Spiff Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 and why are they elected to office http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/st....html?gusrc=rss Quote Cutting off funds to theatre departments that put on A Chorus Line or Cat on a Hot Tin Roof may look like censorship, and smell like censorship, but "it's not censorship", Allen hastens to explain. "For instance, there's a reason for stop lights. You're driving a vehicle, you see that stop light, and I hope you stop." Who can argue with something as reasonable as stop lights? Of course, if you're gay, this particular traffic light never changes to green. Edit: I should say that that quote looks out of context. But the fact that he brought it up at all concerning this issue is pretty dense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 Another example of shining leadership from the great state of Alabama. First, they refuse to remove segregationist language from their constitution. Then, a state rep proposes banning public libraries from carrying books with a homosexual character in them. Seriously, if any other country wants this waste of a state, thats fine. Can we hold an ebay auction maybe? Buyer pays shipping! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 This is just unintelligent, backwards and discriminatory. If anything, banning the use of homosexual plots will make the subject even more taboo and thus more appealing. That Allen guy can f*** off until he meets up with reality somewhere down the road. Although if you want to read something more positive: Supreme Court OKs same-sex marriage in Canada, and now it all depends on a vote in parliament. http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...esex041209.html http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...iage041209.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 OK ... Here's one for you. Now that homosexual marriage is legal in Massachusetts, some companies are doing away with their benefits packages that include benefits for same sex "significant others". Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 YASNY said: OK ... Here's one for you. Now that homosexual marriage is legal in Massachusetts, some companies are doing away with their benefits packages that include benefits for same sex "significant others". Thoughts? Are they replacing it with same sex married spouse coverage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 mreye said: Are they replacing it with same sex married spouse coverage? Yes. That's the deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 YASNY said: Yes. That's the deal. Then, I don't have a problem with it. I've said before that I have a bigger problem with "Common law spouses" than with "partners" of same sex marriage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 mreye said: Then, I don't have a problem with it. I've said before that I have a bigger problem with "Common law spouses" than with "partners" of same sex marriage. Cool. I'm going to wait for some more responses before I jump into a dialogue. I think it could get interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 YASNY said: Cool. I'm going to wait for some more responses before I jump into a dialogue. I think it could get interesting. Looking to pick a fight? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 mreye said: Looking to pick a fight? Not at all. There's nothing wrong with some good conversation among friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 YASNY said: Not at all. There's nothing wrong with some good conversation among friends. I'm NOT you're friend! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Offering health insurance to my husband and not my boy friend? Fine with me. As long as I can have my husband legally be my husband. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 winodj said: Offering health insurance to my husband and not my boy friend? Fine with me. As long as I can have my husband legally be my husband. I agree with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 That may be a first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 winodj said: That may be a first. I was thinking the same thing. It must be the Holiday season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 My thinking on this .... and I may be totally off base here .... is that more couples would qualify for these benefits as things stood prior to the legalization of marriage, than ever would after the fact. So, in effect, the gays were able to take one step forward, but it cost them two steps back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Us gaybos don't want special privileges. If I had a girlfriend, I wouldn't be able to insure her with most plans unless we got married. Assuming that I could marry my boyfriend, I would assume that the same rules apply. Equal people = equal rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 winodj said: Us gaybos don't want special privileges. If I had a girlfriend, I wouldn't be able to insure her with most plans unless we got married. Assuming that I could marry my boyfriend, I would assume that the same rules apply. Equal people = equal rights. That's how I view it. This just makes it the same for everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Well. I agree with you guys. Just asking what people thoughts were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 YASNY said: Well. I agree with you guys. Just asking what people thoughts were. Not getting that fight you want, huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 mreye said: Not getting that fight you want, huh? Hell no! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Spiff said: and why are they elected to office http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/st....html?gusrc=rss Edit: I should say that that quote looks out of context. But the fact that he brought it up at all concerning this issue is pretty dense. I think the scariest part of this article is the fact that this jackass clearly has the support of Idiot President bush. You got what you asked for, bush supporters, congratulations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 That being said, in areas where legal recognition of same sex unions is not available, ethical agencies who believe in equal rights for equal people should offer benefits to same sex couples in committed long term relationships. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 As in all matters of public policy there are unintended consequences. Health Insurance is a tricky issue. Companies would like to avoid a situation where you could pick anyone and add them to your coverage. A single payer system would make all this so much easier. If we have a patchwork of states where same sex marriages are legal and some where it is not, companies will have to administer a patchwork of benefits packages. We could also face situations where a spouse has coverage, the employee is relocated, and does not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 You know what sucked most about the same sex marriage amendment in Michigan that passed? Beyond it passing, of course? It forces the state to basically violate every union contract providing same sex couple benefits starting on December 15th. Everything has unintended consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.