|
|
| |
| |
"Joey" <res0n4x6@verizon.net> wrote:
So why does a union between two gays have to be called a
marriage.
Because that is the word used in the laws under which they
are being denied equal rights. If it was "smurdging",
there'd be a "smurdging" spree going on in San Francisco
City Hall. It's just a word, don't try to make it more than
that.
There is already a definition for the word marriage and it
does not involve two people of the same sex.
Really? Says who?
So for that matter we should now call cows chickens,
"Buffalo wings" ring a bell?
or janitors engineers.
"Sanitary Englneer" is a long-standing term for janitor.
Why don't these gay people create their own traditions
instead of trying to trash the tradition of others.
There are two problems:
1) "Marriage" is the term in common use for a loving and
sexual companionship between adults, intended to persist.
Gays have the fact of such relationships (my closest gay
relative has been in a relationship that outlasted my
current "marriage" by almost double), they're just asking
that the same word be used in describing it, a quite
reasonable request.
2) "Marriage" is the term used in the laws describing
inheritance, hospital visitation, child rearing, and a large
number of other places where gays are denied equal rights.
It is much simpler to apply the word "marriage" legally to
gay unions, than to rewrite thousands of laws to use a less
bigoted term.
There are already laws in place to protect their financial
interests.
Why do you think that the only attraction of "marriage" is
financial? Mostly, marriage is a financial downer,
increasing income taxes, muddling finances inextricably.
The ceremony is the main attraction.
Just goes to prove that they aren't trying to convince the
world that they are alright, as much as they are trying to
convince themselves.
Just goes to prove you'll never have a chance not to be a
bigot, unless reincarnation pans out for you.
Look, the big deal at least in the US is that despite the
constitutional separation of church and state, a strictly
religious ceremony, "marriage", has intruded itself all
over our legal system. If "marriage" were something done
only in churches, having only religious consequences, and
completely ignored by government, and if "civil union"
were something done only in government office buildings,
having only legal consequences, and completely ignored by
churches, we wouldn't have the current mess;
couples of whatever orientation could mix and match
religious ceremony with civil ceremony exactly as fitted
their needs.
With marriage" so full of legal consequences, and
"officially recognized" by governments, it is absolutely
unfair to pretend that what gay couples have is _not_
"marriage". If the churches hadn't been so busy forcing
their doctrines into law, even as today, the churches
wouldn't be suffering the consequences of their arrogance
today. There would be bigot churches offering only
heterosexual "marriage", enlightened churches offering mix
and match "marriage", and bigot churches offering only
homosexual "marriage", and at least the fighting could be
kept out of statehouses, courts, and legislatures.
Since even the churches admit that marriage is "a sacred
institution", it is contrary to the US Constitution for
governments to have _any_ opinions on who should marry whom.
That is an unconstitutional "establishment of religion". It
is precisely none of _any_ governments' business whom _any_
church chooses to "marry" or "not marry".
By churches instituting into law the legal consequences of
a religious ceremony, the churches at the same time gave up
any right to pretend that "marriage" is something with only
religious interpretation, and moved it into the desmene where
equal rights under law pertain.
xanthian.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
| |
| |
Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
"Joey" <res0n4x6@verizon.net> wrote:
Because that is the word used in the laws under which they
are being denied equal rights. If it was "smurdging",
there'd be a "smurdging" spree going on in San Francisco
City Hall. It's just a word, don't try to make it more than
that.
I wrote a tongue-in-cheek article,
http://kevin.davnet.org/essays/frob.html, suggesting that we designate a
new word for a same-sex untion. But after thinking about it, I think
that suggestion is not much different from the "separate but equal"
doctrine that glossed over the racial discrimination in American society.
Words carry a lot of baggage.
--
Kevin
My articles on religion at http://kevin.davnet.org/articles/
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 22:29:26 +0000 (UTC), "Kent Paul Dolan"
<xanthian@well.com>
Why do you think that the only attraction of "marriage" is
financial? Mostly, marriage is a financial downer,
increasing income taxes, muddling finances inextricably.
The ceremony is the main attraction.
Well, that and things like insurance benefits, spousal rights regarding
medical and death issues, etc...
I think a few health plans may cover "life partners" (or whatever the
correct term is), but I doubt it's extremely widespread.
The resistance being put up may be under the guise of morality and
"defense of marriage", but in fact it could be economic greed as well
Ceremony may be the main attraction for those who take the moralistic
view, but if it were so for gays, it would be more of a religious issue
than a legal one.
Even when gay marriage is legally recognized (and I do believe it will
be, even if they call it "civil union" instead of marriage), you can't
force a church to perform a ceremony.
|
| |
| |
"Mike Helm" <mhelm@not.known> wrote:
Even when gay marriage is legally recognized (and I do believe it will
be, even if they call it "civil union" instead of marriage), you can't
force a church to perform a ceremony.
Oh, there are more than enough churches willing to perform the ceremony,
and if your area is lacking, it is no big deal to found a new church,
I've done it myself(*).
The problem right now is the other direction, governments are
_forbidding_ churches from performing gay marriages that have
the force of civil unions.
xanthian.
(*) Granted it was meant to be a joke, that's not what eventuated.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
| |
| |
"Kevin Davidson" <Harvested_kevin@davnet.org> wrote:
But after thinking about it, I think
that suggestion is not much different
from the "separate but equal"
doctrine that glossed over the racial
discrimination in American society.
It's not so many days ago I heard an interview
with a Black female legislator who "wouldn't
vote for civil unions in preference to marriages
for gays" because she "could still remember how
poorly 'separte but equal' had worked for her
people".
Words carry a lot of baggage.
Indeed [my dad is past vice-president for the
American Society for General Semantics]; the
exact problem here is that the word "marriage"
is beginning to collapse under the baggage of
carrying both the civil law and the religious
rules connotations in one sachel, and we need
to realize that most of the problem is just
that we've crammed two separate concepts into
one word where they deserved to be called by
two different words, all along.
Thus people springing to the defense of "marriage"
the religious thingie are also springing to the
defense of "marriage", the discriminatory civil
law, probably without being all that much in favor
of the discrimination under law at all.
xanthian.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
| |
| |
"Kent Paul Dolan" <xanthian@well.com> wrote
..... the
exact problem here is that the word "marriage"
is beginning to collapse under the baggage of
carrying both the civil law and the religious
rules connotations in one sachel, and we need
to realize that most of the problem is just
that we've crammed two separate concepts into
one word where they deserved to be called by
two different words, all along.
Absolutely- nobody but government accountants gives a #@($ about 'civil
union'.
The use of religiously loaded words is a real mistake- the Government's
books aren't called a 'Torah', 'Rabbi' isn't a rank in Civil Service; we
don't hold 'Confession' at the police station, or call investing an office
an 'Ordination', naming a child isn't a civil 'Christening', and we don't
require 'Confirmation' for granting of the franchise.
'Marriage' is a misnomer for the civil contract.
Chas
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 22:29:26 +0000 (UTC), "Kent Paul Dolan"
<xanthian@well.com>
Well, that and things like insurance benefits, spousal rights regarding
medical and death issues, etc...
Well, that can be handled without a marriage if one would just
read the fine print. As the named policy holder, I can name
any beneficiary I choose for my life insurance regardless of
whether that person happens to be my spouse or even a
human being. Technically, you may leave your insurance to
a dog or a cat if you choose. Ditto for pensions. A very well
known children's hospital, not an individual person, will get
my pension payments if I die today. I can just as easily hand
it over to one of my better co-workers or even the guy who
came here and fixed my air conditioner. The benefactor
does not have to be related.
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Caustic Soda wrote:
Well, that can be handled without a marriage if one would just
read the fine print. As the named policy holder, I can name
are you really that ignorant? the patchwork of laws that extend some rights
to unmarried couples do not extend all rights.
any beneficiary I choose for my life insurance regardless of
whether that person happens to be my spouse or even a
you may not cover just any person you choose under your medical insurance.
people eligible to be covered by you are defined by law as family. this is
extended to cohabiting partners in only some places.
human being. Technically, you may leave your insurance to
a dog or a cat if you choose. Ditto for pensions. A very well
known children's hospital, not an individual person, will get
my pension payments if I die today. I can just as easily hand
this hosptial may get the remains of your estate, but i doubt it will
collect your pension. and there are plenty of survivors benefits that you
are not able to assign.
it over to one of my better co-workers or even the guy who
came here and fixed my air conditioner. The benefactor
does not have to be related.
you say nothing about the issue of medical access. your unmarried partner
is not necessarily the person your doc will contact in an emergency or if
you die. you may designate that person as the one to contact, but your
blood family can easily deny that person visitation rights or access to
medical or death information. your unmarried partner also does not have the
right to sue for negligence or damages for your loss if someone else's
negligence kills you.
there are all sorts of other rights and privileges that unmarried couples
can't take for granted that i'm not going to list right now.
-- astri
|
| |
| |
"astri" <astri@lava.net> wrote
there are all sorts of other rights and privileges that unmarried couples
can't take for granted that i'm not going to list right now.
All of which matters may be solved under the rubric 'civil union'. There are
already exceptions to all sorts of unions under 'customs of aboriginals',
varying degrees of consanguinity, de facto exceptions for religious
practice-
civil union ought to be the government sanctioned contract for any number of
adults to join in some kinda group.
Chas
|
| |
| |
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Caustic Soda wrote:
are you really that ignorant? the patchwork of laws that extend some
rights
to unmarried couples do not extend all rights.
you may not cover just any person you choose under your medical insurance.
people eligible to be covered by you are defined by law as family.
-- astri
Well, then, my insurance company and I must be operating
in violation of the law. My beneficiary is of no family relation
to me at all, but is still entitled to all benefits and has in fact
collected benefits. Why? Because I just happen to be the
one and only man responsible for paying the premiums,
not my employer or the government.
|
| |
| |
In article <8vq_b.78179$hR.1607742@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Caustic Soda" <metot@noneofyourbeeswax.org> wrote:
Well, that can be handled without a marriage if one would just
not federal income tax
|
| |
| |
"astri" <astri@lava.net> wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Caustic Soda wrote:
are you really that ignorant?
You had to ask? Dan Sempsey has been here putting on his one
man show: "Just How Ignorant Is It Possible To Be?" for most of
a year now, with complete success.
xanthian.
It doesn't hurt that he's also _stupid_ enough to think his vast
store of ignorance is something worth teaching.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
| |
| |
"astri" <astri@lava.net> wrote:
It doesn't hurt that he's also _stupid_ enough to think his vast
store of ignorance is something worth teaching.
There you go again. Unable to come up with a viable
answer to the facts I stated here, you slap your swollen,
chapped hands over your eyes and pretend not to see
the truth. Face it, Kook, if you are the party paying for
the insurance policy instead of mooching it from the
government, you can insure whomever or whatever
you choose. Calling me ignorant won't change that.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:00:39 GMT, "Caustic Soda"
<metot@noneofyourbeeswax.org>
Listen, Meat Head. I worked a single job for fourteen years and
never had any problems at all paying my bills, including the
additional insurance. I had also in the same period gathered up
quite a substantial savings account that can pay all of my bills
for well over a year without any job at all. I built my own safety
net. My second job is strictly for gathering more capital for
investment purposes. Either one of my two jobs alone is more
than adequate for paying my bills.
Ask me about my marketability and I'll be more than happy to
point out that my second employer did not even have a position
open when I arrived there. They had no intention of hiring
anybody until I showed up. Then, they MADE a position for me.
It's because I did not go in there whining about my "needs". I
went there telling them what I can DO for THEM.
So @$#*ing what? I work 1 job, get health benefits and still have
enough to invest and live on for well over a year if I didn't have a
paycheck at all.
An Employer is not a Santa Clause clone
Nor are employees slaves.
and must not be
expected to behave like one. Employers tend to pay people
what they are worth to them.
Which is generally what the market will bear. Most full-time employers
offer some form of health benefits.
So, what do you call "adequate"? Let's just give the lady who
folds sweaters at Wal-Mart $600,000 a month
If you consider folding sweaters "marketable skills" it's no wonder you
have to work 2 jobs.
and use the
insurance policy to cover everything from her children to her
thirty seven cats and her nine boy friends.
No employer's pocket is without a bottom. It has limits, just
as yours and mine do. An employer will either pay what he
can afford or just simply go out of business.
And an employer will either pay what the market will bear or he will
simply go out of business because noone will work for him.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:43:18 GMT, "Caustic Soda"
<metot@noneofyourbeeswax.org>
talking
have
Did you ever stop to consider that the employer is under no
legal or moral obligation to grant any insurance at all to the
workers?
Did you ever stop to consider that the employer had better provide a
competitive compensation package or he will not get decent employees?
Did you ever stop to think that trying to force him
to insure both his workers and their counterparts would
cause him to cut his business expenses by completely
eliminating the insurance benefits? That's right, Kiddo.
Insurance is a gift from the employer and if you sit and
whine for more instead of doing anything to deserve that
gift, he will resort to giving you nothing.
Of course, because I would go work for someone else.
I don't expect a paycheck after I quit.
He might even go
as far as to fire you and hand your job over to some guy in
China.
That's going to be one hell of a commute.
Calling me ignorant won't change the facts.
And the fact is......
you're ignorant.
|
| |
| |
In article <duvn30h68b1b7gobmetchhlaf66hvu0t0p@4ax.com>,
Mike Helm <mhelm@not.known> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:43:18 GMT, "Caustic Soda"
<metot@noneofyourbeeswax.org>
|
| |
| |
And an employer will either pay what the market will bear or he will
simply go out of business because noone will work for him.
So, why force the employer at all? That's what you are
essentially proposing - that an employer should be
forced by law to insure people when the market will
not bear it. And yes, I have insurance. It's comming
from only one of my employers because I did not
want insurance from the second.
|
| |
| |
In article <oaX_b.88622$hR.1791550@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Caustic Soda" <metot@noneofyourbeeswax.org> wrote:
So, why force the employer at all? That's what you are
because the alternative doesnt work
as has been shown by many decades of abusive employers
without any legal restraint
those who cant learn from history are forced to repeat it
poorly
essentially proposing - that an employer should be
forced by law to insure people when the market will
not bear it. And yes, I have insurance. It's comming
if insurers are not required to cover everyone
then they choose those that are profitable
and refuse to cover the rest
that leaves two alternatives
the uninsurable instead come into emergency rooms
where care is far more expensive
than if dealt with in a more routine and timely fashion
and this expense is resolved
by increasing insurance premiums for everyone else
or by requiring higher taxes
the other alternative is to let these people
die on the street
when insurers do cover everyone
the rates go up for everyone
but the overall cost is still less
and is more profitable for society as whole
|
| |
| |
"coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges" <mair_fheal@yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:mair_fheal-
because the alternative doesnt work
as has been shown by many decades of abusive employers
without any legal restraint
Since when does cost cutting to stay in business and keep
people employed constitute abuse? Employment is an
agreement between the employer and employee. If there
is any duress involved, such as what you are proposing,
then it is not an agreement, but a robbery. If the employer
chooses not to insure his employee's boy toy, but choses
to insure another employees wife, that is his decision
alone to make.
those who cant learn from history are forced to repeat it
poorly
if insurers are not required to cover everyone
then they choose those that are profitable
and refuse to cover the rest
That's called making a sound business decision.
that leaves two alternatives
the uninsurable instead come into emergency rooms
where care is far more expensive
than if dealt with in a more routine and timely fashion
and this expense is resolved
by increasing insurance premiums for everyone else
or by requiring higher taxes
Well, at least here in New Jersey, hospitals are required
by law to accept all patients regardless of inability to
pay. So, all the street bums and other low-lifes are now
using hospitals as free hotels and THAT is what is
driving up the cost of medical care. When I go to the
hospital, 90 percent of my bill is covering the cost of
nine street bums or other low-lifes who stay there for
nothing. Eliminate that requirement and watch how the
price will drop.
the other alternative is to let these people
die on the street
Some dead wood gets swept away and clears the path
for people who choose to be productive and EARN what
they get.
when insurers do cover everyone
the rates go up for everyone
but the overall cost is still less
and is more profitable for society as whole.
In what way?
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Caustic Soda wrote:
Since when does cost cutting to stay in business and keep
people employed constitute abuse?
triangle shirt factory
among many other examples contemporary to that
of course, the expectation that you would have any knowledge of 19th and
20th century american history is just about nil.
-- astri
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:43:36 -0500, astri wrote
(in message <Pine.BSI.4.58.0402251240420.4790@malasada.lava.net>):
triangle shirt factory
Triangle shirt factory. Sleeveless window. Born without eyes, yet with
eyebrows. Illogical defects. Checked by inspector number 37. Home, work,
home, work. Saving up for a vacation to Texas. Want to see the Houston
Illicit Tumour Museum.
Deliberate cancerous growth, concealed on the body for artistic reasons.
Armpit. Inside left nostril. Between toes. Under a permanently closed eyelid.
Inside a kidney. Judged by a team of former models. Perfection judging
imperfection. Who will be crowned this year's Best Concealed Tumour King and
Queen?
Break fluid leak. The bus rolls through the intersection. Stops on top of a
puppy. Why was the puppy in the intersection? Why did the break fluid leak?
Why did the bus stop on top of the puppy instead of rolling on?
The puppy is made entirely of tumours. The bus is made entirely of tumours.
The intersection is made entirely of tumours. All the people who saw the
accident are made entirely of tumours. A police officer writes this all down
in a tiny black notebook. His pen is a tumour.
Nik
http://www.nikart.ca
|
| |
| |
|
