wel will never. you have no RIGHT to place lines in the sand.
THAT is by definition INFRINGING on my or someone else rights and freedoms that otherwise DO NOT infringe on your rights or freedoms.
your DISLIKE of some lifestyle is YOUR problem and ONLY your problem and you have NO RIGHT to force your views onto others.
it SICKENS me that you think you DO have this right and that you see nothing wrong with it.
its called HYPOCROCY
IT you can not make that statement unless you define IT. since he said society I assume your IT means society. PLEASE show me how society loses (or even HAS to begin with) the ability to procreate.
It occurs in nature therefore it can NOT be unnatural. it can be "different" from what you consider normal or acceptable. you COULD legitimately say that. but you can NOT call it unnatural. since the only things unnatural are in FICTION.
desirable is relative. CLEARLY it is NOT desirable to the ones WANTING your so called unnatural marriage and THEY are the only ones for which it should COUNT.
it cheapens it for you ONLY because YOU do not like it. PERIOD.
what the hell is this crap ? GROUP is SOCIETY how can it be IN your definition of society. your saying you define society as society as society as society. hence why definitions are not allowed to be like that.
what you MEAN is YOUR commone norms and values that YOU find normal and acceptable.
Chris Taylor
Huh Yahh
Say it like it is
you are NOT using your brain.
a GAY PERSON IS NOT GOING TO MARRY THE OPPOSITE SEX
let me say this again.
A GAY PERSON IS NOT GOING TO MARRY THE OPPOSITE SEX>
can you say DUH they are GAY !!!!!!
therfore they will give or take NOTHING from your equation REGARDLESS of their legal status.
by BEING GAY they have ALREADY REMOVED THEMSELVES FROM YOUR RESOURCE POOL REGARDLESS OF THEIR LEGAL STATUS !!!
MY GOD MANY what is so HARD about that.
you make these statements as if CURRENTLY HETERO PEOPLE will BECOME GAY if it suddenly was legally noticed.
are you NUTS ? do you have a CLUE ??
yes. it is perfectly analogous to the BATF situation.
I thought I explained this already. ?You go right back up there and get me a toddler! I need a baby, Hi; they got more'n they can handle!?
Chris telling you to learn English is one of the funniest things I have ever read on RMR.
Yes. I am naming my next rocket ?Deviant Behavior? in honor of this thread.
I can't comment on the situation in SF or Venice since I don't have first-hand knowledge. I DO know that when I interviewed with Disney a few years ago I was told that so-called family benefits extended to commited gay couples or to heterosexual couples with no legal marriage but who were living together.
Benefits are not extended by employers to "send a message" or to "support the traditional family" or any of those reasons argued by either side of this debate. Rather, benefits are offered as part of a compensation package in order to attract and retain personnel with desired skills and abilities. When it becomes in the interest of the corporation to extend benefits to "non-traditional" groups, they will do so.
My own company offers a very generous health benefit package, which is one of the reasons I have not jumped ship in search of more lucrative offers. Right now I really need the health benefits. I would not consider employment at a company without the same health insurance.
There really is little if any legal compulsion for an employer to offer health benefits, or for that matter benefits of any kind. Many of my friends in the engineering profession are contractors who work out of consulting firms. They receive no health benefits of any kind and must purchase their own health insurance. The only compulsion any private firm has to offer health benefits is either contractual (if there is a union involved) or financial.
A firm does not exist to support the traditional nuclear family, to further public welfare, to enhance environmental quality, or any of the other things many people seem to think they must do. A firm is formed to do one thing and one thing only; to maximize value to its stockholders. It is immoral for a firm to perform any sort of social engineering that does not enhance value for its stockholders, in that it is using monies entrusted to it by the stockholders for purposes other than those it was intended. It is just as immoral for a private firm to further the agenda of the political right at the expense of its stockholders as it is to further the agenda of the political left.
So here is the bottom line. If it will make money for the stockholders, a company will offer benefits to gay couples. If it does not enhance the bottom line, a company will not offer benefits. It would do the same thing regarding our own traditional families.
Bill Sullivan
"It's dangerous to let an engineer get an MBA."
Mark Simpson wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net:
And what exactly does sexual preference have to do with morality, other than than the recurring assertion that one preference is moral and the other is immoral?
len.
You're wrong. Society sets standards of behavior all of the time. That's why flashing is illegal, for example.
There is no Federally recognized RIGHT today to be in a gay marriage. The statute doesn't exist and IMHO, it shouldn't.
It's not just MY problem. It also happens to be the opinion of the majority of Americans. Keep watching. I predict that "no gay marriage laws" will be hardwired into the Federal Code in the near future.
That's what being part of a society means, Chris. People get to decide for themselves what constitutes perversion and what's acceptable. If that doesn't jive with your opinion, then go to Europe. But, don't worry, we'll let you keep the skirt if you decide to stay. >;-)
No, it's called Hypocrisy. ;-)
Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers
Nary a thing, Tater.
Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers
So procreation is the only legitimate reason for marriage?
I have been married for 31 years to the same woman. We have no children. We have freely chosen a childfree life. And quite frankly, I am sick and tired of sanctimonious apologists for the reactionary right who feel free to pick my pocket in the form of tax credits and deductions "for our children" while righteously decrying the entitlement-minded liberals.
Oh, and you liberals, don't get all smug. I paint you with the same brush. You all whine and cry that it's "for the children" when in reality its all about lining your own pockets with the fruit of another's labor
You are a ALL entitlement minded. The only way you differ is that you think you have a more legitimate claim on somebody else's money than the other guy does.
I have to laugh when I hear people belittle the so-called liberals because they are "doing it for the children" and then turn around and mouth the same mantra as the liberals they so demonize to further their own agenda. Liberal? Conservative? Bull! I doubt either one of you would recognize a real liberal or a real conervative if one bit you on the ass.
My marriage, without children, is just as legitimate as yours. How DARE you claim the moral high ground because you have mastered a biological function a lab rat can perform? How DARE you call my loving and enduring marriage unnatural? It has lasted a HELL of a lot longer than many marriages with children. And I need not lean on the lame excuse that we are staying together for the sake of the children. We are together because we LOVE each other. I know this is a strange notion, but there are a lot of us out there. Loving, committed, childfree soulmates.
And no, we don't have any dogs or cats. But we have a lot of rockets.
If you wan't to flame me, just pick a number from the handy list I am including.
1.) Don't you know how much it costs to raise kids? 2.) You don't have any kids. How could you possibly understand? 3.) What kind of miserable kid-hating S.O.B are you? 4.) God will punish you! Just you wait! I know! Jerry Falwell told me! 5.) You're just bitter because you never had any kids. 6.) No kids? And you got married? (I get this a lot from "shotgun" couples.)I've heard it all before. Countless times.
Bill Sullivan Mad as Hell
This doesn?t stop, it just becomes wait till they are 2, you don?t have teenagers, blah blah blah.
You realize what a money making opportunity you have missed, don?t you?
RRRRRRRRRRRRRROTFWL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Randy
below
Snip mothing. Agree with everything. And I *DO* have a kid :) And lot's o rockets :)
That is tax motivated. A certain percentage of corporate budgets are aimed at philanthropic endeavors both for community feedback and tax issues.
Me included. I aimed at IEAS and the NAR lawsuit last year. Nest year is up to debate.
Unfortunately they still have tax obligations and community feedback.
I couldn't agree more. Shoot the engineers and go into production. I do not exaggerate end results.
Jerry
No, I recognized an oportunity to jerk you around :-)
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Sorry to burst your bubble but "cheapen" doesn't mean make less expensive in this instance. ;-)
Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers
that is WHY we have something called a constitution and bill of rights. to PREVENT people like YOU from getting majority and telling others what they can and can not do.
that was the PURPOSE of those documents. to PREVENT majority rules bullshit from occuring.
some things are fundimentally right and wrong. IE they are ALWAYS right or ALWAYS wrong. period.
majority rules in society to pressure one segment of society considered "abnormal" even though that segment has NO impact or effect except on your ego to the rest of soceity IS FUNDIMENTALLY WRONG.
it is NO different than being born black or female.
the ONLY reason you get the MOUTH off like you do in face of the fact that you are fundimentally WRONG is that the majority of society agree's with you.
the same as was allowed when the MAJORITY agreed with slavery.
that is the PROBLEM. THESE are the kinds of things laws are supposed to fix.
laws are not supposed to exist for EVERYTHING. laws are supposed to fix PROBLEMS.
in this case gay people are not the PROBLEM. YOU ARE (people who think like you) and THAT is what the LAW is supposed to fix. to prevent people like YOU from interjecting YOUR WILL on those who are unlike you.
law is NOT supposed to protect the majority. (they are by definition protected by themselves) laws are supposed to protect the MINORITIES that the majority will attempt to instill their morals onto.
Chris Taylor
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.