Come watch crybabies cry about gay rights!

ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
There are certain things that require legal recognition, like visitation rights if one of them gets sick and has to stay at the hospital
Click to expand...
I hear this a lot but as a traveler I've never worked at a hospital that didn't allow a "lifelong partner" visitation. I've worked in over 20.

If you searched and could find an outlier, I bet I can also find a live-in hetero couple with the same experience. Fuck those hospitals that are so by the book, I've never worked for one and never will. They are the exception not the rule.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
I hear this a lot but as a traveler I've never worked at a hospital that didn't allow a "lifelong partner" visitation. I've worked in over 20.

If you searched and could find an outlier, I bet I can also find a live-in hetero couple with the same experience. Fuck those hospitals that are so by the book, I've never worked for one and never will. They are the exception not the rule.
Click to expand...
That's not the point, total equality is the point. You want to go have a civil marriage with someone without state recognition, go right ahead, some people don't, and some of them happen to be gay. They should have the exact same opportunity that I have to marry whoever they want. This "one man and one woman" excuse that I keep hearing is nonsense. The one and only reason a person might have to legally prevent a gay couple from marrying is based in religion, and in this country, my civil rights trump all religious rights.
 
OddBall1st

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
If a gay couple has kids, they should enjoy equal benefits a straight couple enjoy. Not sure why @OddBall1st would be against that
Click to expand...

Now I realize you cannot have anyone disagree with you on a subject without showing anger,...so I`ll go straight to it.

They did not do the same thing to obtain a child. Your suggestion opens the door to corruption and misuse. If you are unable to bare a child, even for non gays, you take someone else`s child into your own care. That`s a whole different responsibility. I do not want mom`s name being Pyrex as an option to keep human survival as a spices. The small number of medical reasons people can`t have children is enough to make exception to the rule, a whole different culture introduced cannot be exception to the rule.

Being Gay is proven to be more a nuisance than Progress......

You don`t need to put that "....a" ....thingy next to my callsign, I think I`m the only OddBall1st here....
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
That's not the point, total equality is the point. You want to go have a civil marriage with someone without state recognition, go right ahead, some people don't, and some of them happen to be gay. They should have the exact same opportunity that I have to marry whoever they want. This "one man and one woman" excuse that I keep hearing is nonsense. The one and only reason a person might have to legally prevent a gay couple from marrying is based in religion, and in this country, my civil rights trump all religious rights.
Click to expand...
Yep, there is no total equality in our tax code, but progressives and a lot of conservatives for the most part prefer it this way. I don't think it's fair that you pay a much higher rate than a person with 3 kids pay when they are the ones who enjoy things like school that you without children get to enjoy. You actually subsidize more of their children's education through taxes than they do, that doesn't seem fair to me either.

At some point, gay marriage will be universally recognized, it's inevitable and I'm with you that it needs to hurry up and get here. I agree with Obama though that it's a state's issue as the states are the ones that issue marriage licenses. The hospital right you used is a potential problem that to my knowledge doesn't happen any more to gay couples than hetero non-married couples. Just pointing that out. The nurse that wouldn't allow that needs to find another job.
 
OddBall1st

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Are you against straight couples adopting and receiving equal benefits and tax incentives?

"They did not do the same thing to obtain a child" either

Show me that hypocrisy
Click to expand...

Yes, they too are delt a bad hand and must draw from the deck. I think I stated that in my last post and you did not see it. That`s why this question was asked,.....you don`t read thoroughly.

Look for hypocriscy and if you can`t find it, re-define it and post away........Your challenging question with a crib note ending, is enough to define you. See my intro in my last post........
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
OddBall1st said:
Yes, they too are delt a bad hand and must draw from the deck.
Click to expand...
Can you answer why you believe two people should have to have sex to enjoy benefits?

I can't comprehend why you use having sex as a basis for equality. That's just as dumb as using eye color or skin color as a basis for equality.

If you want to know what I really think, I think you simply don't like gay people or find their lifestyle to be inappropriate, so you came up with an arbitrary reason to deny equal rights, even if it means some straight people go down with it. It has nothing to do with being able to create a child.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
Compare what you pay in taxes to what a married person with 3 children pay. Those incentives. It's just part of the social engineering of our tax code. Up until this point, the government didn't want to incentivize gay marriage. Now they are starting to realize (about a decade or two behind the majority of society) that social engineering at the price of equality is wrong. People are also starting to realize that gay marriage isn't the downfall of society it was once thought to be when these incentives were first offered.
Click to expand...
social engineering!

reported as spam.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
I hear this a lot but as a traveler I've never worked at a hospital that didn't allow a "lifelong partner" visitation. I've worked in over 20.
Click to expand...
probably kinda like how your hero rawn pawl has never heard of a pregnancy threatening the life of a woman.
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
probably kinda like how your hero rawn pawl has never heard of a pregnancy threatening the life of a woman.
Click to expand...
You are one strange dude. Sometimes I think it's just an act you do to amuse yourself, but for the most part, I think this is who you truly are.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
I agree with Obama though that it's a state's issue as the states are the ones that issue marriage licenses.
Click to expand...
"Ultimately, I think the Equal Protection Clause does guarantee same-sex marriage in all fifty states" - president barack obama

so which state, in your estimation, is not bound by the equal protection clause, ginwillemina?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
You are one strange dude. Sometimes I think it's just an act you do to amuse yourself, but for the most part, I think this is who you truly are.
Click to expand...
you are aware that i could google and in about 0.006 seconds have over a 256,000 results for hospitals deying visitation rights to same sex couples, right?

your anecdotal experience means piss all, and your posts on a website are not credible given how much you lie.
 
OddBall1st

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
then why do many of the veterans who are being denied benefits have children, klanman?
Click to expand...

Be more clear, The gay one`s after birthing or the guys that fuck their wives ? I`m not as up to date as you on how difficult it is for a man and his wife with kids to get the benefits, in the service you can be denied for infractions and they must follow the book as it is written.

Other than that, you totally misunderstood that post cuz your question has no relative significance.

You stuck on the name calling level again,.....take the stairs.....
 
OddBall1st

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
Compare what you pay in taxes to what a married person with 3 children pay. Those incentives. It's just part of the social engineering of our tax code. Up until this point, the government didn't want to incentivize gay marriage. Now they are starting to realize (about a decade or two behind the majority of society) that social engineering at the price of equality is wrong. People are also starting to realize that gay marriage isn't the downfall of society it was once thought to be when these incentives were first offered.
Click to expand...


Watch this,...

....People are starting to realize that equality is not the actual price being paid. Buck and Paddy are still in the cave, I`ll be out soon, they wont. Not even close to equal.....I treat my car and my boat differently because they have similarities but are not equal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top