|
|
Post by Maxf1ex on Jun 4, 2009 18:21:04 GMT -8
So the people who have to live with it had no direct say in it, how sad. Well, in all honesty, this changes nothing. It's not going to adversely affect anyone, just positively affect the gays who wish to marry. What sort of negativity will come of a gay marriage in the state of New Hampshire. Bear in mind, too, that the state assemblies do represent the people. In a manner of speaking they do. But the people I vote for do not fully represent me in all things at all times (except by law). Which is why some things do need to be allowed to be voted on by the people. Oh, side not what it does changes (if not now, then later) is a business who opposes same sex couples and yet is now face with a choice of helping with insurance for married couples, or canceling the insurance altogether to avoid paying for something he does not, and will not support. |
|
|
|
Post by brad9883 on Jun 4, 2009 18:30:51 GMT -8
That would be illegal. Nobody should be denied services like insurance based on the superficial, including sexual orientation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxf1ex on Jun 5, 2009 2:58:24 GMT -8
That would be illegal. Nobody should be denied services like insurance based on the superficial, including sexual orientation. Me thinks you missed what I was saying, which is there is not a law saying a business has to grant insurance as a part of the benefits you received. Therefore a small business does have a choice. Meaning if the owner does not approve same sex couples and wishes not to support them in any way all he has to do is cut out the insurance benefits. |
|
joeyd
Republican
Not a Republican
10 percenter
Posts: 2,444
|
Post by joeyd on Jun 5, 2009 12:26:32 GMT -8
NH Governor John Lynch signed a bill into law yesterday that defines marriage as between man-woman, woman-woman, or man-man. It goes into effect on 1/1/2010. So he change the law (since he had to sign a bill to do this) to make something that was once unthinkable of to become a law. Hopefully the people of that state had the choice of voting on it or not. Freeing the slave and making the freedman a voting citizen were once "unthinkable" too. It took a war that killed almost 700,000 (mostly white) Americans to decide the issue. Remember how that one came out? The fags would rather do by legislation what took The North to do by 4 years of war and death and killing. Joe |
|
joeyd
Republican
Not a Republican
10 percenter
Posts: 2,444
|
Post by joeyd on Jun 5, 2009 12:32:20 GMT -8
Well, in all honesty, this changes nothing. It's not going to adversely affect anyone, just positively affect the gays who wish to marry. What sort of negativity will come of a gay marriage in the state of New Hampshire. Bear in mind, too, that the state assemblies do represent the people. In a manner of speaking they do. But the people I vote for do not fully represent me in all things at all times (except by law). Which is why some things do need to be allowed to be voted on by the people. Oh, side not what it does changes (if not now, then later) is a business who opposes same sex couples and yet is now face with a choice of helping with insurance for married couples, or canceling the insurance altogether to avoid paying for something he does not, and will not support. "Some things" need to be voted on by the people?  What things? Just the ones you say? Just the ones you have a beef with? Like I said in an earlier post, if you want a referendum on "some" issues, you must have a referendum on them all, including whether the dog tag license fee in your county or state should be raised $2. You want to waste your time on that stuff? Joe |
|
joeyd
Republican
Not a Republican
10 percenter
Posts: 2,444
|
Post by joeyd on Jun 5, 2009 12:35:49 GMT -8
That would be illegal. Nobody should be denied services like insurance based on the superficial, including sexual orientation. Me thinks you missed what I was saying, which is there is not a law saying a business has to grant insurance as a part of the benefits you received. Therefore a small business does have a choice. Meaning if the owner does not approve same sex couples and wishes not to support them in any way all he has to do is cut out the insurance benefits. BY LAW, (you know what the law is max)? if said employer cuts out health insurance for the gay couples, he must cut them out for everyone. You want to cut off your nose to smite your face, fine. Joe |
|
|
|
Post by Maxf1ex on Jun 5, 2009 13:41:11 GMT -8
So he change the law (since he had to sign a bill to do this) to make something that was once unthinkable of to become a law. Hopefully the people of that state had the choice of voting on it or not. Freeing the slave and making the freedman a voting citizen were once "unthinkable" too. It took a war that killed almost 700,000 (mostly white) Americans to decide the issue. Remember how that one came out? The fags would rather do by legislation what took The North to do by 4 years of war and death and killing. Joe I do not see where slavery and being a homosexual are alike? Or are you trying to say all slaves are/were homosexual? |
|
|
|
Post by Maxf1ex on Jun 5, 2009 13:43:59 GMT -8
In a manner of speaking they do. But the people I vote for do not fully represent me in all things at all times (except by law). Which is why some things do need to be allowed to be voted on by the people. Oh, side not what it does changes (if not now, then later) is a business who opposes same sex couples and yet is now face with a choice of helping with insurance for married couples, or canceling the insurance altogether to avoid paying for something he does not, and will not support. "Some things" need to be voted on by the people? What things? Just the ones you say? Just the ones you have a beef with? Like I said in an earlier post, if you want a referendum on "some" issues, you must have a referendum on them all, including whether the dog tag license fee in your county or state should be raised $2. You want to waste your time on that stuff? Joe To a point I agree that when it comes to taxes, the average American needs more say in the matter. And when it comes to matters with strong feelings about them, then a vote by the people is in order. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxf1ex on Jun 5, 2009 13:49:20 GMT -8
Me thinks you missed what I was saying, which is there is not a law saying a business has to grant insurance as a part of the benefits you received. Therefore a small business does have a choice. Meaning if the owner does not approve same sex couples and wishes not to support them in any way all he has to do is cut out the insurance benefits. BY LAW, (you know what the law is max)? if said employer cuts out health insurance for the gay couples, he must cut them out for everyone. You want to cut off your nose to smite your face, fine. Joe Me thinks you too did not get it. At lest not fully at any rate. For that is just what would happen if/when the government grants homosexuals all the rights and privileges of marriage. More companies will stop having insurance as a benefit. If for no other reason then to avoid lawsuits. Company family get together will also become a thing of the past (it has where I work) due to strong feelings about what the family's with kids think is suitable for there kids to witness. |
|
joeyd
Republican
Not a Republican
10 percenter
Posts: 2,444
|
Post by joeyd on Jun 6, 2009 6:20:36 GMT -8
Freeing the slave and making the freedman a voting citizen were once "unthinkable" too. It took a war that killed almost 700,000 (mostly white) Americans to decide the issue. Remember how that one came out? The fags would rather do by legislation what took The North to do by 4 years of war and death and killing. Joe I do not see where slavery and being a homosexual are alike? Or are you trying to say all slaves are/were homosexual? No. What I was trying to point out by comparison is that what was "unthinkable" yesterday is old news today. Joe |
|
joeyd
Republican
Not a Republican
10 percenter
Posts: 2,444
|
Post by joeyd on Jun 6, 2009 6:22:03 GMT -8
BY LAW, (you know what the law is max)? if said employer cuts out health insurance for the gay couples, he must cut them out for everyone. You want to cut off your nose to smite your face, fine. Joe Me thinks you too did not get it. At lest not fully at any rate. For that is just what would happen if/when the government grants homosexuals all the rights and privileges of marriage. More companies will stop having insurance as a benefit. If for no other reason then to avoid lawsuits. Company family get together will also become a thing of the past (it has where I work) due to strong feelings about what the family's with kids think is suitable for there kids to witness. I'm sure the World will continue to spin without yearly Company Picnics.  Joe |
|
|
|
Post by Maxf1ex on Jun 6, 2009 12:53:26 GMT -8
I do not see where slavery and being a homosexual are alike? Or are you trying to say all slaves are/were homosexual? No. What I was trying to point out by comparison is that what was "unthinkable" yesterday is old news today. Joe So why do some homosexuals claim they are having to fight for there rights as the blacks did?  |
|
|
|
Post by Maxf1ex on Jun 6, 2009 12:55:53 GMT -8
Me thinks you too did not get it. At lest not fully at any rate. For that is just what would happen if/when the government grants homosexuals all the rights and privileges of marriage. More companies will stop having insurance as a benefit. If for no other reason then to avoid lawsuits. Company family get together will also become a thing of the past (it has where I work) due to strong feelings about what the family's with kids think is suitable for there kids to witness. I'm sure the World will continue to spin without yearly Company Picnics. Joe And yet it was a change help brought about by demands of homosexuals. To me it is a good thing, never much cared for company parties. But I know some of my co-workers do. |
|
joeyd
Republican
Not a Republican
10 percenter
Posts: 2,444
|
Post by joeyd on Jun 6, 2009 15:11:18 GMT -8
No. What I was trying to point out by comparison is that what was "unthinkable" yesterday is old news today. Joe So why do some homosexuals claim they are having to fight for there rights as the blacks did? Some do use this line of reasoning. They are generally wrong, only because they are not a "visible minority" (in most cases anyways ;D). Many blacks feel very uncomfortable with the gay crowd somehow trying to equate and hijack the 1865-1960s black fight for equal rights (literal and figurative) with the gay 'fight" today, and I think there is justification in that. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, if you were an openly gay person, many, many professions were simply closed to you, teaching and the military being among the most glaring examples. That is not the case today. This is progress. No teacher can ever teach a kid to be gay, no gay teacher would attempt to teach a kid to be gay, even if were possible. He or she can teach tolerance for other lifestyles that are within the law. But back to the gays' "fight". I frankly think it is overblown, and the civil union part (not marriage ), max, try to get that around your brain, is a State issue, just like Obama and many Republicans think. Prop. 8 was defeated in Californiastan. You have many thousands of mad fruits contemplating a move en toto to a state that has no problem with gay civil unions---Iowa, Vermontistan, etc. California will be the poorer for it though, gay couples, especially males ones, are disproprtionately professionals with a good deal of coin and a good skill set to boot. Cali. doesn't want them, other states will gladly take them and their tax money. Joe |
|
|
|
Post by Douglass on Jun 6, 2009 17:13:50 GMT -8
So why do some homosexuals claim they are having to fight for there rights as the blacks did? Some do use this line of reasoning. They are generally wrong, only because they are not a "visible minority" (in most cases anyways ;D). Many blacks feel very uncomfortable with the gay crowd somehow trying to equate and hijack the 1865-1960s black fight for equal rights (literal and figurative) with the gay 'fight" today, and I think there is justification in that. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, if you were an openly gay person, many, many professions were simply closed to you, teaching and the military being among the most glaring examples. That is not the case today. This is progress. No teacher can ever teach a kid to be gay, no gay teacher would attempt to teach a kid to be gay, even if were possible. He or she can teach tolerance for other lifestyles that are within the law. But back to the gays' "fight". I frankly think it is overblown, and the civil union part (not marriage ), max, try to get that around your brain, is a State issue, just like Obama and many Republicans think. Prop. 8 was defeated in Californiastan. You have many thousands of mad fruits contemplating a move en toto to a state that has no problem with gay civil unions---Iowa, Vermontistan, etc. California will be the poorer for it though, gay couples, especially males ones, are disproprtionately professionals with a good deal of coin and a good skill set to boot. Cali. doesn't want them, other states will gladly take them and their tax money. Joe California allows civil unions gave them the same right as marriages. that wasnt good enough |
|
What things? Just the ones you say? Just the ones you have a beef with? Like I said in an earlier post, if you want a referendum on "some" issues, you must have a referendum on them all, including whether the dog tag license fee in your county or state should be raised $2. You want to waste your time on that stuff?
