posted on July 10, 2004 08:37:36 AM new
Twelvepole and Lindak... have been outed!
Twelvepole and LindaK...are one and the same!
Crow has outed "12link" And from now on we should refer to both personalities as "12link".....
In your desperate attempt to keep this this thread going along with any other threads where there are homosexual arguments..it has become clear to us.."thou protests to strongly"
Now that Crow has "outed" you, as both Twelve and Lindak.. now to be 12link...
It becomes obvious.. you are conflicted...two personalities... one a man the other a woman...and you are really seeking Logan's help and advice on how to open that closet door wide and Proclaim:
"one small step for man..one giant leap for homosexuality... You go girl!!
posted on July 10, 2004 08:38:27 AM new
Linda is not twelve. She doesn't have the skill to pull that one off. When twelvepole defends and agrees with Linda it may appear that they are the same person to you but that's not the case. However, there are some repeat customers here under different ID's.
Dam...we are getting off topic crowfarm. Aren't you supposed to be laughing at this point as you tried to direct me to do?
posted on July 10, 2004 09:52:42 AM new
Funny how idiotic conservatives completely skip my posting because they are afraid I am right.
For some strange reason, you neo-cons out there think that all liberals think the same. As I said before, that is the most asinine thing to believe. Just because Bill Clinton doesn't support Gay Marriage, and because Kerry doesn't support it either doesn't mean that ALL of us on the left support those decisions. For one thing, neither of those two examples are going to attempt a Constitutional Amendment to ban it. I guarantee you there are plenty of Republicans out there who are against Bush's attempts for a Constitutional Amendment. There are plenty of true "conservatives" out there who believe that the government is overstepping their boundaries by attempting to ban gay marriage. These "true conservatives" know and respect the ideology of seperation of Church and State.
It is laughable to quote the bible when this is a government issue. To think that your religion, or the Bible should be the rule of our country is a complete joke. To think that your god is the deciding factor in every last thing our government should do is insane. There is nothing worse than someone who mixes their religion with their government. It is like mixing drugs with alcohol. Not very healthy.
This is another attempt to squash a minority group because you disagree with them. This is no different than the KKK having a good old fashion lynching. You are attempting to destroy the very basis of which this country was founded upon because you for some demented reason feel threatened by something you simply don't understand. People love each other for millions and millions of combinations of reasons. Why should the Christians tell everybody how to live their lives? What makes the Christians the moralists? How can you really believe that your way of life is the only way to live? Wouldn't it be something if all of a sudden our government made a constitutional amendment to ban all forms of religion because it is steeped deeply in hate? How would you feel about that? Yes, it is an impossible thing to consider, but really... How would you feel if it was your way of life that was being attacked? I guarantee you that there would be a completely different attitude for that.
Of course, I don't expect any neo-cons to attempt to respond, because they really can't argue this on a level of consciousness that doesn't make them out to be descriminating bigots.
posted on July 10, 2004 10:09:23 AM new
For those that believe people choose to be gay, I ask these questions:
When are people given a choice to choose to be either straight or gay? Is it during adolescence, or adulthood? Who makes people choose between being straight and being gay?
Where are and by whom are people taught to be gay? Are gay kids/adults taught by their parents? By teachers in schools? By the Church? Is the gay agenda taught at the library or some secret meeting place where people questioning their sexuality go?
If it is taught by other gay people, when did all of this come about since there were gay people back in Ancient Egypt? Who were the first gay people if someone had to do the teaching to others or was it the straight man that taught others to be gay?
If it was not taught by people, was there a book that explained what it was to be gay and explained/taught the gay agenda?
Twelve you are a firm believer in the theory that people choose to be gay so I can't wait for your answers. Please enlighten me with your knowledge.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 10, 2004 10:37:05 AM new
Bravo Rusty!
They do not reply to your posts because you have smacked them in the face with the truth.
You have shown them for what they are...
Ignorant Conservative (Christian?) Moralists!
No different from the KKK or Hitler for that matter... Didn't he propose ethnic cleansing..a Pure race...
well..
how far is that from these idiots with their hatred for homosexuals? How long before we start hearing them spew.. extermination of all homosexuals... and or any other group that doesn't meet their moral or Christian beliefs... Another blood battle all in the name of Christianity.. History repeats itself over and over and over again.
Only two things are infinite, the Universe, and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.... Albert Einstein
posted on July 10, 2004 11:02:37 AM new
Your square pegs don't fit into the round societal holes that accommodate relationships. Rather than shave the sides some and adapt sufficiently to fit into society, you prefer to insist that society provide amorphous holes, and be annoying and throw a temper tantrum until you get your way. Yea, somebody is going to get slapped in the face with reality, but you must be used to it by now.
STFU, and sit down. Don't make me stop this thread.
______________
You know...the best way to defeat a liberal is to let them speak.
posted on July 10, 2004 11:06:58 AM new
Yes, and let's not forget that all of these groups, whether we like them or not, do have a right to freedom of speech, the right to assembly, and each and every American is protected by our civil liberties. Seperation of Church and State are also rights that should be administered and not ignored. When you have the Christian Coalition as one of the largest lobbying organizations in America in the pockets of politicians (both Republican and Democrat, and even Independents and third parties) this is clearly wrong.
The United States Government was created by the people for the people. Not for corporations and religious sects. Our Government should act only for the benefit of the people, and when I say people, I mean all people.
posted on July 10, 2004 11:10:28 AM new
Parklane- don't tell us to shut the f&%k up and threaten to pull a thread because you disagree with someone. What are you? A neo-con crybaby?
Since when was it a crime to disagree with your closed mind. are you too scared to see the truth, to see that perhaps more people are against your ideals, and what you project as "right".
If you want to pull this, go ahead. I'll be there to create the thread again so that anyone, whether they are a neo-con or ultra-liberal can participate in free debate.
posted on July 10, 2004 11:16:49 AM new
Delusions of grandeur...
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on July 10, 2004 11:32:47 AM new
Parklane.. does this sound familiar?
The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.
posted on July 10, 2004 02:23:53 PM newObviously Bush is afraid of the gay people otherwise he wouldn't be pushing so hard for a constitutional amendment.
Obviously...you can't see the obvious. It's the majority of American's who are against gay marriage. All they all afraid? I don't think so....more like angry...and they're fighting back.
posted on July 10, 2004 04:12:51 PM newIt's the majority of American's who are against gay marriage.
Just like the majority of Americans did not elect Bush into office. Gore had over 500,000 more votes than Bush did.
If the popular vote doesn't mean squat when electing a president, why should it mean anything when it comes to marriage.
But then again marriage hasn't meant anything to the straights so I don't understanding why they are trying to protect such a 2000 year old institution that they have successfully destroyed over the past 30 years.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 10, 2004 04:12:52 PM new
I see how many people jump my way Linda. Pretty much just you, and the only reason why I bother to respond to your comments is that I find them amusing and like to get your goat going.
EAG won't answer my questions, and the rest of the neo-cons clammer when they see me post.
Perhaps, when you wake up from these terrible neo-con nightmares next January, you might find the world a better place to be. You might find that those in other countries actually love the American people because we were smart enough to use absentee ballots and vote this war mongering hate machine right out on his Big Texas Butt. Dick Cheney can carry the suitcases, and the rest of their staff can cry that their day in the sun is over. I have a feeling that the current administration will steal all the computers instead of just the "W's" as Clintonites did at the White House.
posted on July 10, 2004 04:26:54 PM new
Logan, besides the interpretation of God saying homosexuality is wrong in the bible, I've heard no other logical answer to why gays or gay marriage is bad. The sanctity arguement shouldn't even be discussed it's so stupid. Can't ANY of you think of any replies to Logan's questions so some of us can understand where you're coming from?
posted on July 10, 2004 04:48:29 PM newBesides you nor the government can take away the love I have for my partner. Whether I have a piece of paper legalizing my marriage or not, in my eyes I am still married to my partner.
That is the one thing I can respect about your stance logansdad, I don't agree but respect that...
Oh and I have said it numerous times... we are all born HETEROSEXUAL, you make a choice to be homosexual...
Kids have an urge to experiment and continue on... no different than when someone commits murder... they make a choice to act on that urge...
posted on July 10, 2004 04:53:14 PM new
Yep, the correct way to view gay marriage is absolutely right Linda. Thanks for finally agreeing that we are correct.
posted on July 10, 2004 04:56:04 PM new
Linda, I could care less what Kerry or Bush thinks about being gay. It's the people here that seem to be so tight-lipped when it comes to asking why they believe a certain way. It's either because "everyone else does", or because the bible says so. There's no individual thought process at all, so it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion on the subject.
Twelve, I'd love to see where it's been proven we're all born hetero. You kill me with your insight.
posted on July 10, 2004 05:23:31 PM new
Oh and I have said it numerous times... we are all born HETEROSEXUAL, you make a choice to be homosexual...
Twelve you have said this time and time again but have yet to explain how or when this choice is made. If I made a choice to be gay, then you must have been give the same set of options that I was given but you chose to remain straight. I want to know when these options were presented to you, who gave them to you, and how you made you choice to remain straight.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 10, 2004 05:27:41 PM new
Linda, Kerry is in favor of civil unions.
A civil union is the same thing as marriage except for the religous aspect. Gays will still get the same benefits as any "married couple" would. I am not mistaken you even said you were in favor of civil unions.
Parties to a civil union are given all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under Vermont law, whether they derive from statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage. These include:
Parties to a civil union shall be responsible for the support of one another to the same degree and in the same manner as prescribed under law for married persons.
The law of domestic relations, including annulment, separation and divorce, child custody and support, and property division and maintenance shall apply to parties to a civil union.
The rights of parties to a civil union, with respect to a child of whom either becomes the natural parent during the term of the civil union, shall be the same as those of a married couple, with respect to a child of whom either spouse becomes the natural parent during the marriage.
The following is a nonexclusive list of legal benefits, protections and responsibilities of spouses, which shall apply in like manner to parties to a civil union:
There are many straight couples who do not get married in a church and their marriage is just as accepted.
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 10, 2004 05:37:14 PM new
Hey Logan, just curious, but does Civil Unions also include cohabiting heterosexual couples? I don't know and was curious if that was the case as well.
posted on July 10, 2004 05:38:22 PM new
Linda, you never posted a comment when I brought this example up in another thread so I am posting here again for you. I want to know how this example helps justify your case for the sanctity of marriage -- getting married just for the health benefits. I guess it is OK because it still is between a man and a woman....
Saying 'I do' — for a health plan
With medical costs rising, gaining access to benefits is a factor in some couples' decisions to wed.
By Daniel Costello
Special to The Times
Published June 28, 2004
Tamra Crume had little intention of marrying again. She tried it once before, in her early 20s, and thought the whole idea was outdated, oppressive, unnecessary.
But there they were last New Year's Eve, she in her short sleeve, off-the-rack sea-green dress, her partner of a dozen years, Keith, in a gray suit from the closet, driving 45 minutes to a suburban Maryland courthouse to say "I do." Why the sudden change of heart?
"I needed health insurance," says the 38-year-old catering manager, who was so nonchalant about her nuptials she bought a cheap disposable camera for pictures on the way. She took one photo: It came out fuzzy and cropped her at the knees.
Crume had moved from Oregon to Washington, D.C., two years ago and couldn't find work. Her doctor and prescription bills were running several hundred dollars a month. Her boyfriend's generous government insurance benefits looked more and more attractive.
"I figured it made more sense to pay the money to get married rather than keep paying the bills," she says.
Love and marriage may go together like a horse and carriage, but for some couples a dance down the aisle these days may have more to do with dollars and cents. Although no one keeps statistics on how many couples marry each year to gain access to health benefits, there are signs the arrangements are growing among people who can't afford medical coverage and those struggling under the burden of rising insurance premiums.
Advertisements on the New York City subway this month by a group promoting affordable health insurance read, "Get Married for Love, Not Health Insurance." Internet chat rooms are filled with people communing about the benefits of marrying for health benefits and trading tips on how to do it right. (Fees for marriage licenses and other costs can vary considerably depending on where people get married.) Some patient advocacy groups, including the American Diabetes Assn. and the American Cancer Society, say a small but growing number of seriously ill people are using marriage as a last resort to deal with potentially crippling medical bills.
The recent legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts also could lead more couples to marry for medical benefits. Last month, town managers in Springfield, Mass., stopped offering domestic partner benefits to unmarried couples and gave them 90 days to marry if they want to keep their insurance benefits. Other Massachusetts employers, including Boston College and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, are ending partner benefits by the end of the year.
Unlike the 1990 movie "Green Card," in which two strangers marry so one can stay in the country and then later fall in love, most couples who marry for insurance reasons have been together for years. Many explicitly didn't want to get married — or at least had not planned to wed so soon. Occasionally, friends marry friends or a single parent with a sick child and mounting medical bills finds someone to marry and agrees to pay the extra insurance costs.
Experts say those marrying for health insurance should be careful. Although the long-maligned "marriage tax" has been reduced in recent years, financial experts say some couples may still pay significantly more in income tax once they're married. What, too, if love ever wilts? Divorce lawyers recommend couples marrying explicitly for insurance reasons have a prenuptial agreement in case the relationship sours down the road.
Drew Tipson and his wife, Emma Brooks, had been in a relationship for years but didn't consider marriage until last year, when Tipson began having intense pain in his neck and head, which doctors still haven't explained. Tipson, 26, is a freelance worker for a Manhattan law firm and doesn't qualify for health insurance. Brooks, a 25-year-old medical student, has health insurance, but her plan doesn't cover unmarried domestic partners unless they are gay.
So, just weeks after telling their parents they probably would never legally marry, the two families found themselves together at a New York City courthouse during Tipson's lunch break. The 10-minute civil ceremony wasn't the wedding his parents might have imagined.
"The most tragically bored woman in history read out the ceremony script in a nondescript room that could have been a police interrogation chamber," he says. Afterward, "the two of us left and headed down different subways to go back to work. I think my parents were left standing there thinking, 'What in the heck just happened?' "
People with disabilities or facing life-threatening illnesses face higher stakes. John Bennett, 34, of Cincinnati married his longtime partner two years ago. She has multiple sclerosis and lost her insurance after finishing graduate school in 2001. Without dual coverage, Bennett says, the couple could face financial ruin if his wife has another flare-up of her MS, which last happened three years ago. She already filed for bankruptcy protection after she was first diagnosed a decade ago and didn't have insurance.
The pair has saved thousands of dollars in insurance costs so far. It now costs $200 a month to insure them both, instead of the roughly $500 a month that Bennett's wife would pay just to cover herself, because of her preexisting condition. "We needed a safety net," he says.
According to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a health policy group based in Menlo Park, Calif., health insurance premiums rose 13.9% last year, the third consecutive year of double-digit increases. The average cost of coverage for a family of four is $9,100 per year, and the average individual insurance plan runs $3,400 a year. Considering that an estimated 44% of Americans lack health insurance, it's easy to see why some people might turn to marriage to get access to insurance.
Kathleen Stoll, director of health policy at Families USA, a Washington, D.C.-based health consumer group, says the rising cost of health insurance is increasingly affecting people's lifestyle and career decisions: having more children, where to live, changing jobs or going back to school. She says it's not uncommon for couples to divorce so one can qualify for coverage through Medicaid.
"Getting married for insurance may sound silly," she says, "but it's no joking matter. It's a serious example of just how difficult getting affordable health insurance is for most people."
Although companies are not required to offer employees health insurance, if they do they must cover an employee's spouse no matter his or her medical history. But a growing list of employers, from Boeing Co. to the University of California system, have recently started asking employees to pay significantly more if they want to cover family members.
In most states, common law marriages are of little use because insurers typically won't include a common law spouse on an employee's health plan.
Dave Hennings, a spokesman for the National Health Care Anti-Fraud Assn. in Washington, D.C., says it's unlikely insurers would deny coverage to anyone who marries for insurance benefits. "I think most people would agree this doesn't rise to the level of fraud," he says.
There are proven advantages to tying the knot. For example, studies show married couples live longer than those who only live together. Married couples also benefit from visitation rights at hospitals and the ability to will a partner an estate without paying capital gains tax.
Still, couples who married solely or largely for medical benefits don't always tell their families or friends that they are married — or why they married. Many don't wear rings, take each other's names or go on honeymoons. Some keep their marriage under wraps because they worry that others might minimize their relationship if they knew the reason for the wedding, or that family members might get angry.
"This is our dark secret," says Bennett, who says he and his wife have mentioned their marriage only twice, to their doctor and to his company's human resources manager. Recently, he had to look at their marriage license to remember their wedding date.
Marijah Sroczynski and Paul Adams of Orange, N.J., married five years ago so he could work as a freelance sound engineer in New York theaters, a job that doesn't provide insurance. She rarely mentions she's married.
Adams, however, sometimes jokes about his marriage to his uninsured friends in the theater world. "He loves to pull out his insurance card when they are complaining about not having insurance," Sroczynski says. "He tells them it's the best reason to get married."
Let's have a BBQ, Texas style, ROAST BUSH
------------------------------
All Things Just Keep Getting Better
------------------------------
We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union....
.....one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for ALL.
posted on July 10, 2004 05:44:25 PM newThere's no individual thought process at all, so it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion on the subject.
I find it funny that because there are those who disagree with gay marriage, have expressed their reasons while a hundred times, that because it doesn't agree with the way you see things.....your assumption is they didn't use their individual thought process. THEY HAVE KD - they just came to a different conlclusion that you have.
Re-elect President Bush!!
This topic is 8 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new
I don't think so....more like angry...and they're fighting back.