How hard do you think R's will push for ban on Gay Marriage?
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 11/08/04 - 11:12 Post subject:
I know divorce attorneys want it, more business for them.
I cannot really compromise on this I do not think.
I take some hard stands on issues, I may get worked over for it, but I stand by my decision. It belongs as policy not law. I think it opens up too much for abuse.
I think the costs would be too high for business.
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 11:22 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: | I know divorce attorneys want it, more business for them.
I cannot really compromise on this I do not think.
I take some hard stands on issues, I may get worked over for it, but I stand by my decision. It belongs as policy not law. I think it opens up too much for abuse.
I think the costs would be too high for business. |
I'm really interested in how you think on this, Joe. I respect your views and it would be great if you could further your thoughts a bit. For example, why would a divorce attorney be more interested in gay marriage than a civil-rights attorney? How would the cost be too high for business? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
keltic63
the kilted one
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 8574
Location: under the weather
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 11:24 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: | I know divorce attorneys want it, more business for them.
I cannot really compromise on this I do not think.
I take some hard stands on issues, I may get worked over for it, but I stand by my decision. It belongs as policy not law. I think it opens up too much for abuse.
I think the costs would be too high for business. |
Why should only hetero's suffer? 
seriously, Joe, what happens when some organizations don't follow or enforce it as a policy? I think that's where the abuse is.
why would it cost too much for businesses? If the employee was straight and married they'd be paying. are you saying that companies hire homosexuals now because they know they don't have to pay marital benefits?
how does same-sex marriage affect you personally?
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 13:23 Post subject:
| keltic63 wrote: |
Why should only hetero's suffer?
seriously, Joe, what happens when some organizations don't follow or enforce it as a policy? I think that's where the abuse is.
why would it cost too much for businesses? If the employee was straight and married they'd be paying. are you saying that companies hire homosexuals now because they know they don't have to pay marital benefits?
how does same-sex marriage affect you personally? |
I think it should be left up to individual companies not be forced upon them.
companies are not allowed to not hire homosexuals, against the law.
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 13:27 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: |
I think it should be left up to individual companies not be forced upon them.
companies are not allowed to not hire homosexuals, against the law. |
Should companies be allowed to not give benefits to heterosexual married couples?
|
|
|
|
|
keltic63
the kilted one
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 8574
Location: under the weather
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 13:59 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: |
I think it should be left up to individual companies not be forced upon them.
companies are not allowed to not hire homosexuals, against the law. |
but our society has had to force equal rights on businesses and organizations before. do we still have "white only" water fountains?
as for your second statement, I am reading it as you would prefer that companies be allowed to discriminate based on orientation. do you think that homosexuals choose to be homosexuals?
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 19:17 Post subject:
| keltic63 wrote: |
but our society has had to force equal rights on businesses and organizations before. do we still have "white only" water fountains?
as for your second statement, I am reading it as you would prefer that companies be allowed to discriminate based on orientation. do you think that homosexuals choose to be homosexuals? |
I meant to say EEOC regulates they cannot not hire people on sexual orientation only. I think I made a typo. That was all that it was. The way you thought I thought I meant it is absolutely wrong and should be prosecuted if a company does that. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Yes our society has forced rights onto people, but are homosexuals really being ostracized because of their orientation. Are they getting openly beaten (yes in isolated cases, but rare), but voting and segregation are completely separate than marriage.
Steve I also think I am a minority and eventually civil unions will be the law of different states. Or courts will mandate marriage dispite what the populace states, that is the way our government is set up, a republic not a democracy.
No matter what I am probably going to lose the debate anyway because Americans always err on the side of what is right or just. Homosexuals have just cause and state their case well. My personal feelings aside about the marriage issue, I just have to get used to it.
This country has come a long way in all matters of civil rights, Women, Indians, Blacks, Japanese, etc. We still have a ways to go I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 19:19 Post subject:
| Pug wrote: |
Should companies be allowed to not give benefits to heterosexual married couples? |
no one says they have to give benefits, it is a perk and a way of attracting and keeping employees.
I also used a typo, as I explained previously. I did not mean what I type I got my double negatives screwed up.
|
|
|
|
|
keltic63
the kilted one
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 8574
Location: under the weather
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 20:08 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: |
I meant to say EEOC regulates they cannot not hire people on sexual orientation only. I think I made a typo. That was all that it was. The way you thought I thought I meant it is absolutely wrong and should be prosecuted if a company does that. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Yes our society has forced rights onto people, but are homosexuals really being ostracized because of their orientation. Are they getting openly beaten (yes in isolated cases, but rare), but voting and segregation are completely separate than marriage.
Steve I also think I am a minority and eventually civil unions will be the law of different states. Or courts will mandate marriage dispite what the populace states, that is the way our government is set up, a republic not a democracy.
No matter what I am probably going to lose the debate anyway because Americans always err on the side of what is right or just. Homosexuals have just cause and state their case well. My personal feelings aside about the marriage issue, I just have to get used to it.
This country has come a long way in all matters of civil rights, Women, Indians, Blacks, Japanese, etc. We still have a ways to go I guess. |
thanks for clearing that up Joe.
now, as far as what I've put in bold print: I've experienced some ostracism and vandalism within the past year. I've experienced poor service from cashiers and other service industy workers and it's pretty clear that it's because I am with my friend. There are times that i am concerned for my safety. There are plenty of hate crimes against homosexuals that i see reported, and I'm sure there are many that are not reported.
I too believe that the day will come that all the states will grant civil unions, and that will open the door for states to allow same-sex marriages. Here's one more thing to think about: is allowing same sex marriages any worse than allowing heterosexuals to marry when it is clear that both parties are too immature, or marrying because of a pregnancy, or marrying so that one of the spouses can remain in this country?
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 20:24 Post subject:
not to minimize what you say about mistreatment, but I think everyone at times has had bad service or feared for safety for one reason or another. No matter what it is inexcusable.
I would want prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law any bad guy who does anything to anybody. The motivation is all the same...weak minded people picking on people they believe they can defeat.
There are also thousands of crimes against thousands of other people that are underreported as well, I think of the battered wives as a big example (interesting the same type of people are the offenders, cowards!)
I guess my point is where does the line get drawn. I just see the biblicial definition based on my faith and study as a marriage being between a man and a woman, period.
In many of the cases you cited there are probably as many happy as unhappy people in those marriages. I am sure the divorce rate in homosexual marriages would likely mirror the society in general.
Just so you know, all police departments are required by law to report any type of hate crime (I at work do this all of the time, I take great care to see that crimes are coded correctly, although in RT we have had 0 hate crimes, but I am careful regardless.)
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 21:21 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: | not to minimize what you say about mistreatment, but I think everyone at times has had bad service or feared for safety for one reason or another. No matter what it is inexcusable.
I would want prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law any bad guy who does anything to anybody. The motivation is all the same...weak minded people picking on people they believe they can defeat.
|
Joe, outside of your job, when have you ever had to worry about your safety just for being who you are? Pretending that a straight, white, male experiences anything even close to what keltic (or any other person in a minority group) experiences is minimizing the discrimination they face.
Also, it may be your believe that the Biblical definition of marriage is what should be followed, but Biblical definiations have no place in our laws.
But back to the original topic, I see that gay marriage issue fading away for a while. A constitutional ammendment is not going to pass and Bush knows that, but raising the issue was a convenient way to rally conservatives and get them to the polls.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/08/04 - 21:46 Post subject:
Being in the inner city periodically like I am. CHOP is not in the nicest neighborhood.
I too am judged just by being a w/m. People look at me differently, especially in the inner city, stereotyping is not just a w/m thing. And I am not minimizing Steve's experience, I am just saying our society has a long way to go by many people on the way they judge others.
Regarding our laws, our system was founded on Bibilical law. One of the primary documents used was the Magna Carta. Also puritan law was a foundation.
Most of the founding fathers were very active members of their church. I am sure that had a great deal to do with their writing of the laws.
The issue may die but it will resurface again. It is like Abortion, there may never be an equal ground.
|
|
|
|
|
kristin31
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 8045
Location: Caught in the crossfire of childhood and stardom
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/09/04 - 00:37 Post subject:
I don't understand the logic as to how it will cost employers more money. If you want to look at it from that standpoint, you may as well prohibit heterosexual couples benefits or limit the number of children one may have..
I don't see a problem with it, period.
|
|
|
|
|
megawill
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1552
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/09/04 - 09:34 Post subject:
this whole thread borders on incoherence....
(sorry, feeling a little cranky this morning)
|
|
|
|
|
keltic63
the kilted one
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 8574
Location: under the weather
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/09/04 - 09:52 Post subject:
| megawill wrote: | this whole thread borders on incoherence....
(sorry, feeling a little cranky this morning) |
ummm, it's your thread 
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
