Common law marriage does not offer the beneift of shared insurance within a company. When your common law partner fucks up their credit, it does not fuck yours up. It is not recognized as binding in any way except it does allow you to sue your partner for finacial gain when you break up. Other than that, it does nothing.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.
That's not true at all, actually. Many companies don't even offer same-sex couple benefits.lowing wrote:
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.
Many companies have official company holidays that correspond with a specific religion and aren't federal holidays, but they don't extend holidays to those of other religions. Technically, that is favoring one religion and discriminating against all others.
I'm not saying that I find the holidays issue to be a major one, but it is proof against your argument, and since I'm pretty sure it's never been fought in court, it also shows that intention often matters more than a simple policy.
I would agree. I despise affirmative action for that reason, and it is why I'm against it.lowing wrote:
Ever hear of discrimination against white people? Most call it reverse discrimination but it is still discrimination, regardless of intentions or motivations driving it.
No you are missing my point. Regardless of motivations and intentions. Offering one right or priviledge to one group and NOT the other is discrimination. Period.Turquoise wrote:
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.
Nope I am not being obtuse, I speak the truth.
Not in the eyes of the law.lowing wrote:
No you are missing my point. Regardless of motivations and intentions. Offering one right or priviledge to one group and NOT the other is discrimination. Period.
Companies do not recognize religious holidays. No one has Easter off, or Good Friday or Lent. Christmas is now a holiday of tradition not religion. Or is Santa Claus mentioned in the bible somewhere?Turquoise wrote:
That's not true at all, actually. Many companies don't even offer same-sex couple benefits.lowing wrote:
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.
Many companies have official company holidays that correspond with a specific religion and aren't federal holidays, but they don't extend holidays to those of other religions. Technically, that is favoring one religion and discriminating against all others.
I'm not saying that I find the holidays issue to be a major one, but it is proof against your argument, and since I'm pretty sure it's never been fought in court, it also shows that intention often matters more than a simple policy.I would agree. I despise affirmative action for that reason, and it is why I'm against it.lowing wrote:
Ever hear of discrimination against white people? Most call it reverse discrimination but it is still discrimination, regardless of intentions or motivations driving it.
Then apply this reverse discrimination, regardless of motive or intent, and explain the difference between affirmative action and same sex benefits as a result of "circumstance", and how you like one and dislike the other
Right, just like reverse discrimination, this does not make it non-existent however.Turquoise wrote:
Not in the eyes of the law.lowing wrote:
No you are missing my point. Regardless of motivations and intentions. Offering one right or priviledge to one group and NOT the other is discrimination. Period.
Last edited by lowing (2010-03-06 14:07:00)
You've never worked for a Jewish company, have you? Many Jewish-owned companies will close on Jewish holidays. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but the vast majority of the time, they will not allow say... a Muslim to take an Islamic specific holiday off without using vacation time.lowing wrote:
Companies do not recognize religious holidays. No one has Easter off, or Good Friday or Lent. Christmas is now a holiday of tradition not religion. Or is Santa Claus mentioned in the bible somewhere?
Again, I'm not saying this is illegal or even wrong, but it is technically discrimination in policy. The difference is that it isn't discrimination in intention.
By the way... my company gives me Good Friday off.
Affirmative Action was a policy put into place originally at a time when it was necessary to push forward racial equality. The market wasn't accomplishing this by itself, and local governments had established policies against minorities. Therefore, the feds had no choice but to get involved.lowing wrote:
Then apply this reverse discrimination, regardless of motive or intent, and explain the difference between affirmative action and same sex benefits as a result of "circumstance", and how you like one and dislike the other
Now that over 40 years have past, there is no need to have a race-based policy in place for hiring and such. So, originally, it was necessary, and now, it's just negative discrimination.
Note that AA was discrimination from the very beginning, but it was positive discrimination. As times changed, it became negative discrimination. When a policy becomes negative discrimination, that's when it needs to be ended, but admittedly, how we define something as positive or negative is somewhat subjective.
I see same-sex benefits as being positive discrimination in much of the same way that AA began. It is a policy in place that is there to compensate for the current legal structures that favor heterosexual relationships. The intention is not one against straight people but instead to help gays.
It is technically discrimination, but I see it as positive discrimination.
The law will not usually get involved unless something is deemed as negative discrimination by the majority of the public.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-03-06 14:16:08)
With these Jewish companies, do they make non-Jews work while allowing Jews off? If not where is the discrimination?Turquoise wrote:
You've never worked for a Jewish company, have you? Many Jewish-owned companies will close on Jewish holidays. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but the vast majority of the time, they will not allow say... a Muslim to take an Islamic specific holiday off without using vacation time.lowing wrote:
Companies do not recognize religious holidays. No one has Easter off, or Good Friday or Lent. Christmas is now a holiday of tradition not religion. Or is Santa Claus mentioned in the bible somewhere?
Again, I'm not saying this is illegal or even wrong, but it is technically discrimination in policy. The difference is that it isn't discrimination in intention.
By the way... my company gives me Good Friday off.Affirmative Action was a policy put into place originally at a time when it was necessary to push forward racial equality. The market wasn't accomplishing this by itself, and local governments had established policies against minorities. Therefore, the feds had no choice but to get involved.lowing wrote:
Then apply this reverse discrimination, regardless of motive or intent, and explain the difference between affirmative action and same sex benefits as a result of "circumstance", and how you like one and dislike the other
Now that over 40 years have past, there is no need to have a race-based policy in place for hiring and such. So, originally, it was necessary, and now, it's just negative discrimination.
Note that AA was discrimination from the very beginning, but it was positive discrimination. As times changed, it became negative discrimination. When a policy becomes negative discrimination, that's when it needs to be ended, but admittedly, how we define something as positive or negative is somewhat subjective.
I see same-sex benefits as being positive discrimination in much of the same way that AA began. It is a policy in place that is there to compensate for the current legal structures that favor heterosexual relationships. The intention is not one against straight people but instead to help gays.
It is technically discrimination, but I see it as positive discrimination.
The law will not usually get involved unless something is deemed as negative discrimination by the majority of the public.
After all of that, "technically" it is discrimination glad we can agree on that. Now it is just a matter of agreeing if it is proper. A different issue.
Personally, to remain consistent, I oppose any discrimination that allows one group benefits that others are not afforded.
Last edited by lowing (2010-03-06 14:28:03)
That would also be discrimination, but the reason why that is illegal and not the other is because that's a violation of labor laws.lowing wrote:
With these Jewish companies, do they make non-Jews work while allowing Jews off? If not where is the discrimination?
Well, not all discrimination is a bad thing. We each have our own tolerances for it, but I think we can agree that a certain amount of discrimination is necessary for functioning in society.lowing wrote:
After all of that, "technically" it is discrimination glad we can agree on that. Now it is just a matter of agreeing if it is proper. A different issue.
It's like prejudice. Some prejudices are practical and justified given certain situations.
In principle, I agree, but in practice, it's situational for me.lowing wrote:
Personally, to remain consistent, I oppose any discrimination that allows one group benefits that others are not afforded.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-03-06 14:31:09)
Legally-recognised marriage to someone of the opposite sex isn't an option for them, by virtue of their sexuality.lowing wrote:
They are allowed to marry the opposite sex just like the rest of us.
They're not asking for any special privileges - they're only asking that marriage to the partner of their choice be accorded the same legal recognition as those heterosexual couples who already enjoy that same right.
Do you have any objections to gay marriage, other than it being seen by yourself as some sort of "special privilege"?
Last edited by Pubic (2010-03-06 14:41:39)
1. regardless, all employees are afforded the same benefit. Right?Turquoise wrote:
That would also be discrimination, but the reason why that is illegal and not the other is because that's a violation of labor laws.lowing wrote:
With these Jewish companies, do they make non-Jews work while allowing Jews off? If not where is the discrimination?Well, not all discrimination is a bad thing. We each have our own tolerances for it, but I think we can agree that a certain amount of discrimination is necessary for functioning in society.lowing wrote:
After all of that, "technically" it is discrimination glad we can agree on that. Now it is just a matter of agreeing if it is proper. A different issue.
It's like prejudice. Some prejudices are practical and justified given certain situations.In principle, I agree, but in practice, it's situational for me.lowing wrote:
Personally, to remain consistent, I oppose any discrimination that allows one group benefits that others are not afforded.
2. Sorry, I disagree, if there were no discrimination in our laws, then there would be no reason for discrimination after the fact. All discrimination is bad.
I am prejudice I prejudge just like everyone else, it is a personal matter not a legal one, and has no bearing on discrimination
Nope I am for marriage for anyone who wants it.Pubic wrote:
Legally-recognised marriage to someone of the opposite sex isn't an option for them, by virtue of their sexuality.lowing wrote:
They are allowed to marry the opposite sex just like the rest of us.
They're not asking for any special privileges - they're only asking that marriage to the partner of their choice be accorded the same legal recognition as those heterosexual couples who already enjoy that same right.
Do you have any objections to gay marriage, other than it being seen by yourself as some sort of "special privilege"?
But there should be no such thing as "GAY RIGHTS ". If people want to protest for general rights and privlges so be it, but to fight for GAYS RIGHTS, is as wrong as fighting for WHITES RIGHTS. Civil rights was different since the Constitution all ready afforded blacks the same rights as white people, they were figting to have it acknowledged. They were not fighting for anything "special". Gays should not be afforded any rights not afforded to the rest of us and they should not be excluded from any benefit that is affored to the rest of us. As it is, domestic partner benefits are a prime example of a benefit that they are afforded where straight domestic partners are locked out. They want special crimes and special punishment for crimes against them solely. All of this is wrong.
Last edited by lowing (2010-03-06 14:59:02)
No actually. In the case of the Jewish company, the Jewish employees get to celebrate their holidays without using vacation time, whereas the Muslim ones don't. This effectively guarantees that the Jewish employees get to have their holy days off, whereas the Muslims may or may not get to, because company concerns may force them to work on their holy days.lowing wrote:
1. regardless, all employees are afforded the same benefit. Right?
It's a subtle difference, but it is still significant.
So, as a principal of a school, you'd have no problem hiring a child sex offender as a teacher?lowing wrote:
2. Sorry, I disagree, if there were no discrimination in our laws, then there would be no reason for discrimination after the fact. All discrimination is bad.
Profiling is something that the police do based on race oftentimes. Its legality is continually debated among the public, but given previous discussions, I'm assuming you defend it, correct?lowing wrote:
I am prejudice I prejudge just like everyone else, it is a personal matter not a legal one, and has no bearing on discrimination
1. If all within the same company then I disagree with this practice.Turquoise wrote:
No actually. In the case of the Jewish company, the Jewish employees get to celebrate their holidays without using vacation time, whereas the Muslim ones don't. This effectively guarantees that the Jewish employees get to have their holy days off, whereas the Muslims may or may not get to, because company concerns may force them to work on their holy days.lowing wrote:
1. regardless, all employees are afforded the same benefit. Right?
It's a subtle difference, but it is still significant.So, as a principal of a school, you'd have no problem hiring a child sex offender as a teacher?lowing wrote:
2. Sorry, I disagree, if there were no discrimination in our laws, then there would be no reason for discrimination after the fact. All discrimination is bad.Profiling is something that the police do based on race oftentimes. Its legality is continually debated among the public, but given previous discussions, I'm assuming you defend it, correct?lowing wrote:
I am prejudice I prejudge just like everyone else, it is a personal matter not a legal one, and has no bearing on discrimination
2. Nope a convicted child molester forfeits his rights and privileges. Kind of a stretch to make an argument anyway don't you think?
3. I agree and it is not discrimination. the police would act accordingly regardless as to what race is being profiled. If the cops were staking out the airport for a white guys that are 6 foot 4 and weighs 280 in connection with some white supremacy antics, then they would be profiling for people of that description and not midgets or blacks. Profiling is not discriminatory, everyone is supject to it based on who they are looking for.
As it is right now. Muslims are responsible for 100 percent of the terror attacks on planes for the last 20 years. Hence they are profiled.
Not really. While it is true that we consider those who commit felonies to have forfeited some privileges and rights, there is no specific law that bars a child sex offender from becoming a teacher. Therefore, it becomes a matter of discrimination on the part of the management of a school as to whether or not one can become a teacher. So, I think we can agree that this is a positive form of discrimination.lowing wrote:
2. Nope a convicted child molester forfeits his rights and privileges. Kind of a stretch to make an argument anyway don't you think?
While I agree that profiling is aimed at finding a given suspect most of the time, this isn't always the case. Sometimes, traffic cops will pull someone over just because a person is black. They figure the likelihood of busting a black person for something like drug possession is higher than busting someone else. Sometimes, this assumption turns out to be correct, however, is this a justified form of discrimination?lowing wrote:
3. I agree and it is not discrimination. the police would act accordingly regardless as to what race is being profiled. If the cops were staking out the airport for a white guys that are 6 foot 4 and weighs 280 in connection with some white supremacy antics, then they would be profiling for people of that description and not midgets or blacks. Profiling is not discriminatory, everyone is supject to it based on who they are looking for.
As it is right now. Muslims are responsible for 100 percent of the terror attacks on planes for the last 20 years. Hence they are profiled.
Some people would say it is... some wouldn't.
as I understand it gay rights means equal rights for gays - so the ability to get married if they so desire. Again, concerning your point about 'domestic partner benefits', I've never heard of this apart form in the case of common law marriage, which is the same for gays and hetero couples, so what are these rights you say only gays have and where do they exist please? Cos they don't have them in any European country I know of. Unless you can tell me otherwise.lowing wrote:
Nope I am for marriage for anyone who wants it.
But there should be no such thing as "GAY RIGHTS ". If people want to protest for general rights and privlges so be it, but to fight for GAYS RIGHTS, is as wrong as fighting for WHITES RIGHTS. Civil rights was different since the Constitution all ready afforded blacks the same rights as white people, they were figting to have it acknowledged. They were not fighting for anything "special". Gays should not be afforded any rights not afforded to the rest of us and they should not be excluded from any benefit that is affored to the rest of us. As it is, domestic partner benefits are a prime example of a benefit that they are afforded where straight domestic partners are locked out. They want special crimes and special punishment for crimes against them solely. All of this is wrong.
anyway regarding the OP question - probably yes, but then there are lots of closet gays anyway, most of whom try and macho themselves up to make themselves believe that they're not attracted to other men (obviously not talking about female gays here) - like people into MMA for example.
Wanting to stop rights/privileges which advantage one group (race/sexuality/religion/etc) over another is something I agree with. The only point I'm trying to make is that marriage laws are discriminatory, and grant special rights/privileges to heterosexual couples.lowing wrote:
Nope I am for marriage for anyone who wants it.
But there should be no such thing as "GAY RIGHTS ". If people want to protest for general rights and privlges so be it, but to fight for GAYS RIGHTS, is as wrong as fighting for WHITES RIGHTS. Civil rights was different since the Constitution all ready afforded blacks the same rights as white people, they were figting to have it acknowledged. They were not fighting for anything "special". Gays should not be afforded any rights not afforded to the rest of us and they should not be excluded from any benefit that is affored to the rest of us. As it is, domestic partner benefits are a prime example of a benefit that they are afforded where straight domestic partners are locked out. They want special crimes and special punishment for crimes against them solely. All of this is wrong.
I can't comment much on the whole domestic partner benefits thing, as I don't know much about it and I am assuming it is a US or state-specific thing. If its some advantage given only to gay couples, well in that case you have every right to be POed at it. If they tried to bring in something like that here then I would be too, it is discrimination on the basis of sexuality.
Again, I don't care if gays want to play house and be 'married'.
I object if they want equal rights, equal tax treatment etc to hetero couples.
I object if they want equal rights, equal tax treatment etc to hetero couples.
Fuck Israel
How is it "probably yes"? It's more like definitely not. There are millions of people across the world who are opponents of gay marriage, all for different reasons, saying they're ALL closet gays is grossly incorrect.ruisleipa wrote:
anyway regarding the OP question - probably yes, but then there are lots of closet gays anyway, most of whom try and macho themselves up to make themselves believe that they're not attracted to other men (obviously not talking about female gays here) - like people into MMA for example.
And I didn't get the MMA reference, it's the biggest growing sport in the world, how does it tie in with a debate on homosexual rights?
sorry I keep forgetting sarcastic jokes don't carry well on teh net.jord wrote:
How is it "probably yes"? It's more like definitely not. There are millions of people across the world who are opponents of gay marriage, all for different reasons, saying they're ALL closet gays is grossly incorrect.
And I didn't get the MMA reference, it's the biggest growing sport in the world, how does it tie in with a debate on homosexual rights?
I do suspect that many people against gay rights are insecure about their own sexuality though, otherwise they wouldn't feel so threatened by gay people.
MMA - y'know, sweaty almost naked oiled up muscly men in a cage? Homoerotic overload innit.
Anyway it was a obviously unsuccesful attempt at lightening up the thread. Which is nominally about closet gays, not gay rights, although that's where it's ended up.
Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-03-07 04:40:22)
errr...why?Dilbert_X wrote:
Again, I don't care if gays want to play house and be 'married'.
I object if they want equal rights, equal tax treatment etc to hetero couples.
Heterosexual couples don't get benefits because the govt thinks single people are weird and should be encouraged to pair up.ruisleipa wrote:
errr...why?Dilbert_X wrote:
Again, I don't care if gays want to play house and be 'married'.
I object if they want equal rights, equal tax treatment etc to hetero couples.
They get unequal treatment, tax breaks etc for a reason - to produce and rear healthy new little tax-payers.
Gay couples aren't going to be doing that, hence they shouldn't get the benefits.
And no gays shouldn't generally be encouraged to adopt or have donated eggs etc etc.....
Fuck Israel
Being pulled over for being black is not discrimination, it is a prejudice based on things like experiences gained while being a cop. IF the same cop had similar experiences with white people, they to would be pulled over. A white person driving a Honda Odessy in a black neighborhood know for dealing drugs will get pulled over, and why, experience dictates that person is looking for drugs. so again no discrimination.Turquoise wrote:
Not really. While it is true that we consider those who commit felonies to have forfeited some privileges and rights, there is no specific law that bars a child sex offender from becoming a teacher. Therefore, it becomes a matter of discrimination on the part of the management of a school as to whether or not one can become a teacher. So, I think we can agree that this is a positive form of discrimination.lowing wrote:
2. Nope a convicted child molester forfeits his rights and privileges. Kind of a stretch to make an argument anyway don't you think?While I agree that profiling is aimed at finding a given suspect most of the time, this isn't always the case. Sometimes, traffic cops will pull someone over just because a person is black. They figure the likelihood of busting a black person for something like drug possession is higher than busting someone else. Sometimes, this assumption turns out to be correct, however, is this a justified form of discrimination?lowing wrote:
3. I agree and it is not discrimination. the police would act accordingly regardless as to what race is being profiled. If the cops were staking out the airport for a white guys that are 6 foot 4 and weighs 280 in connection with some white supremacy antics, then they would be profiling for people of that description and not midgets or blacks. Profiling is not discriminatory, everyone is supject to it based on who they are looking for.
As it is right now. Muslims are responsible for 100 percent of the terror attacks on planes for the last 20 years. Hence they are profiled.
Some people would say it is... some wouldn't.
1. They are not discriminated against at all. ANYONE who is a convicted child molestor is treated the same way, and deservingly so. There is no discrimination. Your behavior determines your treatment by society, and ALL who act in such a manner, when caught, are treated the same way. Unless you know of a convicted child molestor of any race or sex that has applied for a teaching postion and gotten it. Personally I do not.
No they are not, NO ONE, not gay or straight people can marry the same sex. The law applies to all of us.Pubic wrote:
Wanting to stop rights/privileges which advantage one group (race/sexuality/religion/etc) over another is something I agree with. The only point I'm trying to make is that marriage laws are discriminatory, and grant special rights/privileges to heterosexual couples.lowing wrote:
Nope I am for marriage for anyone who wants it.
But there should be no such thing as "GAY RIGHTS ". If people want to protest for general rights and privlges so be it, but to fight for GAYS RIGHTS, is as wrong as fighting for WHITES RIGHTS. Civil rights was different since the Constitution all ready afforded blacks the same rights as white people, they were figting to have it acknowledged. They were not fighting for anything "special". Gays should not be afforded any rights not afforded to the rest of us and they should not be excluded from any benefit that is affored to the rest of us. As it is, domestic partner benefits are a prime example of a benefit that they are afforded where straight domestic partners are locked out. They want special crimes and special punishment for crimes against them solely. All of this is wrong.
I can't comment much on the whole domestic partner benefits thing, as I don't know much about it and I am assuming it is a US or state-specific thing. If its some advantage given only to gay couples, well in that case you have every right to be POed at it. If they tried to bring in something like that here then I would be too, it is discrimination on the basis of sexuality.
well the domestic partner thing is a fact and it is discrimination.
the difference being, laws defining marriage do not specifically call out gays or straights. It applies to all people.
Domestic partnership laws call out specifically gay people and withhold from straight people.
Last edited by lowing (2010-03-07 06:08:43)
Gays have equal rights, as I have said before. What they want is special consideration. As I have already stated, they want special crimes with special punishment for attacks on them. This is wrongruisleipa wrote:
as I understand it gay rights means equal rights for gays - so the ability to get married if they so desire. Again, concerning your point about 'domestic partner benefits', I've never heard of this apart form in the case of common law marriage, which is the same for gays and hetero couples, so what are these rights you say only gays have and where do they exist please? Cos they don't have them in any European country I know of. Unless you can tell me otherwise.lowing wrote:
Nope I am for marriage for anyone who wants it.
But there should be no such thing as "GAY RIGHTS ". If people want to protest for general rights and privlges so be it, but to fight for GAYS RIGHTS, is as wrong as fighting for WHITES RIGHTS. Civil rights was different since the Constitution all ready afforded blacks the same rights as white people, they were figting to have it acknowledged. They were not fighting for anything "special". Gays should not be afforded any rights not afforded to the rest of us and they should not be excluded from any benefit that is affored to the rest of us. As it is, domestic partner benefits are a prime example of a benefit that they are afforded where straight domestic partners are locked out. They want special crimes and special punishment for crimes against them solely. All of this is wrong.
anyway regarding the OP question - probably yes, but then there are lots of closet gays anyway, most of whom try and macho themselves up to make themselves believe that they're not attracted to other men (obviously not talking about female gays here) - like people into MMA for example.
They want special rights that says only gays can marry same sex. now I know this sounds silly but the fact is, if 2 straight roomates could find a benefit in being married ( a legal loop hole) they would take advantage of it. IE: tax breaks, home purchases with duel incomes where both can benefit from the purchase and thus the sale.