Esprix asked:
I’m sorry, Esprix, but I’m going to have to do grave bodily harm to you.
It’s called the Constitution of the United States of America. You might try reading it if you want your rants to hold any water.
Christ on a badly sprung pogostick, person! You call other people morons and you don’t know that?
Esprix is wrong yet again, imagine that.
Here in California, Manny is right in saying
[QUOTE]
Hello, all. Sorry to interrupt with a GQ moment. Actually, it is relatively common for companies (and more common for municipalities) to offer benefits to same-sex partners but not to opposite-sex partners who don’t marry. The legal and moral justification for this is that marriage is not an available option for same-sex partners. The intention is to offer benefits to same-sex partners who are sufficiently committed to each other that they would get married if it were legal. Ergo, no obligation to offer the benefits to those for whom marriage is legal. The big goal is not to drain corporate (or municipal) coffers to pay for “relationships of convenience” of either sort.{QUOTE/]
because thats the exact situation I have faced for a year now here. I cant get my future wife benefits, and we cant even get paid all that well, but the “fruit” around here are living high on the hog and its getting better for them everyday. Think of this; company paid benefits, benefits of marriage (technically) and its costs them $0, yet we have to pay medical and dental out of our pockets (shallow as they be now), and on top of it cant even get married till we can afford it, which wont happen because we cant stop spending on medical and dental. SEE THE VICIOUS CYCLE!?!?!? I think thats considered a special right, not equal.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. "
Jonathan Swift
“…cant even get married till we can afford it.”
What a steaming pile of corn-infused crap. You can afford to get married now. Oh, you can’t afford the big wedding and long honeymoon and a hotel room for your annoying mother-in-law to be? Well that’s different. It’s your choice of course, but stop whining that you choose not to take advantage of an institution not legally available to your gay collegues. You have benefits available to your betrothed, starting tomorrow if you want.
You also seem concerned that “the fruit” are living “high off the hog.” If you spent a little less time searching the world for things to whine about and a little more time trying to be a decent person, you may find that your lot at work improves somewhat. Just something to think about.
Livin’ on Tums, vitamin E and Rogaine
Sheesh, my apologies. I suppose I misread Rousseau, as I got the impression he was referring to one specific law, not the entire body of laws.
I still maintain my OP that one lawmaker can make a difference, and that a body of lawmakers can make a huge difference if they were more concerned about what is right rather than what they think will keep them on the people’s payroll.
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
[list]
[li]So get married, get the same benefits and quit whining.[/li][li]Since DP benefits require proof of an already-established long-term commitment, the “fruits” have been together for probably at least one year, more likely many years longer than you and your fiancee have been engaged.[/li]
This is laughable. Take a trip down to the county courthouse, sign the license, go back to work and apply to pay oh-so-significantly less co-beneficiary insurance, and use those extra pennies to have the big wedding with cake, flowers, ceremony and honeymoon next year. “Special rights” are that you should be able to have a big wedding and our relationships are relegated to “domestic partnerships,” and most of our families wouldn’t come to a ceremony if we even had one? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight… :rolleyes:
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
So what you’re saying, Starvin Marvin, is that gays should have to go to the lengths that you do in order to get those benefits. Which basically means that they should be able to get married.
That is, after all, the logical solution to your conundrum. Whaddaya say?
I might also point out that us straights pay higher taxes when we marry and file jointly, whereas gays who are living together file seperately and pay less taxes. More senseless discrimination.
Sorry for the confusion about the Constitution thing, Esprix. I should have been less colloquial, I s’pose.
You mean, a difference in the amount of paper shredded after that bill is killed in committee? You mean a difference in the amount of ink used by Congress to amend the bill, adding on pork-barrel riders and the like, before it is eventually and inevitably struck down? Bringing a bill to the floor doesn’t do diddly-squat if you don’t have any support for it. Support indicating “the efforts of people other than yourself.” Hence, thence, whence, one person acting alone cannot, I repeat, cannot get anything done in Congress or in Washington. By design.
Your original question was: “When is someone going to stand up and do something that’s right instead of just doing something that’s popular?” The answer that I tried to get across was “When what’s right is what’s popular.” Until then…
The IQ of a group is equal to the IQ of the dumbest member divided by the number of people in the group.
Sorry for jumping in here, but…
So, why not just live together, unmarried, and file singly, and enjoy the tax benefits? Or why not let gays get married, and pay the same taxes you do? I fail to see your point.
SanibelMan - My Homepage
“Hey, you sass that hoopy Ford Prefect? There’s a frood who really knows where his towel is.”
That was supposed to be kind of a joke. But when you’re married, especially with kids, it’s infinetly more difficult to file seperately. But whatever, cause I didn’t really mean it seriously. Sometimes I forget that my tone doesn’t alway come through on this cursed computermabober.
By the waaaay, Esprix:
No…I think me and my sugar are just fine and dandy over here, thank you.
The IQ of a group is equal to the IQ of the dumbest member divided by the number of people in the group.
Esprix
You are a shameless asshole. You bitch and whine about the plight of homosexuals and how unequal it is, and how they are treated soooo insensitively. Yet when someone points out that it happens to everyone somehow, you become offensive? And by the way we have known each other 10 years, and are engaged now 2.
Seems that maybe the answer to the insensitivity and dislike and feelings of ill will towards homosexuals might stem from behavior like that.
As for Manny and others; on paper you all seem so wise, in application I see what dipshits I deal with here. You dont just PAPER marry people, incurring the burdens of joint taxes and marriage and life together, yet without the actuals BENEFITS and JOYS of actual marriage. No money to go anywhere, the inability to actually be sick, take leave to have kids, get teeth fixed or maintained, eyes checked. Think about what you guys are saying before popping off. Research costs before preaching your brand of Intelligence here. Its not reality, its theory, which is what is specialized in on these boards most of the time.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. "
Jonathan Swift
Marvin, you must remember that some people believe that being in the Pit gives them a right to “pop off.” I don’t agree with this, especially not in a thread like this, which actually has the potential to be a decent discussion, but some people like to operate under conditions in which, if they are called on their ignorance, they can simply disclaim it.
The IQ of a group is equal to the IQ of the dumbest member divided by the number of people in the group.
Stop being disingenuous. You whined that a benefit is available to gay people but not to you. You even cried that it was “special right.” A few people replied that in fact the benefit is available to you, but you choose not to avail yourself of it. To repeat, you can march down to city hall tomorrow, fork over $50 and bang, you’re married. You can save the religious and spiritual stuff until you are ready if you wish (and you should, so good show on that subject), but the employment benefits of marriage are in fact available to you starting tomorrow. Absent a policy to extend the employment benefits of marriage to non-married partners of the same sex, those benefits are not available to them at all because marriage is not a legal option for gay couples. If you think this is unfair somehow, than phouka accurately points out the solution to your problem. Allow gay marriages.
Livin’ on Tums, vitamin E and Rogaine
I think I just made 2 new friends and Esprix wasnt one of them. Oh well, cant win em all.
Thanks guys.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. "
Jonathan Swift
Lib, of course a frog’s ass isn’t watertight. They’re amphibians, remember?
Esprix:
I for one am weary to the bone (pun intended) of hearing you freaks whine and moan about “discrimination”. You equate your chosen aberrant lifestyle with blacks, women, the handicapped, etc., in a thinly veiled attempt to hide the truth. Homosexuality is CHOICE, made out of REBELLION. Why do you think you are entitled to special priveleges? Marriage, by definition, is a union between a man and a woman. It cannot exist in any other forum. You are free to practice your perversion, and the rest of us are free to show our disgust.
CalifBoomer is a big dork and has a very poor perception of reality.
I have mentioned this elsewhere, but it bears repeating. I am a college student, living with a very nice family from whom I rent a room. Both of the parents in this family happen to be women. They have been together for 16 years. They have a 13-year-old daughter, who is a straight-A student and a dancer and is in all the school plays. They wear rings on their left ring fingers. They have held commitment ceremonies, but in the eyes of the law, they are not married. I live in an extremely liberal area (this town is actually the first in the US to elect an openly gay mayor), and I’m sure they have domestic partner rights, but that is just not the same thing. I’ve always been pro gay rights, but actually living with a gay family has made me even firmer in my beliefs that it is wrong to keep two people who love each other and have a life together from being able to legally marry.
I hope that all California voters remember to vote no on Prop. 22 on March 7.
Incidentally, where does the Constitution outlaw gay marriage? That must be some new Amendment I haven’t heard about yet…
~Harborina
“This is my sandbox. I’m not allowed to go in the deep end. That’s where I saw the leprechauns.”
::choosing to ignore Califboomer’s ignorant opinion::
I just wanted to comment on the “can’t afford to get married” and “just go down to city hall” posts.
I recently quit my job (while lying in a hospital bed) when my employer gave me shit about being sick. My SO and I were engaged at the time with a big wedding planned for September. So last week, we went to city hall, paid $25 bucks and got hitched early. We’re still having the big wedding in September. It’s that simple. Unfortunately, it’s not so simple for gays and lesbians. We’re just lucky that we had that option.
“Don’t look at me–I’m irrelevant.”
Dew - congratulations on the wedding!!!
My SO and I are probably going to go that route as well - we have both been married previously; the idea of a big wedding and all the trappings and such just doesn’t “do” anything for us. Besides, we can’t afford it. But we feel getting married isn’t about the “par-tay”, it’s about how much we love each other.
Further, it’s my opinion that if two people love each other, no matter what sex they are, they should be allowed to show it. People like the above moron seem to think that these couples are getting benefits (insurance etc.) thrown at them willy nilly - “ooh you have a boyfriend (or girlfriend) - here’s some unlimitless insurance!!!” In reality, I’d dare say it’s a lot more complicated than that. Although not well versed in the laws or requirements for this, I believe (from what I’ve read here) that a long term committment must be shown…or something along those lines. They ain’t handing out policies like bubblegum. gratuitous smiley face but don’t want to piss off nuclearly capable surface boy so I won’t use it
That being said, CalifBoomer or whatever, fuck you very much.
Lackey (in no particular order), SRCO
{sigh} Dear Lord, please give me the strength to change in whatever way I can the world in which I live to make it a better place, and when the time comes that I become this jaded and cynical, you’ll take me into Your arms. Amen.
Ah, well, now that’s a legitimate answer, and I thank you for it. I still stick by my Truman/armed forces integration story, though, but will happily concede that this only applies to the military, who must obey the C in C’s orders without question, so it is not an accurate reflection of society or government at large. Still, to me, it inspires a little bit of hope that things will change.
I still love you! 
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
You know, I have faced the same problem in the past. My -ism on that is, “Sarcasm does not play well over the 'net.”
{BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!} 
Oh, that’s a keeper! I love buggin’ the normals!
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.