Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, I guess it is time to leave this site, after all, with nitwits like "Anchorless", "SepiaZelda", "Kuharai", and worst of all "TriMT7" among the non-discerning voices,
What?! I won "worst of all"?! Oh Johnny, you've made me so happy. I haven't won anything since ... since.... since the "Spider man" promotion at Burger King where I won a free small onion rings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flanagan
perhaps, we can hear from"R2D2" or "3CpO", since guys and maybe gays, or girls, like the bunch of you, lacking the intelligence to offer a normal name like Bob or Joe or Cathy, prefer to hide behind your nameless designations.
Mr. Flanagan (allegedly), I don't think you seem to comprehend the POINT of "nameless designations" online.
My name isn't very common. According to How Many of Me, there are only SIX people in the United States with my name. Nonetheless, why on EARTH would I use my "real name" and have MY ramblings, thoughts, and ideas inadvertently attributed to someone else? Many employers, agencies, etc. routinely google names hoping to find out "info" they couldn't normally find out, legally, in an interview. If some poor guy with MY name tries to apply for a job with YOUR dark ages church, for example, and the hiring person googles that name, I don't want MY opinions hampering anyone ELSE'S prospects.
My friend happens to have the same name as a famous Irish IRA member. A very very very common name. Everytime he flies, he has to be pulled aside and get TSA clearance that he ISN'T the same guy as the Irish terrorist. If only this Irish terrorist had been considerate enough to operate under a nameless moniker (maybe the Shamrock Avenger.... or Debonaire Dubliner... something catchy, ya know), my friend's life wouldn't be so inconvenienced.
It's something that YOU might want to consider.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flanagan
And you all think you are intelligent and reasonable people, yet between you there is the intellect of a houseplant. One thing said was true, just as your minds are made up, as you prefer the deviant life, I have my mind made up also,
You haven't "debated" anything with us. And that's the funny part because you THINK what you're doing IS debating. It's not. Simply stating your opinion without being able to back it up with anything more than "feelings" and "emotions" is not debating. It's stating an opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flanagan
I and many like me, will stick around awhile so our society can have an alternative to the sick philosophy of life you people promote.
No. Luckily, "people like you" tend to "runaway" to the mountains or some deserted part of the country to "escape" that which you hate. What you do in those mountains rarely affects the "rest of society" until one of those "people like you" decide to go on a shooting rampage in a shopping mall, blows up a federal building, or sends packages to CEO's with explosives in them.
If only "people like you" would make like the Amish and pursue your own version of "true life" without bothering everyone else on how THEY choose to live their lives, this world would be a happier place. Be like the Amish John. They're even more traditional and close to God than you!
What?! I won "worst of all"?! Oh Johnny, you've made me so happy. I haven't won anything since ... since.... since the "Spider man" promotion at Burger King where I won a free small onion rings!
Biotch, that should have been MINE! Gimme my damn tiara!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
My name isn't very common. According to How Many of Me, there are only SIX people in the United States with my name. Nonetheless, why on EARTH would I use my "real name" and have MY ramblings, thoughts, and ideas inadvertently attributed to someone else? Many employers, agencies, etc. routinely google names hoping to find out "info" they couldn't normally find out, legally, in an interview. If some poor guy with MY name tries to apply for a job with YOUR dark ages church, for example, and the hiring person googles that name, I don't want MY opinions hampering anyone ELSE'S prospects.
I have you beat: I am the only one in the world with my name. Go me? um, no... And I've already had people try to destroy my credibility on those rate a prof sites once they learned my real name. I don't understand why people don't get this.
That "How Many of Me" is pretty neat. There are a LOT of people with my name. 1803 if I use my full first name, 306 if I shorten it. That's over 200 mes.
I love the moral high horse people like to play... like somehow jesus is smiling on them more than the rest of us....and that if it wasn't for them.. this nation would be an immoral cesspool... LOL
give me a freakin break....You people are not THAT important... I'm sure the cross you all bear is just amazing... but I'm really getting sick of hearing that argument...its not an opinion.. its a mass produced intolerant "because the bible says" agenda... Its not everyone's else's problem that you cannot think logically for yourself... but rather spout out what you heard at church from your crack smokin little boy touchin preacher.... I'm open for discussion, but so far nobody has given a good reason other than Slippery Slope fallacies, and moral premises.... this nation really needs to educate people better... being educated is not knowing facts from a book or a bible... and knowing who said what and when.. and drawing an emotional conclusion from it... its taking information.. and testing it.. always challenging it.. to seek truth.. and that takes actually learning HOW to think... and think for yourself... not jump on a bandwagon.. where someone else already formed an opinion for you...and you assume its right because there's lots of people who believe it with u....
I think life is short and and people deserve to be happy..BUT please don't call it marriage, call it a domestic partnership or call it Fred.. just not a marriage.
It's not that simple, however. If, lovers, Ed and Ned have a legal partnership and Ned gets medical coverage as Ed's partner, why can't any two relatives, or friends who live together-forget the sex part- have the same rights to benefits as two gay guys? If Edna, who has a job, supports her sister who stays at home and keeps house, why shouldn't the sister receive medical benefits as a domestic partner of Edna?
It is the crushing financial consequences to business owners that is the driving force behind resistance to gay marriage; not that anybody cares who's boinkink whom.
I think life is short and and people deserve to be happy..BUT please don't call it marriage, call it a domestic partnership or call it Fred.. just not a marriage.
If it is to be precisely the same union as one man and one woman, then why not call it marriage as you would for a man and a woman? What justification could you have for calling same-sex marriage something entirely different other than your own personal religious beliefs? Your personal religious beliefs cannot have ownership of a word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gentlearts
It's not that simple, however. If, lovers, Ed and Ned have a legal partnership and Ned gets medical coverage as Ed's partner, why can't any two relatives, or friends who live together-forget the sex part- have the same rights to benefits as two gay guys?
If lovers, Edna and Ned, have a legal partnership and Ned gets medical coverage as Edna's partner, why can't any two relatives, or friends who live together - forget the sex part - have the same rights to benefits as a straight couple?
Forgive me for mocking you but that's the easiest way I could illustrate the fallacy in your logic here. The weakening presumption in your argument is that somehow the nature of a committed, consensual relationship between two people of the same sex is so fundamentally different from a relationship between two people of the opposite sex that, if we allow same-sex marriage, we should also allow two people not even in a relationship the benefits of a marital commitment. This a terribly flawed presumption that you cannot support. A contracted, committed relationship between two people is the same union regardless of the sex of the individuals.
It would be as uncommon for two men or two women not in a committed relationship to marry solely for benefits as it currently is for two people of the opposite sex not in a committed relationship to marry now. In either case, it would be marriage fraud and we have remedies for such, so it's not a compelling argument against same-sex marriage in the least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gentlearts
If Edna, who has a job, supports her sister who stays at home and keeps house, why shouldn't the sister receive medical benefits as a domestic partner of Edna?
This is a simple answer. Edna did not make a contracted union with her sister. She is not her sister's partner. Her sister is simply a blood relative and she supports her by her own volition or not at all. Their relationship is altogether different from two people making a legal contract to join as one committed union.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gentlearts
It is the crushing financial consequences to business owners that is the driving force behind resistance to gay marriage; not that anybody cares who's boinkink whom.
I don't doubt for one minute that this isn't part of the reason some oppose same-sex marriage. However, monetary profits of businesses who don't want to pony up for more employee benefits is not a compelling justification for depriving a rather large group of individuals from certain rights offered to other citizens. This is why you won't hear many leaders opposed to same-sex marriage try to advance a strong argument on this rationale.
If it is to be precisely the same union as one man and one woman, then why not call it marriage as you would for a man and a woman? What justification could you have for calling same-sex marriage something entirely different other than your own personal religious beliefs? Your personal religious beliefs cannot have ownership of a word.
If lovers, Edna and Ned, have a legal partnership and Ned gets medical coverage as Edna's partner, why can't any two relatives, or friends who live together - forget the sex part - have the same rights to benefits as a straight couple?
Forgive me for mocking you but that's the easiest way I could illustrate the fallacy in your logic here. The weakening presumption in your argument is that somehow the nature of a committed, consensual relationship between two people of the same sex is so fundamentally different from a relationship between two people of the opposite sex that, if we allow same-sex marriage, we should also allow two people not even in a relationship the benefits of a marital commitment. This a terribly flawed presumption that you cannot support. A contracted, committed relationship between two people is the same union regardless of the sex of the individuals.
It would be as uncommon for two men or two women not in a committed relationship to marry solely for benefits as it currently is for two people of the opposite sex not in a committed relationship to marry now. In either case, it would be marriage fraud and we have remedies for such, so it's not a compelling argument against same-sex marriage in the least.
This is a simple answer. Edna did not make a contracted union with her sister. She is not her sister's partner. Her sister is simply a blood relative and she supports her by her own volition or not at all. Their relationship is altogether different from two people making a legal contract to join as one committed union.
I don't doubt for one minute that this isn't part of the reason some oppose same-sex marriage. However, monetary profits of businesses who don't want to pony up for more employee benefits is not a compelling justification for depriving a rather large group of individuals from certain rights offered to other citizens. This is why you won't hear many leaders opposed to same-sex marriage try to advance a strong argument on this rationale.
Sorry, but I'll stand by what I said. The only reason anyone cares is financial. Obviously, you've never tried to cover a payroll with the overburdening costs of medical benefits, and you couldn't care less about those who do, but that's another thread.
If gays aren't willing to meet society half way by calling their union something else besides a marriage, which is a religous institution, then they can suffer the opposition.
Nobody will read this because I'm staring at page 50.
My opinion is that it doesn't matter. Civil unions should suffice. Marriage was invented by religious institutions and they should have the right to determine the rules for marriage. Other than that, I don't care. I think this is the LEAST important issue in the USA. And I have a LOT of gay friends. The only ones I know who are "hurt" by the laws are those who choose to make an issue out of it. But I'm 51, straight, and have never been married. I don't get what the big deal is. If religious institutions want to define a ceremony, let them. The state shouldn't even be involved in the matter.
Sorry, but I'll stand by what I said. The only reason anyone cares is financial. Obviously, you've never tried to cover a payroll with the overburdening costs of medical benefits, and you couldn't care less about those who do, but that's another thread.
Actually, the financial burden on businesses is not the only reason anyone opposes same-sex marriage. It may be the main reason you oppose it and I agree it may be a major reason many business owners, board members, and others intimately involved with corporate functions do not want same-sex marriage. However, benefits most certainly are not the ONLY reason "anyone cares." In fact, via your own words on religion, I don't believe for one moment it's the only reason you oppose same-sex marriage.
I do empathize with the corporate challenge of providing employees with expected benefits and sustaining profits. If I may digress for one moment, this is one of a great many reasons why I believe the U.S. is in dire need of a comprehensive public health care plan. Nevertheless, I do not believe the burden on businesses is a compelling justification for denying a large group of people basic civil rights present for most other Americans. Indeed, some corporate entities have already taken on this challenge, figured it out and have done what was right by offering domestic partner benefits. I'm sure if you actually tried to empathize with the challenges of many lesbian and gay families, you would figure out how to make the numbers work!
Quote:
Originally Posted by gentlearts
If gays aren't willing to meet society half way by calling their union something else besides a marriage, which is a religous institution, then they can suffer the opposition.
Marriage may be an important religious institution to you but you can never claim it to be solely such with a straight face (no pun intended). It is also a civil contract. You don't receive a single marital benefit from our government without going to the justice of the peace and paying for a marriage license. Furthermore, not all religious groups are opposed to marrying two women or two men. So, again, your own personal religious-based opposition to same-sex marriage is insufficient justification for denying same-sex couples the CIVIL right to marry.
As far as civil unions are concerned, I am not opposed to them. In fact, I see them as a logical progressive step that will fizzle out and eventually change to marriage with continued acceptance and persistence of LGBT people. However, you're only fooling yourself if you believe gay and lesbian people are just going to go away with a separate and unequal system.
Last edited by ariesjow; 09-09-2007 at 04:18 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
