I have absolutely no problem with stay at home mothers as long as they are making the choice to do that, rather than doing so because they think they're supposed to.

You didn't say "choose to stay home" you said "just stay home". Someone like yourself, who is so obsessively pedantic about the nuances of every word and phrase others post, surely can see the negative implication of "just stay home" - why, it's like doing nothing, while "working" women like yourself are out there doing important things. Have you ever tried taking care of a bunch of kids and a house? No, guess not. Hey, you know what? There are loads of women out there who take care of other people's houses and/or kids and get paid for it - we call them nannies and housekeepers and maids, so hey, it must be work! If you get paid for it it's a job! If it's your own house and/or kids I guess it's being "just a housewife". Basically doing nothing. Is that what you think?

You can grill everybody else about every post they make and never accept the answer but on this one you can just backtrack and say "I have no problem with stay at home mothers" - and that's it? I'm giving you a taste of your own medicine here, and well deserved - all those questions I asked - that is exactly what you do constantly, twist the words into accusatory questions - if somebody says they like blue you say why do you hate yellow so much -

how do you like it?

Quote from b002013:

No, that's actually you being you.

First you respond to yourself then you make statements that City has never made. Non of those questions would be legitimate to ask of her since City was simply saying that some men think women should stay home and care for the kids. Unless you've been sheltered your entire life that would not be a shock, since some men actually do believe that and want that. Nor would it be an indication that City thought the women should not stay home and care for the kids or that women are lazy, or that she hates women that choose a different lifestyle? You seem to be just looking for a fight, Reg, why?

Are you drunk?

She's one of those people who looks for reasons to be offended. You are correct. She is looking for a fight.

Regina is losing it.

I see the way they talk to you and I see the way you talk and antagonize them as well as a few female posters so you're consistent .

City is a douche .

ojos_locos

city

Is it your insecurities that prevent you from believing in your Jewish faith?

While the majority of the Supreme Court justices were divided in Tuesday’s hearing on the constitutionality of gay marriage, one judge stood out from the rest, as she often does. Amid contentious arguments over history, biology, and interpretation of the Constitution, Ruth Bader Ginsburg supported equal marriage rights by eloquently shutting down the opponents with arguments that even seemed to inspire the more conservative justices. With Ginsburg carrying the torch for marriage equality, the country should feel optimistic that come June, every citizen, regardless of their sexual orientation, will have the right to wed.

Tuesday’s hearing was over whether gay marriage bans were constitutional in four states: Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. The SCOTUS’s decision, which is expected in June, could make gay marriage a constitutional right in all states, a landmark decision for the gay rights movement and America. In order to reach that outcome, at least five justices will have to agree that marriage is a civil right that should be granted to all individuals, and in order to come to agreement the ones who favor equality will have to cut through the arguments against it.

And that’s just what Ginsburg did, with compelling eloquence and grace. She’s long been known to be a champion of social progression, earning her the apt nickname “The Notorious RBG,” which she certainly lived up to on Tuesday. Here are her best quotes on why marriage equality needs to happen.

Tradition Needs To Be Challenged


One of the main arguments of the day was over tradition and whether the Supreme Court had the right to challenge such a long one as the institution of marriage. To this, Ginsburg brought up a fitting example of when the court has done so in the past, a decision that is hardly disputable today.

Marriage today is not what it was under the common law tradition, under the civil law tradition. Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female. That ended as a result of this court’s decision in 1982 when Louisiana’s Head and Master Rule was struck down. Would that be a choice that state should [still] be allowed to have? To cling to marriage the way it once was?
Head and Master laws were a set of property laws in the U.S. that gave the husband the final authority in all household decisions on the basis that the husband’s role was to provide for the family and the wife’s was to keep house, rear children, and provide sex. So, yeah, good point, Ruth.

Marriage Is Not Synonymous With Procreation


John Bursch, the lawyer representing the states that want to keep their gay marriage bans, tried to argue that the sole purpose of marriage was to support procreation. “The state doesn’t have an interest in love and emotion at all,” he even went so far as to claim, coming off somewhat cold and mechanic. “It’s about binding children to their biological moms and dads.” Ginsburg deftly shot that one down too.

Suppose a couple, 70-year-old couple, comes in and they want to get married? You don’t have to ask them any questions. You know they are not going to have any children.
That round definitely goes to Ginsburg.

Marriage Equality Does Not Harm The Institution


Bursch also tried to assert that gay marriage would be detrimental to the institution of marriage in general. Not so, Ginsburg responded.

All of the incentives, all of the benefits that marriage affords would still be available. So you’re not taking away anything from heterosexual couples. They would have the very same incentive to marry, all the benefits that come with marriage that they do now.
Ginsburg 3, Bursch 0.

u are so full of shit city