Again, it’s probably going to take 57 posts to get my original thought across. I suck at this.
My argument does make sense, especially under your position. If 2 gay men are working in MN (btw, don’t live there, using it as example of what can happen in my state) Slippery slope and all. 2 gay men working in MN (just to stick to my example) pay into state taxes. They should have health insurance in there. Hell, McDonald’s offers F/T workers health insurance.
Citizens of Mammasota pay state income tax, state sales tax, and add 9998 others. (Land of 10,000 taxes)
Those taxes go to, in part, paying state employees. State employees are allowed to include same-sex partners in the benefits allowed to state-paid employees. Where the hell is that money coming from? Taxpayers.
Now, if 2 gay men want to live in love, that’s cool. Just because I don’t agree doesn’t mean I’ll deny you love. But state laws don’t recognize same-sex marriage, so to make the taxpayers pay for health-benefits of state workers while many don’t have insurance is wrong, since after a union one can quit working and get free benefits (as in MN state workers). What about hetero cpouple living together? Would you also want to pay for thier benefits? How about any cohabiting partners? Would a brother be able to get his sister on the dole if they share a house?
Oh, that could never happen right? Because we just want this little thing and we swear we’ll stp here.
Assuming I’ve parsed this right (“I don’t agree with the gay lifestyle/something else about being gay”) … this has not made sense to me in at least five years.
What is there to agree or disagree about/with?
It seems perfectly simple to me. A man and woman can be married in MN (assuming for the moment that neither is married to someone else, etc.), so cohabitating partners (M/W), since they have chosen not to get married, do not get the benefits that a married couple get. However, a gay man is unable to marry his partner, so same partner gets benefits (ideally, anyway). I would hope that the difference between a loving gay or straight couple and a brother and sister (here’s a hint: most brothers don’t want to marry their sisters, for one) are not too nuanced for you to grasp.
I still don’t understand your pojnt. If the state had hired 2 married straight guys, they would have provided benefits for their spouces; providing spousal beneifts is the norm, not vice versa. Also, your repeted red herrings about b/f g/f won’t fly, because we’re not talking about providing benefits for just anybody one is dating, it’s for people who want to take the step of formalizing their relationship into something permanent-that’s why they call it “Gay Marriage” and not “Gay shacking up for a couple of weeks until you realize that your furnature clashes with his carpeting and we’d better call the whole thing off”. If a b/f g/f want to do this, they already can - that’s called “marriage”.
In fact, if you want to be logically consistant because you’re so worried about the money same sex partner benefits would cost you, you should be advocating same sex marriage, for all the reasons that you’ve given so far-benefits should not be made available to transient partners, but only to people who’ve made lifelong commitments to each other, - by getting married.
Now, if 2 gay men want to live in love, that’s cool. Just because I don’t agree doesn’t mean I’ll deny you love. But state laws don’t recognize same-sex marriage, so to make the taxpayers pay for health-benefits of state workers while many don’t have insurance is wrong, since after a union one can quit working and get free benefits (as in MN state workers). What about hetero cpouple living together? Would you also want to pay for thier benefits? How about any cohabiting partners? Would a brother be able to get his sister on the dole if they share a house?
[/quote]
But gay people (out Massachussetts, anyway) can’t get legally married, but hetero couples can. You can’t deny gay people the right to marry and then punish them because they’re co-habitating.
If you want to offer greater benefits to married couples, then to be fair you have to offer gay couples the freedom to marry, or else your differentiation is absurd.
And I don’t get this bit at all
If you don’t live in Minnesota (that’s what I assume you mean by using the USPS abbreviation for the state), then why are you using it as an example of what can happen in your state?
Or do you mean that you don’t live in Minneapolis? Then your point still doesn’t make sense because state employees reside in every county.
Ever heard of precedent? Remember that whole San Fran fiasco? A city issues licenses, but the state doesn’t recognize them. Now a state recognizes (while implicitly denying out-of-staters) while no other state recognizes the marriage. The end-game is federal recognition. For activists to just say “well give us this, it’s all we want” it horseshit. It’s a matter of chipping away. I expect the pro-hetero side to lose in the end, but not without a fight. Why the hell are you so against me having an opinion when you think I should blindly follow yours?
As I’ve said, I’m not against you or anything you beleive is right (is that an acceptable agreement from me?). But to tell me I’m out-of-hand-wrong is showing you don’t care about opinions, just want people to agree with you.
Damn, I just knew this was going to be a GD via hijack. I have nothing against you, gobear, I just wish you could stand back and at least consider my stance as I have done yours.
Chipping away? From your perpsective, maybe. For those of us who’ve been experiencing an abrogation of rights for the past … oh, 30-odd years (read Olentzero’s post in the SIMS thread on Mass. gay marriage), it’s a matter of getting rights some of us have taken for granted for a while now.
He thinks, as do Weirddave and I, that your argument is poor. He’s not against you having an opinion, he doesn’t think it holds any way. The puddle at your feet isn’t helping your case any.
Oh, yeah, you have nothing against him, you just don’t want to see him marrying the human consenting adult he loves. And you don’t agree with … something. I’m thinking it isn’t the color scheme in his abode. But other than that…
A. Yours is not the “pro-hetero” side because gay people are not “anti-hetero”
B. Your “slippery slope” argument makes no sense. It’s not a matter of “chipping away” at anything–all gay people want to enjoy the benefits of full citizenship, including the right to be legally married. We want legal equality, no more, and certainly no less.
Then I conclude you have reversed your earlier position and no longer oppose gay marriage?
I’m all for discussion and the airing of views. OTOH, if someone tells me that my orientation renders me inherently inferior, sinful, or not entitled to the rights guaranteed to every citizen of this nation, then that person is indeed “out-of-hand-wrong.” My equality and my dignity are axiomatic.
“It is desirable, in short, that in things which do not primarily concern others, individuality should assert itself. Where, not the person’s own character, but the traditions of customs of other people are the rule of conduct, there is wanting one of the principal ingredients of human happiness, and quite the chief ingredient of individual and social progress.” John Stuart Mill, “On Liberty,” Chapter III, first paragraph.
gobear, think of me what you want. I tried to tell you how the issue would affect me and my family, even my extended family. You won’t give an inch, so I retract anything I said in trying to understand your side. You’re stuck on me being, for now, against gay marriage. You’ve done so much to help me get a feel for the issue as you’re the sole spokesman. I really see no reason to continue this, since it’s turning into a pit in a pit. I’m gonna let this go so the OP can have his day.
I wish you well and hope you find hapiness. Out of 300 million people, I doubt either of us will affect each other’s lives. So I’m hereby ending my argument with you in this thread. You can keep going, I just won’t respond anymore.
IOW, you got your ass handed to you, and you don’t have the wits to form coherent arguments in rebuttal, so you’re just going to stubbornly refuse to listen to reason and maintain your prejudices no matter what. Good luck with that.
duffer, if you wouldn’t mind explaining something to me…
So you’re against gay marriage, yet you hope gobear is able to get married (i.e. find happiness) and you doubt his marriage will affect your life, yet “I oppose it if it directly affects my wife and I.”
Granted it takes you almost five dozen posts to make sense, but could you attempt not to contradict yourself mid-post? Twice?
Actually, I would prefer that you respond (at least to this). It seems to me that the basic problem with your argument is that you’re missing an important point. If you’re going to use the economic argument, then you should logically oppose all marital benefits. That’s the only way to save the money you want to save and maintain equality under the law. For you to continue to argue that only gay people can’t be married because it will cost you money does make you sound bigotted. Why not blacks? Why not Canadians who come to the US to work? Why not [ insert ethnicity /religion / national origin here ]?
Duffer, I can see that you’re done with gobear, but maybe you’d care to answer some of the questions I’ve put to you? Also, in states that have extended benefits to same sex partners, has there been an increase in taxes to cover this huge additional cost that you are talking about? If there hasen’t been, than I think you just lost that as a reason as well. You say it raises your taxes? Prove it. Lets see some evidence, and not just anecdotal “evidence” either. Where and when have same sex partner benefits led to an increase in taxes?
When I see Christians (in organized groups) as passionate about defending the rights of gays to be gay, or of people to enjoy pornography, or to take a drink of alcohol ( or whatever “sin” you want to use ) as they are about demonstrating against abortion clinics, or lobbying to descriminate against gays or writing down tag numbers of cars outside porn shops to hassle the clients, then I will start to believe that it’s more than lip service. Until then, not so much.
