I really can't be bothered with H/J. He takes Lowing's stubbornness, but then combines that with horrific grammar and extra spaces making it damn near impossible to read.
I think any opposition to " A Civil Union " I could possibly for see would be on the grounds of -JohnG@lt wrote:
You did say you are 'right of the Republican Party' so how can you not be against civil unions for gays?Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Never said I was against Civil Unions. Nice Try at Pigeonholing me - You Fail.sleepDeprivedBoy wrote:
you feel that banning gays from having civil unions is just.
Marriage however is a Christian term, if they don't want to recognise it in their Church/Club, I suppose it would be their business.
If a Corporation feels it's a scam to piggy back health insurance policies and doesn't want recognise it, it Really is Literally their business.
If it costs them to many good people to field that policy, they will alter it to make themselves more competitive in their market.
That's Private Industry in Capitalism. So where's I get all that. ? WW/Htttp/DickChennyGeldedyouLiberals.com ?
I asked nothing about health care. I asked about NAFTA.
And I am not a liberal. I just dislike those that bring nothing to the table for this forum except regurgitated opinion pieces. We already have harmor for that.
Person A hooks up with Person B just to get Person B on person A's Health benefits. Perhaps even for Profit. ( you want all your teeth Capped and Root canal ) A & B Union - $6000 Free dental - B pays A $ 1000 - 123 Corporation foots the bill.
See what I mean - thought that up myself Too !
Well, it's funny you should mention that. Currently, the only reason that's possible is because of a compromise position that companies have adapted to support their homosexual employees due to the current ban on gay marriages in many states.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
I think any opposition to " A Civil Union " I could possibly for see would be on the grounds of -
Person A hooks up with Person B just to get Person B on person A's Health benefits. Perhaps even for Profit. ( you want all your teeth Capped and Root canal ) A & B Union - $6000 Free dental - B pays A $ 1000 - 123 Corporation foots the bill.
See what I mean - thought that up myself Too !
If gay marriage was legal, then the company policies concerning homosexual partners would have an official component that would deter any opportunistic couplings.
In other words, if a legal option for gay marriage existed with all of the same benefits as heterosexual marriage, then companies could limit their policies to only officially recognized unions without any worries of discrimination lawsuits. While it is true that many states have gay civil unions, most of them do not grant all of the same rights and privileges as a heterosexual marriage.
Happens all the time with heterosexual couples. Half the people that get married in the military do it for an extra $600 a month in BAH. We have marriage reality shows on television etc. Marriage as an institution has already been trivialized by heterosexuals. Complaining that people would bilk the system is like complaining about the weather. It's just not a solid argument at all.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
I think any opposition to " A Civil Union " I could possibly for see would be on the grounds of -JohnG@lt wrote:
You did say you are 'right of the Republican Party' so how can you not be against civil unions for gays?Hunter/Jumper wrote:
Never said I was against Civil Unions. Nice Try at Pigeonholing me - You Fail.
Marriage however is a Christian term, if they don't want to recognise it in their Church/Club, I suppose it would be their business.
If a Corporation feels it's a scam to piggy back health insurance policies and doesn't want recognise it, it Really is Literally their business.
If it costs them to many good people to field that policy, they will alter it to make themselves more competitive in their market.
That's Private Industry in Capitalism. So where's I get all that. ? WW/Htttp/DickChennyGeldedyouLiberals.com ?
I asked nothing about health care. I asked about NAFTA.
And I am not a liberal. I just dislike those that bring nothing to the table for this forum except regurgitated opinion pieces. We already have harmor for that.
Person A hooks up with Person B just to get Person B on person A's Health benefits. Perhaps even for Profit. ( you want all your teeth Capped and Root canal ) A & B Union - $6000 Free dental - B pays A $ 1000 - 123 Corporation foots the bill.
See what I mean - thought that up myself Too !
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
misses his primary reader ?ghettoperson wrote:
I really can't be bothered with H/J. He takes Lowing's stubbornness, but then combines that with horrific grammar and extra spaces making it damn near impossible to read.
- like anyone needed that tidbit of info.
big spaces
send bs like this in a pm - dh - now go spend your daddy's money
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2010-09-06 14:31:32)
I didn't go after NAFTA, I just never thought I fully understood all the possible ramifications. especially long range;JohnG@lt wrote:
You did say you are 'right of the Republican Party' so how can you not be against civil unions for gays?
I asked nothing about health care. I asked about NAFTA.
And I am not a liberal. I just dislike those that bring nothing to the table for this forum except regurgitated opinion pieces. We already have harmor for that.
H/J wrote:
I think any opposition to " A Civil Union " I could possibly for see would be on the grounds of -
Person A hooks up with Person B just to get Person B on person A's Health benefits. Perhaps even for Profit. ( you want all your teeth Capped and Root canal ) A & B Union - $6000 Free dental - B pays A $ 1000 - 123 Corporation foots the bill.
See what I mean - thought that up myself Too !
JohnG@lt wrote:
Happens all the time with heterosexual couples. Half the people that get married in the military do it for an extra $600 a month in BAH. We have marriage reality shows on television etc. Marriage as an institution has already been trivialized by heterosexuals. Complaining that people would bilk the system is like complaining about the weather. It's just not a solid argument at all.
Maybe I don't quite fit the neat Narrow Stereo type you selected for me ? My only problem with some gays is -JohnG@lt wrote:
You did say you are 'right of the Republican Party' so how can you not be against civil unions for gays?
( Why do I know about what you did last night ? ) I would have the Same problem if a heterosexual couple announced they like to ( add your own thought here ! )I just don't need to know. do I ?
It seems more like its trivialized by the Mass media, if a heterosexuals trivialized some religious ceremony more than 4 miles from me I'd be pretty pressed to hear about it on my own, would I ?JohnG@lt wrote:
" Marriage as an institution has already been trivialized by heterosexuals "
never said it was a " solid argument. " I said - verbatim -JohnG@lt wrote:
" Complaining that people would bilk the system is like complaining about the weather. It's just not a solid argument at all "
" I think any opposition to " A Civil Union " I could possibly foresee would be on the grounds of ~ etc. " shees !
Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2010-09-06 16:13:55)
If people wed like that is it considered Fraud since you are signing a contract with the State? Or does it matter?
It can be. There was a sham marriage between a Latino actress and some pizza delivery guy recently that apparently attracted a lot of federal attention, since the woman apparently had the marriage to fast-track into citizenship.Harmor wrote:
If people wed like that is it considered Fraud since you are signing a contract with the State? Or does it matter?
So when marriage proponents claim that sham marriages will increase and cost them more in benefits is this what they are talking about? Aren't there already sham marriages now?
Yes. There are already sham marriages, but of course, it's much easier to go the same sex route currently, because companies offer same sex couple benefits that don't require any formal documentation of the union (because in many cases, there is none available).Harmor wrote:
So when marriage proponents claim that sham marriages will increase and cost them more in benefits is this what they are talking about? Aren't there already sham marriages now?
Legalizing gay marriage would actually make it possible for companies to close up this loophole via documentation. There would still be a few sham marriages, but exploiting the "domestic partner" loophole would end.