did you get sucked into it?burnzz wrote:
i don't understand how a guy can be gay. do they get sucked into it?
despite your best efforts, nope. sux2buLostFate wrote:
did you get sucked into it?burnzz wrote:
i don't understand how a guy can be gay. do they get sucked into it?
If vengeance if your motivator, I can see how that works. If you're motivated by a desire for people to respect the right of others to go about their private affairs without suffering harassment, then it seems counterproductive.Turquoise wrote:
Normally, I'd agree, but since he seems intent on getting involved in the private affairs of gays, I'd say his own private life is fair game.mikkel wrote:
As far as I can tell from the story, it's all undocumented hearsay from anonymous sources. Regardless of whether or not it happened, I see no need to get all up in his grill over his private affairs.
Fighting with fire a fire that you cannot put out will serve no purpose other than to fuel their flame, and to compromise your own principles.
Huh huh huh. They said 'suck.'burnzz wrote:
despite your best efforts, nope. sux2buLostFate wrote:
did you get sucked into it?burnzz wrote:
i don't understand how a guy can be gay. do they get sucked into it?
I don't live by principles... I live by practicalities.mikkel wrote:
If vengeance if your motivator, I can see how that works. If you're motivated by a desire for people to respect the right of others to go about their private affairs without suffering harassment, then it seems counterproductive.Turquoise wrote:
Normally, I'd agree, but since he seems intent on getting involved in the private affairs of gays, I'd say his own private life is fair game.mikkel wrote:
As far as I can tell from the story, it's all undocumented hearsay from anonymous sources. Regardless of whether or not it happened, I see no need to get all up in his grill over his private affairs.
Fighting with fire a fire that you cannot put out will serve no purpose other than to fuel their flame, and to compromise your own principles.
It's not practical to afford someone privacy if their goal is invading the privacy of others.
It's not vengeance, it's just simply necessary to get a point across.
Marriage is most certainly denied to homosexuals in most states. And don't bother mentioning that they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, because you know that's not relevant to their sexuality.lowing wrote:
a load of bullshit? Really?
Well, fat people are judged differently
short people, ugly people, handicapped people, smokers, blondes with big tits, poor people, rich people, homeless people, trailer trash, felons, ex-cons etc all are judges differently, and you think a gay person has some special right not be judged with the rest of us?
If there is any amount of bullshit it is that philosophy.
Now addressing the other posts:
Blacks fought for the right to vote, so did women, black fought for the right to take a piss in a public restroom, eat at any diner they wanted, just like white people. Homosexuals are not denied a single right that everyone else has. Not one.
and this is a difference you can not see?
All generalizations are false...
Please explain what you mean by the term "exclusive demands".lowing wrote:
Exclusive demands, means special demands.
Not so, they are denied the right to a legally-recognised marriage.lowing wrote:
Homosexuals are not denied a single right that everyone else has. Not one.
Come on man make your mind up, it was you getting sucked a minute ago.burnzz wrote:
despite your best efforts, nope. sux2buLostFate wrote:
did you get sucked into it?burnzz wrote:
i don't understand how a guy can be gay. do they get sucked into it?
Show me where a gay person is not allowed to married.Pubic wrote:
Please explain what you mean by the term "exclusive demands".lowing wrote:
Exclusive demands, means special demands.Not so, they are denied the right to a legally-recognised marriage.lowing wrote:
Homosexuals are not denied a single right that everyone else has. Not one.
They are allowed to marry the opposite sex just like the rest of us.
lowing wrote:
Show me where a gay person is not allowed to married.Pubic wrote:
Please explain what you mean by the term "exclusive demands".lowing wrote:
Exclusive demands, means special demands.Not so, they are denied the right to a legally-recognised marriage.lowing wrote:
Homosexuals are not denied a single right that everyone else has. Not one.
They are allowed to marry the opposite sex just like the rest of us.
But straight people would be allow to gay marry aswell.lowing wrote:
Show me where a gay person is not allowed to married.Pubic wrote:
Please explain what you mean by the term "exclusive demands".lowing wrote:
Exclusive demands, means special demands.Not so, they are denied the right to a legally-recognised marriage.lowing wrote:
Homosexuals are not denied a single right that everyone else has. Not one.
They are allowed to marry the opposite sex just like the rest of us.
It'd be increasing FREEDOM for everyone.
Then you are not talking about "GAY RIGHTS" then are you? You are talking about changing the laws for everyone. I have no problem with that.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
But straight people would be allow to gay marry aswell.lowing wrote:
Show me where a gay person is not allowed to married.Pubic wrote:
Please explain what you mean by the term "exclusive demands".lowing wrote:
Exclusive demands, means special demands.
Not so, they are denied the right to a legally-recognised marriage.
They are allowed to marry the opposite sex just like the rest of us.
It'd be increasing FREEDOM for everyone.
As for the double face palm thing:
Before civil rights, there were laws specifically calling out blacks, over whites. SPECIFICALLY saying that whites have freedoms blacks do not. There are no such laws regarding gays. Sorry if you do not understand that. There is a difference.
Exclusive demands.Pubic wrote:
Please explain what you mean by the term "exclusive demands".lowing wrote:
Exclusive demands, means special demands.Not so, they are denied the right to a legally-recognised marriage.lowing wrote:
Homosexuals are not denied a single right that everyone else has. Not one.
Gay couples can share insurance benefits while not being married. Straight couples who are not married have no such privilege. Now tell me where the discrimination lies. SPECIFICALLY allowing gays to do something straight people can not, THAT is a special demand and privilege.
If you would prefer that the term be changed, then I'm sure that won't be a problem.lowing wrote:
Then you are not talking about "GAY RIGHTS" then are you? You are talking about changing the laws for everyone. I have no problem with that.
As for the double face palm thing:
Before civil rights, there were laws specifically calling out blacks, over whites. SPECIFICALLY saying that whites have freedoms blacks do not. There are no such laws regarding gays. Sorry if you do not understand that. There is a difference.
However, the majority of opposition to what most of us call gay rights is specifically because of a person's homosexuality.
The majority of people against gay marriage cite religion as the rationale for their opposition to this, and their religion usually specifically cites gay people as being immoral.
You do realize that same-sex benefits are the direct result of gay marriage not being legal in most states, right? For an employer to properly cater to the needs of their gay employees, this compromise in policy was created.lowing wrote:
Exclusive demands.
Gay couples can share insurance benefits while not being married. Straight couples who are not married have no such privilege. Now tell me where the discrimination lies. SPECIFICALLY allowing gays to do something straight people can not, THAT is a special demand and privilege.
If marriage was open to same sex couples, then this compromise would no longer be necessary.
As it is right now gay people have the right to become "domestic partners" for strictly financial convenience. 2 male roomates would have to pretend to be gay to get the same benefits that an actual gay couple gets. Because as it is right now they can not. Sorry, this is discrimination.Turquoise wrote:
If you would prefer that the term be changed, then I'm sure that won't be a problem.lowing wrote:
Then you are not talking about "GAY RIGHTS" then are you? You are talking about changing the laws for everyone. I have no problem with that.
As for the double face palm thing:
Before civil rights, there were laws specifically calling out blacks, over whites. SPECIFICALLY saying that whites have freedoms blacks do not. There are no such laws regarding gays. Sorry if you do not understand that. There is a difference.
However, the majority of opposition to what most of us call gay rights is specifically because of a person's homosexuality.
The majority of people against gay marriage cite religion as the rationale for their opposition to this, and their religion usually specifically cites gay people as being immoral.
If straight domestic partners were allowed this benefit and gays were not you would be citing it as such.
It does not matter what religious nut jobs want to claim as their reasoning. I am speaking of legal not moral. and legally gays should have no special rights or privileges over straight people.
You do realize, regardless of the motives, it discriminates against straight non married couples, right?Turquoise wrote:
You do realize that same-sex benefits are the direct result of gay marriage not being legal in most states, right? For an employer to properly cater to the needs of their gay employees, this compromise in policy was created.lowing wrote:
Exclusive demands.
Gay couples can share insurance benefits while not being married. Straight couples who are not married have no such privilege. Now tell me where the discrimination lies. SPECIFICALLY allowing gays to do something straight people can not, THAT is a special demand and privilege.
If marriage was open to same sex couples, then this compromise would no longer be necessary.
Not really... While it allows more flexibility to gay people, that flexibility is only the result of circumstance -- it's not a conscious effort to discriminate against straight people.lowing wrote:
You do realize, regardless of the motives, it discriminates against straight non married couples, right?Turquoise wrote:
You do realize that same-sex benefits are the direct result of gay marriage not being legal in most states, right? For an employer to properly cater to the needs of their gay employees, this compromise in policy was created.lowing wrote:
Exclusive demands.
Gay couples can share insurance benefits while not being married. Straight couples who are not married have no such privilege. Now tell me where the discrimination lies. SPECIFICALLY allowing gays to do something straight people can not, THAT is a special demand and privilege.
If marriage was open to same sex couples, then this compromise would no longer be necessary.
Whereas banning gay marriage really is active discrimination against gays.
Well, first of all, you're talking about private policy. That's not restricted the same way that government policy is.lowing wrote:
As it is right now gay people have the right to become "domestic partners" for strictly financial convenience. 2 male roomates would have to pretend to be gay to get the same benefits that an actual gay couple gets. Because as it is right now they can not. Sorry, this is discrimination.
If straight domestic partners were allowed this benefit and gays were not you would be citing it as such.
It does not matter what religious nut jobs want to claim as their reasoning. I am speaking of legal not moral. and legally gays should have no special rights or privileges over straight people.
A company could discriminate against gays or straight people in terms of benefits. They do risk the possibility of getting sued, but it's still quite different from the government making a policy that discriminates.
Banning gay marriage is a governmental action, and since sexuality is afforded the same protections against discrimination from government that race, religion, and gender are, then it is possible to determine that a gay marriage ban is illegal. It hasn't happened yet, but it is consistent with previous precedents.
But I would still disagree with you about this company policy being discrimination. Again, it simply opens the door to equal benefits for homosexuals. The conditions of getting the benefits are looser, but that's only the consequence of inequal treatment through government laws.
Discrimination is usually defined by both policy and intention. Technically, the policy is there for it, but the intention isn't.
Really, then explain to me the benefit that gay couples enjoy of shared insurance and benefits WITHOUT the binds of marriage. Or do you think there are no straight couples who would use this benefit if available? As it is, a straight couple must obligate and bind each other for life then risk financial ruin through a divorce in order to achieve this benefit. Gay couples can enjoy it, then simply walk away as they see fit and start over with someone else. Sorry, no matter how you cut it, it is discrimination against straight couples.Turquoise wrote:
Not really... While it allows more flexibility to gay people, that flexibility is only the result of circumstance -- it's not a conscious effort to discriminate against straight people.lowing wrote:
You do realize, regardless of the motives, it discriminates against straight non married couples, right?Turquoise wrote:
You do realize that same-sex benefits are the direct result of gay marriage not being legal in most states, right? For an employer to properly cater to the needs of their gay employees, this compromise in policy was created.
If marriage was open to same sex couples, then this compromise would no longer be necessary.
Whereas banning gay marriage really is active discrimination against gays.
There is no discrimination against gays. As I said before , no one not straight or gay can marry same sex. It does not call out gay people alone. No one can do it. and no I am not being a smart ass, there are marriages of convenience and straight people would marry same sex just to get it on paper, for whatever convenience they could extract from it.
Not buying that company policy crap. It is not legal for company policy to discriminate and as it is and has been shown, allowing a benefit to one group and not another is discrimination. Period. Intents or motives do not matter.Turquoise wrote:
Well, first of all, you're talking about private policy. That's not restricted the same way that government policy is.lowing wrote:
As it is right now gay people have the right to become "domestic partners" for strictly financial convenience. 2 male roomates would have to pretend to be gay to get the same benefits that an actual gay couple gets. Because as it is right now they can not. Sorry, this is discrimination.
If straight domestic partners were allowed this benefit and gays were not you would be citing it as such.
It does not matter what religious nut jobs want to claim as their reasoning. I am speaking of legal not moral. and legally gays should have no special rights or privileges over straight people.
A company could discriminate against gays or straight people in terms of benefits. They do risk the possibility of getting sued, but it's still quite different from the government making a policy that discriminates.
Banning gay marriage is a governmental action, and since sexuality is afforded the same protections against discrimination from government that race, religion, and gender are, then it is possible to determine that a gay marriage ban is illegal. It hasn't happened yet, but it is consistent with previous precedents.
But I would still disagree with you about this company policy being discrimination. Again, it simply opens the door to equal benefits for homosexuals. The conditions of getting the benefits are looser, but that's only the consequence of inequal treatment through government laws.
Discrimination is usually defined by both policy and intention. Technically, the policy is there for it, but the intention isn't.
Ever hear of discrimination against white people? Most call it reverse discrimination but it is still discrimination, regardless of intentions or motivations driving it.
Do you mean in the place you're talking about (USA? Or just some states? Or what?) common-law marriage is not recognised?lowing wrote:
Really, then explain to me the benefit that gay couples enjoy of shared insurance and benefits WITHOUT the binds of marriage.
Good point... Some states (like mine) implement common law marriage.ruisleipa wrote:
Do you mean in the place you're talking about (USA? Or just some states? Or what?) common-law marriage is not recognised?lowing wrote:
Really, then explain to me the benefit that gay couples enjoy of shared insurance and benefits WITHOUT the binds of marriage.
In North Carolina, if you have been living with someone of the opposite sex who isn't related to you for longer than 7 years, you are legally recognized as married to them.
So, lowing, according to your logic, this is discrimination against gay people.
You're still missing my point here. The benefits would require legal binding through marriage if it were possible for gays to be married. The only reason it doesn't is because they can't marry. I don't know how else to explain this, lowing. It's really rather simple.lowing wrote:
Really, then explain to me the benefit that gay couples enjoy of shared insurance and benefits WITHOUT the binds of marriage. Or do you think there are no straight couples who would use this benefit if available? As it is, a straight couple must obligate and bind each other for life then risk financial ruin through a divorce in order to achieve this benefit. Gay couples can enjoy it, then simply walk away as they see fit and start over with someone else. Sorry, no matter how you cut it, it is discrimination against straight couples.
And now you're just being obtuse.lowing wrote:
There is no discrimination against gays. As I said before , no one not straight or gay can marry same sex. It does not call out gay people alone. No one can do it. and no I am not being a smart ass, there are marriages of convenience and straight people would marry same sex just to get it on paper, for whatever convenience they could extract from it.