Same-sex partners to get Fed Benefits

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: K1052

I haven't seen any evidence of gay pride parades creating intolerance. All of the available information points to gays becoming more accepted over the past couple decades.

If you don't want to be hit on by gays then don't go to the damn parade and try to avoid projecting your own personal insecurities on everyone else.

I'm not talking about going to the parade (although I live on the parade route, kinda hard to do there sport), I'm talking about being on the streets anywhere in the city. And naked people running around the streets - as well as graphic depictions of sexual acts - are not what we call "legal" in most places.

You're right though, its just my personal insecurities! :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

And if you dare question the naked people and sex acts - You are labeled a bigot.

 

[miniMUNCH]

A few things:

1) I'm glad that Obama is doing what he can within the confines of the federal legal structure to improve rights for gays.

2) I'm glad Obama is not overstepping his bounds... sometimes it is good that congress actually get to participate in law making and whatnot.

3) Some posted "why doesn't the fed just pass a law invalidating gay marriage bans, etc." (i paraphrased).

My short answer: because it is none of the feds fucking business. The fed doesn't grant marriage license... states do... and since they grant licenses and legally recognize marriages it is their rules. Now the fed can and should at least enforce equal rights under all respective laws for gay couples so the homo couples get all the same rights as hetero couples.

 

[Ichigo]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: K1052

I haven't seen any evidence of gay pride parades creating intolerance. All of the available information points to gays becoming more accepted over the past couple decades.

If you don't want to be hit on by gays then don't go to the damn parade and try to avoid projecting your own personal insecurities on everyone else.

I'm not talking about going to the parade (although I live on the parade route, kinda hard to do there sport), I'm talking about being on the streets anywhere in the city. And naked people running around the streets - as well as graphic depictions of sexual acts - are not what we call "legal" in most places.

You're right though, its just my personal insecurities! :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

And if you dare question the naked people and sex acts - You are labeled a bigot.

I'm not sure how characterizing the entire gay community as intolerant due to the extremists within that group is any better than doing the same with any other (liberal, conservative, etc.) group.

Anyway, if you removed the financial advantages of marriage, gays would be fine with civil unions. This is just going about it the other way.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: K1052

I haven't seen any evidence of gay pride parades creating intolerance. All of the available information points to gays becoming more accepted over the past couple decades.

If you don't want to be hit on by gays then don't go to the damn parade and try to avoid projecting your own personal insecurities on everyone else.

I'm not talking about going to the parade (although I live on the parade route, kinda hard to do there sport), I'm talking about being on the streets anywhere in the city. And naked people running around the streets - as well as graphic depictions of sexual acts - are not what we call "legal" in most places.

You're right though, its just my personal insecurities! :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

I live a couple hundred feet off the route here in Chicago (which sports one of the biggest parades in the country), a few block walk in the other direction and you wouldn't know it was even happening.

I have yet to even see a naked person at any of the 3 I've attended. Ironically they just had the naked bike ride here the other night with a good amount of T&A on display. Naked people in general don't really concern me much.

So what if a few guys hit on you? I don't freak out when a woman hits on me and I don't have the slightest bit of interest in them.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: piasabird
When you start giving benefits to couples, next unmarried couples will demand the same benefits. After all, what is the difference between two men or two women shacking up and the average straigt couple shacking up? Next thing you know, people in polygamous relationships will demand equal treatment.

Woo Hoo! Bring the silliness on!

This has nothing to do with accepting gays or God-o-Phobia.

CATS AND DOGS LIVING TOGETHER!!!!! MASS HYSTERIA!!!!

Actually he has a valid point.

If Bob and Larry can just sign an affidavit proclaiming them to be a couple and thus eligible for same sex benefits then why can't me and my live in girlfriend do the same thing?

You can, it's called marriage.

I don't object to offering these benefits, but I wonder how they are going to police them to prevent people from trying to 'game' the system.

You could just allow them to get married for real, then you won't need to worry about that.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: K1052

I haven't seen any evidence of gay pride parades creating intolerance. All of the available information points to gays becoming more accepted over the past couple decades.

If you don't want to be hit on by gays then don't go to the damn parade and try to avoid projecting your own personal insecurities on everyone else.

I'm not talking about going to the parade (although I live on the parade route, kinda hard to do there sport), I'm talking about being on the streets anywhere in the city. And naked people running around the streets - as well as graphic depictions of sexual acts - are not what we call "legal" in most places.

You're right though, its just my personal insecurities! :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

I live a couple hundred feet off the route here in Chicago (which sports one of the biggest parades in the country), a few block walk in the other direction and you wouldn't know it was even happening.

I have yet to even see a naked person at any of the 3 I've attended. Ironically they just had the naked bike ride here the other night with a good amount of T&A on display. Naked people in general don't really concern me much.

So what if a few guys hit on you? I don't freak out when a woman hits on me and I don't have the slightest bit of interest in them.

That's swell and all - you don't live in Seattle. Seattle is much like San Francisco - its a much more open and normal thing here, that throughout the year does not bother me - but they go way overboard when it comes time for their pride parade.

My balcony is directly over the parade, and I can assure you there were a lot of illegal things (nudity, graphic depictions of strange sex acts, etc) going on. I'm not some homophobic ass that flips out over nothing. Am I going to freak out if I see a naked guy in the locker room? No. Doesn't mean it doesn't bother me that these things are going on on a public street.

As for 'so what if a few guys hit on you' - that's what happens throughout the course of the year, and yea, I brush it off and move on with my day. Pride weekend its a whole new level though. Last year, the 10 block walk from my apartment to my gym (off the parade route) led to me being approached by over a dozen guys in that 15 minute period. It gets old, fast, especially when they don't take "I'm straight" for an answer.

 

[Deeko]

Anyway, on topic to this thread, I fully support this legislation.

 

[n yusef]

The anti-pride posters who claim to be tolerant are ridiculous, and their posts are ironic. If you are annoyed, enraged or disgusted by the sight of two men together (lesbians seem to be ignored), or a man hitting on you, you are homophobic. I'm not saying that you're necessarily a bad person, or even that you're against gay rights. You may support gay marriage and anti-discrimination laws and the repeal of DADT, and that's good. But by definition, you are homophobic. That's not tolerant. And if pride undermines your convictions for equality, you should examine yourself. Ask, what is worse: your annoyance, rage and disgust over an annual parade, or the systemic discrimination, hatred and oppression of millions of homosexuals?

Your position is basically, "Gays are OK as long as they stay away from me." However "moderate" this view is, it is shaming of homosexuality. Pride exists to combat this mentality; no wonder you dislike it.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: n yusef
The anti-pride posters who claim to be tolerant are ridiculous, and their posts are ironic. If you are annoyed, enraged or disgusted by the sight of two men together (lesbians seem to be ignored), or a man hitting on you, you are homophobic. I'm not saying that you're necessarily a bad person, or even that you're against gay rights. You may support gay marriage and anti-discrimination laws and the repeal of DADT, and that's good. But by definition, you are homophobic. That's not tolerant. And if pride undermines your convictions for equality, you should examine yourself. Ask, what is worse: your annoyance, rage and disgust over an annual parade, or the systemic discrimination, hatred and oppression of millions of homosexuals?

Your position is basically, "Gays are OK as long as they stay away from me." However "moderate" this view is, it is shaming of homosexuality. Pride exists to combat this mentality; no wonder you dislike it.

If you're aiming this post at me, the short answer is "you're wrong"

The more in depth answer....

First off, you obviously don't know the meaning of the word "tolerant", look it up in the dictionary. Even South Park mocks the misuse of this word (specifically referring to homosexuality). Even if I don't like something, but I support it being allowed to happen....err, that's the definition of the word tolerant, Einstein. edit: You also might want to look up homophobic while you've got the dictionary out. I do not fear homosexuality in any way.

Secondly - naked men (& women) running around the streets is illegal. Period. This law being ignored for the sake of "pride" is ignorant and wrong, and has a negative impact on their cause.

Thirdly - I don't like when fat chicks hit on me either. I'd get annoyed if a dozen fat chicks hit on me in a 15 minute span too. Does that make me fataphobic, or does that mean I'd prefer not be hit on excessively by people I have no interest in?

Try again, sport.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: aeternitas

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: aeternitas
Ya know, Im all for this and all, but I always get a bit turned away when I read stuff like "gay pride" month and similar things. It's like, what are you proud about? That you can slide in a different hole? How about have pride in your freedoms, try and expand that, and keep the sexual shit in the privet sector.

Puns intended.

I think the idea behind things like gay pride is to show people in the closet that its ok to come out. So they don't need to fell like hiding and there are other people like them.

Sure, but I think there are better ways to go about it, like legislation, and instilling tolerance in people in general. Patience and diligence is much greater than in-your-face pride.

All the pride crap does is make people like me that are on the side of freedoms like that really really annoyed.

If seeing it makes you really really annoyed, you need to go to an anger management group.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: piasabird
When you start giving benefits to couples, next unmarried couples will demand the same benefits. After all, what is the difference between two men or two women shacking up and the average straigt couple shacking up? Next thing you know, people in polygamous relationships will demand equal treatment.

Woo Hoo! Bring the silliness on!

This has nothing to do with accepting gays or God-o-Phobia.

CATS AND DOGS LIVING TOGETHER!!!!! MASS HYSTERIA!!!!

Actually he has a valid point.

If Bob and Larry can just sign an affidavit proclaiming them to be a couple and thus eligible for same sex benefits then why can't me and my live in girlfriend do the same thing?

I don't object to offering these benefits, but I wonder how they are going to police them to prevent people from trying to 'game' the system.

I can think of a pretty simple solution...

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

1) I'm glad that Obama is doing what he can within the confines of the federal legal structure to improve rights for gays.

except that he's not.

2) I'm glad Obama is not overstepping his bounds... sometimes it is good that congress actually get to participate in law making and whatnot.

he's playing this two faced game... he's saying congress should act without actually doing anything in his power to get them to act, while congress says that it should be coming from the adminstrative level.

quick, tell me the steps Obama's taken to even think about thinking about acting to get DOMA repealed like he promised to.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Ichigo
Anyway, if you removed the financial advantages of marriage, gays would be fine with civil unions. This is just going about it the other way.

This is not really true. I saw a picture of a lesbian woman at a gay marriage protest holding a sign that really speaks to this point: "I didn't ask her to civil union me." I know a lot of lesbians by virtue of how I was raised. The older ones don't generally refer to themselves as being married, even though they would like to marry their partners as a general rule. The younger ones always refer to their partner as their "wife", regardless of whether they are married, legally or otherwise. What's the appropriate term for civil unions? Life partner? Doesn't quite have the same immediate recognition that husband or wife has, does it? And that's at the center of the debate. By making the debate about terminology, the straight couples are explicitly telling the gay couples "your relationship is not as valid as ours so you don't get to use these words." It's not solely about the privileges associated by marriage, it's recognition that a gay couple's relationship is every bit as valid as their straight counterparts.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Ichigo
Anyway, if you removed the financial advantages of marriage, gays would be fine with civil unions. This is just going about it the other way.

This is not really true. I saw a picture of a lesbian woman at a gay marriage protest holding a sign that really speaks to this point: "I didn't ask her to civil union me." I know a lot of lesbians by virtue of how I was raised. The older ones don't generally refer to themselves as being married, even though they would like to marry their partners as a general rule. The younger ones always refer to their partner as their "wife", regardless of whether they are married, legally or otherwise. What's the appropriate term for civil unions? Life partner? Doesn't quite have the same immediate recognition that husband or wife has, does it? And that's at the center of the debate. By making the debate about terminology, the straight couples are explicitly telling the gay couples "your relationship is not as valid as ours so you don't get to use these words." It's not solely about the privileges associated by marriage, it's recognition that a gay couple's relationship is every bit as valid as their straight counterparts.

We can't have these sickos thinking they are real families. Look what happens to children raised in such an environment, their lives are obviously destroyed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_WuhJSBzKs

 

[Hacp]

So, um, the only problem I have is that this will increase costs for the government. Where will the government get the money to pay for all of this? How long can we borrow from China? Obama is a big spender. It seems that his favorite word is SPEND! The big "stimulus" plan and also the 350 billion dollar bailout plan puts us in a big hole financially.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: Hacp
So, um, the only problem I have is that this will increase costs for the government. Where will the government get the money to pay for all of this? How long can we borrow from China? Obama is a big spender. It seems that his favorite word is SPEND! The big "stimulus" plan and also the 350 billion dollar bailout plan puts us in a big hole financially.

Read: civil rights are too expensive.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Hacp
So, um, the only problem I have is that this will increase costs for the government. Where will the government get the money to pay for all of this? How long can we borrow from China? Obama is a big spender. It seems that his favorite word is SPEND! The big "stimulus" plan and also the 350 billion dollar bailout plan puts us in a big hole financially.

how much could we save by cancelling out all benefit sharing between interracial couples?

 

[Ichigo]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Ichigo
Anyway, if you removed the financial advantages of marriage, gays would be fine with civil unions. This is just going about it the other way.

This is not really true. I saw a picture of a lesbian woman at a gay marriage protest holding a sign that really speaks to this point: "I didn't ask her to civil union me." I know a lot of lesbians by virtue of how I was raised. The older ones don't generally refer to themselves as being married, even though they would like to marry their partners as a general rule. The younger ones always refer to their partner as their "wife", regardless of whether they are married, legally or otherwise. What's the appropriate term for civil unions? Life partner? Doesn't quite have the same immediate recognition that husband or wife has, does it? And that's at the center of the debate. By making the debate about terminology, the straight couples are explicitly telling the gay couples "your relationship is not as valid as ours so you don't get to use these words." It's not solely about the privileges associated by marriage, it's recognition that a gay couple's relationship is every bit as valid as their straight counterparts.

It's valid if you believe it's valid. I was wrong in wording my statement such that it seems that I was implying that all gays would be fine with civil unions given those conditions, but it's a bigger deal than just from the idealistic perspective. The money factor is always there.

Why don't we just remove the institution of marriage altogether? Then everyone is equal in the eyes of the law, no problems (I'm being hyperbolic).

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: piasabird
When you start giving benefits to couples, next unmarried couples will demand the same benefits. After all, what is the difference between two men or two women shacking up and the average straigt couple shacking up? Next thing you know, people in polygamous relationships will demand equal treatment.

Woo Hoo! Bring the silliness on!

This has nothing to do with accepting gays or God-o-Phobia.

My company (to be left unnamed) provides benefits for same-sex-partners. You have to present an affidavit of partnership and cohabitation (or something similar, phrasing might be wrong) to the HR department in order to get said benefits.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: K1052

I haven't seen any evidence of gay pride parades creating intolerance. All of the available information points to gays becoming more accepted over the past couple decades.

If you don't want to be hit on by gays then don't go to the damn parade and try to avoid projecting your own personal insecurities on everyone else.

I'm not talking about going to the parade (although I live on the parade route, kinda hard to do there sport), I'm talking about being on the streets anywhere in the city. And naked people running around the streets - as well as graphic depictions of sexual acts - are not what we call "legal" in most places.

You're right though, its just my personal insecurities! :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

I live a couple hundred feet off the route here in Chicago (which sports one of the biggest parades in the country), a few block walk in the other direction and you wouldn't know it was even happening.

I have yet to even see a naked person at any of the 3 I've attended. Ironically they just had the naked bike ride here the other night with a good amount of T&A on display. Naked people in general don't really concern me much.

So what if a few guys hit on you? I don't freak out when a woman hits on me and I don't have the slightest bit of interest in them.

That's swell and all - you don't live in Seattle. Seattle is much like San Francisco - its a much more open and normal thing here, that throughout the year does not bother me - but they go way overboard when it comes time for their pride parade.

My balcony is directly over the parade, and I can assure you there were a lot of illegal things (nudity, graphic depictions of strange sex acts, etc) going on. I'm not some homophobic ass that flips out over nothing. Am I going to freak out if I see a naked guy in the locker room? No. Doesn't mean it doesn't bother me that these things are going on on a public street.

As for 'so what if a few guys hit on you' - that's what happens throughout the course of the year, and yea, I brush it off and move on with my day. Pride weekend its a whole new level though. Last year, the 10 block walk from my apartment to my gym (off the parade route) led to me being approached by over a dozen guys in that 15 minute period. It gets old, fast, especially when they don't take "I'm straight" for an answer.

If you hate it so much, move.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: K1052

I haven't seen any evidence of gay pride parades creating intolerance. All of the available information points to gays becoming more accepted over the past couple decades.

If you don't want to be hit on by gays then don't go to the damn parade and try to avoid projecting your own personal insecurities on everyone else.

I'm not talking about going to the parade (although I live on the parade route, kinda hard to do there sport), I'm talking about being on the streets anywhere in the city. And naked people running around the streets - as well as graphic depictions of sexual acts - are not what we call "legal" in most places.

You're right though, its just my personal insecurities! :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

I live a couple hundred feet off the route here in Chicago (which sports one of the biggest parades in the country), a few block walk in the other direction and you wouldn't know it was even happening.

I have yet to even see a naked person at any of the 3 I've attended. Ironically they just had the naked bike ride here the other night with a good amount of T&A on display. Naked people in general don't really concern me much.

So what if a few guys hit on you? I don't freak out when a woman hits on me and I don't have the slightest bit of interest in them.

That's swell and all - you don't live in Seattle. Seattle is much like San Francisco - its a much more open and normal thing here, that throughout the year does not bother me - but they go way overboard when it comes time for their pride parade.

My balcony is directly over the parade, and I can assure you there were a lot of illegal things (nudity, graphic depictions of strange sex acts, etc) going on. I'm not some homophobic ass that flips out over nothing. Am I going to freak out if I see a naked guy in the locker room? No. Doesn't mean it doesn't bother me that these things are going on on a public street.

As for 'so what if a few guys hit on you' - that's what happens throughout the course of the year, and yea, I brush it off and move on with my day. Pride weekend its a whole new level though. Last year, the 10 block walk from my apartment to my gym (off the parade route) led to me being approached by over a dozen guys in that 15 minute period. It gets old, fast, especially when they don't take "I'm straight" for an answer.

I still don't see much to really get into a knot over and you do live in one of the more socially liberal places in the country.

Wow...12 guys in 15 minutes? Pics?

Just tell them you're not interested and keep moving. It really isn't that hard and I do it myself.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: piasabird
When you start giving benefits to couples, next unmarried couples will demand the same benefits. After all, what is the difference between two men or two women shacking up and the average straigt couple shacking up? Next thing you know, people in polygamous relationships will demand equal treatment.

Woo Hoo! Bring the silliness on!

This has nothing to do with accepting gays or God-o-Phobia.

CATS AND DOGS LIVING TOGETHER!!!!! MASS HYSTERIA!!!!

Actually he has a valid point.

If Bob and Larry can just sign an affidavit proclaiming them to be a couple and thus eligible for same sex benefits then why can't me and my live in girlfriend do the same thing?

I don't object to offering these benefits, but I wonder how they are going to police them to prevent people from trying to 'game' the system.

I suggest you look up the term "common law marriage."

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: K1052

I haven't seen any evidence of gay pride parades creating intolerance. All of the available information points to gays becoming more accepted over the past couple decades.

If you don't want to be hit on by gays then don't go to the damn parade and try to avoid projecting your own personal insecurities on everyone else.

I'm not talking about going to the parade (although I live on the parade route, kinda hard to do there sport), I'm talking about being on the streets anywhere in the city. And naked people running around the streets - as well as graphic depictions of sexual acts - are not what we call "legal" in most places.

You're right though, its just my personal insecurities! :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

I live a couple hundred feet off the route here in Chicago (which sports one of the biggest parades in the country), a few block walk in the other direction and you wouldn't know it was even happening.

I have yet to even see a naked person at any of the 3 I've attended. Ironically they just had the naked bike ride here the other night with a good amount of T&A on display. Naked people in general don't really concern me much.

So what if a few guys hit on you? I don't freak out when a woman hits on me and I don't have the slightest bit of interest in them.

That's swell and all - you don't live in Seattle. Seattle is much like San Francisco - its a much more open and normal thing here, that throughout the year does not bother me - but they go way overboard when it comes time for their pride parade.

My balcony is directly over the parade, and I can assure you there were a lot of illegal things (nudity, graphic depictions of strange sex acts, etc) going on. I'm not some homophobic ass that flips out over nothing. Am I going to freak out if I see a naked guy in the locker room? No. Doesn't mean it doesn't bother me that these things are going on on a public street.

As for 'so what if a few guys hit on you' - that's what happens throughout the course of the year, and yea, I brush it off and move on with my day. Pride weekend its a whole new level though. Last year, the 10 block walk from my apartment to my gym (off the parade route) led to me being approached by over a dozen guys in that 15 minute period. It gets old, fast, especially when they don't take "I'm straight" for an answer.

You sound like a 20-something year old woman in any bar in America.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: K1052

I still don't see much to really get into a knot over and you do live in one of the more socially liberal places in the country.

Wow...12 guys in 15 minutes? Pics?

Just tell them you're not interested and keep moving. It really isn't that hard and I do it myself.

They can do whatever the hell they want. My point is that acting that way and doing those things is detrimental to their cause - you aren't going to make the person that is intolerant, tolerant, with things like that.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: K1052

I still don't see much to really get into a knot over and you do live in one of the more socially liberal places in the country.

Wow...12 guys in 15 minutes? Pics?

Just tell them you're not interested and keep moving. It really isn't that hard and I do it myself.

They can do whatever the hell they want. My point is that acting that way and doing those things is detrimental to their cause - you aren't going to make the person that is intolerant, tolerant, with things like that.

That's what's so great about being a straight white male, you don't have to worry about representing your entire race/gender/cause with every single action you take.