|
|
| Author |
Message |
kireol
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Aug 2003
Posts: 9517
Location: Royal Oak, MI
|
 Posted: 02/14/04 - 19:32 Post subject:
|
|
|
| lauren000 wrote: | | kireol wrote: | | Akronn wrote: | But you see, this is the question I pose to you: what does it matter?
Personally, it doesn't make a single difference in my life if the hypothetical gay couple living together down the street is married or not, just like it doesn't matter if the hetero couple is either. It's not like outlawing gay marriages is gonna stop gay couples from holding hands down the street in front of your kids. Get real. |
what if your health insurance went up and your taxes went up because of it? |
then you'd deal with it like everything else kireol you're smarter than this. Equal rights don't mean special rights. Stop being so afraid you're going to lose something. |
i would be losing something. money.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
Nuldaan
Sir Postalot
Joined: 07 Nov 2002
Posts: 1179
|
|
Posted: 02/14/04 - 20:24 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Brash wrote: | | Kbarr wrote: | | kireol wrote: | | Akronn wrote: | But you see, this is the question I pose to you: what does it matter?
Personally, it doesn't make a single difference in my life if the hypothetical gay couple living together down the street is married or not, just like it doesn't matter if the hetero couple is either. It's not like outlawing gay marriages is gonna stop gay couples from holding hands down the street in front of your kids. Get real. |
what if your health insurance went up and your taxes went up because of it? |
That....and why should I incorporate the union of 2 people based on a mental illness into the definition of marriage. Its all about using the law to regulate normalcy where there is no general acceptance for the behavior the law was designed to legalize.
I could get a law passed that says f*****g my dog is acceptable and desirable.
They can pass the law but that will not change the negative view the majority has for this behavior. No matter what the law says. The majority will just avoid this behavior and the people who practice it.
To be blunt, the majority of Americans think homosexuality is wrong, a sickness, or something else just as undesirable. They don't want them given the license to marry because they don't agree that same **** union are equal to heterosexual marriages. Shacking up because of a mental illness is still seen as unacceptable and deviant behavior. |
First off , i think its funny that the first thing you guys always go to is how this will lead to f*****g your pets and barn yard animals .... Again no politician will ever suport you getting hitched to your dog kbarr. this will never ever be a issue.
More to the point , this is just a start of the battle so when Kbarr's generation of hate dies off it will be easier to pass these laws.
Kbarr calls it a "mental illness" does that mean all types of people with mental illness should not be able to get married or just this one type of mental illness? IF it is a mental illness , what makes it so different than the others , that they should be treated so differently ?
I don't know about where you guys live but here in minneapolis, no one gives a shit . Some gay guy is no different than the next strait guy i meet on the street to me. I dont find what the gay guy does in his bedroom to very appealing but i also dont find to fat ass's f*****g appealing either. not going to tell them they can't get married. Guess most of us just worrie about ourselfs for the most part. Unless it is going to have a direct impact on mylife or anyone i care about , who gives a shit what you do. Hope they are not spending much time worrieing about what the f**k is going on in my bedroom. |
Didn't this get covered in a different post? The majority of the country is against it. That's hardly the same as nobody cares. I love how so many of you keep trying to assert that it's the 'Christian Right' that is doing this. It's not. Let's deal with facts and not made up numbers. The majority of the country believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. So unless the majority of the country is the Christian Right in your eyes, you're just making up facts to suit your argument.
As long as I'm posting, quit trying to make people that are against gay marriage out to be the aggressors. It's gay rights advocates that are attempting to force the rest of the country to redefine it's views to fit their view of the way things should be. It's already been suggested that civil unions could be given exactly the same legal benefits as marriage and that wasn't enough. Well, why wasn't it enough? If they had the same legal benefits, then what is the difference? The name, that's the difference. They want me and the majority of the country to redefine my definition of what a marriage is to fit their views. It has NOTHING to do with benefits or inequality. If it did, civil unions would be an acceptable compromise.
And why should we care as so many of you keep asking? We care because it's our values that are being redefined and reevaluated for us. The fact that you don't care means just that. You don't care...but in the strangest twist of logic I've ever seen, you do care that I disagree with you. So, it's okay for others to force their views on me but it's not okay if I stand up and defend my viewpoint. Hypocracy at it's finest. To quote WhereNWS, typical liberal b******t. All views points are welcome as long as they agree with yours.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
lauren000
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3510
Location: colorado springs
|
|
Posted: 02/14/04 - 20:35 Post subject:
|
|
|
| kireol wrote: | | Brash wrote: | | kireol wrote: | | Akronn wrote: | But you see, this is the question I pose to you: what does it matter?
Personally, it doesn't make a single difference in my life if the hypothetical gay couple living together down the street is married or not, just like it doesn't matter if the hetero couple is either. It's not like outlawing gay marriages is gonna stop gay couples from holding hands down the street in front of your kids. Get real. |
what if your health insurance went up and your taxes went up because of it? |
why in the world would you think your health insurance would go up ? |
because health insurance compaines arent going to float the extra increase in added people.
john marries frank. john works. franks a stay-at-home h**o. frank is now insured because they are married. |
most gay people work, and have their own insurance, not that you'd know that.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8752
|
|
Posted: 02/14/04 - 20:38 Post subject:
|
|
|
We already established that it's likely your insurance wouldn't budge.
Find another angle.
edit: btw Nuldaan, you're allowed to call a gay union whatever you want and you're allowed to disagree with the whole concept. Freedom of speech, ya know? However, you are not allowed to deny people equal rights. That's what this is about.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Xenden
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 1532
|
|
Posted: 02/14/04 - 20:52 Post subject:
|
|
|
People who find themselves getting worked up over things like this need to find hobbies, or something to keep them busy.
Who cares? Get over yourselves.
If random_man_lover03 doesn't want anything to do with p***y, thats just more for the rest of us who do.
EDIT: I dont like gay rights advocates shoving this stuff down my throat either, but I feel the same way about any m**********r who thinks his opinion is important enough that I need to hear about it. Religion, politics, whatever.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Valyr
Total Newbie
Joined: 15 Oct 2002
Posts: 19
|
|
Posted: 02/14/04 - 20:55 Post subject:
|
|
|
"Separate but equal" didn't work for black people, why the hell would it work for this?
As previously said, "morally righteous" folks want to preserve their precious bubbles of pseudo-perfection, as if gay people are suddenly springing out of the woodwork. What a crock of shit.
Oh, and a mistake made for an extended amount of time doesn't make it less of a mistake. If this weren't being publicised so heavily, if the politics of it all weren't being totally overblown, if just "poof", overnight, gays could be married, then who the f**k would know, and would the world be any different? The simple answer is no, and that's why this whole debate is b******t.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
lauren000
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3510
Location: colorado springs
|
|
Posted: 02/14/04 - 20:57 Post subject:
|
|
|
| kireol wrote: | | lauren000 wrote: | | kireol wrote: | | Akronn wrote: | But you see, this is the question I pose to you: what does it matter?
Personally, it doesn't make a single difference in my life if the hypothetical gay couple living together down the street is married or not, just like it doesn't matter if the hetero couple is either. It's not like outlawing gay marriages is gonna stop gay couples from holding hands down the street in front of your kids. Get real. |
what if your health insurance went up and your taxes went up because of it? |
then you'd deal with it like everything else kireol you're smarter than this. Equal rights don't mean special rights. Stop being so afraid you're going to lose something. |
i would be losing something. money. |
yeah well you lose money for some stay at home wife that has no redeeming quality to society as a whole other then being a baby factory. And you lose money paying for insurance for her 1-6 kids. But I don't see you throwing a b***h fit over that.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 02/14/04 - 22:03 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | We already established that it's likely your insurance wouldn't budge.
Find another angle.
edit: btw Nuldaan, you're allowed to call a gay union whatever you want and you're allowed to disagree with the whole concept. Freedom of speech, ya know? However, you are not allowed to deny people equal rights. That's what this is about. |
Wow, you are painfully thick. I wonder how many people after dealing with you, make the "what an ass" face behind your back.
Redefining the word "marriage" and what it means has nothing to do with "rights". They don't want simple civil unions that carry the same legal standing as a marriage. They want to redefine marriage in a way the majority of the country disagrees with.
That has nothing to do with "equal rights".
The thing no one seems to be talking about is, why the term "civil union" isn't good enough for the homosexual lobby. Why do they NEED the tag marriage.
Why? Because it adds more to the illusion that what they are, and how they act, and the deviant behaviors they practice are normal and mainstream.
They aren't.
They are freaks, and the fact that most people are quiet, non confrontational, and don't say that to their faces doesn't chang this FACT.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
lauren000
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3510
Location: colorado springs
|
|
Posted: 02/14/04 - 22:11 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Kbarr wrote: | | Akronn wrote: | We already established that it's likely your insurance wouldn't budge.
Find another angle.
edit: btw Nuldaan, you're allowed to call a gay union whatever you want and you're allowed to disagree with the whole concept. Freedom of speech, ya know? However, you are not allowed to deny people equal rights. That's what this is about. |
Wow, you are painfully thick. I wonder how many people after dealing with you, make the "what an ass" face behind your back.
Redefining the word "marriage" and what it means has nothing to do with "rights". They don't want simple civil unions that carry the same legal standing as a marriage. They want to redefine marriage in a way the majority of the country disagrees with.
That has nothing to do with "equal rights".
The thing no one seems to be talking about is, why the term "civil union" isn't good enough for the homosexual lobby. Why do they NEED the tag marriage.
Why? Because it adds more to the illusion that what they are, and how they act, and the deviant behaviors they practice are normal and mainstream.
They aren't.
They are freaks, and the fact that most people are quiet, non confrontational, and don't say that to their faces doesn't chang this FACT. |
kbarr I don't want to redefine marriage. I want to be joined in a lifelong union with someone else achieving the same rights that a marriage is given. If a marriage was just a piece of paper this wouldn't be an issue. But marriage isn't just a piece of paper. It's an institution, and it has many many benefits. I know a few straight people who marry each other not because they like each other, but because of the tax breaks you get and all the other privilages.
edit: and why does marriage have rights anyways? We could put this entire issue to rest if we just removed the rights given by a hetero marriage.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 02/14/04 - 22:13 Post subject:
|
|
|
| lauren000 wrote: |
kbarr I don't want to redefine marriage. I want to be joined in a lifelong union with someone else achieving the same rights that a marriage is given. If a marriage was just a piece of paper this wouldn't be an issue. But marriage isn't just a piece of paper. It's an institution, and it has many many benefits. I know a few straight people who marry each other not because they like each other, but because of the tax breaks you get and all the other privilages. |
So a civil union, that carries the same benefits as a marriage is good enough. Right?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
quotison
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 1594
|
|
Posted: 02/14/04 - 22:17 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Kbarr wrote: | | lauren000 wrote: |
kbarr I don't want to redefine marriage. I want to be joined in a lifelong union with someone else achieving the same rights that a marriage is given. If a marriage was just a piece of paper this wouldn't be an issue. But marriage isn't just a piece of paper. It's an institution, and it has many many benefits. I know a few straight people who marry each other not because they like each other, but because of the tax breaks you get and all the other privilages. |
So a civil union, that carries the same benefits as a marriage is good enough. Right? |
Oh yeah, because every state allows civil unions for gays, right?
If the above was the case, this debate would be one of semantics, at best. But its not, gays are not being given the same rights.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
The Guy On The Couch
Luke Warm
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 202
|
|
Posted: 02/14/04 - 22:19 Post subject:
|
|
|
Yes, i agree with kbarr... everyone that hates to eat meat are freaks too. They all have a sickness that renders them inable to think for themselfs. f*****g vegi lovers....
Give me a break, since when did having a different preference than the majority of the country become a sickness? And you call everyone else dense.
[Edit: Protecting myself from the grammar police]
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
lauren000
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3510
Location: colorado springs
|
|
Posted: 02/14/04 - 22:22 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Kbarr wrote: | | lauren000 wrote: |
kbarr I don't want to redefine marriage. I want to be joined in a lifelong union with someone else achieving the same rights that a marriage is given. If a marriage was just a piece of paper this wouldn't be an issue. But marriage isn't just a piece of paper. It's an institution, and it has many many benefits. I know a few straight people who marry each other not because they like each other, but because of the tax breaks you get and all the other privilages. |
So a civil union, that carries the same benefits as a marriage is good enough. Right? |
right
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8752
|
|
Posted: 02/14/04 - 23:02 Post subject:
|
|
|
Kbarr misses the boat entirely.
This isn't about the word 'marriage,' it's about extending the same rights to civil unions as marriages.
For instance, a civil union is not portable to another state whereas marriage is. Civil Unions don't qualify for federal health and welfare programs, veterans' benefits, federal taxation credits, immigration, naturalization, loan programs, criminal liability, etc. There are over 1,000 federal rights extended to married couples that are denied in civil unions.
That is the issue, not your semantics.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
lauren000
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3510
Location: colorado springs
|
|
Posted: 02/14/04 - 23:14 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | Kbarr misses the boat entirely.
This isn't about the word 'marriage,' it's about extending the same rights to civil unions as marriages.
For instance, a civil union is not portable to another state whereas marriage is. Civil Unions don't qualify for federal health and welfare programs, veterans' benefits, federal taxation credits, immigration, naturalization, loan programs, criminal liability, etc. There are over 1,000 federal rights extended to married couples that are denied in civil unions.
That is the issue, not your semantics. |
social security
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
icebreaker
Luke Warm
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 396
|
|
Posted: 02/15/04 - 00:28 Post subject:
|
|
|
Akronn i think its you that missed the boat not Kbarr
If people want same **** couples to have the same legal standings that hetro couples have, within a civil union thats great..and so they should..but its not marriage.
marriage is the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.
marriage IS a Hetrosexual term.
Since all of less then 5% of the population is gay
and of that all of 35% of those want a redefintion of the term marriage
Why is the country cattering to 2% of the peoples desire at the expence of the other 98%?\
why isn't creating a new civil union term for gay couples that is legally equal to hetro marriage an acceptable option?
Why must the world change to cater to your minority desires?
What the root of this debate is really about is social acceptance Gay society wants non gay society to change to suit the gay comunnities whims.
let me put it to you in another context.
You are a Soldier of the armed forces..and you've recieved the rank of General after many years of service.
then some peace activist group wants to use the term General and the uniform to represent its own members with the same privaliges and responcibilites that you have and feel that your violating their civil rights by denying them that..
so the courts rule that under said conditions you must acknowlege this peace activist as a Fellow General in the armed forces..even tho he isn't int he armed forces...
Tell me how this doesn't deminish what the rank of General stands for
Tell me how this doesn't insult The History and Integrity of the Armed Forces themselves.
Tell me how this doesn't change your status within society
by simply letting some other group change the definition of a founding principle of our society.EVERYTHING changes.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
lauren000
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3510
Location: colorado springs
|
|
Posted: 02/15/04 - 00:42 Post subject:
|
|
|
| icebreaker wrote: | Akronn i think its you that missed the boat not Kbarr
If people want same **** couples to have the same legal standings that hetro couples have, within a civil union thats great..and so they should..but its not marriage.
marriage is the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.
marriage IS a Hetrosexual term.
Since all of less then 5% of the population is gay
and of that all of 35% of those want a redefintion of the term marriage
Why is the country cattering to 2% of the peoples desire at the expence of the other 98%?\
why isn't creating a new civil union term for gay couples that is legally equal to hetro marriage an acceptable option?
Why must the world change to cater to your minority desires?
What the root of this debate is really about is social acceptance Gay society wants non gay society to change to suit the gay comunnities whims.
let me put it to you in another context.
You are a Soldier of the armed forces..and you've recieved the rank of General after many years of service.
then some peace activist group wants to use the term General and the uniform to represent its own members with the same privaliges and responcibilites that you have and feel that your violating their civil rights by denying them that..
so the courts rule that under said conditions you must acknowlege this peace activist as a Fellow General in the armed forces..even tho he isn't int he armed forces...
Tell me how this doesn't deminish what the rank of General stands for
Tell me how this doesn't insult The History and Integrity of the Armed Forces themselves.
Tell me how this doesn't change your status within society
by simply letting some other group change the definition of a founding principle of our society.EVERYTHING changes. |
apples and oranges. And why should the world cater to your minority desires of general title. f**k off troll.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
kireol
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Aug 2003
Posts: 9517
Location: Royal Oak, MI
|
|
Posted: 02/15/04 - 01:06 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | We already established that it's likely your insurance wouldn't budge.
Find another angle.
edit: btw Nuldaan, you're allowed to call a gay union whatever you want and you're allowed to disagree with the whole concept. Freedom of speech, ya know? However, you are not allowed to deny people equal rights. That's what this is about. |
actually, i'm questioning that souce. My friend is the head of the gays at Ford, and last I heard, they get nothing. And she's not home atm
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 02/15/04 - 01:56 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | Kbarr misses the boat entirely.
This isn't about the word 'marriage,' it's about extending the same rights to civil unions as marriages.
For instance, a civil union is not portable to another state whereas marriage is. Civil Unions don't qualify for federal health and welfare programs, veterans' benefits, federal taxation credits, immigration, naturalization, loan programs, criminal liability, etc. There are over 1,000 federal rights extended to married couples that are denied in civil unions.
That is the issue, not your semantics. |
Beatnik, there is no boat to miss.
The facts are this. The country is currently trying to figure out how its going to handle this situation. We all know homosexuals are going to get some kind of federal attention when it comes to "unions". The thing is the h**o lobby wants it to be called "marriage" and the majority doesn't. So the big talk now is how to keep the homosexuals from getting their way. The majority don't want two men/females in a legal union called a "married couple". Semantics are the big issue atm. In time they will get some kind of "civil union" law or protection, its inevitable. They already have it in many states when it comes to state/city benefits. They have in NYC, for years now. Right now, its all about figuring out how to do it while not p*****g off the majority of people and still win the next election. All these idiot judges in liberal states and cities, marrying people, are jumping the gun thinking it will push their agenda.
Oh, and when you make your assinine point that it won't cost the rest of us that much, remember this little gem down here. I know you like to talk out of your ass 99% of the time but sometimes you say something dead on.
When they get it, no matter what its called, its gonna cost us all....
| Akronn wrote: | | qualify for federal health and welfare programs, veterans' benefits, federal taxation credits |
One more thing. Did you pull the 1000 number out of some other orifice? How could you hide so much b******t in one place?
| Akronn wrote: | | over 1,000 federal rights |
Again I say, you are one thick individual.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Brash
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 20 Oct 2002
Posts: 3958
|
|
Posted: 02/15/04 - 03:13 Post subject:
|
|
|
| kireol wrote: | | Brash wrote: | | kireol wrote: | | Akronn wrote: | But you see, this is the question I pose to you: what does it matter?
Personally, it doesn't make a single difference in my life if the hypothetical gay couple living together down the street is married or not, just like it doesn't matter if the hetero couple is either. It's not like outlawing gay marriages is gonna stop gay couples from holding hands down the street in front of your kids. Get real. |
what if your health insurance went up and your taxes went up because of it? |
why in the world would you think your health insurance would go up ? |
because health insurance compaines arent going to float the extra increase in added people.
john marries frank. john works. franks a stay-at-home h**o. frank is now insured because they are married. |
your company pays that stupid
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
lauren000
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3510
Location: colorado springs
|
|
Posted: 02/15/04 - 03:14 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Incase you didn't figure it out when some "stay at home h**o" gets sick or injured, and has no health insurance, you're the one who is paying their medical bills.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8752
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
Posted: 02/15/04 - 04:04 Post subject:
|
|
|
Kiddo, I asked you if you pulled it out of your ass. You didn't, some h**o lobbyist pulled it out of their ass and put it on a few sites. Then you adopted the info. Thats ok:)
And yes, I want you to do the research being you are the one who is telling me the cost would be "negligible". First you need to define what you mean by "negligible". 10 cents a day? 100 a year? Where do you get your info? Got a pal in the IRS too? Didn't you claim to know someone in NASA? You sure are connected kid. I'm bet you can find the google links that back your claim that adding ppl to the lists of who is eligible for whatever, would actually cost less than it does now. Right?
LOL, son, you need to shave the peach fuz and join the real world.
Oh, and you ignored my main point....typical:)
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Aandidar
Sir Postalot
Joined: 23 Oct 2002
Posts: 1182
|
|
Posted: 02/15/04 - 04:49 Post subject:
|
|
|
It's sad.... I agree with Kbarr =/
Marriage = a union between a man and a woman. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve (using it as an example, I'm not a bible thumping christian activist, since you'll just scream that I am anyway)
Gays have a right to want to be married, I have a right to not want them to be married.
So who's rights win?
I say put it to a national vote. Know what would happen if it did go to a vote? It may pass in a couple p***y states, but the majority of the country would turn it down. But then they couldn't be "married" where ever they went. So that means it'd have to be turned down in every state.
But omg, who cares right? Obviously you do.
So then what is the next battle the gay community will fight. Will they want tax exempt status because being gay is a type of religion? You never know =o
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Owyyn
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2900
|
|
Posted: 02/15/04 - 06:13 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
How do they come up with these gay population statistics anyway? Their ass? I don't remember taking that survey.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Aandidar
Sir Postalot
Joined: 23 Oct 2002
Posts: 1182
|
|
Posted: 02/15/04 - 06:14 Post subject:
|
|
|
There's a survey can you take?
Question #1
Are you homosexual?
Question #2
Do you want to get married to your homosexual partner?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Selenar
Can't Stop Posting
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 584
Location: Las Vegas, NV
|
|
Posted: 02/15/04 - 06:14 Post subject:
|
|
|
Senator John Edwards had a really interesting quote about this last night on Leno. "I feel the states should be allowed to do what they think is best" or something to that effect. Yeah, cause we all know how well that turns out.
At the pharmacy I work for there's this gay couple, one of them (probably both of them) have AIDS. Now, according to the FDA and certain company policies, I can only share certain information and dispense certain things with the consent of a spouse or family member. Do you think I give them a f*****g inch of slack?
f**k no, nor will I for quite some time. Thankyou conservative state of Nevada.
Brash, where do you get the idea that just because a company pays a spouses insurance that it won't mean copayments, health insurance, or benefits won't change when they agree to start paying for more people's healthcare? Companies sure as shit won't just *accept* additional third party payments. That shit is expensive.
-Sel
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
icebreaker
Luke Warm
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 396
|
|
Posted: 02/15/04 - 09:00 Post subject:
|
|
|
| lauren000 wrote: |
apples and oranges. And why should the world cater to your minority desires of general title. f**k off troll. |
Its not apples and oranges its an example of redefining something of relavence within a longstanding institution for the sake of a tiny majoritys wims that doesn't need to be changed that the majority of people would be opposed to.
If you think i would be in the minority...your really completely delusional
and ahh was hardly trolling boy or i would have just made some racist bigoted comments and left it at that, grow up.
As far as numbers go I've been following this topic alot more then most of you have since up here in Canada it was Made legal already but there is a push to change that.
After many many news shows interviews with experts and reputable talkshow hosts discussions I am assuming the numbers are somewhat accurate, however perhaps the gay population in America is higher.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Minion
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Posts: 3474
Location: The Ghetto
|
|
Posted: 02/15/04 - 09:04 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Aandidar wrote: | | using it as an example, I'm not a bible thumping christian activist |
Yes you are.
Anyone who believes that you can't believe in god without believing in the devil is a bible thumping christian activist.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
kireol
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Aug 2003
Posts: 9517
Location: Royal Oak, MI
|
|
Posted: 02/15/04 - 12:30 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Brash wrote: | | kireol wrote: | | Brash wrote: | | kireol wrote: | | Akronn wrote: | But you see, this is the question I pose to you: what does it matter?
Personally, it doesn't make a single difference in my life if the hypothetical gay couple living together down the street is married or not, just like it doesn't matter if the hetero couple is either. It's not like outlawing gay marriages is gonna stop gay couples from holding hands down the street in front of your kids. Get real. |
what if your health insurance went up and your taxes went up because of it? |
why in the world would you think your health insurance would go up ? |
because health insurance compaines arent going to float the extra increase in added people.
john marries frank. john works. franks a stay-at-home h**o. frank is now insured because they are married. |
your company pays that stupid |
I havent ever really payed much attention to you.
Are you 12? That could be the only reason for your resonse. Anyone over 13 years old wouldn't have posted what you just did, they'd know better.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
