Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Alternative Lifestyles in the News >> RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment - 7/16/2004 8:24:26 AM   
January


Posts: 891
Joined: 4/17/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousPuppy
And you people dare to question ...


You people? Ah. I see you're unfamiliar with tolerance.

(in reply to CuriousPuppy)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment - 7/16/2004 9:03:40 AM   
CuriousPuppy


Posts: 120
Joined: 6/20/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Leonidas

Nice rant, but you didn't make one plausable argument for same-sex marriage. One more time, you argued, though in an inflammatory and hysterical kind of way, for getting equal stuff (i.e. equal protection). I don't see anyone arguing that you aren't entitled to equal protection. The question is about marriages.


A rant? Perhaps... Not a single plausable argument? Hardly... it seems that you couldn't take the time to address a single point that I made and simply dismissed them completely, thank you for showing your true intention in a "discussion" or "debate". In fact the only way you even attempted to explain away my post, was by saying it was a hysterical rant for "equal stuff", how nobody is saying people aren't entitled to equal protection, and curiously enough... how the question is about marriages.

Lets start with that offensive little jab about how it's only about marriages...

quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Now I'm sure we all know where that little line came from so obviously these are secular/nonreligious marriages you speak of.. right? Lets take another one hmm?

quote:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


I already pointed out in my last post how certain biggots have gone and made those nifty contracts null and void, and how another group of biggots has made it so same sex marriages and other fun things like 'civil unions" don't have to be recognized by other states... so lets talk about "equal rights"... maybe when you stop hiding behind that tired and dead little strawman you will come out and make an actual argument for the biggotry and hate that you are actually supporting.

As to me? I'm not gay, I just have enough gay friends to feel strongly about the issue.

(in reply to Leonidas)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment - 7/16/2004 9:08:58 AM   
CuriousPuppy


Posts: 120
Joined: 6/20/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: January

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousPuppy
And you people dare to question ...


You people? Ah. I see you're unfamiliar with tolerance.


Wow, when you quote me out of context by cutting off where "you people" is clarified in that ... where you omitted it to be able to make a point, it almost looks like you have a point.

quote:

And you people dare to question why same sex couples are unhappy with trying to cut through the hostility and discrimination?


"you people" is a specific reference to those who would question why same sex couples are unhappy with trying to cut through the hostility and discrimination. Since it is obvious that "[you/these/those] people" is not "everyone", then "you people" is completely justified. But it's ok January, I understand that it's easier to attack a poster than it is to attack an argument when you have none.

(in reply to January)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment - 7/16/2004 9:43:19 AM   
January


Posts: 891
Joined: 4/17/2004
Status: offline
Chill, dear.

I didn't quote you out of "context". Your explanation doesn't change a thing. My hope was to get you see the irony in expecting other people to honor your POV when you don't give a shit about anybody else's views.

Since you aren't likely to see your own double standard, and you'll continue to attempt to alienate people rather than convince them, I'll just say your intellectual bullying won't work here.

By the way, bigot is spelled bigot, not biggot. Written debate is more effective if you can... well... spell the words you're hurling around with such force.

January

_____________________________

[link: http://www.bookstrand.com/miss-you-sir] Miss You, Sir by January Rowe is available from Siren now! It's my latest smokin' hot bdsm romance.[/link]




(in reply to CuriousPuppy)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment - 7/16/2004 10:04:58 AM   
Leonidas


Posts: 2078
Joined: 2/16/2004
Status: offline
You could turn down the inflammatory tone and condescention just a little. Marriage is not a privledge of citizens of the united states. Nice try, though. States regulate marriage. You complain about things like DOMA, but my point is that the gay community is bringing these things on themselves by trying to impose its will on the general population through legal manuvering, rather than working to change public opinion (a longer track, to be sure, but perhaps wiser). They are trying, and have been trying, to get one state to recognize gay marriage, so that they could then use another bit of the constitution that you haven't mentioned the "full faith and credit" clause, to force all the other states to recognize those marriages. Congress sees this, and because a majority of the electorate still isn't ready for gay marriage, you get things like DOMA. The gay community is trying to do a legal end run, and it's seen by many people in the non-gay community as just that. People tend to resent those kinds of manuvers and they can result in a backlash, as we are seeing. My point was and is that the gay community isn't doing itself any favors.

Your quoting the first amendment is similarly irrelevant. Nobody is denying the gay community freedom of speech, or assembly. There are no marriage laws in this country that require that you be of any particular faith, or of any faith at all, to be married, so the establishment clause isn't in any peril here, and nobody is denying them their right to petition. You want marriage to include gays. At this point in time, the majority of the electorate doesn't. That may change in time, but by going for the short term, "in your face" win, the gay community may end up saddling itself with the much larger task of getting state constitutions amended, a federal constitutional amendment repealed, and things like DOMA repealed. It's not smart.

I'm sorry that my assertion that it's about marriages offended you, but that is in fact what we are talking about.

There was a time in the not so distant past when women in this country could not vote. It took very dedicated women almost 100 years to convince men that they should be accorded that right, but eventually, they succeeded, and the constitution was amended. If, instead, they had tried some clever legal manuvering to force women's sufferage on men before a majority of the male population was ready to accept the idea, who knows what kinds of crazy defensive measures would have been passed to thwart them.

I can tell that you are very passionate about this issue. So much so that you can't even allow that thinking, enlightened, intelligent people can disagree about it. If one doesn't agree with your position, they are by definition a moron and a bigot. You are certainly entitled to think, that way, and behave accordingly, but don't expect it to further your cause. A small, opinionated, vocal, confrontational minority can browbeat a much larger group of people successfully to a point, but beyond that point things can get really dicey.

Take care of yourself.

Leonidas

(in reply to CuriousPuppy)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment - 7/16/2004 10:36:28 AM   
CuriousPuppy


Posts: 120
Joined: 6/20/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: January

Chill, dear.

I didn't quote you out of "context". Your explanation doesn't change a thing. My hope was to get you see the irony in expecting other people to honor your POV when you don't give a shit about anybody else's views.

Since you aren't likely to see your own double standard, and you'll continue to attempt to alienate people rather than convince them, I'll just say your intellectual bullying won't work here.

The problem is not in my understanding, it is with the desire of the antisame sex marriage crowd understanding the difference between tolerance and acceptance.

I don't agree with or accept the beliefs of a klanmember, However I fully tolerate their right to have those beliefs. I do not tolerate any desire they may have to inflict those beliefs on another unwilling person.

I don't agree with a fairly large chunk of what is said by various religious nutballs in the name of 'god', I tolerate their right to say most of those things though (some of them are illegal;)... simply saying those things, does not harm another. I do not tolerate their attempts to use those words to legislate their beliefs and force them upon another who does not agree.

I don't agree with those who say gay marriage is wrong, I tolerate their right to think that... even their right to say that. I will not tolerate them attempting to force others to live by those beliefs for no reason other than to protect their religious belief and to be spiteful.

Now if anyone else is still having problems understanding the difference between tolerance of another's thoughts, and tolerance of another's actions when those actions are an attempt to harm another... well... I suppose there is little hope for you in that case.

< Message edited by CuriousPuppy -- 7/16/2004 10:37:37 AM >

(in reply to January)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment - 7/16/2004 11:06:56 AM   
CuriousPuppy


Posts: 120
Joined: 6/20/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Leonidas

You could turn down the inflammatory tone and condescention just a little. Marriage is not a privledge of citizens of the united states. Nice try, though.


You fail to see the reason for me quoting the constitution. You see that line applies to the states as well... and the government can not make a law promoting any one religion, so it is obvious that marriage certificates and privledges granted by the state must not be founded in religion. It also means that right now we can throw out all of those references to marriage being sacred, holy, a glorious institution, or any other attempt to paint it with a religious brush.... like some have already tried in this very thread.

And you are also wrong about marriage not being a privledge of the citizens of the United States by the constitution.

quote:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Everything not specifically written as a right somewhere, is still a right granted by the constitution... and that is the reason that those often attacked "activist judges" in MA determined that same sex marriages is legal. That is the reason that certain hate mongers pushed through things like DOMA and that Virginia law (that you convieniently skated right past mentioning), they want a way to enforce their hate and don't want to be forced to accept things that don't affect them.

The gay community isn't pulling obscure bits of law out and trying to enforce them, they started out with asking to be accepted and asking to be treated with the dignity that should go with their committed reltionship. They were met with attack after attack and forced into courts time and time again when people challenged their power of attorney, their legal contracts with each other, their wills... and even when people just didn't have a choice because policy says only family members can go with them during an emergency visit to a hospital. The people who fought the same sex couples who tried to gain legitimacy... they brought all of these court battles on themselves.

(in reply to Leonidas)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment - 7/16/2004 11:49:46 AM   
Leonidas


Posts: 2078
Joined: 2/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Everything not specifically written as a right somewhere, is still a right granted by the constitution... and that is the reason that those often attacked "activist judges" in MA determined that same sex marriages is legal.


You don't have inately have a right to marriage. I don't inately have a right to marriage. Gays don't either. You have to be in the group that has been granted that status. It is a status defined by the institution that grants the status. You have the right to vote. I have the right to vote. We are both over 18, and so we fall within the group that has been granted that status. Used to be, you had to be 21 to vote, until the general electorate decided it was time to let younger people vote. If you're 17, you may assert that you have the right to vote, but guess what? You're not gonna vote. Now, you can stand up and scream till you're blue in the face that it's not fair, and that all those people over 18 are just hate mongers and bigots because they have defined a class that you are not in, but it won't do much good.

Since people have been writing things down on clay tablets wiht a sharp stick, marriage has been an institution that has always been defined as a relationship between men and women in every significant culture that has defined the concept. It doesn't have anything to do with a particular religion, as you seem to think. It is a social institution that just doesn't happen to include gays. The gays in this country want to change the definition of marriage so that it includes them. The general electorate doesn't want to. In a democracy, who rules? You can argue that people shouldn't care about things that don't involve them, but hey, you know what? Sometimes they do. You can similarly argue that nobody should care what a prostitute does with a john in the privacy of her hotel room, but you know what? People do. Rightly or wrongly, the people think that prostitution will lead to moral decay. They might be absolutely wrong about that, but at the end of the day, they are the people. You know that whole inconvenient by the people, for the people, of the people thing. It's probably totally unfair, and I know that shocks you. You should seek out the guy who told you that life would always be fair and ask for the price of admission back.

The gay community has made great strides in terms of gaining acceptance in this country. My argument here is that they are probably pressing this issue before its time, and will ultimately do their cause more harm than good. I think that your strident position here, which is mirrored by the gay community (or at least its vocal activists) is hubris, but that's just me.

And that, Mr. Puppy, is my final word on the subject. As I said toward the beginning, I don't really have much of an interest in this issue, I just like a good debate, but debating with people who obviously consider themselves part of the illuminati suffering the idiocy of the plebeians gets old fast. Have at the last word, and good luck to you.

Take care of yourself.

Leonidas

< Message edited by Leonidas -- 7/17/2004 11:28:55 AM >

(in reply to CuriousPuppy)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment - 7/17/2004 8:36:15 PM   
Thanatosian


Posts: 765
Joined: 5/10/2004
From: New Castle, PA
Status: offline
quote:

I will not tolerate them attempting to force others to live by those beliefs <snip>


yet here you are on the boards, ranting and raving and flaming and foaming at the mouth attempting to force others here that do not agree with your belief (that gay marriages/unions/callitwhatyouwill should be accorded the same status of 'traditional' marriages) to live by that beliefs - there is a word for that - it is spelled 'hypocrisy'

it is easy to see that you feel very strongly about this issue, and are very strident in expressing your views about it - unfortunately, most debates are not won by whoever was most strident and passionate in their presentation of their side, but by whoever best presents their points and so wins over the minds and hearts of the 'audience'

( and yes, puppy, I expect you are going to flame that what I said in the first paragraph is invalid because I snipped your quote - so be it)

quote:

Now if anyone else is still having problems understanding the difference between tolerance of another's thoughts, and tolerance of another's actions when those actions are an attempt to harm another... well... I suppose there is little hope for you in that case.


maybe, in your self admitted strong feelings on the issue, you are perhaps not being tolerant to other viewpoints, specifically those of the people you refer to as religious nutballs who see the actions, let me repeat that last word actions being taken by the gay community as an attempt to harm their (the 'religous nutballs') chosen way of life - so therefore, by your own argument quoted directly above, there is little hope for you in this case

Apply usual caveats here

_____________________________

Apply Usual Caveats Here

An expert is somone who has made all the mistakes there are to be made

(in reply to CuriousPuppy)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment - 7/17/2004 8:59:52 PM   
CuriousPuppy


Posts: 120
Joined: 6/20/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thanatosian

quote:

I will not tolerate them attempting to force others to live by those beliefs <snip>


yet here you are on the boards, ranting and raving and flaming and foaming at the mouth attempting to force others here that do not agree with your belief (that gay marriages/unions/callitwhatyouwill should be accorded the same status of 'traditional' marriages) to live by that beliefs - there is a word for that - it is spelled 'hypocrisy'


Except it's not nearly the same thing... I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the picture next to your post is you. The antigay marriage crowd's arguments to twist tolerance of them essentially boil down to "you aren't being tolerant of our desire to make it illegal for males to have long hair!".... Allowing same sex couples to be married under the law, is the same as allowing the various religions to go to church on sundays or bother people on their way into/out of a store/airport/etc as they often do. There is a difference between not liking something something that does not affect you, and acting on those things that you don't like in an attempt to enforce them. You and everyone else is welcome to disagree with me, just as I disagree with everyone who feels that same sex marriage should be made illegal... that is what tolerance is, accepting what you don't like and letting it go... You don't have to like something, or even agree with it to be tolerant of it.

quote:

maybe, in your self admitted strong feelings on the issue, you are perhaps not being tolerant to other viewpoints, specifically those of the people you refer to as religious nutballs who see the actions, let me repeat that last word actions being taken by the gay community as an attempt to harm their (the 'religous nutballs') chosen way of life - so therefore, by your own argument quoted directly above, there is little hope for you in this case


Well do you consider Pat Robertson and the like to be um... mentally balanced?

< Message edited by CuriousPuppy -- 7/17/2004 9:03:57 PM >

(in reply to Thanatosian)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment - 7/18/2004 12:54:20 AM   
Voltare


Posts: 841
Joined: 1/1/2004
From: Santiago, Chile
Status: offline
Very simply put, it's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing.

Curious, the problem with your logic, I think, is you are confusing advocacy with 'force.' If I am advocating a position, I am trying to persuade. I cannot force anyone to think as I do, through a message board. When they walk away, they will either have been persuaded or they will not have been.

My opinion, is that your use of language is such that it explicitly states 'if you advocate a position contrary to mine, then you are intolerable.' Essentially, if you are choosing to ignore the thoughts others offer in response to your suggestions - then I would not be surprised if they choose to ignore you in kind. If we all behaved this way, there would be no interaction, just a great deal of shouting.

Lets all play nice, shall we?

Stephan


_____________________________

http://www.vv3b.com/

"There is always some madness in love, but there is always some reason in madness." - F. Nietzsche

(in reply to CuriousPuppy)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment - 7/18/2004 5:36:41 AM   
KennelSlut


Posts: 22
Joined: 7/10/2004
Status: offline
I find it quite humorous that anyone would attempt to speak for an entire sub-population as some of the people have done in this thread. (That gays only wish their marriages to be recognized because of "stuff"). No one can know what motivates another. No one. Especially someone so convinced that their way is the only way.


We (most of us anyway) are socialized from childhood to want to be married. That desire isn't predicated on one's sexual preference. No matter how badly some seem to want it to. The desire to be married transcends the "material" in homosexual couples, just as it does in heterosexual couples. You'd be ridiculed to hell if you stated that the only reason heterosexual couples sought out marriages was because of the "material" benefit. Lord only knows why someone who supposedly is involved in a lifestyle that *demands* tolerance to exist, would be so quick to so harshly judge someone who also chooses an alternative lifestyle.

In fact - using the logic some are spouting here, we shouldn't recognize marriage in any BDSM, Master/slave relationship because it isn't "traditional".


Having marriage recognized legally goes beyond the material. (Although way anyone would begrudge a committed couple the same benefits enjoyed by other committed couples- regardless the sexual preference- is way beyond me). I'm sure most of you are unaware, in states without a domestic partner law (and there only 4 I believe that have one- Cali, NJ, Vermont and Hawaii) if one partner in a homosexual relationship is in the hospital and terminally ill, the other partner can be denied visitation rights because they are not legally married and are not related. Also - if that patient is unable to speak for themselves, the other partner will have no legal say in what the ill patient would have wanted (to not be kept alive by artificial means for example)- even though they may have been living with the patient for years and years, and are the best judge of the ill patient's wishes. There are hundreds of documented cases, exponentially increasing during the AIDS crises, where estranged families denied visitation rights to loving partners, and took over health care decisions for ill patients despite not having contact with them for years.

I am flabbergasted at the vehemence and petty (to me) arguments which people in the BDSM lifestyle argue against same sex marriages. If it's your tax dollars you're concerned about (because we all KNOW it has nothing to do with "morality" - right my fellow deviants?), there are literally hundreds of thousands of other ways your tax dollars are being spent, at far greater cost, that I'm sure you'd disagree with. I suggest you make those expenditures the target of your efforts - this one is a drop in the bucket.


slut

(in reply to CuriousPuppy)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment - 7/18/2004 8:39:48 AM   
MizSuz


Posts: 1881
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
How very well said, in total.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KennelSlut

If it's your tax dollars you're concerned about (because we all KNOW it has nothing to do with "morality" - right my fellow deviants?), there are literally hundreds of thousands of other ways your tax dollars are being spent, at far greater cost, that I'm sure you'd disagree with. I suggest you make those expenditures the target of your efforts - this one is a drop in the bucket.


Point ON.

There is also the issue of privilege. If you're married then your partner can not be compelled to testify against you. If you are living together your partner can be punished (reads fined or jailed) if they refuse to testify or if they omit things that otherwise would be considered privileged.

There are a plethora of legal reasons why gays should be afforded the same rights as heterosexuals.

In NY they recently enacted some level of title vii protections for homosexuals. Employment and housing, specifically. The caveat is that religious organizations are not bound by these protections if it creates conflict with their core beliefs. Now, I do not understand why it's not possible to allow for same sex rights, with the above mentioned caveats, in regards to marriage. If same sex marriage offends your religious beliefs then don't allow same sex couples in your church.

To me, religions' rights to dictate right and wrong for other people ends at their doorway (or it should).

If I've echoed arguments already made, my apologies. I have not read the entire thread.

_____________________________

“The more you love, the more you can love—and the more intensely you love. Nor is there any limit on how many you can love. If a person had time enough, he could love all of that majority who are decent and just.”
- Robert Heinlein

(in reply to KennelSlut)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment - 7/18/2004 10:57:06 AM   
January


Posts: 891
Joined: 4/17/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KennelSlut
I find it quite humorous that anyone would attempt to speak for an entire sub-population as some of the people have done in this thread.


Yet, you say...

quote:

You'd be ridiculed to hell if you stated that the only reason heterosexual couples sought out marriages was because of the "material" benefit.


Aren't you speaking for people who are not you? You a married heterosexual?

In any case, I'd have to disagree with your assertion. I've been married for 22 years. And I did get married for "stuff". For one, children were always in the plan, and it was important to me that they be protected no matter how our couple relationship changed. (We did live together for several years beforehand) Granted, many married people might say they were married for spiritual reasons, religious reasons, or social reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that some of us (maybe the more analytical types) do recognize other reasons for marriage. By the way, it is my understanding that the original and ancient sociological origins of marriage were created to protect children. It is in this context I can understand gay marriage.

quote:

If it's your tax dollars you're concerned about (because we all KNOW it has nothing to do with "morality" - right my fellow deviants?), there are literally hundreds of thousands of other ways your tax dollars are being spent, at far greater cost, that I'm sure you'd disagree with. I suggest you make those expenditures the target of your efforts - this one is a drop in the bucket.


Who is "you"? What does the above response have to do with the discussion at hand?

January

_____________________________

[link: http://www.bookstrand.com/miss-you-sir] Miss You, Sir by January Rowe is available from Siren now! It's my latest smokin' hot bdsm romance.[/link]




(in reply to KennelSlut)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment - 7/18/2004 12:33:32 PM   
KennelSlut


Posts: 22
Joined: 7/10/2004
Status: offline
Aren't you speaking for people who are not you? You a married heterosexual?

Um - no. I'm not speaking for anyone. And, while I fail to see the relevancy in your question - yes - I have been a married heterosexual. And "stuff" had absolutely nothing to do with why I married.


In any case, I'd have to disagree with your assertion. I've been married for 22 years. And I did get married for "stuff". For one, children were always in the plan, and it was important to me that they be protected no matter how our couple relationship changed. (We did live together for several years beforehand) Granted, many married people might say they were married for spiritual reasons, religious reasons, or social reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that some of us (maybe the more analytical types) do recognize other reasons for marriage.

There is a vast vast difference between SOME people marrying ONLY for "stuff" (which has been claimed in this thread) and/or "stuff" being OTHER reasons for marriage. And if anything - since women's earning potential is *almost* what men's is, I'd say the impetus for marrying because of "stuff" is less than it ever was.



Who is "you"? What does the above response have to do with the discussion at hand?

January

Economics and the "costs" of recognizing gay marriages were mentioned several times. Perhaps I should have extended my commentary to include *any* cost (tax related or employer related) that people are concerned about when the subject of gay marriage comes under scrutiny. If anything - because most employers offer three types of plans - 1 person, 2 person, and family, in the long run, since gays are less likely to need the more expensive "family" plan - they are actually a sound economic investment for any employer offering health insurance.


slut

< Message edited by KennelSlut -- 7/18/2004 12:35:03 PM >

(in reply to January)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment - 7/18/2004 2:38:59 PM   
January


Posts: 891
Joined: 4/17/2004
Status: offline
I wish I could reply to all of your post, but I only have time to reply to this:

quote:

ORIGINAL: KennelSlut

Perhaps I should have extended my commentary to include *any* cost (tax related or employer related) that people are concerned about when the subject of gay marriage comes under scrutiny. If anything - because most employers offer three types of plans - 1 person, 2 person, and family, in the long run, since gays are less likely to need the more expensive "family" plan - they are actually a sound economic investment for any employer offering health insurance.


I'm glad you included health insurance. Insurance is "stuff".

It's hardly a "sound economic investment" to provide insurance for same-sex partners when the alternative is not providing insurance to these partners at all.

I'd also like to point out that most employers in the US are small businesses who have a hard time providing any kind of health insurance. We pay an extra $400/month for the "family" plan. This is OUR out of pocket expense. It hurts. We don't have dental, either. It's not offered by the employer.

Health insurance is pie. How is the pie going to get carved up? That is why many straight people--especially those with families--are concerned with this issue.

J

_____________________________

[link: http://www.bookstrand.com/miss-you-sir] Miss You, Sir by January Rowe is available from Siren now! It's my latest smokin' hot bdsm romance.[/link]




(in reply to KennelSlut)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment - 7/18/2004 4:50:20 PM   
KennelSlut


Posts: 22
Joined: 7/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KennelSlut

Perhaps I should have extended my commentary to include *any* cost (tax related or employer related) that people are concerned about when the subject of gay marriage comes under scrutiny. If anything - because most employers offer three types of plans - 1 person, 2 person, and family, in the long run, since gays are less likely to need the more expensive "family" plan - they are actually a sound economic investment for any employer offering health insurance.


I'm glad you included health insurance. Insurance is "stuff".

It's hardly a "sound economic investment" to provide insurance for same-sex partners when the alternative is not providing insurance to these partners at all.

I'd also like to point out that most employers in the US are small businesses who have a hard time providing any kind of health insurance. We pay an extra $400/month for the "family" plan. This is OUR out of pocket expense. It hurts. We don't have dental, either. It's not offered by the employer.

Health insurance is pie. How is the pie going to get carved up? That is why many straight people--especially those with families--are concerned with this issue.

J


Ahhhh -- I think, it is *you* who are focusing on "stuff". And that you are projecting *your* concerns and motivations, onto others.

So - I wonder - which is the lesser of two evils, the greedy homosexuals who want the same opportunities as hetros? Or the greedy heteros who would deny them... (I am sure it's obvious where I feel the answer lies).

We just spent how many billions of dollars enacting a war based on lies. We pay billions of dollars in corporate welfare annually.. and there are people who begrudge others a few lousy health benefits. Go figure.

I pay 100% of my health insurance. For myself, my son, and 12 employees. I wouldn't dream of denying couples with all the aspects of a "family" except for the fact that both are of the same sex, the benefits of those who were of the opposite sex.


slut


< Message edited by KennelSlut -- 7/18/2004 4:53:21 PM >

(in reply to January)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment - 7/18/2004 7:44:52 PM   
cityslaveforuse


Posts: 14
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
it is somewhat amusing to read how supposedly "tolerant" people throw around insults like "bigot" "religious nuts" etc etc at people who happen to disagree with their political point of view.

Since I agree with Leonidas here in this question I don'thave to make the point again, I am just a little surprised again about people, who always portray themselves as the defenders and promoters of democracy and yet try to circumvent the one major characteristic of democracy: majority rule.

Why not leave the question of gay marriage to the people or their representatives? Trying to use the courts to achieve something for which there pretty obviously is no majority support in the population smacks to me of undemocratic behavior. (I don't even want to start thinking about using the courts to declare that the constitution of 1789 actually gives gays the right to marry.,The framers of the constitution would probably rotate in their graves if they could hear that).

So what is wrong with putting this issue to the people and let them vote on it? No, we want to sue.

Well, while we would be at it, I would like to see some equally unfair discrimination abolished:

-laws that prohibit minors from drinking alcohol because that is pure age discrimination by greedy adults who want all the fun for themselves
-laws that prohibit people from owning tanks, missiles, assault rifles and other toys, because that discriminates against people who prefer these toys to golf clubs (golf clubs can easily kill, too)
-laws that restrict 12 year olds from getting driving licenses because that is again pure age discrimination of greedy adults who want the roads for themselves
-laws restricting marriage to one spouse, laws that don't allow me to marry my own children, sisters, brothers, or my pets (yeah, why not marry pooch, so the employer has to pay vet bills?)
-laws restricting the right to vote to adults, so my baby could also cast her vote on these immensly important questions for her future
...
...

so many rights are being witheld, so unfair is our society, it is just unbearable. Let's sue!

(in reply to KennelSlut)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment - 7/18/2004 8:16:37 PM   
SirAardvark


Posts: 13
Status: offline
A few points are worth mentioning. These are from the entire thread and not directed to anyone in particular.

One key element this country was founded on was protection of minority rights; meaning a generic minority, not any specific ethnic group. Democracy without protection of the minority is simply three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Institutions such as marriage have always been in the real of the individual states and not the federal government. Advocates for federal intervention may be getting more than they bargian for when they try to move this area from the states to the feds.

Marriage laws should remain with the state legislature. It doesn't belong with the Feds.

(in reply to cityslaveforuse)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment - 7/19/2004 6:22:11 AM   
KennelSlut


Posts: 22
Joined: 7/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cityslaveforuse

it is somewhat amusing to read how supposedly "tolerant" people throw around insults like "bigot" "religious nuts" etc etc at people who happen to disagree with their political point of view.

Since I agree with Leonidas here in this question I don'thave to make the point again, I am just a little surprised again about people, who always portray themselves as the defenders and promoters of democracy and yet try to circumvent the one major characteristic of democracy: majority rule.

Why not leave the question of gay marriage to the people or their representatives? Trying to use the courts to achieve something for which there pretty obviously is no majority support in the population smacks to me of undemocratic behavior. (I don't even want to start thinking about using the courts to declare that the constitution of 1789 actually gives gays the right to marry.,The framers of the constitution would probably rotate in their graves if they could hear that).

So what is wrong with putting this issue to the people and let them vote on it? No, we want to sue.

Well, while we would be at it, I would like to see some equally unfair discrimination abolished:

-laws that prohibit minors from drinking alcohol because that is pure age discrimination by greedy adults who want all the fun for themselves
-laws that prohibit people from owning tanks, missiles, assault rifles and other toys, because that discriminates against people who prefer these toys to golf clubs (golf clubs can easily kill, too)
-laws that restrict 12 year olds from getting driving licenses because that is again pure age discrimination of greedy adults who want the roads for themselves
-laws restricting marriage to one spouse, laws that don't allow me to marry my own children, sisters, brothers, or my pets (yeah, why not marry pooch, so the employer has to pay vet bills?)
-laws restricting the right to vote to adults, so my baby could also cast her vote on these immensly important questions for her future
...
...

so many rights are being witheld, so unfair is our society, it is just unbearable. Let's sue!




I'm not quite sure what relevence including minors or rights to the "ridiculous" have in this discussion. However, I'm sure the white southerners, facing the repeal of the Jim Crow laws, shared your sarcasm.

The US is becoming increasingly diverse - culturally, sexually, economically, and religiously; I think those who are quick to call for legislation based on an over simplified application of the term "majority" - should be careful of what they wish for.


slut

< Message edited by KennelSlut -- 7/19/2004 7:28:08 AM >

(in reply to cityslaveforuse)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Alternative Lifestyles in the News >> RE: Defeat of constitutional amendment Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.133