On a day where Congress makes me so angry, the NY State Leg...

[MannyIsGod]

gives me faith that government CAN work. Props to those who crossed over from the GOP lines.

[baseline bum]

I guess one state believes in the Bill of Rights.

[baseline bum]

'Eh, make that 6 states.

[Pistons < Spurs]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitpic/photos/full/329927434.png?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJF3XCCKACR3QDMOA&Expires=1308975843&Signature=SOK3oVzxhYqwwab%2FINGj0gZJPm8%3D

[Pistons < Spurs]

Good job N.Y.

[DMX7]

My friends at Club Core are loving this! :toast

I'm straight by the way, but I believe in the rights of the gays including ignignokt!

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

I knew it was only a matter of time once they hired the cowboy from the Village People to lead the Knicks.

[ElNono]

:cry :cry :cry But God is gonna be angry :cry :cry :cry

[baseline bum]

:cry :cry :cry But God is gonna be angry :cry :cry :cry

God needs to grow up. Put him in timeout for now.

[symple19]

good for NY

[4>0rings]

Thank for not helping to propagate the species you worthless fucks.

[Trainwreck2100]

Thank for not helping to propagate the species you worthless fucks.

it's best that they not have kids, passing on the need to not breed is bad for the species

[Trainwreck2100]

also i can't wait for the supreme court to troll the homos hardcore.

[BradLohaus]

:lol ...and buyers remorse sets in instantly.

www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/opinion/24franke.html?_r=1

Marriage Is a Mixed Blessing
By KATHERINE M. FRANKE
Published: June 23, 2011

WILL the New York State Legislature ultimately put itself on the right side of history by allowing same-sex couples to marry? Many of us in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, amazed at how quickly public opinion has evolved on this issue, are eager for this historic civil rights victory.

While many in our community have worked hard to secure the right of same-sex couples to marry, others of us have been working equally hard to develop alternatives to marriage. For us, domestic partnerships and civil unions aren’t a consolation prize made available to lesbian and gay couples because we are barred from legally marrying. Rather, they have offered us an opportunity to order our lives in ways that have given us greater freedom than can be found in the one-size-fits-all rules of marriage.

It’s not that we’re antimarriage; rather, we think marriage ought to be one choice in a menu of options by which relationships can be recognized and gain security. Like New York City’s mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg, who has been in a relationship for over 10 years without marrying, one can be an ardent supporter of marriage rights for same-sex couples while also recognizing that serious, committed relationships can be formed outside of marriage.

Here’s why I’m worried: Winning the right to marry is one thing; being forced to marry is quite another. How’s that? If the rollout of marriage equality in other states, like Massachusetts, is any guide, lesbian and gay people who have obtained health and other benefits for their domestic partners will be required by both public and private employers to marry their partners in order to keep those rights. In other words, “winning” the right to marry may mean “losing” the rights we have now as domestic partners, as we’ll be folded into the all-or-nothing world of marriage.

Of course, this means we’ll be treated just as straight people are now. But this moment provides an opportunity to reconsider whether we ought to force people to marry — whether they be gay or straight — to have their committed relationships recognized and valued.

At Columbia University, where I work, the benefits office tells heterosexual employees that they must marry to get their partners on the health plan. A male graduate student I know, informed that he’d have to marry his longtime girlfriend for her to get benefits, was told, “Too bad your girlfriend isn’t a man — it would be so much easier!”

They ended up marrying, though they were politically and personally uninterested in doing so. I, by contrast, only had to fill out a form saying that my partner and I lived in the same household, to add her to my policy. An institution like Columbia (which is secular, I might add) should not be in the marriage-promotion business for either straight or gay employees, particularly when domestic partnerships can do the gate-keeping job just as effectively as marriage does.

In fact, New York City has a domestic partnership law that allows both same-sex and different-sex couples to register as domestic partners, and many private and public employers treat employees who are in such partnerships as entitled to the same rights as married employees. But they have done this to rectify the injustice created by same-sex couples’ inability to legally marry. Once the marriage ban in New York State is lifted, domestic-partner couples, both gay and straight, will risk losing access to health care and other benefits if their employers treat marriage as the only ticket for entitlement to these benefits, which are increasingly expensive.

Our phone has been ringing off the hook with calls from well-meaning relatives and friends who want to “save the date” for our wedding once it’s legal. It’s been hard to break it to them that we don’t plan on marrying, though we are glad that many of our friends can and will.

What’s difficult to explain is that for some lesbians and gay men, having our relationships sanctioned and regulated by the state is hardly something to celebrate. It was only a few years ago that we were criminals in the eyes of the law simply because of whom we loved. As strangers to marriage for so long, we’ve created loving and committed forms of family, care and attachment that far exceed, and often improve on, the narrow legal definition of marriage. Many of us are not ready to abandon those nonmarital ways of loving once we can legally marry.

Of course, lots of same-sex couples will want to marry as soon as they are allowed to, and we will congratulate them when they do even if we ourselves choose not to. But we shouldn’t be forced to marry to keep the benefits we now have, to earn and keep the respect of our friends and family, and to be seen as good citizens.

Katherine M. Franke is a professor of law and the director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law at Columbia Law School.

===============================================

I'm guessing that given her job status, Katherine makes a nice living. Chances are better than her live-in partner. I think she: A.) understands that she would be the "man" (main bread winner) in a marriage/divorce, and B.) just figured out what every straight man with half a brain has known for a long time: the legal system isn't man's best friend when it comes to divorce. I mean, she is a lawyer...

Funny that it took her almost no time at all to figure out that the marriage/government dynamic needs to be fixed once she's been entered into the equation.

[ChumpDumper]

A hurricane is going to hit New York this summer.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

it's best that they not have kids, passing on the need to not breed is bad for the species

I'm sure your parents wish they never breeded and you don't even have a chance to ever breed so STFU.

[George Gervin's Afro]

A hurricane is going to hit New York this summer.

December 21, 2012


Gay people marrying will end the world.. or so that's what I've heard.

[Trainwreck2100]

I'm sure your parents wish they never breeded and you don't even have a chance to ever breed so STFU.

The only biological reason for homos is population control. Passing on the desire to not breed is bad for the species. Sorry if the truth upsets you

[xeromass]

Ain't we beyond animals and all that crap?

But if you want to limit your contribution to society on your desire to breed, then please just don't.

[Blake]

The only biological reason for homos is population control. Passing on the desire to not breed is bad for the species. Sorry if the truth upsets you

Lol at the twoof

[baseline bum]

If the right is so worried about gays, wouldn't it make sense to let them marry and not therefore pass on a possible gay gene to children born in a sham-marriage? Doesn't pushing gay people into faking a nuclear family keep natural selection from doing its job? I think they'd be pissed to lose a huge segment of society to look down on as evil though.

[ChumpDumper]

The only biological reason for homos is population control. Passing on the desire to not breed is bad for the species. Sorry if the truth upsets youMany homosexuals have children. Sorry if the truth upsets you.

[Trainwreck2100]

Many homosexuals have children. Sorry if the truth upsets you.

Well no shit, that's where most of the homos are coming from, they are reintroducing the need to not procreate into the gene pool. Got any more breaking news? Sky being blue? Water being wet?

[ChumpDumper]

Well no shit, that's where most of the homos are coming from, they are reintroducing the need to not procreate into the gene pool. Got any more breaking news? Sky being blue? Water being wet?Are you saying it's genetic?

And lol reintroducing the need not to procreate through procreation.

[MannyIsGod]

You're becoming a hateful shit, Trainwreck. You need pussy more than any gay man.

[Trainwreck2100]

Are you saying it's genetic?



Yeah, it's not a choice IIRC the homos believe it's nature not choice so what else would it be if not genetic.


And lol reintroducing the need not to procreate through procreation.

If it's genetic than that's how it propogates in the gene pool, fat people eat when they are not hungry homos fuck other genders when they are not attracted to them. Both unnecessary.

[Trainwreck2100]

You're becoming a hateful shit, Trainwreck. You need pussy more than any gay man.

What have I said thats hateful

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, it's not a choice IIRC the homos believe it's nature not choice so what else would it be if not genetic.I'm asking what you believe.


If it's genetic than that's how it propogates in the gene poolBy procreation. Turns out they always had a need to procreate just like heterosexuals ever since they have been around.

[clambake]

i can feel the families being torn apart.

[ChumpDumper]

i can feel the families being torn apart.:lol like straight people have been doing a great job preserving marriages and their sanctity on their own.

[clambake]

the dynamic of my family doesn't stand a chance against this gay onslaught.

pretty soon we'll all be wearing belly shirts.

[Vici]

There is a precedant for homosexduality to be caused genetically but not in the sense that it is passed down. It is likely a condition of overcrowding and other environmental conditions. I forget the study but it was found that if there were several male children, each one down the line is more likely to be homosexual than the older siblings. Also, I remember seeing somewhere that homosexual children are far more likely to be born in cities or areas with dense populations which support that hypothesis.

It is not, however, a gene that can be passed down.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Who gives a shit if a man just decides he likes butt sex or if he is trended towards it by some RNA sequence in the human genome? The only notion that its bad with overarching authority comes from the church.

Fuck the church involving itself in government.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

the dynamic of my family doesn't stand a chance against this gay onslaught.

pretty soon we'll all be wearing belly shirts.
:lmao classic

I wonder when god is gonna unleash his wrath on New York. He must be really fuckin pissed to see all those faggots getting married. I'm surprised the Empire State Building is still standing.

[Trainwreck2100]

obviously he let 9/11 happen as a preemptive strike

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Now that you bring that up, that's a theory I could see Pat Robertson being serious about.

[ElNono]

You mean it wasn't the terrerists? We could've saved a boatload of money if we knew that.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

God was using the terrorists to carry out his plot against those faggot lovers in New York.

Long live the confederacy!

[mingus]

Good for them. About time.

[Trainwreck2100]

God was using the terrorists to carry out his plot against those faggot lovers in New York.

Long live the confederacy!

It was a strike against..........wait for it........this just came to me..........
ok it was a strike against a fagshist regime

[mingus]

Who gives a shit if a man just decides he likes butt sex or if he is trended towards it by some RNA sequence in the human genome? The only notion that its bad with overarching authority comes from the church.

Fuck the church involving itself in government.

What pisses me off is that most of these evangelists want to hold society to a standard that they themselves don't live up to. A lot of hypocrisy.

For example, they want to outlaw gay marriage because homosexuality is shunned in certain passages of the Bible, but it certain passages sex before marriage is also shunned. You don't see them trying to turn the latter into policy though because it would apply to them. Hypocritical bullshit.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The archbishop also made a strong statement against NY's equal marriage law, but didn't have much of an issue at all with the non-mutual homosexual relationships priests had with alter boys.

[Trainwreck2100]

The archbishop also made a strong statement against NY's equal marriage law, but didn't have much of an issue at all with the non-mutual homosexual relationships priests had with alter boys.

they didn't marry the altar boys.

[ChuckD]

they didn't marry the altar boys.

You missed the point. Everyone understands that the two aren't the same. No, the priests didn't marry them. They sexually assaulted and/or sodomized them, yet the church has less of a problem with that, continuing to play the dirty priest shell game.

[Trainwreck2100]

You missed the point. Everyone understands that the two aren't the same. No, the priests didn't marry them. They sexually assaulted and/or sodomized them, yet the church has less of a problem with that, continuing to play the dirty priest shell game.

yes i completely missed the point

[Winehole23]

they didn't marry the altar boys.Technically that's now possible in New York, but why dwell on that?

[Winehole23]

To piss off Catholics too? Or to prove what a dirty mind you have?

[Winehole23]

Oh, wait, you can do both at the same time. nm.

[Slomo]

they didn't marry the altar boys.


You missed the point. Everyone understands that the two aren't the same. No, the priests didn't marry them. They sexually assaulted and/or sodomized them, yet the church has less of a problem with that, continuing to play the dirty priest shell game.

http://www.cikava.com/gallery/albums/Smack/Overhead.jpg

[Winehole23]

It was a strike against..........wait for it........this just came to me..........
ok it was a strike against a fagshist regimeA rather lame one I thought, but you sure seem to be proud of it.

[LnGrrrR]

:lmao classic

I wonder when god is gonna unleash his wrath on New York. He must be really fuckin pissed to see all those faggots getting married. I'm surprised the Empire State Building is still standing.

Tbh, whenever a hurricane is about to hit New Orleans, morons go out into Bourbon and Canal with signs saying it's because gays live there. It's fun hearing them get insulted by everyone.

[Wild Cobra]

Fuck the church involving itself in government.
I would say you have that backwards.

The government got itself involved with church affairs when it started regulating marriage.

[Vici]

I would say you have that backwards.

The government got itself involved with church affairs when it started regulating marriage.

Except that it didn't force churches to do a single thing.

[Wild Cobra]

Except that it didn't force churches to do a single thing.
You're right. Churches did as they always do. The difference is marriage was always performed by a priest, and government stayed out of it. The government made it their business to control marriage. It's not the churches trying to interfere. Government already has. the churches just want to maintain the traditional definition and morality of marriage.

[ChumpDumper]

You're right. Churches did as they always do. The difference is marriage was always performed by a priest, and government stayed out of it. The government made it their business to control marriage. It's not the churches trying to interfere. Government already has. the churches just want to maintain the traditional definition and morality of marriage.By interfering with government.

lol morality

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

:lmao the dumbfucks who think "marriage" was created by the Church

marriage has been around since the ancient Greeks

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao the dumbfucks who think "marriage" was created by the Church

marriage has been around since the ancient Greeks
And the Greeks had several Gods and temples which sanctified the marriage.

[ChumpDumper]

And the Greeks had several Gods and temples which sanctified the marriage.And governments that recognized and applied laws to the marriages.

[CosmicCowboy]

Jeez. if the gays want to marry each other for estate reasons then let them. Make it totally legal with all the medical power of attorney, inheritance, joint property, etc. Treat them exactly the same as any other married couple.

The quid quo pro should be that employers shouldn't have to supply the same equality for employee benefits if they choose not to on moral/personal grounds...(example, paying all or part of "family" insurance benefits for conventional unions) If they gay couple wants or needs those employer provided benefits they can always search out a gay friendly employer. It's the same principle in reverse...don't enforce your beliefs on others who don't share the same views.

[ChumpDumper]

So employers who don't believe in mixed race marriages should be able to refuse insuring those families on that basis?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Jeez. if the gays want to marry each other for estate reasons then let them. Make it totally legal with all the medical power of attorney, inheritance, joint property, etc. Treat them exactly the same as any other married couple.

The quid quo pro should be that employers shouldn't have to supply the same equality for employee benefits if they choose not to on moral/personal grounds...(example, paying all or part of "family" insurance benefits for conventional unions) If they gay couple wants or needs those employer provided benefits they can always search out a gay friendly employer. It's the same principle in reverse...don't enforce your beliefs on others who don't share the same views.
I agree with all of this 100%. I don't think an employer should be forced to recognize a gay marriage.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

And the Greeks had several Gods and temples which sanctified the marriage.
Once again you talk out of your ass and obviously just assumed Greeks used a religious process with marriage. There was no ceremony involved with marriage in ancient Greece. All it required was a man and woman basically agreeing to get married.

[boutons_deux]

"don't enforce your beliefs on others who don't share the same views"

An employer who refuses to treat an employee in a same-sex marriage as any employee in a heterosexual marriage is ENFORCING his beliefs on his employees.

[CosmicCowboy]

"don't enforce your beliefs on others who don't share the same views"

An employer who refuses to treat an employee in a same-sex marriage as any employee in a heterosexual marriage is ENFORCING his beliefs on his employees.

Bullshit.

[clambake]

why is that bullshit?

[CosmicCowboy]

why is that bullshit?

Because you are forcing someone who morally believes that gay marriage is wrong to PAY HIS MONEY for the gay spouses health coverage IF he provides it to heterosexual couples. It's just not right. If you don't think that people should be able to force their moral beliefs on others then your logic in this case is flawed.

[ChumpDumper]

So employers who don't believe in mixed race marriages should be able to refuse insuring those families on that basis?

[mingus]

Jeez. if the gays want to marry each other for estate reasons then let them. Make it totally legal with all the medical power of attorney, inheritance, joint property, etc. Treat them exactly the same as any other married couple.

The quid quo pro should be that employers shouldn't have to supply the same equality for employee benefits if they choose not to on moral/personal grounds...(example, paying all or part of "family" insurance benefits for conventional unions) If they gay couple wants or needs those employer provided benefits they can always search out a gay friendly employer. It's the same principle in reverse...don't enforce your beliefs on others who don't share the same views.

which would be ridiculous. you can't just deny someone benefits on personal/moral grounds. legal grounds, fine. but morality/personal grounds isn't well-defined at all. it leaves things open to interpretation. if govt. is going to give the okay to legal marriage b/w gays, then they've set a standard for what is sanctioned everywhere. businesses included.

because then that opens the door to other things. don't like Jews because you don't agree with them on several moral points? so now you can choose not to insure him? that would be ridiculous.

[CosmicCowboy]

So employers who don't believe in mixed race marriages should be able to refuse insuring those families on that basis?

Chump, I have no problem with mixed race marriages. I also have no problem with gay marriages. I don't draw the line there but TECHNICALLY? When an employer is VOLUNTARILY giving a benefit to his employees that he pays out of his own pocket/profits?

Yeah, he should have the right to choose who he gives those benefits to, just like the employee has a right to choose to work there or somewhere else.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

From what I know (could be wrong), almost all employers have a flat rate they contribute to each employee's medical plan. They'd still have to pay the flat rate towards the gay employees' health plan, so I'm not sure if anything would change at all.

[CosmicCowboy]

which would be ridiculous. you can't just deny someone benefits on personal/moral grounds. legal grounds, fine. but morality/personal grounds isn't well-defined at all. it leaves things open to interpretation. if govt. is going to give the okay to legal marriage b/w gays, then they've set a standard for what is sanctioned everywhere. businesses included.

because then that opens the door to other things. don't like Jews because you don't agree with them on several moral points? so now you can choose not to insure him? that would be ridiculous.

Duh...so the employer is up front and Jews know that benefits will be limited if they work there and can look for employment elsewhere. No one says he has to work at THAT company.

I'm just saying that it is reverse discrimination to force someone to be "equal" on the benefits he is VOLUNTARILY providing to employees if he morally disagrees with the premise.

it's his "loss" from a business sense by limiting his talent pool but IMHO it should be his choice.

[ChumpDumper]

Chump, I have no problem with mixed race marriages. I also have no problem with gay marriages. I don't draw the line there but TECHNICALLY? When an employer is VOLUNTARILY giving a benefit to his employees that he pays out of his own pocket/profits?

Yeah, he should have the right to choose who he gives those benefits to, just like the employee has a right to choose to work there or somewhere else.So you believe racial discrimination should be legal.

I disagree.

[clambake]

so.....gay business owners should do the same?

[mingus]

Duh...so the employer is up front and Jews know that benefits will be limited if they work there and can look for employment elsewhere. No one says he has to work at THAT company.

I'm just saying that it is reverse discrimination to force someone to be "equal" on the benefits he is VOLUNTARILY providing to employees if he morally disagrees with the premise.

it's his "loss" from a business sense by limiting his talent pool but IMHO it should be his choice.

so then you're basically allowing people do indiscriminately discriminate?

that's all fine and good when you're full-blooded aryan and don't have a thing to worry about. but for the rerst of us there's this thing called discrimination we've got to worry about. look it up.

[CosmicCowboy]

From what I know (could be wrong), almost all employers have a flat rate they contribute to each employee's medical plan. They'd still have to pay the flat rate towards the gay employees' health plan, so I'm not sure if anything would change at all.

As an example, I still pay 100% of my employee and their wife and children's coverage as a benefit. It's my choice. If a single male employee decided to marry his brother who just got AIDS so he could get the benefit of my company paid insurance for his brother I don't think it is morally right for the Federal Government to REQUIRE me to give his brother the same benefits I VOLUNTARILY give the immediate families of my other employees.

[ChumpDumper]

As an example, I still pay 100% of my employee and their wife and children's coverage as a benefit. It's my choice. If a single male employee decided to marry his brother who just got AIDS so he could get the benefit of my company paid insurance for his brother I don't think it is morally right for the Federal Government to REQUIRE me to give his brother the same benefits I VOLUNTARILY give the immediate families of my other employees.Brothers can't marry.

[mingus]

As an example, I still pay 100% of my employee and their wife and children's coverage as a benefit. It's my choice. If a single male employee decided to marry his brother who just got AIDS so he could get the benefit of my company paid insurance for his brother I don't think it is morally right for the Federal Government to REQUIRE me to give his brother the same benefits I VOLUNTARILY give the immediate families of my other employees.

lol. did you just compare marriage b/w two homosexuals to a brother marrying his other brother who has aids? :lmao

[mingus]

full-blooded aryan + full-blooded 'tard this guy.

[CosmicCowboy]

Quit trying to paint me as a racist or homophobe.

It just ain't there.

I'm talking about government intrusion into telling an employer that is doing something "nice" that is not legally mandated that they have to do it for everyone if they do it for one.

Do you guys ever get voluntary performance bonuses? What if they mandated that everyone should get the same bonus?

[CosmicCowboy]

Brothers can't marry.

Why shouldn't brothers be able to marry you fucking brotherphobes? The reasons for prohibiting inter-family marriages is to prevent birth defects from genetic interbreeding. That obviously doesn't apply to two related males you fucking discriminators!

[CosmicCowboy]

Laterz you fucking discriminating brotherphobes...got better things to do this afternoon than try to get you guys to apply the same logic to other discriminatory acts that don't meet your personal "OK" threshold.

[ChumpDumper]

Quit trying to paint me as a racist or homophobe.Not.


It just ain't there.

I'm talking about government intrusion into telling an employer that is doing something "nice" that is not legally mandated that they have to do it for everyone if they do it for one.

Do you guys ever get voluntary performance bonuses? What if they mandated that everyone should get the same bonus?Did they perform the same?


Laterz you fucking discriminating brotherphobes...got better things to do this afternoon than try to get you guys to apply the same logic to other discriminatory acts that don't meet your personal "OK" threshold.The definition of marriage has always been rather arbitrary. I'm fine with including gay couples and excluding immediate family members and bigamy.

[mingus]

Why shouldn't brothers be able to marry you fucking brotherphobes? The reasons for prohibiting inter-family marriages is to prevent birth defects from genetic interbreeding. That obviously doesn't apply to two related males you fucking discriminators!

dude, you're comparing two brothers who marry to two homosexuals who marry. just think about that for a second. it's a ridiculous comparison.

[mingus]

Laterz you fucking discriminating brotherphobes...got better things to do this afternoon than try to get you guys to apply the same logic to other discriminatory acts that don't meet your personal "OK" threshold.

you're "personal ok" threshhold just happens to exclude a huge portion of the population (and potentially waaay more if you include all the others who'd be xcluded on the basis of religion, race, and other stupid shit like you say). that's the problem. i don't know any bro-on-bro relationships.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I honestly don't think CosmicCowboy is that off base or anything. An employer has requirements to fullfill, after that it's not up to the government to tell the employer to recognize gay marriages. If the employer wants to be stubborn with primitive views and as a result not hire gay employees who would work hard and help the company, that's the employers' loss. Also, in a country where gay marriage is universally legal, an employer having a benefits plan that doesn't recognize gay marriages would be a PR nightmare for him.

[ChumpDumper]

If the government is going to be in the business of marriage, it will be subject to the laws made by people.

If you are willing to give up all the government recognition and benefits afforded to your marriage, CC, say so.

[mingus]

I honestly don't think CosmicCowboy is that off base or anything. An employer has requirements to fullfill, after that it's not up to the government to tell the employer to recognize gay marriages. If the employer wants to be stubborn with primitive views and as a result not hire gay employees who would work hard and help the company, that's the employers' loss. Also, in a country where gay marriage is universally legal, an employer having a benefits plan that doesn't recognize gay marriages would be a PR nightmare for him.

it's not just gay marriage though. he said moral/personal grounds. the problem with that is it opens the door to shitloads of other non-homophobic related discrimination. you'd have huge chunks of the population potentially facing some sort of discrimination by employers. (religion, color, nationality, etc).

[Vici]

As an example, I still pay 100% of my employee and their wife and children's coverage as a benefit. It's my choice. If a single male employee decided to marry his brother who just got AIDS so he could get the benefit of my company paid insurance for his brother I don't think it is morally right for the Federal Government to REQUIRE me to give his brother the same benefits I VOLUNTARILY give the immediate families of my other employees.

You just made an argument for Universal Healthcare

[CosmicCowboy]

it's not just gay marriage though. he said moral/personal grounds. the problem with that is it opens the door to shitloads of other non-homophobic related discrimination. you'd have huge chunks of the population potentially facing some sort of discrimination by employers. (religion, color, nationality, etc).

You act like employment is slavery. It's a mutually agreed upon and hopefully mutually beneficial relationship between employer and employee.

If an employer voluntarily gives a performance bonus to a hard working and loyal hispanic guy should a white guy that didn't get a bonus because he does the absolute minimum be able to sue for discrimination?

[CosmicCowboy]

you're "personal ok" threshhold just happens to exclude a huge portion of the population (and potentially waaay more if you include all the others who'd be xcluded on the basis of religion, race, and other stupid shit like you say). that's the problem. i don't know any bro-on-bro relationships.

Damn you are a stupid fuck. I'm making the argument that every employer has their own personal threshold on who they give "above and beyond mandated law" benefits to, not that I want to discriminate against everyone.

[CosmicCowboy]

You just made an argument for Universal Healthcare

:lmao

Hardly.

I shouldn't have to send MY tax money to Washington so they can give the cocksucker at the Valero that hits me up for money so he can buy another 20 a half million dollar liver transplant when he finally crashes and burns.

Choices are choices.

Fucking live or die with them.

[mingus]

Damn you are a stupid fuck. I'm making the argument that every employer has their own personal threshold on who they give "above and beyond mandated law" benefits to, not that I want to discriminate against everyone.

i'm not talking about "above and beyond" mandated law. i'm talking about insurance, which is what you originally brought up.

[Drachen]

Damn you are a stupid fuck. I'm making the argument that every employer has their own personal threshold on who they give "above and beyond mandated law" benefits to, not that I want to discriminate against everyone.

Then make health insurance a bonus. This way, hetero or homo, you will only be providing health insurance for those who add value to your business.

[ElNono]

:lmao

Hardly.

I shouldn't have to send MY tax money to Washington so they can give the cocksucker at the Valero that hits me up for money so he can buy another 20 a half million dollar liver transplant when he finally crashes and burns.

Choices are choices.

Fucking live or die with them.

Hmm... haven't had $1.00 Valero tacos prepared by true wetbacks in months... best tacos ever, IMO, FWIW...

[CosmicCowboy]

i'm not talking about "above and beyond" mandated law. i'm talking about insurance, which is what you originally brought up.

So employer provided insurance for spouses and children is mandated law?

:lmao

since when?

Your abject ignorance and stupidity is showing.

[scott]

I can feel the fabric of America being torn as we speak

[CosmicCowboy]

Then make health insurance a bonus. This way, hetero or homo, you will only be providing health insurance for those who add value to your business.

Can't do that. It's illegal. All or none, at whatever level the employer chooses to supply.

The theory is that they don't want those evil employers buying better insurance for themselves than they provide for their lowest scale employee.

in practice, the employer can legally take those tens or hundreds of thousands he pays for health care, end it completely, pay taxes on the gross, and buy a Cadillac plan for himself and his family and still come out way ahead dollar wise.

[TE]

I can feel the fabric of America being torn as we speak

You can say that again.

[CosmicCowboy]

Please explain the "fabric of America" comment and "second".

[ElNono]

OMG, I can hear Frank Sinatra rolling in his grave right now...

[Blake]

dude, you're comparing two brothers who marry to two homosexuals who marry. just think about that for a second. it's a ridiculous comparison.

I dunno. I thought about it and if they are two consenting adults, I don't see much difference

[MannyIsGod]

You don't get a right to discriminate. All or nothing. If you don't want to give benefits to homosexual's who are married then don't. But then you don't get to give them for hetero's either.

[MannyIsGod]

Also, if 2 brothers want to get married, let them. Who fucking cares who gets married to who.

[CuckingFunt]

Quit trying to paint me as a racist or homophobe.

It just ain't there.

I'm talking about government intrusion into telling an employer that is doing something "nice" that is not legally mandated that they have to do it for everyone if they do it for one.

Do you guys ever get voluntary performance bonuses? What if they mandated that everyone should get the same bonus?

Seems too obvious to have to point out, but employee benefits =/= bonuses.

[Trainwreck2100]

Also, if 2 brothers want to get married, let them. Who fucking cares who gets married to who.

chump cares

[ChumpDumper]

Anyone can get married. Whom the government decides to recognize is a different matter.

[Trainwreck2100]

Anyone can get married. Whom the government decides to recognize is a different matter.

but they shouldn't recognize everyone right?

[ChumpDumper]

but they shouldn't recognize everyone right?No. Not everyone. As I said, I'm fine with moving the arbitrary governmental definition a bit.

Is there a part of that you don't understand?

[Trainwreck2100]

No. Not everyone. As I said, I'm fine with moving the arbitrary governmental definition a bit.

Is there a part of that you don't understand?

nothing if you want arbitrary gov. definition. I don't understand your problem with others who want "arbitrary gov. definition" on a broader scale.

[scott]

The terrorists have won.

(Has someone already said that one?)

[Marcus Bryant]

The ship has sailed as far as marriage being the cornerstone of American society, done in by heterosexuals over the last five or six decades. On the one hand it's not taken seriously, yet on the other it's a sacrosanct piece of Western civilization.

[Crookshanks]

NY Pastor Says Gay Marriage Is a 'Cold, Hard Slap' in God's Face
By Audrey Barrick | Christian Post Reporter

A New York pastor made it clear to his congregation on Sunday that the legalization of gay marriage in New York is not an event Christians can just overlook or be unaffected by.

The passage of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry by the state Senate on Friday, in fact, should leave Christians grieving – grieving that "our God has been offended, ... that a lifestyle has had a stamp of approval put on it by our government in Albany that really is an extremely dangerous lifestyle," said Pastor Art Kohl of Faith Bible Baptist Church.

The Eden, N.Y., pastor had an entirely different sermon planned for Sunday but given the recent event, he felt he couldn't ignore the issue despite the distance he usually keeps from anything political.

In the weeks leading up to the vote on the gay marriage bill in the state assembly and then the Senate, Kohl had busied himself in prayer, fasting and contacting lawmakers and mailing booklets he created containing passages in the Bible that address homosexuality.

Unfortunately, on the other side, there were liberal clergymen – or false prophets, as Kohl described them – convincing senators that God made homosexuals that way and that they have a right to be married.

The bill passed in the Senate late Friday with four Republicans voting "yes." Governor Andrew Cuomo immediately signed it into law. The measure will take effect on July 24.

Speaking from the pulpit of his independent Baptist church, Kohl lamented, "What has happened in Albany this week ... was not only an affront to me but it was also an affront to a holy God."

"It was a cold, hard slap [in] God's face by the assembly men and women in Albany who voted for it and the senators," he stated plainly. "They spit in the very face of a holy God who alone can define what marriage is."

Kohl prefaced his sermon with a note that Christians should not hate anyone.

"It seems we hate and we get angry at certain sins and love and coddle and pet other sins and befriend them if we're not careful," he said. "We ought not to hate the sinner but we ought to hate the sin."

He also stressed the holiness of the institution of marriage.

"We believe it's sacred. We believe it's holy, at least I do; more importantly, God does. God instituted marriage. It was His first institution on earth."

With that said, he emphasized that this was not the will of God as some have pondered.

"I want to go on record and say this was not God's will. This was man's will. This was a group of senators and assembly men and women who have departed from ... God and from the Word of God."

Though grieving the event, Kohl said he is not down in his faith. Rather, he's more saddened that "our God has been offended."

With the approval of gay marriage in his state, the Baptist pastor is even more convinced that the end of the world is drawing near.

"The events of Friday night grieved my heart but strengthened my faith in biblical prophecy because our Lord said it would be like this just before he comes," he preached.

"The time is at hand," he said, preaching from Revelation 1.

There's nothing unclear in the last book of the Bible, he indicated. It's not a book of mystery or parables but of "revelation" and it's no mystery what events will come to pass in the last days, he noted.

"What happened in New York this week could just be anecdotal. I'm not trying to promote ... that we interpret the Bible from a New Yorker's perspective but certainly New York has become like a Sodom and Gomorrah ... with the approval of assembly men and women, senators and the governor now."

What has Kohl bewildered is that the government is approving a behavior that is obviously dangerous. The pastor pointed to statistics showing that the majority of people who are infected or who have died of AIDS are gay men.

"This is dangerous. This is unhealthy. This is deadly," he stated. "We've got to instruct every teacher, ... every pastor, ... every senator; ... we've got to get everybody to start crying out and say 'don't have anything to do with this behavior.'

"That's how I think."

What Kohl isn't confused about, however, is what will happen as a result of the approval of gay marriage. Despite the provision of religious protections, Kohl is convinced that the consequences "are going to be horrific."

"Already, there have been great warnings about discrimination lawsuits in New York state," he lamented. "Any conservative or Christian business man or woman who should object on the grounds of their religion to provide services is setting themselves up for discrimination lawsuits."

"You would not believe how complex this is going to be."

"You see, people thought Friday they got what they [wanted]. No, they haven't come close to getting what they want. This is just their foot in the door."

Along with lawsuits, Kohl expects many Christians will be tested by this issue and "cave in."

"Someday, God's going to have the last word," the pastor said to "amen's." "Someday, they'll speak no more."

"Mark my words, God will have the last word."

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

"Mark my words, God will have the last word."
:lmao:lmao:lmao

It's remarkable that the parts of the country that discriminate against gays the most (Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, etc.) are the areas of the country that are the shittiest and most primitive. You'd think god would give his biggest believers in America a better environment.

[Leetonidas]

You're becoming a hateful shit, Trainwreck. You need pussy more than any gay man.

:lmao

[Leetonidas]

"The events of Friday night grieved my heart but strengthened my faith in biblical prophecy because our Lord said it would be like this just before he comes," he preached.

:lmao

Okay, so the Bible says:


When homosexuals gain the ability to marry, God will return to earth to smite all the fags and save only the white Bible thumping dumbfucks who blindly hate on a group of people whose sexual affiliations have no effect on their lives whatsoever.

:lmao :lmao Religites

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

God treats those bible thumping Republicans so well by making them dirt poor and making them live in America's armpit. He must love those people so much the way everyone else in America looks up to them.

[ChuckD]

Guy should move to a red state, tbh. They won't recognize gay marriage until long after 2100. There were still blue laws in TX in 1984 for fucks sake. Shit was closed on Sundays. I think they only took the sodomy laws off the books after 2000.

If you're ass backwards, move to where a bunch of other like-minded ass backwards people live. Instead of trying to change everyone to live as you believe, ignore the world and live apart like the Amish. They're happy, and no one fucking hates the Amish like the So Baptists.

[ElNono]

lol @ pulling the 'end of the world' fear card... :lmao

[Winehole23]

They're happy, and no one fucking hates the Amish like the So Baptists.Mennonites?

[LnGrrrR]

Where are these preachers denouncing divorce? Just wondering.

[ChumpDumper]

nothing if you want arbitrary gov. definition. I don't understand your problem with others who want "arbitrary gov. definition" on a broader scale.I don't have a problem with it; just saying where I'm fine with its stopping at that point.

You want it even more narrow. What are your reasons for it?

[baseline bum]

Why do the Baptists always portray god as a moody prick with anger issues? Oooh, gays can file their state taxes jointly. For this sin, sociopath god will come smite us all for not being as hateful as him.

[ChumpDumper]

God does seem to be kind of a dick. Let his own son get crucified. Maybe Jesus was gay. Traveling with a bunch of dudes....never hooking up with any of the female groupies he had to have....

[boutons_deux]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g

[coyotes_geek]

Where are these preachers denouncing divorce? Just wondering.

Apparantely it's only the gays who don't get the privledge of deciding for themselves whether or not the literal biblical definition of marriage applies to them.

[Blake]

Speaking from the pulpit of his independent Baptist church, Kohl lamented, "What has happened in Albany this week ... was not only an affront to me but it was also an affront to a holy God."

ah, telling.


"What has Kohl bewildered is that the government is approving a behavior that is obviously dangerous. The pastor pointed to statistics showing that the majority of people who are infected or who have died of AIDS are gay men.

"This is dangerous. This is unhealthy. This is deadly," he stated. "We've got to instruct every teacher, ... every pastor, ... every senator; ... we've got to get everybody to start crying out and say 'don't have anything to do with this behavior.'

"That's how I think."

I'd like to know how he thinks lesbianism is dangerous.


"Mark my words, God will have the last word."

if God didn't like it, then why did he create the asshole to be of just enough size for a cock?

he's either a stupid God or he's still in the closet.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

God does seem to be kind of a dick. Let his own son get crucified. Maybe Jesus was gay. Traveling with a bunch of dudes....never hooking up with any of the female groupies he had to have....
I have no question Jesus played plenty of pitch and catch while he was hanging out with all those dudes :lol

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Why do the Baptists always portray god as a moody prick with anger issues? Oooh, gays can file their state taxes jointly. For this sin, sociopath god will come smite us all for not being as hateful as him.
:lmao

[CuckingFunt]

I'd like to know how he thinks lesbianism is dangerous.

Always conspicuously absent from the discussion/outrage.

[jack sommerset]

Gays are gross.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Gays are gross.

Jacksommerset is gross


sincerley,
all gay people everywhere

[Blake]

Gays are gross.

girls are gross to most 8 year old boys

[ChumpDumper]

I think it's safe to say most heterosexual couples are "gross" in that you wouldn't want to see them having sex. You can tell us if you feel differently.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Jacksommerset is gross


sincerley,
all gay people everywhere
I honestly doubt gay people give enough of a shit about people like jack sommerset to think about his everyday behavior and label him as "gross" or something similar.

Jack Sommerset, on the other hand, has obviously thought about gays and contemplated the homosexual way of life enough to label them as gross. Gayness is definitely something he thinks about.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

God does seem to be kind of a dick. Let his own son get crucified. Maybe Jesus was gay. Traveling with a bunch of dudes....never hooking up with any of the female groupies he had to have....

I'm pretty sure that God sent Mary Magdalene to Jeebus as His last ditch effort. "It's a fucking sign, son! She's a hooker AND she owes you one! Me dammit, where's the two by fours and hammer? I'm shutting him down."

[CuckingFunt]

Gays are gross.

Why?

Specifically.

[Isitjustme?]

Good. Question. imo.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

Why?

Specifically.

Because Jack knows 144 of them?

[DarrinS]

The real winners in all this -- divorce attorneys