Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 46
  1. #31  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by RobJohnson View Post
    I'm upset that I am not allowed to have an opposite sex domestic partner and add her to my health insurance without being married. Even in states where gay marriage and civil unions are legal that is not a requirement for same sex domestic partners. If I was gay I could add my same sex domestic partner and his/her/it's children to my policy. It's a clear case of favoritism for gays. Of course they do limit you from changing partners on your policy more then twice a year. That could be a problem in both situations.
    Your statement are a tad broad. Major corporations "domestic partner" insurance has sometimes been defined by those who aren't eligible to be married, but more often it's not even referred to as DP Benefits rather "employee plus one". Eligible would be any employee plus a domestic partner of either sex, or the employee and a child. It's an increment between individual and family.

    There is a lag right now between policy and law where gay marriage has been legalized. This only makes sense when you consider that in California it was legal and then it wasn't and then it was. But the trend in places with legal marriage is to do away with DP in favor of married couples now that marriage isn't discriminatory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #32  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    You left out this important part...which makes my answer very relevant.




    You posted those pictures and started blabbering about Canada. Hence the post I made asking you to cite when the Feds have seized Jewish businesses or forced them to wear Gold Stars with the word "Jude" on them.

    You couldn't answer so you deflected.

    Typical.
    "Find" is the present tense. European and Arab is very broad. Your comment focusses on a single extreme historical event, an event predated by mass Jewish migration from European nations for economic reasons witch are largely inseparable from general anti-semitism in the various countries and cultures.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #33  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    41,841
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Your statement are a tad broad. Major corporations "domestic partner" insurance has sometimes been defined by those who aren't eligible to be married, but more often it's not even referred to as DP Benefits rather "employee plus one". Eligible would be any employee plus a domestic partner of either sex, or the employee and a child. It's an increment between individual and family.

    There is a lag right now between policy and law where gay marriage has been legalized. This only makes sense when you consider that in California it was legal and then it wasn't and then it was. But the trend in places with legal marriage is to do away with DP in favor of married couples now that marriage isn't discriminatory.
    Gays will get bored soon with gay marriage, most that I have known have no interest in a steady monogamous relation ship, most will screw anything that will bend over for them.
    I do know a handful (or should I say fist full) of lesbians with hysterectomies that no longer care about sex that have some interest in marriage. Gays are just attention whores.
    How is obama working out for you?
    http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/5d569df9-186a-477b-a665-3ea8a8b9b655_zpse9003e54.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #34  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    Gays will get bored soon with gay marriage
    It has long been said that the quest for marriage was a misguided attempt to emulate heterosexuals. If gay marriage durations are similar to that of heterosexuals, then one would be inclined to agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    .... most that I have known have no interest in a steady monogamous relation ship, most will screw anything that will bend over for them.
    You have basically just described men, not gay men or heterosexual men, but men. Men are pigs. Those that aren't tend to either be ugly, beyond mechanical limits, or under some sort of supervision.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    I do know a handful (or should I say fist full) of lesbians with hysterectomies that no longer care about sex that have some interest in marriage.
    Who cares?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    Gays are just attention whores.
    You just can't conceal fabulous.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #35  
    Sin City Moderator RobJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    16,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Your statement are a tad broad. Major corporations "domestic partner" insurance has sometimes been defined by those who aren't eligible to be married, but more often it's not even referred to as DP Benefits rather "employee plus one". Eligible would be any employee plus a domestic partner of either sex, or the employee and a child. It's an increment between individual and family.

    There is a lag right now between policy and law where gay marriage has been legalized. This only makes sense when you consider that in California it was legal and then it wasn't and then it was. But the trend in places with legal marriage is to do away with DP in favor of married couples now that marriage isn't discriminatory.
    There is no lag, fags can have it both ways. Married or unmarried. I can't.

    You are willing to screen discrimination and I let you open a can of worms that you can not contain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #36  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by RobJohnson View Post
    There is no lag, fags can have it both ways. Married or unmarried. I can't.

    You are willing to screen discrimination and I let you open a can of worms that you can not contain.
    Lag means that the accommodation for gay people in the absence of legal equality is still in place and equality takes hold. Most of these large corporations with Domestic Partner benefits also do business in states which don't yet have legal same sex marriage. You can't have a situation where if Jack works for Chase in New York he has health insurance but if he gets promoted and moves to an operation center in Kansas he would lose benefits both for him and his domestic partner.

    Moreover, Domestic Partner benefits and Marriage benefits are not equal and never have been. Domestic Partner benefits are taxable income whereas marriage benefits are not. Domestic Partner benefits also typically come with more stringent qualifications than Marriage benefits; you actually have to demonstrate a level of commitment (often evidence of cohabitation and financial co-obligation) whereas a heterosexual could marry a waitress in Las Vegas and get immediate coverage.

    Have some worms.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #37  
    Moderator txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,598
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Lag means that the accommodation for gay people in the absence of legal equality is still in place and equality takes hold. Most of these large corporations with Domestic Partner benefits also do business in states which don't yet have legal same sex marriage. You can't have a situation where if Jack works for Chase in New York he has health insurance but if he gets promoted and moves to an operation center in Kansas he would lose benefits both for him and his domestic partner.

    Moreover, Domestic Partner benefits and Marriage benefits are not equal and never have been. Domestic Partner benefits are taxable income whereas marriage benefits are not. Domestic Partner benefits also typically come with more stringent qualifications than Marriage benefits; you actually have to demonstrate a level of commitment (often evidence of cohabitation and financial co-obligation) whereas a heterosexual could marry a waitress in Las Vegas and get immediate coverage.

    Have some worms.
    What Constitutional rights are being denied to you?
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #38  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    You mean apart from covenants banning sales of homes to Jews, commercial and private clubs which don't allow Jews, the notion of the international Jewish banking conspiracy, the general association of Jews with communism (and surely you aren't kidding yourself that the right wing indictment of the ACLU doesn't have an unspoken component), the association of Jewish doctors with abortions, acts of violence and vandalism towards Jews ... just what kind of fantasy world are you living in?
    Your lack of reading comprehension is astonishing. I didn't say that there was no antisemitism in America, I said that it was never official policy. The things that you're citing are private activities. The restrictive covenants, for example were private contracts. America never had the kind of institutional, legally enforced antisemitism that was common in Europe, where pogroms against Jews were common. That doesn't mean that there isn't antisemitism in America, in fact, it's been on the rise for the past few years, precisely because of the left's obsession with promoting Islamic insurgencies and undermining western values and morals. In fact, you're more likely to be harassed by antisemites in the University system in California than you are in any federal agency. Occupy Wall Street was virulently antisemitic.

    i
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    n philadelphia
    Yes, antisemitic graffiti is a bad thing. That doesn't make it officially sanctioned.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    in Canada

    Canada isn't part of the United States. You may want to brush up on your geography.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Billy Graham and Nixon

    By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY
    A 1973 conversation between President Nixon and evangelist Billy Graham about Jews, laden with critical references including a Biblical verse on the "synagogue of Satan," has put the aging, frail Graham back in unwelcome headlines
    Yeah, and? Nixon's personal opinions aside, he never imposed antisemitic policies or laws. When push came to shove, Nixon ensured the survival of Israel during the Yom Kippur War, and he appointed the first Jewish Secretary of State.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Housing

    Richard Ornstein, a Jewish refugee from Austria, contracted to purchase a home for his family in the Sand Point Country Club area of Seattle in late 1952. Unknown to both Ornstein and the seller, the property’s deed contained a neighborhood-wide restrictive covenant barring the sale or rental of the home to non-Whites and people of Jewish descent.


    http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/covenants_report.htm
    Yes, we've established that there were individuals and communities that engaged in private contractual agreements which were discriminatory. But the laws didn't restrict the sale, the contract did, and the through the simple expedient of excising the covenants in subsequent contracts, they were eliminated. No legal action required.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    country clubs (wiki)

    Country clubs aimed to retain ethnic characteristics and intended to distinguish “those who are in from those who are out.”[44] Although diversity is becoming more apparent within the gates of country clubs, it has been a slow process. Clubs constantly denied admission to Jews, regardless of background or wealth.[45] In 1962 Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith inspected 803 country clubs and found only 224 clubs to be nondiscriminatory.[46] The majority of the clubs inspected excluded Jews while others had quotas, which prevented Jewish sub-culture from forming within a country club.[47] However, this resulted in the formation of exclusively Jewish country clubs, further perpetuating the problem of segregation.
    Again, we're talking about private clubs, not state-enforced segregation by religion. Your feigned inability to distinguish between actions taken by individuals and private groups and the state is meant to advance a false equivalence between Jews and gays, but I'm actually making your case for you by pointing out that Jews in America were not subjected to the legal sanctions that gays were, but that also undermines your attempts at creating a false equivalence between Jews and gays in anti discrimination laws. In America, it has always been legal for Jews to marry each other, so long as the marriage was between a man and a woman (i.e., a marriage). Gays were also permitted to engage in marriage with the opposite sex. It's only the redefinition of marriage in order to accommodate a minute group of activists that makes this an issue. The only similarity between Jews and gays is the percentage of the population. Jews didn't demand that America turn itself inside out in order to accommodate our religion, we accommodated ourselves to America. We understood that as the minority, we couldn't force the majority to conform to our standards, nor should we want to. That majority welcomed us and gave us sanctuary and treated us as equals before the law. If individuals failed to do that, it wasn't the duty of the nation to impose thought crimes on them, it was the duty of Jews to thrive in spite of it, and we did. Don't use us as an excuse to justify your whining.


    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    This is the framework of the discussion between Ody and me:

    Originally Posted by Novaheart
    You mean to prevent discrimination against Jews?


    ODY - This is a false analogy.

    Nobody had to overturn laws to prevent discrimination against Jews. We were perfectly capable of competing on our own.


    Your comment is not relevant.
    Actually, his comment is relevant. My point is that discrimination against Jews in America was never a matter of legal discrimination, but of private actions. The examples that you cited were private activities, not state-imposed ones. Please don't distort my arguments in order to try to cover the flaws in yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    It has long been said that the quest for marriage was a misguided attempt to emulate heterosexuals. If gay marriage durations are similar to that of heterosexuals, then one would be inclined to agree.
    This is an example of using previous attacks on marriage to undermine it further. The advent of no-fault divorce made marriages disposable. The creation of disposable marriages was always a goal of the left, which sought to break up families because they were a bulwark against the power of the state. Now, you've further eroded marriage by redefining it to the point where it no longer has any meaning. This next round will result in gay marriage statistics being added to the overall mix, which will now show increasingly rapid familial disintegration, shorter duration of marriages, more dysfunction, and, of course, more calls to redefine marriage to include even more extreme modes, including polygamy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    You have basically just described men, not gay men or heterosexual men, but men. Men are pigs. Those that aren't tend to either be ugly, beyond mechanical limits, or under some sort of supervision.
    Yes, but heterosexual men are limited in our excesses by women, whose lack of tolerance for our piggishness forces us to behave. Gay men are not limited by women, and therefore the failings of male sexuality are magnified among gay males. Gay males are far more promiscuous than straight males. Rates of sexually transmitted disease have always been much higher among gay men than among straights.


    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Who cares?
    Not you, apparently, but then, the solidarity between lesbians and gay men was always a marriage of convenience.


    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    You just can't conceal fabulous.
    Campy cliches aren't fabulous.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #39  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,407
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    Gays will get bored soon with gay marriage

    Why not? Straight people seem to have bored with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #40  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,904
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    Why not? Straight people seem to have bored with it.
    But, you know, children don't ever get bored with their parents being married and stable under most conditions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •