This_person
Well-Known Member
In what universe? Was no one married before the state got involved in registering relationships?
Ted and Kid and Sarah...
- Thread starter Larry Gude
- Start date
By todays standards, No
This_person
Well-Known Member
Then, not only do we have a differing view on what marriage is, we have a differing view on what marriage always has been.
When you say, "by today's standards", we have modified today's standards away from long-standing standards, which is the real problem here.
CalvertNewb
New Member
So you don't imagine that the profit over say a 8 year term conservatively every other weekend plus dining expenses, greens fees and other fees could add up to something not insignificant?
This_person
Well-Known Member
Well, he's not paying himself those fees, and I certainly hope the SS are not paying the rates of his places, but rather are living within per diem. They certainly would be expected to anywhere else, so I'm not sure why this would be different.
So, we're talking about SS hotel rooms. For a multi-billionaire, no I do not think the profit on the rooms (a few hundred bucks a week, maybe, at the very very tops?) would amount to a hill of beans to him. Especially if, as Larry asked earlier, the majority of the rooms would be filled anyway by someone else.
You can't imagine that it's probably not one penny different that it would have been anyway? In fact, I've wondered if, because of the security issues, if a lot of guests are not being excluded when Trumps entourage is there....that it's possible he's actually hurting the weekend gross.
I'm sure some enterprising investigative reporter will get to the bottom line of it all. *snort*
Last edited:
Toxick
Splat
Thus, they're not legally married - thus the argument is back in La-La-Land.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Possible in what universe? Come on, man.
This_person
Well-Known Member
That's a title, not a "thing".
They could get the vast majority of the perks (without the disadvantages) through other legal means. That's not La La Land, that's fact.
black dog
Free America
Yep... One of my sisters fought for well over 10 years for equal marriage rights, a few years after they were married in FL my sister wanted a divorce.. Funniest $hit ever came out of her mouth when it was time for her to give up a cut of the her house, pension, savings,. Investments and so on.
I enjoyed it way to much.
Toxick
Splat
That's debatable ... but that's not the argument. The argument is that they want to be "Married".
Not an equivalent of married. Not analogous to married. Married.
The part of your argument that I'm calling ridiculous, is when you say something laughable like: "They can get married... just not to each other". As if it's some sort of "equality", or concession that you're willing to dole out and The Gays should be good and damn grateful for it.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I think our disagreement comes in the form of what "married" is. I do not see registering my relationship as being "married". Not all states have always required a license, as "common-law" was sufficient. Even today, not all states have the same requirements for a marriage license/certificate.
The reason I say they can get married is because they could. But, the person they chose to marry had to fit the requirements. The same is true today - if the person is too young for the given state, or too closely related, or already married to someone else, or you're trying to marry too many people at once, you can't do it. Is state X violating state Y people's rights, because they have different age requirements? Of course not.
"Marriage" had a definition, and still does. If the person you want to marry doesn't fit in the definition, you can't marry that person. Or, at least, you can't register that relationship with the government.
Toxick
Splat
And herein is my issue with what you said.
I submit that if someone says a person "can get married", there is an implied "to the person whom they choose" tacked onto the end of that.
If I can't marry whomever I like, then I am being discriminated against. Plain and simple.
Personally, I would argue that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all, and people should pair (or group) up however they see fit, and its nobody's business except their own (I should hope I don't have to specify that I'm referring to consenting adult human beings).
And while I'm arguing that, I'd also argue that I want a Jaguar F-Type, which would be just as fruitful.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Marriage is a contract including property rights, responsibilities, etc. The gummint absolutely should be involved. It, generally, says how old someone needs to be to enter into a contract and may address citizenship and blood relationship. I am ALL for the gummint prohibiting some marriages. No cousins, you must be at least 21 (in my view) and I'd be fine with blood and neurological tests as well as psychological evaluation before any breeding goes on.
Toxick
Splat
Larry Gude
Strung Out
black dog
Free America
No First Cousins? How would the population grow from Frederick Co to Western MD ?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
You write your own material, don't you?
black dog
Free America
I have alot of family up there. Lots of family.. spent lots of time I'll there in Frederick Co as a kid and young man. You know the strip mine that Lehigh owns and the Crum farm at the Y where old Daysville Rd is blocked off?
CalvertNewb
New Member
This fees are still going back to his companies
That fact that you are profiting from something prohibited is not determined by the amount of money you take in as determined by your overall wealth.
He is also now advertising Trump Tower in NYC as the most secure building in the city due to the presence of SS which certainly appeals to some people so I doubt his business is hurting.
Hotels are rarely 100% booked except for conventions