Mostly in the United States, and non-European countries. Germany seems pretty healthy. Maybe some Scandinavian nations as well.

The rest of us.

We do however find racist, misogynistic, homophobic and other jokes funny. You forgot the disabled, jokes about the events in Tunisia on Friday and jokes about the bus crash in Belgium this morning.

It's called humour. Maybe you lack it, but you can go fuck yourself if you want the rest of us to abandon it.

To be fair, over 200 tools if you include the stuff that comes with Cygwin.

45 is more than I install but it's not more than double. But it's no different than having to configure a Linux box with all the apps and libraries you want either.

So basically you and your girlfriend don't know a thing about windows or how to configure and maintain it.

That's fine, you don't use it and if it was important for her she could learn.

The rest of the world will keep getting along fine in the meantime.

He started the distraction argument as going both ways though, thus placing the issue firmly on humans and not those of specific gender.

Of course most workplaces get through this challenge just fine.

Let's state five basic facts;:
Someone is not racist if they tell a racist joke.
Someone is not sexist if they tell a sexist joke.
Someone is not a homophobe if they tell a homophobic joke.
Jokes at an after dinner speech are not inappropriate.
Hunt's comments were taken out of context.

Do try and join society instead of trying to oppress it into some narrow minded thought policed travesty.

Which part of what he said do you disagree with?

Do you disagree that men fall in love with women at work?
Do you disagree that women fall in love with men at work?
Do you disagree that some women cry when receiving criticism of their work?

I'm happy to discuss constructive approaches to working through these challenges but you don't appear to agree that there are even challenges to work through?

Sure. Perhaps you've heard of bigamy? Alice can't marry Carol because Bob already has a vested marital interest with Alice. For example, if Alice marries Carol and dies, Carol is entitled to 100% of her assets as spouse. But so is Bob.

That's not the policy rationale for the prohibition on bigamy, and while it is perhaps a little better of a reason than administrative convenience, it boils down to the same thing, since the question of marital property is one of the issues that legislatures will have to address when the ban is overturned as it inevitably will be.

On the contrary, tradition is absolutely relevant as to whether something is a fundamental right. Marriage is a fundamental right because it's enshrined in our traditions and collective conscience. ...
Polygamy does not have such a place in our traditions or collective conscience, and therefore is not a fundamental right.

Yep, that's the bullshit argument that people were rolling out against same sex marriage all right. That because it wasn't traditional, it wasn't fundamental.

The core mistake with that argument, whether in the context of same sex marriage or marriage among persons already married, or in larger numbers than two, is that what's fundamental is not opposite sex marriage, or same sex marriage, or polygamous marriage, but simply marriage, without qualification of any kind.

Issues like gender, race, consanguinity, marital status, and number of spouses are all restrictions on that singular fundamental right. Whether they stand hinges on whether they can be justified. Two of them, it transpires, cannot be. Ultimately I think the only restriction that will hold up will be consent, and perhaps consanguinity will have to be reframed in terms of consent if it's to be salvaged.

Perhaps this source will help.

In chromium/chrome, you can save the file as "nobennett.user.js" and drag it from your file manager onto the chrome://extensions page; chrome will then give you a popup to ask you to confirm.

In firefox, you can install it using the Greasemonkey plugin.

There might be other options for other browsers; this was the first/only user script I've ever written, so I don't know all the tricks.

because, as noted earlier, 3>2. Equal protection is an issue where two groups that are equally situated are treated differently. For marriage, there is no difference between a gay couple and a heterosexual couple. There is a difference between a couple and a larger group, however.

The litigant needn't be the entire group. Marriage is a fundamental right, subject to various restrictions, such as consent and consanguinity. Yesterday, one of the restrictions, at least in some places, was that the genders of two of the spouses couldn't be the same. Today, it's fine nationwide if they're the same.

The restriction to look at now is whether the marital status of each spouse in the marriage at hand is single. Today it has to be. But there's not a good reason for it. (As already mentioned, administrative convenience is not a good reason). So why can't Alice, who is married to Bob, now also marry Carol? Bob isn't marrying Carol; the A-C marriage would be between two people only. You're treating Alice differently merely because she is already married.

It's also not a fundamental right, as polygamy is not part of the traditions and collective conscience of society, except for Mormons.

Marriage is a fundamental right and is extremely broad. Restrictions on marriage, such as requiring the spouses to be of opposite genders, or of the same race, or of the same religion, or of compatible castes, etc. are not inherently part of marriage and are certainly not part of the fundamental right of marriage.

Also, today's events make it clear that tradition is irrelevant; polygamy is practiced today among many groups, and has a long history back into antiquity. Same sex marriage was known in the past but was far more rare.

So I sold my slave to my buddy in the 6th year.

And he sold me his slave.

You say "loophole" while I say "cheap labour".

My argument would be inheritance. A family could bypass all the legalities of inheritance simply by "marrying" each other.

Which was a problem whether you allowed Mom to marry her sons or whether you allow Dad to marry his sons.

And then divorce them and splitting the assets 50/50.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

When i refer to states rights, I mean the PEOPLE of the state deciding what is a deemed "a right".

Nope. Still wrong. If something is a "right" then how can a state government (or a city government) declare that it is NOT a right?

Even if the majority in that state/city says so?

Your Rights are not subject to majority approval.

As I have been trying to say though, in my first post, marriage was never a right (until SCOTUS declared it to be) it was always a PRIVILEGE granted to by the states (the status constituents who are represented by their local representatives).

Again, marriage existed BEFORE any of the states here existed. There is no "PRIVILEGE granted".

If the government cannot grant a citizen a right then how come they JUST DID??????

The Supreme Court dis NOT just grant "a right" to anyone.

They just made it ILLEGAL to DENY that right.