Chik Fellatio

As Tigercat points out (I believe correctly) you can name anyone as beneficiary of life insurance. I meant health insurance, but worded it incorrectly.
Pyramider, My health plan does allow coverage of hetero SO. Kinda funny, but a buddy of mine was mad when the policy was changed (only a couple of years ago) to allow coverage of gay partners. My buddy was upset that he couldn't cover his girlfriend. It was explained to him that he COULD cover his gf, but that doing so would give her claim to common law marriage. Well, he decided not to cover her, and quickly got over his anger.
Here's my point: I don't agree with some of the tactics used, but I can't think of anything they want that others don't already take for granted. Whatever your feelings on gays might be, do you really want guvmint deciding how we should live our lives?

Now, I don't agree with their attacks on the Boy Scouts, but that a whole 'nother thread! Originally Posted by Stuck in the mud

Good post. I also have a bit of a problem with the Boy Scouts issue... But then again I think there are lots of 'Dan Cathys' in the Boy Scouts hierarchy who are abusing their positions to push a religious agenda that belongs in Church, not in the Boy Scouts. A topic for another thread...

L4L

Are you considered common law married? That is a stipulation in many of the hetero domestic partner insurance coverages. Check the small print ... you might be married.

Are you considered common law married? That is a stipulation in many of the hetero domestic partner insurance coverages. Check the small print ... you might be married. Originally Posted by pyramider

There is a new category for 'domestic partner' with a list of qualifications and obligations... that is what I am. We will be married some day so I don't worry about the fine print.

But that's not the point of this discussion.

Whatever LEGAL rights I have to be married, divorced, domestic partner, common law marriage, etc., the gay community only wants the same rights. Not more, not less.

You suggested that the gay community wants more than that. I believe you're wrong and you were just making a smart-assed comment, but I'm willing to be corrected because I'm not an expert in the gay community. I still await your next example... or a recognition that the gay community only wants what the hetero community has.

L4L

I made it a point to visit CFA on Wednesday and Friday of last week and make a purchase. (On Friday, they were actually out of some items I tried to purchase.) Did the same this week. It is not a matter of whether gay marriage is right or wrong. It is a matter whether anyone has a right to tell someone else what they are allowed to think and say.

CFA did NOT say we will discriminate. Did NOT say we will not hire gays.

What the mayors of those different cities said is that CFA, you do not have a freedom of speech and we will enforce your loss of that right by curtailing your ability to do business in our city.

Is this the 1920s? Is Prohibition coming back? Originally Posted by tigercat

Tigercat... I think you're a reasonably smart guy so this feedback comes with all due respect. I take the time and effort to respond because I think you're capable of reading and parsing what I write.

I think you missed the main point of the issue and by supporting CFA you are (possibly unwittingly) aligning yourself with the modern-day cross-burning pointy-hats. You're on the wrong side of history. You're on the side of the modern-day equivalent of 'don't let women vote' and 'don't let non-whites ride at the front of the bus'.

This is not about free speech. Dan Cathy can say whatever he wants about gay marriage and the mayors of Boston and Chicago can also say whatever they want about Dan Cathy and his business. As long as none of them confuse their opinions with LEGAL rights issues like employment practices, business licenses, etc., it's all just free speech. Right? Dan Cathy may affect his business and the mayors may affect their re-election prospects based on their statements, but that's how a free market works. Right? No problem so far.

However, as I've already stated, the evil root of this problem and the reason that Dan Cathy and his company have attracted so much attention is that Dan Cathy is not content with expressing his opinion. He puts his money where his mouth is and he contributes big $ to organizations that promote intolerance and fight to prevent the gay community from achieving equal rights. That is the crossing of the line between church and state, and anyone who supports CFA is therefore supporting that cause. It's anti-American.

Why the hell can't these religious groups just live and let live? Why can't they be happy living according to their beliefs? Why do they feel the need to oppress others who have different beliefs? This country was founded by brave people who were escaping oppression just like the kind that these religious zealots are trying to exert over America.

Happy Week-end.

L4L

You are SO right pyramider, but the gay community is not alone it seems there is a lot of groups wants special rights.

How is it in today's time's the minority wants and has more rights than the majority?

Example the pledge of allegiance at a ball game this has been going on for years and years, your in AMERICA if you don't want to say it then fine but some of us or still proud to be a AMERICAN and in this great county if you don't want to say it fine but please at least sit in your seat and STFU and let those of us that wants to say it or hear it have a moment of your silence. Originally Posted by Hobbyfun

If he is "SO right" then you won't have any problem telling us what 'special rights' the gay community wants. Right?

Please educate us all... c'mon, tell us what special rights the gay community wants. Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

(silence ... nothing but crickets ... chirp chirp chirp ... we're waiting Hobbyfun)

Dude, you are waiting, not we. Let the guy get back on the fucking board before you pull out the crickets gloss. Not everyone posts in the middle of the night.

There is a new category for 'domestic partner' with a list of qualifications and obligations... that is what I am. We will be married some day so I don't worry about the fine print.

But that's not the point of this discussion.

Whatever LEGAL rights I have to be married, divorced, domestic partner, common law marriage, etc., the gay community only wants the same rights. Not more, not less.

You suggested that the gay community wants more than that. I believe you're wrong and you were just making a smart-assed comment, but I'm willing to be corrected because I'm not an expert in the gay community. I still await your next example... or a recognition that the gay community only wants what the hetero community has.

L4L Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

If a minority group of any kind wants something that the majority does not have that does not mean equal rights, You need to read what you wrote. I have checked my company's policy ... gays can be covered, heteros cannot be covered ... that means the gays have more rights than the non gays. Please explain how that can be considered equal.

L4L, you asked why religious groups can't live and let live. I realize it was a rhetorical question, but I'll answer anyway: They can't because, just like the left in this country, they're operating under the notion that they know best; that left to their own devices, people are just too stupid to manage their own lives. (Me, I'd like to think they're both wrong... but some days I get a bit cynical too).

As far as this not being a free speech issue, I couldn't disagree more. The mayors weren't just expressing an opinion. They were making veiled threats that they would block CFA from their cities. Hell, In Chicago, it wasn't even veiled. No doubt about it, mayors and a lot of other folks have expressed quite a bit of "confusion" about upholding the first ammendment in the past few days. So when it comes to maintaining our cherished individual liberties, how can you be so willing bet on mayoral "clarity"?

Free market of elections? My ass. If that worked to protect us from guvmint, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

There used to be an old saying (i haven't heard it in years):
"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". That's exactly how I feel about CFA. I don't think I'm alone... but who knows?

Soooo.... when I'm protecting someone's "right to say it", do I have to wear a pointy hat?

Lust your right about the government does not need to be involved with so much of our lives but, for right now they are so we have to live in it. As for gays I do NOT have a problem with them I won't push my beliefs on you and I don't want them to push there beliefs on me.

As for the gov. I hate to say it but it is a necessary evil are none of us could live here.

As for CFA like I said he voiced his opinion and that is all and everybody has there panties in a wad over it.

My problem is he has the right to say what he wants period. As for the gay community and there is others that want to change a lot of things, the point is we need to be careful of what we say is acceptable and if we as a county start letting any and every group have what they deem acceptable were do we draw the line.

I am going to use a couple of examples, what if one day a group of people decides that for whatever reason they don't want there kids anymore so they shoot and kill them, they get put on trail and some shyster lawyer gets up there and argues the case and says judge and jury what this couple did was just abort there kids at age 5 or 6 years old, there is no difference than aborting at 2 or 6 mo. of a pregnancies and a dumbass jury buys it and lets them off. Then you will have a group of people get on a band wagon and the next thing you know they will be fighting for a law to be able to do that. You will be able to abort any of your kids up till the age of 18 because you are reasonable for them tell that age.

I know this will never happen but take a look at how fucked up this county is getting.I'm sure there is people that like to fuck farm animals what if there get together and start lobbing to make that legal are you just going to sit back and say well that's is there right or do you think you will stand up and say that is wrong and they should not do that.

If you do stand up and say either one of these is wrong then maybe you should rethink your position here. Because what gives you the right to say gay marriage is right and these other two examples are wrong.

I'm just saying look at what the gays had to put up with 50 years ago, I'm not saying gays are right or wrong all I'm saying is we need to rethink what we as a whole think is acceptable and what's not, I don't have the answers but you don't either all we have is two different opinions.


And as for the chirp chirp and pointed hat commit that was pretty stupid but after some of your other commits I would not expect anything else from you.
I will play along so I guess I am supposed to say ding ding your turn.

Lust your right about the government does not need to be involved with so much of our lives but, for right now they are so we have to live in it. As for gays I do NOT have a problem with them I won't push my beliefs on you and I don't want them to push there beliefs on me.

As for the gov. I hate to say it but it is a necessary evil are none of us could live here.

As for CFA like I said he voiced his opinion and that is all and everybody has there panties in a wad over it.

My problem is he has the right to say what he wants period. As for the gay community and there is others that want to change a lot of things, the point is we need to be careful of what we say is acceptable and if we as a county start letting any and every group have what they deem acceptable were do we draw the line.

I am going to use a couple of examples, what if one day a group of people decides that for whatever reason they don't want there kids anymore so they shoot and kill them, they get put on trail and some shyster lawyer gets up there and argues the case and says judge and jury what this couple did was just abort there kids at age 5 or 6 years old, there is no difference than aborting at 2 or 6 mo. of a pregnancies and a dumbass jury buys it and lets them off. Then you will have a group of people get on a band wagon and the next thing you know they will be fighting for a law to be able to do that. You will be able to abort any of your kids up till the age of 18 because you are reasonable for them tell that age.

I know this will never happen but take a look at how fucked up this county is getting.I'm sure there is people that like to fuck farm animals what if there get together and start lobbing to make that legal are you just going to sit back and say well that's is there right or do you think you will stand up and say that is wrong and they should not do that.

If you do stand up and say either one of these is wrong then maybe you should rethink your position here. Because what gives you the right to say gay marriage is right and these other two examples are wrong.

I'm just saying look at what the gays had to put up with 50 years ago, I'm not saying gays are right or wrong all I'm saying is we need to rethink what we as a whole think is acceptable and what's not, I don't have the answers but you don't either all we have is two different opinions.


And as for the chirp chirp and pointed hat commit that was pretty stupid but after some of your other commits I would not expect anything else from you.
I will play along so I guess I am supposed to say ding ding your turn. Originally Posted by Hobbyfun

Ok, SS... you and others have taken the time for thoughtful replies. I will do the same. Can't tonight but will in the next day or so.

Dude, you are waiting, not we. Let the guy get back on the fucking board before you pull out the crickets gloss. Not everyone posts in the middle of the night. Originally Posted by Boltfan

It was 1.5 days. In an active thread, I don't think of that as being impatient. Maybe it's just me.

L4L

L4L, you asked why religious groups can't live and let live. I realize it was a rhetorical question, but I'll answer anyway: They can't because, just like the left in this country, they're operating under the notion that they know best; that left to their own devices, people are just too stupid to manage their own lives. (Me, I'd like to think they're both wrong... but some days I get a bit cynical too).

As far as this not being a free speech issue, I couldn't disagree more. The mayors weren't just expressing an opinion. They were making veiled threats that they would block CFA from their cities. Hell, In Chicago, it wasn't even veiled. No doubt about it, mayors and a lot of other folks have expressed quite a bit of "confusion" about upholding the first ammendment in the past few days. So when it comes to maintaining our cherished individual liberties, how can you be so willing bet on mayoral "clarity"?

Free market of elections? My ass. If that worked to protect us from guvmint, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

There used to be an old saying (i haven't heard it in years):
"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". That's exactly how I feel about CFA. I don't think I'm alone... but who knows?

Soooo.... when I'm protecting someone's "right to say it", do I have to wear a pointy hat? Originally Posted by Stuck in the mud

Hey, Stuck-in-the-mud, we're not that far apart. I too will defend to the death Dan Cathy's right to say what he wants because that is the meaning of free speech. If Dan Cathy can't say what he wants, then maybe I can't either, and where would the world be without my opinions? OMG, what a nightmare scenario! ha ha ha

However... you knew it was coming... It's what Dan Cathy does behind the scenes that is anti-American and pointy-hatted. That's what most people don't understand and it is what came to light because of this big CFA fiasco. He is donating large sums of money (from the profits of CFA) to organizations that are working counter to the founding principles of this country (separation of church and state) that are actively pushing a religious anti-gay agenda with the state and federal legislative bodies. It's not enough for these people to have their own opinions, express them, and live their lives according to their values... they feel the need to push their views onto others and work to deprive people of different beliefs of equal rights. They share many common traits with the Taliban.

L4L

If a minority group of any kind wants something that the majority does not have that does not mean equal rights, You need to read what you wrote. I have checked my company's policy ... gays can be covered, heteros cannot be covered ... that means the gays have more rights than the non gays. Please explain how that can be considered equal. Originally Posted by pyramider

Pyramider, It's very hard to imagine any policy in Texas that provides better coverage for a same-sex domestic couple than for a hetero couple.

However, giving you the benefit of doubt, that is not an issue of rights, that is an issue with a private company and a private health plan. My own situation is evidence that there are other options available for both same-sex and hetero couples here in Texas.

The issue remains that hetero couples have more LEGAL rights than gay couples, and that's wrong. I've never met a gay person who felt that all marriages should be same-sex or that being straight was bad. What the hell is with these religious zealots who feel the need to force their beliefs on everyone else? They are the modern day equivalent of "women shouldn't vote" and "interracial marriages are unnatural".

L4L

Lust your right about the government does not need to be involved with so much of our lives but, for right now they are so we have to live in it. As for gays I do NOT have a problem with them I won't push my beliefs on you and I don't want them to push there beliefs on me.

As for the gov. I hate to say it but it is a necessary evil are none of us could live here.

As for CFA like I said he voiced his opinion and that is all and everybody has there panties in a wad over it.

My problem is he has the right to say what he wants period. As for the gay community and there is others that want to change a lot of things, the point is we need to be careful of what we say is acceptable and if we as a county start letting any and every group have what they deem acceptable were do we draw the line.

I am going to use a couple of examples, what if one day a group of people decides that for whatever reason they don't want there kids anymore so they shoot and kill them, they get put on trail and some shyster lawyer gets up there and argues the case and says judge and jury what this couple did was just abort there kids at age 5 or 6 years old, there is no difference than aborting at 2 or 6 mo. of a pregnancies and a dumbass jury buys it and lets them off. Then you will have a group of people get on a band wagon and the next thing you know they will be fighting for a law to be able to do that. You will be able to abort any of your kids up till the age of 18 because you are reasonable for them tell that age.

I know this will never happen but take a look at how fucked up this county is getting.I'm sure there is people that like to fuck farm animals what if there get together and start lobbing to make that legal are you just going to sit back and say well that's is there right or do you think you will stand up and say that is wrong and they should not do that.

If you do stand up and say either one of these is wrong then maybe you should rethink your position here. Because what gives you the right to say gay marriage is right and these other two examples are wrong.

I'm just saying look at what the gays had to put up with 50 years ago, I'm not saying gays are right or wrong all I'm saying is we need to rethink what we as a whole think is acceptable and what's not, I don't have the answers but you don't either all we have is two different opinions.


And as for the chirp chirp and pointed hat commit that was pretty stupid but after some of your other commits I would not expect anything else from you.
I will play along so I guess I am supposed to say ding ding your turn. Originally Posted by Hobbyfun

Ok, ding ding... my turn.

Please recognize that the gays are not pushing ANY beliefs on you but YOU and people who think like you ARE pushing beliefs on the gays and you are fighting hard to restrict their rights. Gay people do not care if you are straight. They do not care if you want to marry or lie with a man or a woman. So ask your self this – why do you want to deprive people who care about each other of the same rights that you have? That's the bottom line.

This country will wake up. Who here thinks that gays won't have full equality within a decade?

L4L

Its obvious that neither one of us is going to change our mind on this issue but I do have one my question for you. Are you a liberal and the reason I'm asking is because of your views on a lot of different subjects.

I think the main problem is liberals have the mentality like you have and CFA is conservative company and has a different mentality and needless to say I'm on the conservative side.