Ron 10
Recommended Posts
QuoteQuoteSo, I have a question. I am single. I have never been married nor do I have kids. Why should I have to contribute to the healthcare of spouses and dependents?
Who says you would? I said MY company pays 75% of the cost of dependents..MY company, not you.
Yeah yeah...I know...not answering anymore on this thread...that's fine. I still am, though!
If a company pays for dependents and spouses, then I am paying, too. Instead of getting part of the profits that I helped the company make, it is going to others who don't work for the company.
There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning
WrongWay 0
Okay, forgive my lateness to the thread, I shall state my opinions as harshly as they are in my head and leave it alone.
Bush is SO fucking full of shit. It is these people's RIGHT to be wed if they so wish. The whole point here is FREEDOM and CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Marriage to most is a religious or spiritual bond, and I'll be damned if the government, or more specifically some idiot in the oval office. He says he "just knows its wrong", well how does he know that if he can't even spell presidency??????
I am in FULL SUPPORT of ANYONE who wants to be married, be it gay, straight, mixed religions, races, ANYONE. Love is love, and if someone loves another person enough to marry them, they should be able to, without the government saying it's wrong.
Fuck George Bush, he's a fucking idiot, I'd be more comfortable with the mascot for the Columbus Bluejackets being president.
Wrong Way
D #27371 Mal Manera Rodriguez Cajun Chicken Ø Hellfish #451
The wiser wolf prevails.
Bush is SO fucking full of shit. It is these people's RIGHT to be wed if they so wish. The whole point here is FREEDOM and CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Marriage to most is a religious or spiritual bond, and I'll be damned if the government, or more specifically some idiot in the oval office. He says he "just knows its wrong", well how does he know that if he can't even spell presidency??????
I am in FULL SUPPORT of ANYONE who wants to be married, be it gay, straight, mixed religions, races, ANYONE. Love is love, and if someone loves another person enough to marry them, they should be able to, without the government saying it's wrong.
Fuck George Bush, he's a fucking idiot, I'd be more comfortable with the mascot for the Columbus Bluejackets being president.
Wrong Way
D #27371 Mal Manera Rodriguez Cajun Chicken Ø Hellfish #451
The wiser wolf prevails.
QuoteI'd be more comfortable with the mascot for the Columbus Bluejackets being president
I am unsure what the position of the mascot is on this issue. However, the team name is the BJs.
I see that you have stirred the pot. This issues is quite the debate. Would it be debated in some tribal communities in Africa or other cultures for instance? Perhaps not. As Americans, our forefathers have defined for us what we "should" believe. Over the generations we have come to accept these traditions in our culture because our ancestors have passed it down. Ergo, the debate on the whole gay marriage thing.
I think for most of us it is difficult to accept a sibling relationship or any other familial romantic relationship because most of us have defined the kind of love that family should have for one another. And for much of the population, this would apply to same sex couples.
I think that if there is romantic love between family members, something has seriously gone wrong within the household. To have a relationship with a family member means that other basic needs are not being met. As defined by our culture, there are certain roles that a parent or sibling play in each others lives. To adulterate these roles must mean that there is something lacking in the lives of these people. A father fallng in love with his teenage daughter for example....does this mean that he is a pedophile or that his bond with his wife is not strong, etc. This father is failing to give his daughter a "dad". There is no childhood for the daughter, she has stepped into the role of a wife. Something has gone arwy.
With same sex couples, it is different. For one thing, many people feel that there is a biological predisposition at the forefront of this lifestyle. For mosy homosexuals it is not a choice but simply a way of life. When you meet someone and fall in love, a serious relationship usually comes to living together or forming a civil union or marriage.
Is it fair that a homosexual couple living together for 20 years in a loving and monogomous relationship be denied the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts? Why should a lesbian woman be made to testify against her partner of twenty years simply because they are not married? It is a legal right for married couples.
Why should a gay man be forced out of the decision making process of his dying partner simply based on the fact that they are unrelated or have no legal marriage. Should a distant family member who ousted the dying man decide when to pull the plug, while his loving partner of ten years sits idly by, helpless with no decisions in the process?
If a marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, then it was not defined properly to begin with. Marriage should be defined by the vows you take when you stand before GOD....to have, to hold, love cherish, etc. As we have seen, heterosexuals do not have the market cornered on this concept.
Incestual relationships are inherently dysfunctional as a more pure and unromantic love is warranted. No they, should not be given the same rights because it is a relationship of a different nature.
This is an interesting topic. One that certainly arouses deep thought. To make this into a constitutional issue is pure stupidity on the part of Bush. He is basically saying that the constitution should excluse a minority group from equal rights.
Let's get him out of ofice before he really screws things up!!!!!
I think for most of us it is difficult to accept a sibling relationship or any other familial romantic relationship because most of us have defined the kind of love that family should have for one another. And for much of the population, this would apply to same sex couples.
I think that if there is romantic love between family members, something has seriously gone wrong within the household. To have a relationship with a family member means that other basic needs are not being met. As defined by our culture, there are certain roles that a parent or sibling play in each others lives. To adulterate these roles must mean that there is something lacking in the lives of these people. A father fallng in love with his teenage daughter for example....does this mean that he is a pedophile or that his bond with his wife is not strong, etc. This father is failing to give his daughter a "dad". There is no childhood for the daughter, she has stepped into the role of a wife. Something has gone arwy.
With same sex couples, it is different. For one thing, many people feel that there is a biological predisposition at the forefront of this lifestyle. For mosy homosexuals it is not a choice but simply a way of life. When you meet someone and fall in love, a serious relationship usually comes to living together or forming a civil union or marriage.
Is it fair that a homosexual couple living together for 20 years in a loving and monogomous relationship be denied the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts? Why should a lesbian woman be made to testify against her partner of twenty years simply because they are not married? It is a legal right for married couples.
Why should a gay man be forced out of the decision making process of his dying partner simply based on the fact that they are unrelated or have no legal marriage. Should a distant family member who ousted the dying man decide when to pull the plug, while his loving partner of ten years sits idly by, helpless with no decisions in the process?
If a marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, then it was not defined properly to begin with. Marriage should be defined by the vows you take when you stand before GOD....to have, to hold, love cherish, etc. As we have seen, heterosexuals do not have the market cornered on this concept.
Incestual relationships are inherently dysfunctional as a more pure and unromantic love is warranted. No they, should not be given the same rights because it is a relationship of a different nature.
This is an interesting topic. One that certainly arouses deep thought. To make this into a constitutional issue is pure stupidity on the part of Bush. He is basically saying that the constitution should excluse a minority group from equal rights.
Let's get him out of ofice before he really screws things up!!!!!
Que sera sera
PhreeZone 20
QuoteI'd be more comfortable with the mascot for the Columbus Bluejackets being president.
Stinger? He's kinda flakey on some of the more important issues like icing. And he's a proponant of fighting and I don't know if we can take too many more 2 minute penalties.
Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery
Parachutemanuals.com
And tomorrow is a mystery
Parachutemanuals.com
rhino 0
Quotefuck the state. Do we really need acceptance from the state to know how we feel in our hearts?
hmmm.... Why does the state "government" have the right to tell me I can only see my son 4 days a month? Who the fuck do they think they are? I fight for my country? Pay taxes?
If we are going to rebuild the system let's do it right!
What the fuck??
Rhino
Keith 0
QuoteRight now the LAW says other wise.
STRAIGHT people passed those laws, thus, MAKING me and PREVENTING me from doing something. You keep saying LAW. STRAIGHT LAW would be more appropriate.
I hope you don't think I'm slamming you. Although I don't agree with your point of view, I also don't believe you have malicious intent. I think you've presented yourself very well.
Keith
Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville
Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville
billvon 2,998
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>If the Churches want to allow it...then I would support the LAW being changed.
Except we have this separation of church and state thing. In fact, that's one of the reasons we split off from England, so that we could worship and live as we choose without having to be subjected to religious laws.
>Like I said..Im done here...
Heh.
Except we have this separation of church and state thing. In fact, that's one of the reasons we split off from England, so that we could worship and live as we choose without having to be subjected to religious laws.
>Like I said..Im done here...
Heh.
Sexual acts don't define a person.
From dictionary.com
ho·mo·sex·u·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-sksh-l, -m-)
adj.
Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
never pull low......unless you are
If a company pays for dependents and spouses, then I am paying, too. Instead of getting part of the profits that I helped the company make, it is going to others who don't work for the company.
Only if you have profit sharing. Otherwise the stockholders get the profits.
never pull low......unless you are
If a marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, then it was not defined properly to begin with. Marriage should be defined by the vows you take when you stand before GOD....to have, to hold, love cherish, etc.
So if you don't like the meaning of a word it should change?
never pull low......unless you are
Keith 0
Quoteho·mo·sex·u·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-sksh-l, -m-)
adj.
Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
It says orientation to, as in attraction to, not sexual relation with.
Keith
Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville
Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville
Jayruss 0
QuoteSexual acts don't define a person.
From dictionary.com
ho·mo·sex·u·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-sksh-l, -m-)
adj.
Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
sexual orientation
n.
The direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes.
so ho·mo·sex·u·al is Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation (sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes) to persons of the same sex.
Yet, I don't see the where sucking a guy's dick is the essence of being gay as you alluded to in your original post.
__________________________________________________
"Beware how you take away hope from another human being."
-Oliver Wendell Holmes
QuoteI own a small company. I have a gay female working for me...Her partner then would have to be covered under my insurance...That will cost me more money.
The cost of health insurance is rising quickly...Some companies are having to drop having coverage cause its so expensive.
Ron, normaly I like what you have to say, but this?
So if she were to suddenly go straight and marry, you'd have to pay more as well. Or if she were replaced with someone who was straigt and married the same would apply.
If your company can not afford either of those scenarios, you should not offer the benifits. But esential saying you can afford to employ someone because they are gay, and won't have to pay benifits? Bah.
----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.
Yet, I don't see the where sucking a guy's dick is the essence of being gay as you alluded to in your original post.
No I didn't. I used the word homosexual not gay. I think that sex is the essence of homosexuality.
never pull low......unless you are
Who says you would? I said MY company pays 75% of the cost of dependents..MY company, not you.
It would infringe on me as a buisness owner...I would have to shell out more to keep my same policy of paying for dependents health care coverage..Or I could drop the dependent health care coverage if I didn't feel I should have to provide it to same sex couples...And then if you were one of my employees and you were married...Me dropping it would effect you wouldn't it?
Again any more questions PM. me...Im not staying here any more, but didn't want to be rude.
As it stands I'm against gay "Marriage" since I see "Marriage as a religious issue. Im not OPPOSED to a gay "legal thing"...But right now its not there, and I honestly don't care enough to support it. And the more people I have jump my ass...Amazingly the more I care, but in the wrong way.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites