The W
Views: 99889067
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
21.10.07 1324
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - The Yankees are coming!
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next(520 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (43 total)
rockstar
Salami
Level: 34

Posts: 178/229
EXP: 236952
For next: 16702

Since: 2.1.02
From: East TN

Since last post: 3566 days
Last activity: 3444 days
#21 Posted on 4.11.04 2332.38
Reposted on: 4.11.11 2335.03
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    This whole notion is based on a single, vague word - "morality." Funny how that poll this is based on didn't also have the word "Iraq" in one of the possible answers.


What polls are you referring to? Every poll mentioned on election night that offered "morality" as a issue also offered "Iraq" as an issue, such as this poll from CNN that StaggerLee posted in another thread.

(edited by rockstar on 5.11.04 0037)
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 131

Posts: 2375/5214
EXP: 25742049
For next: 682641

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#22 Posted on 5.11.04 0438.41
Reposted on: 5.11.11 0438.50
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    But, insurance companies wont take everybody's money, they wont take mine to insure my girlfriend. So, thats a bit off.




    (edited by StaggerLee on 4.11.04 2004)


They don't want her money because she is has the potential to cost them money, or already is.

Has she made any claims? Is she, what they would consider, "high risk."

If it's auto insurace, make a few claims, and you're dropped. Yeah, they want your money, but not if you keep making them pay out more then they take from you.

Karlos the Jackal
Lap cheong
Level: 82

Posts: 422/1750
EXP: 5005692
For next: 203557

Since: 2.1.02
From: The City of Subdued Excitement

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 13 hours
#23 Posted on 5.11.04 0443.33
Reposted on: 5.11.11 0443.45
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    But they are being denied NOTHING. No one is stopping them from trading vows. You want to talk about denial of health insurance? Hospital visits? Hell, that is true for anyone who isn't married. I would have the same trouble a gay couple would have trying to visit my longtime girlfriend in the hospital.


But -- but YOU have a CHOICE. YOU have a CHOICE.

I can't wrap my head around this analogy. I just can't figure out why you think your situation in any way applies.

--K
The Goon
Boudin blanc
Moderator
Level: 94

Posts: 994/2429
EXP: 8185334
For next: 171354

Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 hour
#24 Posted on 5.11.04 0610.40
Reposted on: 5.11.11 0611.28
Uh...well, anyway, I thought the initial article was interesting. I'm sure anyone would be welcome up here, but I would encourage making things better in your own country.

(image removed)
whatever
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 486/1738
EXP: 4932377
For next: 60493

Since: 12.2.02
From: Cleveland, Ohio

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#25 Posted on 5.11.04 0701.17
Reposted on: 5.11.11 0701.54
    Originally posted by Eddie Famous
      Originally posted by vsp
      Given the anti-gay proposition that brought evangelicals to the Ohio polls in droves, however, it's a shame that it turned out to be the cause that decided a presidential election.


    This is just a wild guess. Don't you think that it is more likely an anti-Kerry/Micheal Moore/Springsteen/Vote or Die backlash? Or maybe they wanted to avoid the garbage that happened last time and "got out the vote" for Bush? And while they were there, they voted on the proposition. Just as likely, if not more so.

Actually, there were a lot of churches here telling their congregations to get out and vote. The *Republican* leadership of the state and pretty much all of the elected officials in Ohio were against the issue because it also affects non-married heterosexual couples (for example, elderly who may live together to pool their resources). The Republicans would have supported the measure if it had been better worded. However, even with the large political urging to reject the issue, it passed with over 60% of the vote. So, the data does kind of lean to what vsp said.
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1848/2042
EXP: 6308549
For next: 84250

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3031 days
Last activity: 245 days
#26 Posted on 5.11.04 0703.53
Reposted on: 5.11.11 0704.12
    Originally posted by The Goon
    I'm sure anyone would be welcome up here, but I would encourage making things better in your own country.


Not only is that good advice (if it's possible), but Canada's not exactly throwing up the doors and saying "Come on in, everybody." As with most countries, gaining permanent admission to Canada isn't a fast or easy process.

Being able to pass this test will help your chances of acceptance.
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 141

Posts: 2138/6335
EXP: 33449413
For next: 670685

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
#27 Posted on 5.11.04 0913.32
Reposted on: 5.11.11 0915.55
    Originally posted by Karlos the Jackal
    But -- but YOU have a CHOICE. YOU have a CHOICE.

    I can't wrap my head around this analogy. I just can't figure out why you think your situation in any way applies.

    --K


Okay, but like I posted somewhere before, why is the answer "Well, you are straight, so you have the option to get married" okay? My work started offering health insurace, at the rate married people pay, for "DOMESTIC PARTNERS" I read thier definition, and, with the exception of the whole SHE DOESNT HAVE A PENIS fact, she met all the other requirements. Every single one. Now,why is it to get all the benefits that gay people want, you know, to be able to live how I want, to be able to leave my partner my estate, to be able to have her make health care decisions for me if I am unable, to be able to provide health insurance for her, it is basically told to me the only way that I can do any of that is to marry her?

Why should MY PERSONAL LIFE have any bearing on providing for somebody I care about?

The entire "You can get married" train of thought is complete bullshit, if you dont WANT to be legally attatched to somebody and feel your emotional connection and the life experiences between the two of you are strong enough as they are.
If the laws changed tommorow and every true "RIGHT" that married people have is given to same sex couples, without question, with the exception of a marriage license, would the people who are pro gay marriage be happy? Or do they only care about being able to say they have a legal document showing that they agreed to not become involved with another person?
RYDER FAKIN
Six Degrees of Me
Level: 63

Posts: 301/960
EXP: 2022766
For next: 74397

Since: 21.2.02
From: ORLANDO

Since last post: 40 days
Last activity: 40 days
AIM:  
#28 Posted on 5.11.04 0914.23
Reposted on: 5.11.11 0916.07
How we segued into another "Gay Rights" thread, I'm not sure - but I'll add another tangent...and why go to Canada when Mexico is RIGHT THERE? (and warm)

This was on Yahoo's Business Wire (via a Newsweek Press Release pimp)...I'm guessing the real deal will be in my mailbox today or tomorrow

Click Here (biz.yahoo.com)

NEWSWEEK SPECIAL ELECTION ISSUE: 'How He Did It'

Fun stuff - CARVILLE! CLINTON! ROVE! Crazed Uncles, The Gay Thing and enough rope to hang yourself! Vicious use of the F-BOMB! Can't wait to read the whole thing...Newsweek always does great with the "real story"

FLEA

(edited by RYDER FAKIN on 5.11.04 1031)
TinMan
Blutwurst
Level: 36

Posts: 203/259
EXP: 284718
For next: 23395

Since: 11.1.02
From: TX

Since last post: 1439 days
Last activity: 1208 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
#29 Posted on 5.11.04 0927.10
Reposted on: 5.11.11 0927.51
The issue that is/was before the supreme court had nothing to do with Bush when he was Governor of Texas. The issue was a very old sodomy law that was on the books in Texas, Bush didn't pass it nor was it something that he had much control over at the time.

(edited by TinMan on 5.11.04 0927)
Spaceman Spiff
Knackwurst
Level: 101

Posts: 1720/2905
EXP: 10705275
For next: 12437

Since: 2.1.02
From: Philly Suburbs

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 21 min.
AIM:  
#30 Posted on 5.11.04 1014.04
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1014.14
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Okay, but like I posted somewhere before, why is the answer "Well, you are straight, so you have the option to get married" okay? My work started offering health insurace, at the rate married people pay, for "DOMESTIC PARTNERS" I read thier definition, and, with the exception of the whole SHE DOESNT HAVE A PENIS fact, she met all the other requirements. Every single one. Now,why is it to get all the benefits that gay people want, you know, to be able to live how I want, to be able to leave my partner my estate, to be able to have her make health care decisions for me if I am unable, to be able to provide health insurance for her, it is basically told to me the only way that I can do any of that is to marry her?

    Why should MY PERSONAL LIFE have any bearing on providing for somebody I care about?

    The entire "You can get married" train of thought is complete bullshit, if you dont WANT to be legally attatched to somebody and feel your emotional connection and the life experiences between the two of you are strong enough as they are.

Out of curiosity, is there a minimum number of years that a couple must be together in able to qualify for domestic partner benefits?

You seem to be missing the point slightly. You CAN get married, but choose not to do so, so not being able to receive the benefits is 1 of the consequences of that choice. On the flip side, the gay couples CAN'T get married, so it is more of a good-faith effort by the company to offer their employees these benefits. Should gay marriage be legal, and the couples at your work decide to not get married, they'd fall into the same boat as you do.
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 141

Posts: 2139/6335
EXP: 33449413
For next: 670685

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
#31 Posted on 5.11.04 1037.16
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1037.23
It is twelve months of continuous cohabitation for the same sex couples to qualify for health care coverage as well as life insurance and vision/dental.

My point is, person A meets somebody. They get married the very next day. The person they married never lives with them, never sleeps with them, never sees them, however they are entitled to insurance, assets upon death, etc,

Person B meets somebody, lives with them for ten years. They arent entitled to the insurance, the legal aspects of making health care decisions, estates, etc.

Which two are really living as a couple? Which two probably would NEED all the mentioned legal protections?
Now, if person B is straight and thier parter is of the opposite sex, they get nothing.

How is requiring a person to register with the local government, pay a fee, require them to have a ceremony of some sort, even if its the JOP, making thier relationship and bond more legitimate?

I am all for making sure ANY couple who choose to live together, regardless of genitalia they share, having equal access to everything that we take for granted for traditionally married people.

I knew two lesbians while I was in the Navy, they were life partners. Had been from station to station with each other, had lived as a couple for 14 years, were happy and healthy. (this is pre dont ask dont tell) They each married 1/2 of a male gay couple, so that the men that they were friends with could have health insurance. Both couples moved into housing on base, only the girls lived with each other and the boys shared the ohter house.

Only because they had a piece of paper from the county clerk was thier "marriages" considered to be "legitimate". Wouldnt it be easier for all involved to remove the government from the equation, and just let people who love each other have all the access to the rights as married couples?
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1649/1759
EXP: 4928915
For next: 63955

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1313 days
Last activity: 80 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#32 Posted on 5.11.04 1043.37
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1044.37
Gay people CAN get married - they just can't marry someone of the same sex in the eyes of the government.

I have the choice to marry my girlfriend to get those benefits, but they also have the choice to marry a woman. They don't want to do that, because they aren't attracted to women, and I don't want to get married right now because I am not sure I am ready for it.

Both choices - and equal ones at that. Gays are upset they can't get those marriage benefits? I am upset I can't get those marriage benefits.

The point is, this isn't ABOUT gay marriage. It is about the fact that married people get certain rights under the law that unmarried people don't. No one is stopping a gay couple from exchanging vows, they just don't get the same "goodies" that go along with it.

So what is wrong with going after changes in those policies? I can tell you, WAY more people are going to be receptive to a law allowing hospital visit rights to a person of the "victim's" choice than to universally recognizing gay marriage under the law. Fill out a form that says "I want X to be able to visit me in intensive care," and problem solved! Broaden the definition of "domestic partner," make it a legal status that you can enter into by signing a contract, and encourage insurance companies to accept that - that helps gays and straights who chose not to submit to governmental marriage...

The problem isn't that "gays aren't allowed to marry," it is that the government recognized marriage at all. It SHOULD be a private thing, and when treated as such, everyone would actually be happy. Get the government involved, and look at the mess it causes.
Spaceman Spiff
Knackwurst
Level: 101

Posts: 1721/2905
EXP: 10705275
For next: 12437

Since: 2.1.02
From: Philly Suburbs

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 21 min.
AIM:  
#33 Posted on 5.11.04 1108.32
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1108.33
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Gay people CAN get married - they just can't marry someone of the same sex in the eyes of the government.

    I have the choice to marry my girlfriend to get those benefits, but they also have the choice to marry a woman. They don't want to do that, because they aren't attracted to women, and I don't want to get married right now because I am not sure I am ready for it.

    Both choices - and equal ones at that. Gays are upset they can't get those marriage benefits? I am upset I can't get those marriage benefits.

Those aren't equal choices. One is based on biology, the other on personal choice.

That's akin to saying "well, I gotta go to the bathroom, but I can't go in the women's room because I'm a guy, but I don't want to go into the men's room because the floor's a little scummy."
BigSteve
Pepperoni
Level: 64

Posts: 193/1091
EXP: 2204306
For next: 9803

Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2839 days
Last activity: 2567 days
#34 Posted on 5.11.04 1805.32
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1805.34
See here's the thing about gay MARRIAGE...not civil unions or anything else. Marriage is not some law that has been tailored to exclude a certain class or group of people. Marriage is what it is, and that doesn't change. You can't change the definition of something just because certain people demand it. It's not about discrimination. Marriage, in and of itself, is based on religion, and therefore cannot be altered just because some think that it is unfair because the rules don't change. It's preposterous to compare this to something like disenfranchisement or real discrimination.

And why is it that the Democrats on this board seem to be screaming that Bush won because of the religious right/evangelical christians? So if one group supports a candidate en masse, that candidate is illegitimate because of that? So if Kerry got elected in part because he won the minority vote, that makes him illegitimate and the country will be at the whim of a group whose interests are not in tune with the mainstream neccessarily? I don't think so...but then again, it's only alright to have outright contempt for white male Christians in this country (not that we should have contempt for ANYONE, but you get my point).
JayJayDean
Scrapple
Level: 125

Posts: 1741/4719
EXP: 22165300
For next: 288927

Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 48 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
Y!:
#35 Posted on 5.11.04 1820.40
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1820.53
    Originally posted by BigSteve
    You can't change the definition of something just because certain people demand it.


Because you phrased it that way I looked it up, and it seems you CAN "change the definiton" of marriage.

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union
Leroy
Boudin blanc
Level: 91

Posts: 456/2266
EXP: 7346925
For next: 122016

Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 5 days
#36 Posted on 5.11.04 1852.15
Reposted on: 5.11.11 1852.17
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Gay people CAN get married - they just can't marry someone of the same sex in the eyes of the government.

    I have the choice to marry my girlfriend to get those benefits, but they also have the choice to marry a woman. They don't want to do that, because they aren't attracted to women, and I don't want to get married right now because I am not sure I am ready for it.


Actually, if we look at it your way, all heterosexuals are being denied the right to marry members of the same sex in order to get benefits.

I mean - maybe two REALLY unattractive straight people of the same sex want to get married so they can obtain certain rights. Well now they can't, so it's really a law that discriminates against EVERYONE.

That's just as absurd as "gays can marry members of the opposite sex".

    Originally posted by Pool=Boy

    So what is wrong with going after changes in those policies? I can tell you, WAY more people are going to be receptive to a law allowing hospital visit rights to a person of the "victim's" choice than to universally recognizing gay marriage under the law.


Because its about GAYS. That's it. It's nothing but pure homophobia - and some absurd notion about the "sanctity" of marriage.
Spaceman Spiff
Knackwurst
Level: 101

Posts: 1723/2905
EXP: 10705275
For next: 12437

Since: 2.1.02
From: Philly Suburbs

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 21 min.
AIM:  
#37 Posted on 6.11.04 1101.05
Reposted on: 6.11.11 1101.10
    Originally posted by BigSteve
    Marriage, in and of itself, is based on religion, and therefore cannot be altered just because some think that it is unfair because the rules don't change.

I think the fact that atheists can get married invalidates this argument. At one point it was solely religion-based, but this is no longer the case.
BigSteve
Pepperoni
Level: 64

Posts: 202/1091
EXP: 2204306
For next: 9803

Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2839 days
Last activity: 2567 days
#38 Posted on 6.11.04 1139.40
Reposted on: 6.11.11 1139.51
Point I'm trying to make is, Marriage is a creation of religion not of civil government.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator
Level: 139

Posts: 2885/6012
EXP: 31953831
For next: 513696

Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
#39 Posted on 6.11.04 1216.49
Reposted on: 6.11.11 1216.51
    Originally posted by BigSteve
    Point I'm trying to make is, Marriage is a creation of religion not of civil government.


Baseball used to be a game played by Children, but it is now a huge industry. It would be as weak of an argument to say that football is cration of children game and not of business as it would be to say that marriage is a creation of religion and not of civil government.

Obviously, the importance of the past significance of the concept and term "marriage" is not as important to each of our lives today as the actual civil ramifications of the term or concept of "marriage".

Before anyone gets outraged that I am blasting what marriage means to them - I am not. Everyone can think and believe whatever they want to about marriage. You can even disapprove of other people marrying - there is a great tradition of looking down on marriages in this country. I'm not encouraging anything contrary to this. I believe that if you think that gay marriage is wrong, that you have the absolute right to disdain, disapprove, even dislike someone because of it. What I don't agree on is that you should have the right to discriminate against them because of your beliefs.

I don't understand why people can't see that it is perfectly acceptable to not be comfortable with something without legislating against it. Freedom isn't supposed to be freedom to be like the majority - and it is the responsibility of each citizen to make sure that they are supporting those freedoms rather than destroying them.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 1375/1528
EXP: 4083821
For next: 107327

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2828 days
Last activity: 2671 days
AIM:  
#40 Posted on 6.11.04 1344.28
Reposted on: 6.11.11 1347.39
Just to quibble with you, Guru, we're not talking only about legislating against gay marriage. We first have to legislate for it, which I think deflates your argument, or at least makes your argument one in favor of keeping government out of marriage altogether.
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 NextThread ahead: Conservative Groups Put Research on Watch List
Next thread: Not to be shown up by US forces.....
Previous thread: Electronic voting machine overcompensates for Bush in OH
(520 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - The Yankees are coming!Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.215 seconds.