New Objectives for Gay Leadership
| Author |
Message |
|
Maximus
Hot Fuss
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:46 am
Posts: 8427
Location: floridaaa
|
lovemerox wrote: zach wrote: lovemerox wrote: BKB_The_Man wrote: lovemerox wrote: ^^^Sure, whatever. Im suprised...no snide cocky comment on how you can turn a gay woman straight?   Believe me, I can..Dude, seriously...do not make me laugh. Your lame attempts at a pickup line when you thought I was a girl were both comical and laughable. And for someone who claims that homosexuality is such a sin, and abnormal or against christian values....you dont seem to exibit the very core christian values which real christians show Just ingore him. Works for me. Ignore me? No, him, silly 
|
| Thu Dec 09, 2004 10:15 pm |
  
|
|
|
lovemerox
Forum General
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:16 pm
Posts: 6499
Location: Down along the dixie line
|
zach wrote: lovemerox wrote: zach wrote: lovemerox wrote: BKB_The_Man wrote: lovemerox wrote: ^^^Sure, whatever. Im suprised...no snide cocky comment on how you can turn a gay woman straight? Dude, seriously...do not make me laugh. Your lame attempts at a pickup line when you thought I was a girl were both comical and laughable. And for someone who claims that homosexuality is such a sin, and abnormal or against christian values....you dont seem to exibit the very core christian values which real christians show Just ingore him. Works for me. Ignore me? No, him, silly hehe It's kind of hard. His aura of manliness and starightness is so overwhelming. I would warn all the bi sexual or lesbian posters on the board to be weary...he just might turn them straight! _________________
|
| Thu Dec 09, 2004 10:21 pm |
|
|
|
Maximus
Hot Fuss
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:46 am
Posts: 8427
Location: floridaaa
|
lovemerox wrote: zach wrote: lovemerox wrote: zach wrote: lovemerox wrote: BKB_The_Man wrote: lovemerox wrote: ^^^Sure, whatever. Im suprised...no snide cocky comment on how you can turn a gay woman straight? Dude, seriously...do not make me laugh. Your lame attempts at a pickup line when you thought I was a girl were both comical and laughable. And for someone who claims that homosexuality is such a sin, and abnormal or against christian values....you dont seem to exibit the very core christian values which real christians show Just ingore him. Works for me. Ignore me? No, him, silly hehe It's kind of hard. His aura of manliness and starightness is so overwhelming. I would warn all the bi sexual or lesbian posters on the board to be weary...he just might turn them straight!
|
| Thu Dec 09, 2004 10:21 pm |
|
|
|
dolcevita
Extraordinary
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts: 16061
Location: The Damage Control Table
|
 Erendis wrote: If a couple does a Civil Union at the state level, that couple is accorded something like 300-400 rights and benefits. If the couple is Married, then the marriage is recognized on the Federal level, and that couple is accorded something like 1000 additional rights and benefits. The big-ticket benefits like joint taxes and Social Security are Federal level. So even if civil unions are legalized in some states, homosexual couples do not get the main benefits that hetersexuals do. This is why the community is up in arms. I don't think gays give a rat's ass if the government thinks they are spiritually married or not; they just want the 1000 rights. In the end, the government is a poor judge of whether two people are spiritually married. Come to think of it, why is government in the marriage business at all? They should just dole out the same federal civil union license for everybody and leave the "marriage" license to the churches.
The Social Security plan is fundamentally bad in two ways. First of all, it stinks of political pressure from high up. Isn't it pretty convenient that the ONE issue that they are trying to get the gays to endorse just HAPPENS to be an extremely controversial issue for everybody, one that the Democrats will fight tooth and nail? It sounds like the Bush administration is graciously offering a benefit, but really they only want something out of it for themselves. You think the gays would get this compromise if the issue was something else, something that Bush wasn't so desperate about? HaHaHaHa
Secondly, the gays might be signing away any future potential rights in exchange for one measly right. [and if that's not bad enough, the gays have to do political groveling even for that tablescrap.] Suppose the gays DO do the Social Security deal. What if gays want health care later? The government can say -- "What, YOU guys again. I thought we already covered this with the SS thing. Sorry, no health care for you. You gave up health care, and taxes, and the rest of it. See ya." I think it's better for gays to concentrate their efforts into fight for a federal civil union under the 14th amendment. If they don't even mention the word "marriage" they are less likely to trigger the knee-jerk reactions from Christians. I agree with everything you just said. Its a dirty recruitment tactic to push through a privitization agenda that normally wouldn't get enough support. Only now it is because 11 states just did a little face-slapping. I think putting value in the dollar vs. dealing with the larger federal institution structures is incredibly short-sited. I was upset the suggestion was even being entertained in the article. As to gov't in the marriage business at all, that is very true. rusty wrote: The privitization is just a dumb way to get around it all. They should just stick with trying to get civil unions through the government because they aren't getting any respect from the gvnt doing this way. And having that respect and acknowledgment is a huge achievement that overrides the privitization...
That's a slap in the face to gays. The gov't is saying that we won't accept you but some private company will. If they (as in gays) are fighting for their civic rights, don't take the easy road. Did blacks in the 60s take the easy road for their rights? No. They shouldn't get lazy on the subject and should press for their rights.
Yes. I agree, its interesting to hear from you cause I rarely do. Thanks for taking the time to put in some rich ideas. I will post the article shortly for you on the Canadian court ruling. Also: rusty wrote: oOOooOO I didn't think about that one. I forgot about the more liberal churches out there. Touché Mme Dolcevita. Touché.
Perhaps Erendis has the best suggestion? That the gov't shouldn't be dealing with it period? Really, just leave it up to each institution, and extend the same union benefits across the board?
@the rest of you guys. quit derailing a good conversation. we already established that one-on-one picking gets nowhere. 6 pages of it is enough.
|
| Thu Dec 09, 2004 10:29 pm |
|
|
|
lovemerox
Forum General
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:16 pm
Posts: 6499
Location: Down along the dixie line
|
dolcevita wrote: Erendis wrote: If a couple does a Civil Union at the state level, that couple is accorded something like 300-400 rights and benefits. If the couple is Married, then the marriage is recognized on the Federal level, and that couple is accorded something like 1000 additional rights and benefits. The big-ticket benefits like joint taxes and Social Security are Federal level. So even if civil unions are legalized in some states, homosexual couples do not get the main benefits that hetersexuals do. This is why the community is up in arms. I don't think gays give a rat's ass if the government thinks they are spiritually married or not; they just want the 1000 rights. In the end, the government is a poor judge of whether two people are spiritually married. Come to think of it, why is government in the marriage business at all? They should just dole out the same federal civil union license for everybody and leave the "marriage" license to the churches.
The Social Security plan is fundamentally bad in two ways. First of all, it stinks of political pressure from high up. Isn't it pretty convenient that the ONE issue that they are trying to get the gays to endorse just HAPPENS to be an extremely controversial issue for everybody, one that the Democrats will fight tooth and nail? It sounds like the Bush administration is graciously offering a benefit, but really they only want something out of it for themselves. You think the gays would get this compromise if the issue was something else, something that Bush wasn't so desperate about? HaHaHaHa
Secondly, the gays might be signing away any future potential rights in exchange for one measly right. [and if that's not bad enough, the gays have to do political groveling even for that tablescrap.] Suppose the gays DO do the Social Security deal. What if gays want health care later? The government can say -- "What, YOU guys again. I thought we already covered this with the SS thing. Sorry, no health care for you. You gave up health care, and taxes, and the rest of it. See ya." I think it's better for gays to concentrate their efforts into fight for a federal civil union under the 14th amendment. If they don't even mention the word "marriage" they are less likely to trigger the knee-jerk reactions from Christians. I agree with everything you just said. Its a dirty recruitment tactic to push through a privitization agenda that normally wouldn't get enough support. Only now it is because 11 states just did a little face-slapping. I think putting value in the dollar vs. dealing with the larger federal institution structures is incredibly short-sited. I was upset the suggestion was even being entertained in the article. As to gov't in the marriage business at all, that is very true. rusty wrote: The privitization is just a dumb way to get around it all. They should just stick with trying to get civil unions through the government because they aren't getting any respect from the gvnt doing this way. And having that respect and acknowledgment is a huge achievement that overrides the privitization...
That's a slap in the face to gays. The gov't is saying that we won't accept you but some private company will. If they (as in gays) are fighting for their civic rights, don't take the easy road. Did blacks in the 60s take the easy road for their rights? No. They shouldn't get lazy on the subject and should press for their rights.
Yes. I agree, its interesting to hear from you cause I rarely do. Thanks for taking the time to put in some rich ideas. I will post the article shortly for you on the Canadian court ruling. Also: rusty wrote: oOOooOO I didn't think about that one. I forgot about the more liberal churches out there. Touché Mme Dolcevita. Touché.
Perhaps Erendis has the best suggestion? That the gov't shouldn't be dealing with it period? Really, just leave it up to each institution, and extend the same union benefits across the board? @the rest of you guys. quit derailing a good conversation. we already established that one-on-one picking gets nowhere. 6 pages of it is enough. Sorry I didnt know this conversation was limited to 3 certain people, or that we were not allowed to show our emotion/thoughts on someone who obviously has no respect for the gay community on these forums
As you wish Dolce...IM out of the conversation entirely...thats what you want no? _________________
|
| Thu Dec 09, 2004 11:38 pm |
|
|
|
lovemerox
Forum General
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:16 pm
Posts: 6499
Location: Down along the dixie line
|
lovemerox wrote: dolcevita wrote: Erendis wrote: If a couple does a Civil Union at the state level, that couple is accorded something like 300-400 rights and benefits. If the couple is Married, then the marriage is recognized on the Federal level, and that couple is accorded something like 1000 additional rights and benefits. The big-ticket benefits like joint taxes and Social Security are Federal level. So even if civil unions are legalized in some states, homosexual couples do not get the main benefits that hetersexuals do. This is why the community is up in arms. I don't think gays give a rat's ass if the government thinks they are spiritually married or not; they just want the 1000 rights. In the end, the government is a poor judge of whether two people are spiritually married. Come to think of it, why is government in the marriage business at all? They should just dole out the same federal civil union license for everybody and leave the "marriage" license to the churches.
The Social Security plan is fundamentally bad in two ways. First of all, it stinks of political pressure from high up. Isn't it pretty convenient that the ONE issue that they are trying to get the gays to endorse just HAPPENS to be an extremely controversial issue for everybody, one that the Democrats will fight tooth and nail? It sounds like the Bush administration is graciously offering a benefit, but really they only want something out of it for themselves. You think the gays would get this compromise if the issue was something else, something that Bush wasn't so desperate about? HaHaHaHa
Secondly, the gays might be signing away any future potential rights in exchange for one measly right. [and if that's not bad enough, the gays have to do political groveling even for that tablescrap.] Suppose the gays DO do the Social Security deal. What if gays want health care later? The government can say -- "What, YOU guys again. I thought we already covered this with the SS thing. Sorry, no health care for you. You gave up health care, and taxes, and the rest of it. See ya." I think it's better for gays to concentrate their efforts into fight for a federal civil union under the 14th amendment. If they don't even mention the word "marriage" they are less likely to trigger the knee-jerk reactions from Christians. I agree with everything you just said. Its a dirty recruitment tactic to push through a privitization agenda that normally wouldn't get enough support. Only now it is because 11 states just did a little face-slapping. I think putting value in the dollar vs. dealing with the larger federal institution structures is incredibly short-sited. I was upset the suggestion was even being entertained in the article. As to gov't in the marriage business at all, that is very true. rusty wrote: The privitization is just a dumb way to get around it all. They should just stick with trying to get civil unions through the government because they aren't getting any respect from the gvnt doing this way. And having that respect and acknowledgment is a huge achievement that overrides the privitization...
That's a slap in the face to gays. The gov't is saying that we won't accept you but some private company will. If they (as in gays) are fighting for their civic rights, don't take the easy road. Did blacks in the 60s take the easy road for their rights? No. They shouldn't get lazy on the subject and should press for their rights.
Yes. I agree, its interesting to hear from you cause I rarely do. Thanks for taking the time to put in some rich ideas. I will post the article shortly for you on the Canadian court ruling. Also: rusty wrote: oOOooOO I didn't think about that one. I forgot about the more liberal churches out there. Touché Mme Dolcevita. Touché.
Perhaps Erendis has the best suggestion? That the gov't shouldn't be dealing with it period? Really, just leave it up to each institution, and extend the same union benefits across the board? @the rest of you guys. quit derailing a good conversation. we already established that one-on-one picking gets nowhere. 6 pages of it is enough. Sorry I didnt know this conversation was limited to 3 certain people, or that we were not allowed to show our emotion/thoughts on someone who obviously has no respect for the gay community on these forums As you wish Dolce...IM out of the conversation entirely...thats what you want no? Always nice to see a response _________________
|
| Fri Dec 10, 2004 1:31 am |
|
|
|
Erendis
Indiana Jones IV
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 9:40 am
Posts: 1527
Location: Emyn Arnen
|
Enough already, lovemerox. Whatever people think about homosexuality itself, the point is that gay couples are here and they have the right to seek equal protection under the Constitution. I don't mind the numorous hijackings (the very thought of BKB turning people straight ) but please, enough with the sniping. 
Regarding Dolcevita's church issue, about whether a government can force a church to perform a marriage, or whether a church can force a government to recognize a marriage: The whole idea, either way, is patently ridiculous. Since when do a man and woman need a church's -- any church -- approval to get married? People get married in courthouses all the time. And a government doesn't automatically recognize the church's ceremony -- don't you have to sign separate paperwork?
Quote: From rusty:
Didn't the voters decide what they wanted to do with homosexuals in the last election? I'm not that great on the american elections and all but that is the vibe that I got off it. The vibe that I got from the elections is that come hell or high water, them sinful sodomizin' gays ain't gonna get married nohow. Marriage and civil union are so tied together that nobody has the intelligence to recognize that they are totally separate ideas. Since there's no good way to say "civil union at the federal level," people shorten it to "marriage." Problem is, when you say 'marriage,' everybody's mind completely shuts down and they start spouting off about sin and the bible and the instution of marriage, or procreation etc. I'm not sure what the wording was, but I'm sure that some of those people were thinking about the word "marriage" and jerking their knees accordingly.
Heck, witness this very thread! How many people were able to get past the word "marriage" and talk about civil rights? Not BKB, certainly.
What if the gays suddenly dropped the church issue entirely and starting fighting for "tax benefits?" Suddenly, the end-all be-all "institution of marriage" doesn't sound as threatened, does it.* This is why the gays absolutley have to stop using the word "marriage." They should call it domestic partnership, or civil union, or benefits registration, or what have you. If they do go for a civil union, they should just show up in a suit and quietly sign the papers. Save the parties and the wedding dresses for later; you'll have years to celebrate, geez. Anything and everything to stress that this issue is about taxes, or benefits, or inheritance, or Social Security; not religion or spirituality.
Of course, there are gays who insist on contuning to fight for "marriage" because they want the gov't to "recognize their love" or summat. If gays want to get anywhere, I believe they should refrain from that. First, that will set off the haters again anyway. And second, it's hardly the government's job to recognize love -- it's a poor judge of love. The most the government should recognize is a legal partnership registration. If the gays start with that, I think they will go a lot further.
----------
* and if these people are so interested in 'preserving the institution of marriage,' they should forget the gays and instead shut down all those drive-through "chapels" in Vegas.
|
| Fri Dec 10, 2004 2:31 pm |
|
|
|
lovemerox
Forum General
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:16 pm
Posts: 6499
Location: Down along the dixie line
|
Erendis wrote: Enough already, lovemerox. Whatever people think about homosexuality itself, the point is that gay couples are here and they have the right to seek equal protection under the Constitution. I don't mind the numorous hijackings (the very thought of BKB turning people straight ) but please, enough with the sniping. Regarding Dolcevita's church issue, about whether a government can force a church to perform a marriage, or whether a church can force a government to recognize a marriage: The whole idea, either way, is patently ridiculous. Since when do a man and woman need a church's -- any church -- approval to get married? People get married in courthouses all the time. And a government doesn't automatically recognize the church's ceremony -- don't you have to sign separate paperwork? Quote: From rusty:
Didn't the voters decide what they wanted to do with homosexuals in the last election? I'm not that great on the american elections and all but that is the vibe that I got off it. The vibe that I got from the elections is that come hell or high water, them sinful sodomizin' gays ain't gonna get married nohow. Marriage and civil union are so tied together that nobody has the intelligence to recognize that they are totally separate ideas. Since there's no good way to say "civil union at the federal level," people shorten it to "marriage." Problem is, when you say 'marriage,' everybody's mind completely shuts down and they start spouting off about sin and the bible and the instution of marriage, or procreation etc. I'm not sure what the wording was, but I'm sure that some of those people were thinking about the word "marriage" and jerking their knees accordingly. Heck, witness this very thread! How many people were able to get past the word "marriage" and talk about civil rights? Not BKB, certainly. What if the gays suddenly dropped the church issue entirely and starting fighting for "tax benefits?" Suddenly, the end-all be-all "institution of marriage" doesn't sound as threatened, does it.* This is why the gays absolutley have to stop using the word "marriage." They should call it domestic partnership, or civil union, or benefits registration, or what have you. If they do go for a civil union, they should just show up in a suit and quietly sign the papers. Save the parties and the wedding dresses for later; you'll have years to celebrate, geez. Anything and everything to stress that this issue is about taxes, or benefits, or inheritance, or Social Security; not religion or spirituality. Of course, there are gays who insist on contuning to fight for "marriage" because they want the gov't to "recognize their love" or summat. If gays want to get anywhere, I believe they should refrain from that. First, that will set off the haters again anyway. And second, it's hardly the government's job to recognize love -- it's a poor judge of love. The most the government should recognize is a legal partnership registration. If the gays start with that, I think they will go a lot further. ---------- * and if these people are so interested in 'preserving the institution of marriage,' they should forget the gays and instead shut down all those drive-through "chapels" in Vegas.Thanks but I do not need YOU to tell me when enough is enough. The issue has been settled. :wink: _________________
|
| Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:43 pm |
|
|
|
Ahmed Johnson
Cream of the Crop
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:22 pm
Posts: 2226
Location: Pearl River, Mississippi
|
_________________
|
| Tue Dec 14, 2004 2:44 pm |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|
