Originally posted by Gridlock: The ultimate problem is we have got ourselves involved in others relationships for far too long.
Actually, I want the government to be neutral on homosexual relationships.
quote
You want to talk equity? Here's how it works in my books: The discrepancy in YOUR example is that a defined group of people are being blocked from something that another defined group of people can partake in.
End. of. story.
Actually, the problem is that everyone wants a label that will afford them special treatment.
quote
Now, do 51% of people believe that this form of discrimination is acceptable? Well, Westboro Church member, local bigot olejoedad seems to want to kill them, so there's a vote against.
I think all reasonable, decent people would be repulsed by the antics of Mr. Phelps and Co. Your attempt to incorporate them into this debate is underhanded, intellectually dishonest, and smacks of desperation.
quote
I find it funny that so many republicans are against gay marriage.
I find it funny that you actually believe there are only two schools of political thought. I am not a Republican, and do not fit into your false dichotomy.
quote
One: Because so many of them are closet homosexuals, its not even funny. Seriously, how many hardcore republicans arguing for the sanctity of white hetero america need to **** men in the ass before we start asking whats up?
Really? That's your salvo? You claim to be defending the homosexual community, but make such a statement? You have lost the argument.
quote
**** off.
I just thought I would include that too in the interest of illustrating your level of discourse.
IP: Logged
02:34 PM
Gridlock Member
Posts: 2874 From: New Westminster, BC Canada Registered: Apr 2002
Myself, I think its hardwired into the brains of a certain group of people. I think it has to be given when people tell their stories, and say that they have felt different since early grade school.
It could go 1000 different ways. I really don't think it really, truly matters. They are a group of people. They are being discriminated against. i don't think anyone can argue that.
So the argument becomes: is that discrimination warranted. Does eliminating a form of discrimination for this group impose hardship on another. I don't think it does. Therefore, as a person that identifies as heterosexual, I look upon a group of people that are being unjustly treated, and feel compelled to agree with them.
I think making my statement about closeted republicans is fair. I don't care if they are: bi-gay-lesbian or hetero or other. What I have an issue with is making public statements that are politically motivated, and in private, believe something else entirely. As I said...I don't care, but this:
Gay Couples Losing Perks Legal Same-Sex Marriage in State Leads Companies to Cut Partner Benefits
By JOANN S. LUBLIN And DANA MATTIOLI
The legalization of gay marriage in New York means some couples may have to walk down the aisle for the most practical of reasons: to hold onto their partners' health insurance and other benefits.
At least two major employers—Raytheon Co. and International Business Machines Corp.—say New York employees in same-sex relationships now will have to get married if they want to qualify for the benefits.
The companies appear to be the exceptions among big corporate employers.
Most have continued to offer domestic-partner benefits—health care being the most common—to workers with same-sex partners in the states that recognize gay marriage.
Currently, 37% of Fortune 1000 companies provide domestic-partner benefits, according to a 2011 study by Williams Institute, a think tank at UCLA's School of Law that researches sexual orientation in law and public policy.
After Massachusetts legalized same-sex unions in 2004, a few employers there dropped domestic-partner benefits and told staffers they had to wed.
However, most just kept their policies, according to research done by the Williams Institute. The employers most likely to drop the benefits were those that offer them only to same-sex couples; many firms offer benefits to heterosexual nonmarried couples as well.
At both Raytheon and IBM, employees in heterosexual relationships must also be wed for partners to receive benefits.
Raytheon, a Waltham, Mass.-based defense contractor, has less than 100 employees in New York, and it is difficult to determine how many might be affected by a shift in policy, according to a spokesman.
Employees will get a grace period of several months before they have to wed, the spokesman said, in keeping with the company's policy in other states that allow gay marriage.
The case is similar at IBM.
In other states where civil unions are allowed or gay marriage legalized, such as Massachusetts, the Armonk, N.Y.-based company has required that couples enter into a union or get hitched to keep the perks.
The company, which employs 427,000 people world-wide, has offered the benefits since 1996.
Northeastern University in Boston explored the possibility of phasing out domestic-partner benefits after gay marriage became legal there, according to Mike Armini, a spokesman.
But "we ended up keeping the benefits'' after discovering some gay staffers "couldn't get married for various reasons,'' he said.
Among the reasons was that one partner was in the military, which had a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
Because the federal government doesn't recognize gay marriage, some gay and lesbian employees seeking U.S. citizenship feared encountering bureaucratic delays by being married under the new Massachusetts law, Mr. Armini added.
It's doubtful that many major companies will drop such benefits in states that allow gay marriage because they prefer nationwide policies, says R. Bradley "Brad" Sears, executive director of the Williams Institute. Instead, Mr. Sears expects to see more examples like New York, where the business community helped lobby for passage of the gay-marriage legislation.
Most companies see domestic-partner benefits as a key perk that attracts workers. "Our aim is to attract and retain a diverse and talented work force and to be considered an employer of choice.," said Paul Fox, a Procter & Gamble Co. spokesman. The consumer-goods giant inaugurated its benefits in 2001 and plans to keep offering them.
It's like people think that being gay is a choice. That's the only reason people feel justified in being as discriminatory is joedad up there.
It's a choice.
I don't understand how people who know nothing about the subject can say that.
It depends on the person. Some chose to be gay, and others are 'wired' that way either due to their brain chemistry or base genetics. ( and a few unfortunates made the choice due to bad events in their past )
