So much for "free" health care for all....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/8070095.stm

Note the £3000 per month she was being CHARGED for her old folks home
"room".

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I'll keep my guns, freedom, and money. You can keep the change.

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 31 May 2009 12:47:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

So much for "free" health care for all....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/8070095.stm

Note the £3000 per month she was being CHARGED for her old folks home
"room".

...Jim Thompson

One of the things that disturbs me about 'politics' are those who
invent slogans, euphemisms, or down right lies to 'fool' people into
thinking the 'debate' is about one thing when the unvarnished truth is
it's something else. Presumably because they fear what people would
think should they figure out what the 'real issue' is.

The real costs and who will ultimately have to pay them are almost always
obfusicated.


To wit, and as the cliche goes, there's no such thing as a 'free
lunch' and the same goes for "free healthcare." The debate is about
who pays for it and how, including the ramifications.

Another one I heard recently was a gay marriage proponent arguing that
"no, no, no, we are not asking to 'change' the definition of marriage,
we are 'adding to it'."

Oh for Pete's sake, regardless of where you stand on the matter
"adding" to something *is* a blooming "change."

The resistance to legal same-sex marriage is deeply rooted in religion, bias
(same as religion), protective (of their wealth) family members, and
corporations and companies who don't want additional (legal) beneficiaries.

On Sun, 31 May 2009 18:33:11 -0500, flipper wrote:

[snip]

Why should a company get 'stuck' with providing for Harry and Herman
or Thelma and Louise?

Why don't we all just say we're 'married' to Bill Gates and let him
pay for everything?

Sno-o-o-o-ort! Works for me ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food

Jim Thompson wrote:
So much for "free" health care for all....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/8070095.stm

Note the £3000 per month she was being CHARGED for her old folks home
"room".

Just like everybody knows that no means yes
Just like glasses come free on the NHS

(from Becoming More Like Alfie by The Divine Comedy)

Jim Thompson wrote:

So much for "free" health care for all....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/8070095.stm

Note the £3000 per month she was being CHARGED for her old folks home
"room".

Does your health insurance cover you for accomadation ?

Graham

due to the hugely increased level of spam please make the obvious
adjustment to my email address

flipper wrote:
On Sun, 31 May 2009 12:47:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

So much for "free" health care for all....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/8070095.stm

Note the £3000 per month she was being CHARGED for her old folks home
"room".

...Jim Thompson

One of the things that disturbs me about 'politics' are those who
invent slogans, euphemisms, or down right lies to 'fool' people into
thinking the 'debate' is about one thing when the unvarnished truth is
it's something else. Presumably because they fear what people would
think should they figure out what the 'real issue' is.

To wit, and as the cliche goes, there's no such thing as a 'free
lunch' and the same goes for "free healthcare." The debate is about
who pays for it and how, including the ramifications.

Another one I heard recently was a gay marriage proponent arguing that
"no, no, no, we are not asking to 'change' the definition of marriage,
we are 'adding to it'."

Oh for Pete's sake, regardless of where you stand on the matter
"adding" to something *is* a blooming "change."

Since marriage used to be between whoever wanted to get married, until
Xtians decided they didn't like that any more, it's not being added to at
all. It's simply being repaired.

Jim Thompson wrote:
So much for "free" health care for all....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/8070095.stm

Note the £3000 per month she was being CHARGED for her old folks home
"room".

At 97 years old?

I'll take it!

flipper wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 09:54:00 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Sun, 31 May 2009 12:47:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

So much for "free" health care for all....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/8070095.stm

Note the £3000 per month she was being CHARGED for her old folks
home "room".

...Jim Thompson

One of the things that disturbs me about 'politics' are those who
invent slogans, euphemisms, or down right lies to 'fool' people into
thinking the 'debate' is about one thing when the unvarnished truth
is it's something else. Presumably because they fear what people
would think should they figure out what the 'real issue' is.

To wit, and as the cliche goes, there's no such thing as a 'free
lunch' and the same goes for "free healthcare." The debate is about
who pays for it and how, including the ramifications.

Another one I heard recently was a gay marriage proponent arguing
that "no, no, no, we are not asking to 'change' the definition of
marriage, we are 'adding to it'."

Oh for Pete's sake, regardless of where you stand on the matter
"adding" to something *is* a blooming "change."

Since marriage used to be between whoever wanted to get married,
until Xtians decided they didn't like that any more,

Your premise is demonstrably false as marriage existed long before
there were 'Xtians'.

That doesn't actually falsify my point.

Since marriage used to be between whoever wanted to get married,
until Xtians decided they didn't like that any more,

Note obvious acknowledgement that there was marriage first.



it's not being added to at
all. It's simply being repaired.

Setting aside the false premise, if your 'intent' is to 'repair' it
then 'repair' it to the state you claimed and, in particular, one in
which the government has no role in definition nor in mandating
'benefits and 'privileges'.

Tell it to the Xtians.

On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 18:30:02 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 12:26:12 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 09:54:00 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Sun, 31 May 2009 12:47:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

So much for "free" health care for all....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/8070095.stm

Note the £3000 per month she was being CHARGED for her old folks
home "room".

...Jim Thompson

One of the things that disturbs me about 'politics' are those who
invent slogans, euphemisms, or down right lies to 'fool' people into
thinking the 'debate' is about one thing when the unvarnished truth
is it's something else. Presumably because they fear what people
would think should they figure out what the 'real issue' is.

To wit, and as the cliche goes, there's no such thing as a 'free
lunch' and the same goes for "free healthcare." The debate is about
who pays for it and how, including the ramifications.

Another one I heard recently was a gay marriage proponent arguing
that "no, no, no, we are not asking to 'change' the definition of
marriage, we are 'adding to it'."

Oh for Pete's sake, regardless of where you stand on the matter
"adding" to something *is* a blooming "change."

Since marriage used to be between whoever wanted to get married,
until Xtians decided they didn't like that any more,

Your premise is demonstrably false as marriage existed long before
there were 'Xtians'.

That doesn't actually falsify my point.

Yes, it does. Or, put another way, it only doesn't 'seem so' to you
because you insist on the false premise and the false 'definition'.

Typical left wing tactic of 'redefining the language' in an attempt to
make it impossible to even discuss an issue without 'accepting' the
premise.

So I'll reword it. Marriage, the proper definition of which is
heterosexual, existed long before your so called 'Xtians'.

Do legitimate research sometime instead of relying on political
'talking points'. Even the 'traditional' customs of western marriage
come from the ancient Roman traditions, such as the engagement ring
worn symbolically on the third finger of the left hand because the
Romans believed that a nerve ran from this finger directly to the
heart.

Marriage essentially transferred a woman from the authority of her
father or male head of the family (pater familias) to the authority of
her husband. In theory that control extended even to life and death,
but in reality it was limited to economic matters. Any dowry brought
into the wedding was then the property of her husband.

A Roman marriage was called Justae Nuptiae, Justum Matrimonium,
Legitimum Matrimonium, as being conformable to Jus Civile or to Roman
Law. A marriage was either Cum conventione uxoris in manum viri, or it
was without this conventio. In both cases there must be connubium
between the parties, and consent: the male must also be pubes, and the
woman viri potens. The legal consequences as to the power of the
father over his children were the same in both. Opposed to the
Legitimum Matrimonium was the Matrimonium Juris Gentium.

Moving to the Greeks, Aristotle wrote on marriage

Aristotle. Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 21, translated by H. Rackham.
Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann
Ltd. 1944.
OCLC: 29752140
ISBN: 0674992911

"Inasmuch therefore as it is the duty of the lawgiver to consider from
the start how the children reared are to obtain the best bodily
frames, he must first pay attention to the union of the sexes, and
settle when and in what condition a couple should practise matrimonial
intercourse. In legislating for this partnership he must pay regard
partly to the persons themselves and to their span of life, so that
they may arrive together at the same period in their ages, and their
powers may not be at discord through the man being still capable of
parentage and the wife incapable, or the wife capable and the man not
(for this causes differences and actual discord between them), and
also he must consider as well the succession of the children, for the
children must neither be too far removed in their ages from the
fathers (since elderly fathers get no good from their children's
return of their favors, nor do the children from the help they get
from the fathers),"

From the Greek Poet Hesiod,

Hesiod. The Homeric Hymns and Homerica with an English Translation by
Hugh G. Evelyn-White. Works and Days. Cambridge, MA.,Harvard
University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1914.
OCLC: 41785942
ISBN: 0674990633

"Bring home a wife to your house when you are of the right age, while
you are not far short of thirty years nor much above; this is the
right age for marriage. Let your wife have been grown up four years,
and marry her in the fifth. Marry a maiden, so that you can teach her
careful ways, and especially marry one who lives near you, but look
well about you and see that your marriage will not be a joke to your
neighbors. For a man wins nothing better than a good wife, and, again,
nothing worse than a bad one, a greedy soul who roasts her man without
fire, strong though he may be, and brings him to a raw old age."

In Greek mythology Pandora is the first woman (ordered by Zeus as
retribution for Prometheus giving fire to man), the first wife, and
her daughter Pyrrha (Fire) was the first-born mortal child. Again from
Hesiod

"Forthwith he made an evil thing for men as the price of fire; for the
very famous Limping God [Hephaistos] formed of earth the likeness of a
shy maiden [i.e. Pandora] as the son of Kronos willed. And the goddess
bright-eyed Athene girded and clothed her with silvery raiment, and
down from her head she spread with her hands an embroidered veil, a
wonder to see; and she, Pallas Athene, put about her head lovely
garlands, flowers of new-grown herbs. Also she put upon her head a
crown of gold which the very famous Limping God made himself and
worked with his own hands as a favor to Zeus his father. On it was
much curious work, wonderful to see; for of the many creatures which
the land and sea rear up, he put most upon it, wonderful things, like
living beings with voices: and great beauty shone out from it.
.
.
.
For from her is the race of women and female kind : of her is the
deadly race and tribe of women who live amongst mortal men to their
great trouble, no helpmeets in hateful poverty, but only in wealth.
.
.
.
And he gave them a second evil to be the price for the good they had:
whoever avoids marriage and the sorrows that women cause, and will not
wed, reaches deadly old age without anyone to tend his years, and
though he at least has no lack of livelihood while he lives, yet, when
he is dead, his kinsfolk divide his possessions amongst them.
.
.
.
And as for the man who chooses the lot of marriage and takes a good
wife suited to his mind, evil continually contends with good; for
whoever happens to have mischievous children, lives always with
unceasing grief in his spirit and heart within him; and this evil
cannot be healed."


You can't get any 'further back' than creation of the first model.

Man and woman.

And there were no 'Xtians'.

As to "whoever wanted to get married," that's a word game and, again,
not even necessarily true.

For example, under Roman law persons who had certain bodily
imperfections, as eunuchs, and others who from any cause could never
attain to puberty, could not contract marriage; for though pubertas
was in course of time fixed at a positive age [Impubes], yet as the
foundation of the notion of pubertas was physical capacity for sexual
intercourse, there could be no pubertas if there was a physical
incapacity.

However, back to the "word game" part, saying "whoever wanted to get
married" is like saying anyone who wants to be a basketball player can
be a basketball player. Yes, if they're playing basketball but if
you're not playing basketball then you're not playing basketball. What
you're playing might be a perfectly fine game, maybe soccer, and you
might have a 'right' to play the game, but it still isn't basketball.
And it might irritate you that more people buy tickets to watch
basketball than whatever game you're playing but that doesn't make it
basketball either. It isn't basketball because the word defines a
particular thing and what you're playing isn't that thing.

Likewise, "whoever wanted to get married" could get "married" but if
it isn't man and woman then you aren't 'playing basketball' (getting
married).



Since marriage used to be between whoever wanted to get married,
until Xtians decided they didn't like that any more,

Note obvious acknowledgement that there was marriage first.

Yes, heterosexual union, the origin, purpose and meaning of the word.

it's not being added to at
all. It's simply being repaired.

Setting aside the false premise, if your 'intent' is to 'repair' it
then 'repair' it to the state you claimed and, in particular, one in
which the government has no role in definition nor in mandating
'benefits and 'privileges'.

Tell it to the Xtians.

No reason to because they're not making the claim you are.

You have to wonder if NymNuts went to another provider simply to annoy
us with another nym, "Ouroboros Rex" ?:-)

Not that it matters, trivial to dispose ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 12:26:12 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 09:54:00 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Sun, 31 May 2009 12:47:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

So much for "free" health care for all....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/8070095.stm

Note the £3000 per month she was being CHARGED for her old folks
home "room".

...Jim Thompson

One of the things that disturbs me about 'politics' are those who
invent slogans, euphemisms, or down right lies to 'fool' people
into thinking the 'debate' is about one thing when the
unvarnished truth is it's something else. Presumably because they
fear what people would think should they figure out what the
'real issue' is.

To wit, and as the cliche goes, there's no such thing as a 'free
lunch' and the same goes for "free healthcare." The debate is
about who pays for it and how, including the ramifications.

Another one I heard recently was a gay marriage proponent arguing
that "no, no, no, we are not asking to 'change' the definition of
marriage, we are 'adding to it'."

Oh for Pete's sake, regardless of where you stand on the matter
"adding" to something *is* a blooming "change."

Since marriage used to be between whoever wanted to get married,
until Xtians decided they didn't like that any more,

Your premise is demonstrably false as marriage existed long before
there were 'Xtians'.

That doesn't actually falsify my point.

Yes, it does. Or, put another way, it only doesn't 'seem so' to you
because you insist on the false premise and the false 'definition'.

Typical left wing tactic of 'redefining the language' in an attempt to
make it impossible to even discuss an issue without 'accepting' the
premise.

So I'll reword it. Marriage, the proper definition of which is
heterosexual, existed long before your so called 'Xtians'.

Do legitimate research sometime instead of relying on political
'talking points'. Even the 'traditional' customs of western marriage
come from the ancient Roman traditions, such as the engagement ring
worn symbolically on the third finger of the left hand because the
Romans believed that a nerve ran from this finger directly to the
heart.

Marriage essentially transferred a woman from the authority of her
father or male head of the family (pater familias) to the authority of
her husband. In theory that control extended even to life and death,
but in reality it was limited to economic matters. Any dowry brought
into the wedding was then the property of her husband.

A Roman marriage was called Justae Nuptiae, Justum Matrimonium,
Legitimum Matrimonium, as being conformable to Jus Civile or to Roman
Law. A marriage was either Cum conventione uxoris in manum viri, or it
was without this conventio. In both cases there must be connubium
between the parties, and consent: the male must also be pubes, and the
woman viri potens. The legal consequences as to the power of the
father over his children were the same in both. Opposed to the
Legitimum Matrimonium was the Matrimonium Juris Gentium.

Moving to the Greeks, Aristotle wrote on marriage

Aristotle. Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 21, translated by H. Rackham.
Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann
Ltd. 1944.
OCLC: 29752140
ISBN: 0674992911

"Inasmuch therefore as it is the duty of the lawgiver to consider from
the start how the children reared are to obtain the best bodily
frames, he must first pay attention to the union of the sexes, and
settle when and in what condition a couple should practise matrimonial
intercourse. In legislating for this partnership he must pay regard
partly to the persons themselves and to their span of life, so that
they may arrive together at the same period in their ages, and their
powers may not be at discord through the man being still capable of
parentage and the wife incapable, or the wife capable and the man not
(for this causes differences and actual discord between them), and
also he must consider as well the succession of the children, for the
children must neither be too far removed in their ages from the
fathers (since elderly fathers get no good from their children's
return of their favors, nor do the children from the help they get
from the fathers),"

From the Greek Poet Hesiod,

Hesiod. The Homeric Hymns and Homerica with an English Translation by
Hugh G. Evelyn-White. Works and Days. Cambridge, MA.,Harvard
University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1914.
OCLC: 41785942
ISBN: 0674990633

"Bring home a wife to your house when you are of the right age, while
you are not far short of thirty years nor much above; this is the
right age for marriage. Let your wife have been grown up four years,
and marry her in the fifth. Marry a maiden, so that you can teach her
careful ways, and especially marry one who lives near you, but look
well about you and see that your marriage will not be a joke to your
neighbors. For a man wins nothing better than a good wife, and, again,
nothing worse than a bad one, a greedy soul who roasts her man without
fire, strong though he may be, and brings him to a raw old age."

In Greek mythology Pandora is the first woman (ordered by Zeus as
retribution for Prometheus giving fire to man), the first wife, and
her daughter Pyrrha (Fire) was the first-born mortal child. Again from
Hesiod

"Forthwith he made an evil thing for men as the price of fire; for the
very famous Limping God [Hephaistos] formed of earth the likeness of a
shy maiden [i.e. Pandora] as the son of Kronos willed. And the goddess
bright-eyed Athene girded and clothed her with silvery raiment, and
down from her head she spread with her hands an embroidered veil, a
wonder to see; and she, Pallas Athene, put about her head lovely
garlands, flowers of new-grown herbs. Also she put upon her head a
crown of gold which the very famous Limping God made himself and
worked with his own hands as a favor to Zeus his father. On it was
much curious work, wonderful to see; for of the many creatures which
the land and sea rear up, he put most upon it, wonderful things, like
living beings with voices: and great beauty shone out from it.
.
.
.
For from her is the race of women and female kind : of her is the
deadly race and tribe of women who live amongst mortal men to their
great trouble, no helpmeets in hateful poverty, but only in wealth.
.
.
.
And he gave them a second evil to be the price for the good they had:
whoever avoids marriage and the sorrows that women cause, and will not
wed, reaches deadly old age without anyone to tend his years, and
though he at least has no lack of livelihood while he lives, yet, when
he is dead, his kinsfolk divide his possessions amongst them.
.
.
.
And as for the man who chooses the lot of marriage and takes a good
wife suited to his mind, evil continually contends with good; for
whoever happens to have mischievous children, lives always with
unceasing grief in his spirit and heart within him; and this evil
cannot be healed."


You can't get any 'further back' than creation of the first model.

Man and woman.

And there were no 'Xtians'.

As to "whoever wanted to get married," that's a word game and, again,
not even necessarily true.

For example, under Roman law persons who had certain bodily
imperfections, as eunuchs, and others who from any cause could never
attain to puberty, could not contract marriage; for though pubertas
was in course of time fixed at a positive age [Impubes], yet as the
foundation of the notion of pubertas was physical capacity for sexual
intercourse, there could be no pubertas if there was a physical
incapacity.

However, back to the "word game" part, saying "whoever wanted to get
married" is like saying anyone who wants to be a basketball player can
be a basketball player. Yes, if they're playing basketball but if
you're not playing basketball then you're not playing basketball. What
you're playing might be a perfectly fine game, maybe soccer, and you
might have a 'right' to play the game, but it still isn't basketball.
And it might irritate you that more people buy tickets to watch
basketball than whatever game you're playing but that doesn't make it
basketball either. It isn't basketball because the word defines a
particular thing and what you're playing isn't that thing.

Likewise, "whoever wanted to get married" could get "married" but if
it isn't man and woman then you aren't 'playing basketball' (getting
married).



Since marriage used to be between whoever wanted to get married,
until Xtians decided they didn't like that any more,

Note obvious acknowledgement that there was marriage first.

Yes, heterosexual union, the origin, purpose and meaning of the word.

it's not being added to at
all. It's simply being repaired.

Setting aside the false premise, if your 'intent' is to 'repair' it
then 'repair' it to the state you claimed and, in particular, one in
which the government has no role in definition nor in mandating
'benefits and 'privileges'.

Tell it to the Xtians.

No reason to because they're not making the claim you are.

No, they simply claim marriage should be regulated by the state, the
oposite of what you wish. lol

Otherwise, nice blather, replete with religious flummery and cherrypicked
examples. When you get something that actually proves me wrong, let me
know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 18:30:02 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 12:26:12 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 09:54:00 -0500, "Ouroboros Rex"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Sun, 31 May 2009 12:47:05 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

So much for "free" health care for all....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/8070095.stm

Note the £3000 per month she was being CHARGED for her old folks
home "room".

...Jim Thompson

One of the things that disturbs me about 'politics' are those who
invent slogans, euphemisms, or down right lies to 'fool' people
into thinking the 'debate' is about one thing when the
unvarnished truth is it's something else. Presumably because
they fear what people would think should they figure out what
the 'real issue' is.

To wit, and as the cliche goes, there's no such thing as a 'free
lunch' and the same goes for "free healthcare." The debate is
about who pays for it and how, including the ramifications.

Another one I heard recently was a gay marriage proponent arguing
that "no, no, no, we are not asking to 'change' the definition of
marriage, we are 'adding to it'."

Oh for Pete's sake, regardless of where you stand on the matter
"adding" to something *is* a blooming "change."

Since marriage used to be between whoever wanted to get married,
until Xtians decided they didn't like that any more,

Your premise is demonstrably false as marriage existed long before
there were 'Xtians'.

That doesn't actually falsify my point.

Yes, it does. Or, put another way, it only doesn't 'seem so' to you
because you insist on the false premise and the false 'definition'.

Typical left wing tactic of 'redefining the language' in an attempt
to make it impossible to even discuss an issue without 'accepting'
the premise.

So I'll reword it. Marriage, the proper definition of which is
heterosexual, existed long before your so called 'Xtians'.

Do legitimate research sometime instead of relying on political
'talking points'. Even the 'traditional' customs of western marriage
come from the ancient Roman traditions, such as the engagement ring
worn symbolically on the third finger of the left hand because the
Romans believed that a nerve ran from this finger directly to the
heart.

Marriage essentially transferred a woman from the authority of her
father or male head of the family (pater familias) to the authority
of her husband. In theory that control extended even to life and
death, but in reality it was limited to economic matters. Any dowry
brought into the wedding was then the property of her husband.

A Roman marriage was called Justae Nuptiae, Justum Matrimonium,
Legitimum Matrimonium, as being conformable to Jus Civile or to Roman
Law. A marriage was either Cum conventione uxoris in manum viri, or
it was without this conventio. In both cases there must be connubium
between the parties, and consent: the male must also be pubes, and
the woman viri potens. The legal consequences as to the power of the
father over his children were the same in both. Opposed to the
Legitimum Matrimonium was the Matrimonium Juris Gentium.

Moving to the Greeks, Aristotle wrote on marriage

Aristotle. Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 21, translated by H.
Rackham. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William
Heinemann Ltd. 1944.
OCLC: 29752140
ISBN: 0674992911

"Inasmuch therefore as it is the duty of the lawgiver to consider
from the start how the children reared are to obtain the best bodily
frames, he must first pay attention to the union of the sexes, and
settle when and in what condition a couple should practise
matrimonial intercourse. In legislating for this partnership he must
pay regard partly to the persons themselves and to their span of
life, so that they may arrive together at the same period in their
ages, and their powers may not be at discord through the man being
still capable of parentage and the wife incapable, or the wife
capable and the man not (for this causes differences and actual
discord between them), and also he must consider as well the
succession of the children, for the children must neither be too far
removed in their ages from the fathers (since elderly fathers get no
good from their children's return of their favors, nor do the
children from the help they get from the fathers),"

From the Greek Poet Hesiod,

Hesiod. The Homeric Hymns and Homerica with an English Translation by
Hugh G. Evelyn-White. Works and Days. Cambridge, MA.,Harvard
University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1914.
OCLC: 41785942
ISBN: 0674990633

"Bring home a wife to your house when you are of the right age, while
you are not far short of thirty years nor much above; this is the
right age for marriage. Let your wife have been grown up four years,
and marry her in the fifth. Marry a maiden, so that you can teach her
careful ways, and especially marry one who lives near you, but look
well about you and see that your marriage will not be a joke to your
neighbors. For a man wins nothing better than a good wife, and,
again, nothing worse than a bad one, a greedy soul who roasts her
man without fire, strong though he may be, and brings him to a raw
old age."

In Greek mythology Pandora is the first woman (ordered by Zeus as
retribution for Prometheus giving fire to man), the first wife, and
her daughter Pyrrha (Fire) was the first-born mortal child. Again
from Hesiod

"Forthwith he made an evil thing for men as the price of fire; for
the very famous Limping God [Hephaistos] formed of earth the
likeness of a shy maiden [i.e. Pandora] as the son of Kronos willed.
And the goddess bright-eyed Athene girded and clothed her with
silvery raiment, and down from her head she spread with her hands an
embroidered veil, a wonder to see; and she, Pallas Athene, put about
her head lovely garlands, flowers of new-grown herbs. Also she put
upon her head a crown of gold which the very famous Limping God made
himself and worked with his own hands as a favor to Zeus his father.
On it was much curious work, wonderful to see; for of the many
creatures which the land and sea rear up, he put most upon it,
wonderful things, like living beings with voices: and great beauty
shone out from it. .
.
.
For from her is the race of women and female kind : of her is the
deadly race and tribe of women who live amongst mortal men to their
great trouble, no helpmeets in hateful poverty, but only in wealth.
.
.
.
And he gave them a second evil to be the price for the good they had:
whoever avoids marriage and the sorrows that women cause, and will
not wed, reaches deadly old age without anyone to tend his years, and
though he at least has no lack of livelihood while he lives, yet,
when he is dead, his kinsfolk divide his possessions amongst them.
.
.
.
And as for the man who chooses the lot of marriage and takes a good
wife suited to his mind, evil continually contends with good; for
whoever happens to have mischievous children, lives always with
unceasing grief in his spirit and heart within him; and this evil
cannot be healed."


You can't get any 'further back' than creation of the first model.

Man and woman.

And there were no 'Xtians'.

As to "whoever wanted to get married," that's a word game and, again,
not even necessarily true.

For example, under Roman law persons who had certain bodily
imperfections, as eunuchs, and others who from any cause could never
attain to puberty, could not contract marriage; for though pubertas
was in course of time fixed at a positive age [Impubes], yet as the
foundation of the notion of pubertas was physical capacity for sexual
intercourse, there could be no pubertas if there was a physical
incapacity.

However, back to the "word game" part, saying "whoever wanted to get
married" is like saying anyone who wants to be a basketball player
can be a basketball player. Yes, if they're playing basketball but if
you're not playing basketball then you're not playing basketball.
What you're playing might be a perfectly fine game, maybe soccer,
and you might have a 'right' to play the game, but it still isn't
basketball. And it might irritate you that more people buy tickets
to watch basketball than whatever game you're playing but that
doesn't make it basketball either. It isn't basketball because the
word defines a particular thing and what you're playing isn't that
thing.

Likewise, "whoever wanted to get married" could get "married" but if
it isn't man and woman then you aren't 'playing basketball' (getting
married).



Since marriage used to be between whoever wanted to get married,
until Xtians decided they didn't like that any more,

Note obvious acknowledgement that there was marriage first.

Yes, heterosexual union, the origin, purpose and meaning of the word.

it's not being added to at
all. It's simply being repaired.

Setting aside the false premise, if your 'intent' is to 'repair' it
then 'repair' it to the state you claimed and, in particular, one
in which the government has no role in definition nor in mandating
'benefits and 'privileges'.

Tell it to the Xtians.

No reason to because they're not making the claim you are.

You have to wonder if NymNuts went to another provider simply to annoy
us with another nym, "Ouroboros Rex" ?:-)

You don't know how to check? lol