,049 laws
> mentioned in the letter from Barry R. Bedrick to Rep. Henry Hyde, and
> Bedrick makes explicitly clear in his letter that one may NOT conclude
> that these laws all are beneficial to married couples; rather, one may
> conclude only that marriage figures the wording of the law.
>
> You're giving more and more evidence of your stupidity and lack of
> intelligence and lack of attention to detail every day. You still
> haven't read the letter, and it's quite clear you haven't.
>
> Support your claim that there are "more like 1,400" laws that provide a
> BENEFIT to married people. Support your claim, cunt: right now.

Hehe, I'd be satisfied if she could support her original 350. This is
reminding me of Lesley's beef math. Next time Karen responds, it'll be
5800 privileges.
 >> Stay informed about: 350 (more) reasons to dislike Karen 

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> usual suspect wrote:
>
>> degeneRat wrote:
>>
>>> Just Google on "350 privileges" and "marriage".
>>
>>
>>
>> I did.
>>
>>> Turns out that was for the Civil Union in Massachusetts.
>>
>>
>>
>> You could at least give a link so we're on the same page.
>>
>>> The actual number of benefits for marriage are more like
>>> 1,400 -- it's worse.
>>
>>
>>
>> What I found after looking through several links was:
>> In the United States, marriage is a restricted institution in
>> which only one man and one woman may be joined. There are 1,049
>> federal statutes governing benefits, rights, and privileges for
>> such legally married couples, and every state has up to 350
>> similar laws.
>>
>> It doesn't list any of them -- it just alludes to different statutes.
>> Knowing how Byzantine our laws and codes are, I think it's safe to
>> assume that many of those overlap each other. The point remains: I
>> want to know what those specific rights, benefits, and privileges are.
>
>
>
> Swan here. I can list several right now.

Fuck off. Your name is Sylvia.

Fuck off again. *Karen*, not you, was asked to support
her "about 350" number. So far, she hasn't even
attempted it.
 >> Stay informed about: 350 (more) reasons to dislike Karen