California Prop 8?

No Pvmt

No Pvmt

Well-known member
Feb 7, 2006
530
0
Coast of California
Tom- If you can't get it by now, your not worth the time. If you need help re-read the posts! If that doesn?t work wipe the stupor off your face and re-read it. If still you don?t get it your ignorance must be bliss.:thehand:
 
Last edited:
Blue

Blue

Well-known member
Mar 26, 2004
10,080
885
AZ
It's a fundamental difference of opinion and approach to the issue; no amount of back-n-forth arguing is going to change the thought processes of either side.

The pro-traditional-marriage side sees it as providing an honest answer to a simple question: "How do you define marriage?" Or, "Should we define marriage as between one man and one woman?" Yes, there are anti-gay activists who scream damn the fags to hell and all that crap, but they are a small sliver of traditional society.

The pro-gay marriage side sees it as a blatant attack on homosexuals, you are actively trying to oppress homosexuals, etc. The pro-gay crowd is also the most vocal on the issue. They are the ones who get up in your face if the majority doesn't agree with the minority.

Personally, I don't give a damn if Ed & Trixie get it on next door, or if Ed & Ralph get it on, or if Trixie & Alice get it on. I don't give a damn if they file joint taxes or not, have a family health insurance plan, can visit each other in the hospital, etc. But then again if you ask me how I define a "marriage", I'm going to give you my honest response which is "one man & one woman". If that doesn't fit with your views then I really don't give a damn.

Antichrist is correct; your gay marriage/unioin/civil arrangement/whatever doesn't affect me in the least. I don't give a damn about it.
 
landrovered

landrovered

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2006
4,289
0
I agree with Tom, why would someone resist the extension of rights to a group when the extension of those rights in no way harm your rights.

The only reason to do this is a desire to control others behavior and it is dishonest to think otherwise.
 
Dan Erickson

Dan Erickson

Well-known member
May 27, 2005
1,268
0
56
Cincinnati, Ohio
While I consider myself Christian (just not real good at it :D ), I really just don't care if people are gay and want to marry.

Although I don't agree with (or understand) the lifestyle, I don't feel I have the right to keep them from doing it. They are not infringing upon my rights, I will not infringe upon theirs.

Last week, we had our yearly health benefits enrollment meeting. It looks like we are able to cover our "partners", but only of course if they are the same sex. I can't cover my girlfriend, but I could cover my boyfriend (if I had one :D ).

I will admit, I think it's unfair and it pisses me off. To me, it's one more reason to allow same sex marriage/union. This way, a person can only provide coverage if they want to make a serious commitment just like I would have to. We don't need another group getting "special" rights. Let them do what they need to do so we can all live by the same rules.

Seems to me, we have FAR more important things to worry about.

Peace :patriot:
 
DiscoJen

DiscoJen

Well-known member
Aug 27, 2004
3,652
0
54
The Lou!
While most people here don't appreciate the visual of two guys getting it on, you certainly have no problem with two guys move into your neighborhood. You know those decorating sunsabitches are just gonna increase your property value! :)

Now lesbians as neighbors on the other hand...well, no one likes to see broke down trucks, flannel on the clothesline, and a front yard full of dog shit from all their animals...hmmmmm There goes the neighborhood! ROFL
 
Blue

Blue

Well-known member
Mar 26, 2004
10,080
885
AZ
Dan Erickson said:
While I consider myself Christian (just not real good at it :D ), I really just don't care if people are gay and want to marry.

Although I don't agree with (or understand) the lifestyle, I don't feel I have the right to keep them from doing it. They are not infringing upon my rights, I will not infringe upon theirs.

Last week, we had our yearly health benefits enrollment meeting. It looks like we are able to cover our "partners", but only of course if they are the same sex. I can't cover my girlfriend, but I could cover my boyfriend (if I had one :D ).

I will admit, I think it's unfair and it pisses me off. To me, it's one more reason to allow same sex marriage/union. This way, a person can only provide coverage if they want to make a serious commitment just like I would have to. We don't need another group getting "special" rights. Let them do what they need to do so we can all live by the same rules.

Seems to me, we have FAR more important things to worry about.

Peace :patriot:
Click to expand...

A lot of plans seem to have this caveat....now WTF is that all about? That's not exactly fair, is it? Another special class has been created in the name of political correctness.
 
DiscoJen

DiscoJen

Well-known member
Aug 27, 2004
3,652
0
54
The Lou!
Dan Erickson said:
Last week, we had our yearly health benefits enrollment meeting. It looks like we are able to cover our "partners", but only of course if they are the same sex.
Click to expand...

I agree that this is equally unfair.

Luckily, my current and last job, had Domestic Partner which included same sex and unmarried hetero partnerships to be covered. At my last job, they even allowed the classification to include another adult residing in your home. This really helped out my co-worker. Her 30 year old daughter has diabetes and was no longer able to work; she is actually waiting for 3 organ transplants. My co-worker was able to add her daughter to her insurance to supplement medicaid. And I added my girlfriend who was between jobs until her new insurance kicked in. I was such a relief to have a job that included those types of benefits.
 
Blue

Blue

Well-known member
Mar 26, 2004
10,080
885
AZ
DiscoJen said:
I agree that this is equally unfair.

Luckily, my current and last job, had Domestic Partner which included same sex and unmarried hetero partnerships to be covered. At my last job, they even allowed the classification to include another adult residing in your home. This really helped out my co-worker. Her 30 year old daughter has diabetes and was no longer able to work; she is actually waiting for 3 organ transplants. My co-worker was able to add her daughter to her insurance to supplement medicaid. And I added my girlfriend who was between jobs until her new insurance kicked in. I was such a relief to have a job that included those types of benefits.
Click to expand...

Now that is the way to do it. Everyone is covered, everyone is happy, we can all get along. I just ask myself, "What would Barack do?"
 
SGaynor

SGaynor

Well-known member
Dec 6, 2006
7,148
162
52
Bristol, TN
Blue said:
It's a fundamental difference of opinion and approach to the issue; no amount of back-n-forth arguing is going to change the thought processes of either side.

The pro-traditional-marriage side sees it as providing an honest answer to a simple question: "How do you define marriage?" Or, "Should we define marriage as between one man and one woman?" Yes, there are anti-gay activists who scream damn the fags to hell and all that crap, but they are a small sliver of traditional society.

The pro-gay marriage side sees it as a blatant attack on homosexuals, you are actively trying to oppress homosexuals, etc. The pro-gay crowd is also the most vocal on the issue. They are the ones who get up in your face if the majority doesn't agree with the minority.

Personally, I don't give a damn if Ed & Trixie get it on next door, or if Ed & Ralph get it on, or if Trixie & Alice get it on. I don't give a damn if they file joint taxes or not, have a family health insurance plan, can visit each other in the hospital, etc. But then again if you ask me how I define a "marriage", I'm going to give you my honest response which is "one man & one woman". If that doesn't fit with your views then I really don't give a damn.

Antichrist is correct; your gay marriage/unioin/civil arrangement/whatever doesn't affect me in the least. I don't give a damn about it.
Click to expand...

Well said.:applause: I suspect a great many people have the same thought; I do.
 
Ronnie

Ronnie

Well-known member
Apr 20, 2004
331
0
54
Montgomery, AL
Blue said:
A lot of plans seem to have this caveat....now WTF is that all about? That's not exactly fair, is it? Another special class has been created in the name of political correctness.
Click to expand...

Obviously, what Jen's company is doing is the best for everyone involved but I also understand why Dan's company does what it does... in Dan's case he at least has the option to do the government paperwork to become married whether he has a wedding or not if he and his opposite sex partner have made that sort of commitment. If Jen were to work for that same company, she doesn't have the option to do the goverment paperwork, even if she and her partner had been together for 10, 15, 20 years (I know you're not that old Jen :p ) Put everyone on the same level playing field and you could get rid of the special "partner" benefit and replace it with "spouse". That would be fair to everyone.
 
BDM

BDM

Well-known member
May 23, 2005
333
30
OR
Gay marriage and the gov't should have nothing to do with each other. It's a civil contract in the view of the gov't. The church decides the morality of it or not. That's why there has always been seperation of church and state.

Now if the Catholic church accepted it, then I would have a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom