“The vilest offender who truly believes,
that moment from Jesus a pardon receives.”
– Fanny J. Crosby
Of course, those that have no idea that nothing’s wrong with them are extremely unlikely to seek pardon. As Jesus said, he came to minister to the sick, not the well.
Persephone:
So are you going to focus your hopes instead on the people who are already loving and nice? Now that sounds like a waste of time.
I think the issue has become confused since I entered this thread, so let me back up to Angel of the Lord’s comment:
Okay now, for the record, does anyone else want this to happen to this man? Because if you do, I think you should re-examine just how different you are from him.
To get back to the original idea…
As I see it, all the victims had equal value.
All their families will need help.
“Family” means the people they loved, and who were dependent on them.
Period.
One of the main drawbacks of being a Christian is knowing that some real idiots are grouped with me.
…you know, when you put it that way, I sound really bitchy. I was in rare form that day, and thought I was being amusing to boot. Sorry. :o
For the record, I was sort of under the impression that blowing off steam was okay in this particular forum. I don’t really want that to happen to him; I just alleviated some frustration. I think you were taking me a little too literally.
But, yeah, I was being an out-of-line jerk. Sorry.
So, if I had a friend who I loved and who perished at the WTC, I should receive charitable donations?
If the person you had chosen to build a life and a future and a family with had been suddenly killed, then yeah, you might need people to pitch in and help out.
What exactly are you getting at Infidel? Don’t pussyfoot around, come right out and say it. You seem to feel that gay relationships are not worthy of recognition, and that they are nothing more than friendships. If that isn’t how you feel, please tell us otherwise. But if I am reading you correctly, you are nothing more than the scum Sheldon is.
Well fuck you buddy, my marriage means just as much to me as my grandparents marriage of 54 years does to them, even if there is no recognition from the government that it means anything. Why don’t you come back, and defend what you said? It would turn out to be an interesting debate, or probably just an asshole roast, considering I doubt you are able to coherently debate your position.
Jeeves
Well, if I had a fiance who was killed in the terrorist attacks, I would’nt expect the Fed Gov to give me taxpayer money for the loss of a loved one. I also would’nt expect a private charity to give me money for the loss of my fiancee.
Ok, so now gay relationships have been upgraded to fiance level. What would it take before you would consider a same-sex marriage equal to an opposite sex marriage? Legal recognition? The lack therof anywhere in the country certainly doesn’t mean anything right? Since no gays are legally married to their partners, no gays have relationships that are equal to straight marriages? We have all heard that argument before.
Tell you what, the minute I can get married, I will. As it is, in California, my partner and I are registered as domestic partners, though at the moment that doesn’t mean jack shit. So, assuming NYC has domestic partner registration, which I don’t know if it does or not, would you consider same-sex relationships who have registered egual to opposite sex marriages, for the purposes described here?
Jeeves
Jeeves, Please, dont put words in my mouth. I can assure you that you are going off in the wrong direction.
Well, what direction should we all be going off in, then? I mean, what’s your fucking point here?
Sorry, I don’t have a fucking point on this particular thread. I should have known it was off limits.
Hey hey hey, no fair backing off now. Its the Straight Dope, and its the Pit, nothing is off limits here. State you opinion in clear terms, so that we have something to debate against. Otherwise, we have to make do with your previous posts, which while not crystal clear, certainly seem to lean in a direction that make me want some words with you. Hell, take your time, you may not have thought this issue out. But no fair declaring that this “topic” is off limits, like the mythical PC police are going to swoop down and arrest you.
I think first priority should go to orphans: children who lost both parents or who lost their sole remaining parent. But no, it’s widows and widowers that are most important. Sheldon is so deeply immersed in his hatred against gays that he has forgotten about the children. There is a subtle irony here…
Not really. Usually people like that care about family, an orphan can’t be a family.
Not to the government it doesn’t, nor to most private companies.
A Lesbian friend of mine pointed out that the lack of official status for homosexual relationships was a two-edged sword. If there were official recognition of such relationships, how many homosexuals would now be paying allimony? Sure there are plenty of good reasons to want official recognition, and they outweigh the bad by a huge proportion, but just consider this: How many would be paying? How would such recognition alter the community? Would you actually welcome such changes? You’d be stuck with the same rules, good and bad, written and unwritten, as your hetero peers suffer under.
That said, I think you’re right. Precisely right. It sux righteously that the gay and lesbian partners left behind will recieve nothing.
I’m with you zoogirl. There are some real idiots claiming to be Christian.
Many states have abolished alimony. In those that haven’t, the award is always discretionary and is mainly a reflection of the difference in earning potential between men and women. That difference is absent in a same-sex relationship. So why would you expect to see alimony awarded when a same-sex couple gets a divorce?
I have no problem with the same rules that we currently use for spousal support post-divorce being applied to same-sex marriages, as long as that responsibility only arises when an marriage is intentionally consummated, and the same-sex married couple gets all the benefit of marriage (right of survivorship, spousal privilege, next-of-kin status, and so forth). I don’t see that as so ardurous a burden. Awarding alimony for a dissolved casual relationship between members of the same sex would be as absurd as it would be for an unmarried opposite-sex couple. Finally, I think your question rather presumes the myth that gay men and lesbians are less “faithful” than straight couples.
Ever hear of “palimony”? It happens, although I think you’re (mostly) right about it being absurd.
My question was an almost exact quote from my friend, who is a serial monogamist, and who is firmly of the opinion that she, and many other homosexuals would, in fact, qualify as alimony payers.
Me, I’ve only known one or two “slutty” homosexuals, but I am aware of many broken long-term relationships, most of which would have qualified for divorce proceedings. In fact, I don’t think my opinion of whether or not homosexuals are “slutty” even applies to the question, as, by definition, “palimony” and alimony require that some kind of long-term relationship or socially sanctioned commitment had been made. Similarly, the same applies to most other sanctions, customs, and so-on (fer instance, having your spouse come up on your credit check).
Actually, that’s not true. A committee has been set up that will work with some of the various funds to see that the funds are distributed fairly without regard to the deceased sexual orientation, so surviving partners will be getting something. Also, specific funds for gays and lesbians who lost partners are also in place.
Really? Cool! (as cool as anything can be about the 11th) I missed that.
Any specific names or groups? How can I reach them?