If you're not paranoid yet...

Hey! That's my line!!!

And my name! What are you doing to me!!!

David Erbas-White

The ones saying it's wrong. Same loons, different century.

I suppose all the racists and bigots think it's not.

Zooty

You obviously have no background in the medical field. These two sentences explain an awful lot about where you're coming from.

Zooty

In the Bizarro Superman's world, the Cubs already are the champs. ;)

David Erbas-White wrote in news:DKt%a.4021$nf3.173 @fed1read07:

Nothing that you haven't already done to yourself :-)

Ashcroft and Bush are the biggest threats we have to our liberties. Hardly liberals.

Bob Chmara

"RayDunak> Yep, just another typical liberal destruction of freedom.

What DO they teach in schools these days?

Common law marriages dates back to pre-colonial times in the United States, when preachers were "circuit riders" who came by each location once in a while. It's evolved into a system today where people are de facto married after living together for a certain period of time.

It's essentially awarded to people who have, in fact, taken on the responsibility.

Perhaps what we should not consider married couples to be married until they have demonstrated that they have taken on the responsibility.

Zooty

Well stated.

Randy

For someone who professes that the government has too much power, you're sure quick to want them to dig further into an employer's pockets for new healthcare benefits. Interesting philosophy you hold, Bob. Is there ANY consistency in your beliefs?

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

You left out one important detail. It has to be a heterosexual common law marriage. You conveniently forgot that stipulation.

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

Just as one can argue that the government has a compelling interest in affirmative action, it can also be argued that it has a compelling interest in preserving the traditional family structure. It has NO vested interest in preserving or encouraging the gay lifestyle.

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

OK Chris, let's extend your logic. Man and sheep want to get married. No deal. Is that discrimination, too? Or man and boy (or underage girl) want to get married. No deal. Is it also discrimination to not allow them to do so?

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

Point.

Exactly which 'gay lifestyle' are you referring to, Mark? You make it sound so monolithic.

There are as many 'gay' lifestyles as straight ones. You can see everything from very stable 2-parent families with several children through leather freaks through promiscuous people that sleep around through single-parent households through drag queens.

You'll find that the spectrum of 'gay lifestyles' runs about the same gamut as the various 'straight lifestyles' I mentioned in the paragraph above.

I'm not Bob, but I am the guy he agreed with, and I'm also somebody who wants much less government control over our lives. What I suggested before has nothing to do with the government digging into my employer's pockets (as if my employer weren't the government, but the point stands...); it has to do with trying to get the government out of the moral value judgement business. So if my employer has benefits that go to my spouse, then I get to decide who that is in any way that seems right to me. Nothing says my employer has to offer benefits to my spouse.

As with many reductio ad absurdem arguments, this is absurd. While I try not to be sexist or racist, I have no trouble at all with being specist. The sheep isn't a human, and has no use for the benefits. Likewise, the minor isn't an adult, and is entitled to legal protection.

Except what your using as an example is illegal(or should be).

It would be real interesting what the divorce rate would be among same sex marriages. I mean really, who really gives a crap if two of the same sex wants to get married?

Now the government using my scratch to fund such a thing......

:)

Ted Novak TRA#5512

Exactly!

Ted Novak TRA#5512

(I'll take this one, Mark)

Gay lifestyle, as it pertains here, means two men or two women electing to cohabit together and have sexual relations with each other. Period.

Everything else is superflous, and not relevant. Whether or not they're flaming queens, leather-types, or anything else has no bearing on this whatsoever.

I also don't quite understand what you mean by 'very stable 2-parent families with several children'. How can there by children if the individuals are gay? If they are gay, then having children and raising them in such a lifestyle household is not the norm by any stretch, so it could hardly be called stable, could it? I'm willing to admit that they might be more stable than an unstable heterosexual family, but ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, the fact that kids are being raised in a gay household is not adding to the children's stability, is it? Further, if the parents of the kids are not gay, but bisexual, then the lifestyle IS a choice for those individuals, isn't it? You know, there are plenty of things I did in my younger/wilder/single days, that I wouldn't dare do with my kids around now, because I believe it would set a bad example. If the bisexual individual has CHOSEN to follow a path that creates additional stress for their kids, well, they're pretty damn selfish, aren't they?

I once knew someone (male) who was married, with two kids. One day he announced that he was undergoing a sex change operation, got divorced, and the kids didn't know what the hell to do about it. Leaving all the details of the 'transition' aside (and there were many ), I don't know of a single individual, not one, who didn't feel that he was being completely selfish in regards to his kids. However, the vast majority of people, to his face, would talk to him about how happy they were for him, and how brave he was, and how supportive they felt for him. In large measure this was due to the fact that the company that this happened at made it very clear (and in so many words) that anybody who add a single negative thing to say would be fired, instantly, with no recourse. This is political correctness run absolutely amok.

David Erbas-White