labrys 0 #226 February 26, 2004 I'm calling "jump" numbers on ya here, Ron. YOU have no clue what being homosexual is all about. I do. I have a lot more experience at it than you do. Yeah, yeah... Steve can't fuck Bob and produce a child, not can Sally and Sue. Doesn't mean that any one of them can't have HETERO sex and produce a child, then raise the child in the comfort of their nasty little HOMO household. Homosexuals are not incapable of having children. They just prefer same-sex relationships. There are straight people have sex just to procreate and don't enjoy it otherwise. It HAPPENS Ron. You have no idea how often. I'd suggest that you button your lip if you think you UNDERSTAND homosexuality. Edit big, stupid D'UH typoOwned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #227 February 26, 2004 QuoteGive an example, please? Under what conditions will you be forced to interact with a gay couple and how will a law change how you would have otherwise treated them? I own a small company. I have a gay female working for me...Her partner then would have to be covered under my insurance...That will cost me more money. The cost of health insurance is rising quickly...Some companies are having to drop having coverage cause its so expensive."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #228 February 26, 2004 QuoteQuoteChurches ought to perform marriages and the government can create civil unions. So, instead of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, ban the gov't from being involved in marriages at all and let private groups like churches handle it. Then, there is no issue. I think this is the best idea I've heard. As you pointed out subsequently, an amendment is overkill probably. But the idea expressed above, however enacted (amendment, law, whatever), is a good one. A lot of people scoff at the idea of putting so much effort into redefining a word. But words are EXTREMELY important. They're our basis of communication. They shape the way we think, even though that may seem like backwards logic it's true in some respects. Marriage was originally a religious concept, and married couples now receive legal benefits as well. So why not leave marriage as a religious matter and create a new classification - legal union? Married couples (married by religious institutions), under this system, would not automatically receive legal benefits, nor would they automatically be legally bound to each other. They would need to enter into a legal union in addition to their marriage. Does this seem like a ridiculous idea?www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #229 February 26, 2004 QuoteI'm calling "jump" numbers on ya here, Ron. YOU have no clue what being homosexual is all about. I do. I have a lot more experience at it than you do. I don't have first hand exp...but I do have gay friends. So you know how to BE gay...big deal I know about the issues just like anyone else. I don't have to suck dick to understand the issues. Drop the emotional side of it. QuoteSteve can't fuck Bob and produce a child, not can Sally and Sue. Doesn't mean that any one of them can't have HETERO sex and produce a child, then raise the child in the comfort of their nasty little HOMO household Ok my post was that they can't fuck and have kids. You got all bent out of shape about it...Its a FACT. QuoteHomosexuals are incapable of having children. They just prefer same-sex relationships. I assume you mean ARE NOT. And all I have to say about that is DUH! QuoteIt HAPPENS Ron. You have no idea how often. I'd suggest that you button your lip if you think you UNDERSTAND homosexuality. Its a free country, and I'll talk about it as much as I like. And when it comes time to VOTE on it...I'll speak up again. I don't have an issue with gay people. Its people like you that make it so people do have issues. Militant Gays in peoples faces demanding rights. You will have equal rights....Its goning to take time..jumping in my face and telling me to "button it" is not going to speed it up one little bit."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #230 February 26, 2004 QuoteI own a small company. I have a gay female working for me...Her partner then would have to be covered under my insurance...That will cost me more money. Explain again? How would you have to TREAT them differently? They're paying insurance bills and taxes too, Ron. There insurance rates and taxes are going up too, Ron.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #231 February 26, 2004 QuoteI own a small company. I have a gay female working for me...Her partner then would have to be covered under my insurance...That will cost me more money. Really? I never heard of any laws that you have to cover employees, let alone their spouses. I'm fortunate enough to have health insurance at work, if I had a family, I would have to pay for their coverage, my company doesn't pick it up. Now, if you're saying you have a company policy to cover spouses, that's a little different. But, if you don't want to cover same sex partners, than you're discriminating based on sexual orientation, and that is illegal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #232 February 26, 2004 QuoteI assume you mean ARE NOT. And all I have to say about that is DUH! Yeah, big D'UH, and I appreciate that you didn't try to twist that up. Look, Ron.. I'm not suggesting that you'd have to suck dick to understand. I'm just saying that in my opinion, you are making assumptions, and those assumptions are probably based on what popular media has taught you about homosexuals. If this was an argument about some other political issue you'd probably disdain someone who based their arguments on what Fox News Network showed them on TV. All I'm saying is that gay couples are entirely capable of having kids without adopting them. It happens all the time. I get hot-headed about this, I'll admit it. I can't spell eitherOwned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #233 February 26, 2004 QuoteExplain again? How would you have to TREAT them differently? They're paying insurance bills and taxes too, Ron. There insurance rates and taxes are going up too, Ron. I would have to pay more to cover the "Partner". Most companies pay a larger portion than the Employee. That would effect employers."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #234 February 26, 2004 QuoteI would have to pay more to cover the "Partner". You're not explaining how you would have to TREAT them differently. You're just saying it would cost you money.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #235 February 26, 2004 QuoteNow, if you're saying you have a company policy to cover spouses, that's a little different. But, if you don't want to cover same sex partners, than you're discriminating based on sexual orientation, and that is illegal Most companies offer health coverage to married couples. Right now they don't have to do that for Gay couples. If gay couples have the same rights, and Im a "Man of God" and think that Homosexuality is wrong...Then by Law I could. 1. Get rid of all dependent health coverage. 2. Cover gay partners. So it would effect me and any employees I have. And you never answered my questions about roommates or ex lovers that just live together now...Are they entitled to the same rights? Quotethan you're discriminating based on sexual orientation, and that is illegal Right now its not an issue is it...? If it passes then it is."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #236 February 26, 2004 QuoteLook, Ron.. I'm not suggesting that you'd have to suck dick to understand Uh...you kinda DID. I don't take it personal...Its an issue you feel strongly about and I have the luxury to not be effected by it. QuoteI'm just saying that in my opinion, you are making assumptions, and those assumptions are probably based on what popular media has taught you about homosexuals. No, Im making assumtions based off of what my gay friends and I talk about. I try not to listen to media or preachers. QuoteAll I'm saying is that gay couples are entirely capable of having kids without adopting them. It happens all the time. Yep, just like my sister had a kid without being married...Im not stupid, I know how kids are made. And I'll be honest Im not sure how I feel about gay couples and kids...I have said I think it would be better than the kids being in "homes"....But I do have issues with it. QuoteI get hot-headed about this, I'll admit it. Understandable. I have the ability to look at it without the strong emotion. And like I said Im not sure. Is that fair for me to say, or do I have to agree with you?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #237 February 26, 2004 QuoteYou're not explaining how you would have to TREAT them differently. You're just saying it would cost you money. One day I don't have to pay to cover the partner..The next I do. Thats how I would have to treat them differently. Its just an issue that should be looked at."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #238 February 26, 2004 Quote Militant Gays in peoples faces demanding rights. Quote Sometimes thats the last resort a minority has to use. Perfect example. Suffrage movement in the early 20th century. Many of the suffragist were viewed as extreme in your face militants. Same with the civil rights movement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #239 February 27, 2004 QuoteMost companies offer health coverage to married couples. I call BS on that. I don't think I've ever worked anywhere where the employer paid for spouses. They allowed you to purchase it on their plan, but they didn't pay for it. QuoteRight now they don't have to do that for Gay couples. If gay couples have the same rights, and Im a "Man of God" and think that Homosexuality is wrong...Then by Law I could. 1. Get rid of all dependent health coverage. 2. Cover gay partners. So it would effect me and any employees I have. Right, you wouldn't be allowed to discriminate against someone based on your religious beliefs. I don't see a problem with that. If I'm a member of the KKK, I can't not offer to cover my white employees black spouse because of my beliefs. QuoteAnd you never answered my questions about roommates or ex lovers that just live together now...Are they entitled to the same rights? As a matter of fact, in states with common-law-marriage rulings, they are. In fact I managed a business where one of my employees puchased insurance through the company plan for her common-law husband. Other than that, no. If there is no legal contract between the two parties, than they don't have the same protections. QuoteRight now its not an issue is it...? Yes, to all the gay couples out there, it's a very big issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jayruss 0 #240 February 27, 2004 QuoteI own a small company. I have a gay female working for me...Her partner then would have to be covered under my insurance...That will cost me more money. The cost of health insurance is rising quickly...Some companies are having to drop having coverage cause its so expensive. Oh I get it, equality to gays should be constitutionally denied because it might cost you money. You know I think Southerner used that same argument for not getting rid of slavery. QuoteAnd you never answered my questions about roommates or ex lovers that just live together now...Are they entitled to the same rights? Yes roommates and lovers would be entitled to these rights IF they got married. Allowing gay people to marry wouldn't require you to grant health care to roommates, unless those roommates went to the county recorder and officiated their union. __________________________________________________ "Beware how you take away hope from another human being." -Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites labrys 0 #241 February 27, 2004 QuoteUh...you kinda DID. Nope, Ron. I kinda didn't I don't think that "sucking dick" has jack freakin' squat to do with being homosexual. You came up with that on your own.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Keith 0 #242 February 27, 2004 QuoteI support gay people to do as they please. However they should not MAKE me do anything. How about this: I support straight people to do as they please. However they should not MAKE me do anything. They should not MAKE me JUMP through LEGAL HOOPS to have the SAME RIGHTS.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkydiverRick 0 #243 February 27, 2004 I don't think that "sucking dick" has jack freakin' squat to do with being homosexual. If you are male it does. It's kind of what being homosexual is about. never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #244 February 27, 2004 QuoteNope, Ron. I kinda didn't I don't think that "sucking dick" has jack freakin' squat to do with being homosexual. You came up with that on your own. Then what the hell was this?: QuoteI'm calling "jump" numbers on ya here, Ron. YOU have no clue what being homosexual is all about. I do. I have a lot more experience at it than you do. Ya kinda did."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #245 February 27, 2004 QuoteQuoteI support gay people to do as they please. However they should not MAKE me do anything. How about this: I support straight people to do as they please. However they should not MAKE me do anything. They should not MAKE me JUMP through LEGAL HOOPS to have the SAME RIGHTS. Agreed! Oh yea - Everyone has to realize that "marriage" is a religious term. I don't think there are many religions in this country that will support a gay marriage, and Bush shouldn't mix his religion into the constituion. Now, a civil union that the state recognizes? Well, that is something different. And honestly, what is the big deal about allowing two people to proclaim their love and life long devotion to each other to the community and have the legal community recognize it?_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #246 February 27, 2004 Quote I don't think that "sucking dick" has jack freakin' squat to do with being homosexual. If you are male it does. It's kind of what being homosexual is about. So it can't be an emotional thing at all? Last I heard most marriages are sex-free anyhow. Do people really think an act that has a 51% failure rate act across this country is going to be destroyed? When I was in school 49% would get me an F. And how many of those 49% are being faithful? So, maybe gay marriages will help set the curve higher? I'm really curious - how many of those on the side of "this will destroy marriage" are divorced, annuled, cheating or cheated on their spouse? Do you think you are an outstanding example of how sacred marriage is? Think, be open minded people. Take the blinders off, try not to be so damn myopic._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #239 February 27, 2004 QuoteMost companies offer health coverage to married couples. I call BS on that. I don't think I've ever worked anywhere where the employer paid for spouses. They allowed you to purchase it on their plan, but they didn't pay for it. QuoteRight now they don't have to do that for Gay couples. If gay couples have the same rights, and Im a "Man of God" and think that Homosexuality is wrong...Then by Law I could. 1. Get rid of all dependent health coverage. 2. Cover gay partners. So it would effect me and any employees I have. Right, you wouldn't be allowed to discriminate against someone based on your religious beliefs. I don't see a problem with that. If I'm a member of the KKK, I can't not offer to cover my white employees black spouse because of my beliefs. QuoteAnd you never answered my questions about roommates or ex lovers that just live together now...Are they entitled to the same rights? As a matter of fact, in states with common-law-marriage rulings, they are. In fact I managed a business where one of my employees puchased insurance through the company plan for her common-law husband. Other than that, no. If there is no legal contract between the two parties, than they don't have the same protections. QuoteRight now its not an issue is it...? Yes, to all the gay couples out there, it's a very big issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jayruss 0 #240 February 27, 2004 QuoteI own a small company. I have a gay female working for me...Her partner then would have to be covered under my insurance...That will cost me more money. The cost of health insurance is rising quickly...Some companies are having to drop having coverage cause its so expensive. Oh I get it, equality to gays should be constitutionally denied because it might cost you money. You know I think Southerner used that same argument for not getting rid of slavery. QuoteAnd you never answered my questions about roommates or ex lovers that just live together now...Are they entitled to the same rights? Yes roommates and lovers would be entitled to these rights IF they got married. Allowing gay people to marry wouldn't require you to grant health care to roommates, unless those roommates went to the county recorder and officiated their union. __________________________________________________ "Beware how you take away hope from another human being." -Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #241 February 27, 2004 QuoteUh...you kinda DID. Nope, Ron. I kinda didn't I don't think that "sucking dick" has jack freakin' squat to do with being homosexual. You came up with that on your own.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #242 February 27, 2004 QuoteI support gay people to do as they please. However they should not MAKE me do anything. How about this: I support straight people to do as they please. However they should not MAKE me do anything. They should not MAKE me JUMP through LEGAL HOOPS to have the SAME RIGHTS.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiverRick 0 #243 February 27, 2004 I don't think that "sucking dick" has jack freakin' squat to do with being homosexual. If you are male it does. It's kind of what being homosexual is about. never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #244 February 27, 2004 QuoteNope, Ron. I kinda didn't I don't think that "sucking dick" has jack freakin' squat to do with being homosexual. You came up with that on your own. Then what the hell was this?: QuoteI'm calling "jump" numbers on ya here, Ron. YOU have no clue what being homosexual is all about. I do. I have a lot more experience at it than you do. Ya kinda did."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #245 February 27, 2004 QuoteQuoteI support gay people to do as they please. However they should not MAKE me do anything. How about this: I support straight people to do as they please. However they should not MAKE me do anything. They should not MAKE me JUMP through LEGAL HOOPS to have the SAME RIGHTS. Agreed! Oh yea - Everyone has to realize that "marriage" is a religious term. I don't think there are many religions in this country that will support a gay marriage, and Bush shouldn't mix his religion into the constituion. Now, a civil union that the state recognizes? Well, that is something different. And honestly, what is the big deal about allowing two people to proclaim their love and life long devotion to each other to the community and have the legal community recognize it?_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #246 February 27, 2004 Quote I don't think that "sucking dick" has jack freakin' squat to do with being homosexual. If you are male it does. It's kind of what being homosexual is about. So it can't be an emotional thing at all? Last I heard most marriages are sex-free anyhow. Do people really think an act that has a 51% failure rate act across this country is going to be destroyed? When I was in school 49% would get me an F. And how many of those 49% are being faithful? So, maybe gay marriages will help set the curve higher? I'm really curious - how many of those on the side of "this will destroy marriage" are divorced, annuled, cheating or cheated on their spouse? Do you think you are an outstanding example of how sacred marriage is? Think, be open minded people. Take the blinders off, try not to be so damn myopic._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #247 February 27, 2004 QuoteHow about this: I support straight people to do as they please. However they should not MAKE me do anything. They should not MAKE me JUMP through LEGAL HOOPS to have the SAME RIGHTS. Right now the LAW says other wise. I support the right for people to BE gay if they want. I am not sure a gay couple should have the right to get married as the LAW says. Marriage is a religious issue. If the Churches want to allow it...then I would support the LAW being changed. Im done here folks.... I asked a few questions....Gave some thoughts, and got SLAMMED for doing it. When I started in here I was unsure...Now with all the people acting like jackasses...I would probley vote against it just out of spite. You catch more flies with sugar than vinegar.... I would have gladly engaged in civil debate...In fact I am in PM's with a guy right now. But to all those who felt like blasting me...You are doing more harm than good. You are pushing my opinions the opposite way you want. And it is all in your approach. Its your right to use whatever approach you want....But this one is not working with me. I asked questions...And got no answers... Like I said..Im done here... Gay away on your own."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #248 February 27, 2004 Quote Right now the LAW says other wise. I support the right for people to BE gay if they want. I am not sure a gay couple should have the right to get married as the LAW says. Marriage is a religious issue. If the Churches want to allow it...then I would support the LAW being changed. If you follow that logic then people of no faith should not be allowed to get married either, yet it happens all the time in Vegas and City Hall's across the country. And the Catholic church doesn't recognize one of those unless a priest was on hand. So, if there is no priest on hand, are you really married even if you have a marriage license from the state? We are supposed to have a secular government - the religion aspect shouldn't be factored into the civil union of two people. At all. If it is, then it is a violation of mixing of church and state._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pccoder 0 #249 February 27, 2004 I probably wont check back on this post, but having been through a "straight" marriage that ended in divorce my opinion about marriage is that it has nothing to do with relegion and everything to do with money and control. And I don't mean "he" is controlling her or vice versa. It is the "State" controlling its people and making them do exactly what they want them to do. I don't want to get into a lot of "show up reasons for what you think", I don't think there is enough e-paper to write that one down. Just thought I'd make my statement and move on. If gays, straights, black, white, yellow, alien, whatever want to be together, if the state won't accept it, fuck the state. Do we really need acceptance from the state to know how we feel in our hearts? If its an argument about "fair rights" and not getting the same "breaks" as straight couples, well the grass is always greener. while straight couples ended marriages have their own problems to deal with (alimony, child support, <---being forced to deal with someone you despise (an ex spouse) until your child is grown), gay couples can deal with other things. We all have our little problems with being married and not being married. Wanna be gay and get married???? go right ahead. other than on paper they are doing it anyway. who am i to tell them they can't? PcCoder.net Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #250 February 27, 2004 QuoteQuoteMost companies offer health coverage to married couples. I call BS on that. I don't think I've ever worked anywhere where the employer paid for spouses. They allowed you to purchase it on their plan, but they didn't pay for it. Ron said "most companies offer" and you said he was incorrect, that "they allowed you to purchase". What is the difference between them "offerering it" and "allowing you to purchase it" ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
