This isn't true at all. You don't have to broadcast your sexuality in order for your same sex partner to not get health insurance.
First of all this is changing, even without homosexual marriage. It would change with civil unions. It is also changing at the request of cohabitating heterosexual couples.
My own married partner isn't guaranteed health insurance. I do have the option of putting her on my plan but I must pay to do so. If I didn't have the money, she wouldn't have the health insurance.
The issue of health insurance affects everyone, not just homosexual couples.
As a native-born Texan, I 100% support Pflamm's characterization of this backwards, Jesus-freak encrusted, hateful former-slave state. There is nothing socially redeeming about Texas, or the South at large. A haven of hatred and prejudice, all wrapped up in the leather cover of a Bible.
You are a sad, hateful man. When you keep sending out so much hate, I'm not surprised that plenty of it keeps coming back to you. We all reap what we sow and you sow plenty of hate.
Since you so liken the homosexual rights debate to civil rights, perhaps you can follow the advice of Dr. King.
Quote:
?To develop a sense of black consciousness and peoplehood does not require that we scorn the white race as a whole. It is not the race per se that we fight but the policies and ideology that leaders of that race have formulated to perpetuate oppression.?
Fellowship is a white, male, heterosexual Christian living in Texas. You and Pfflam have projected nothing but hate at what you perceive him to be. You've not directed the hate directly at him, just at what he happens to be.
You should choose to hate the people directly oppressing you, not some stereotype. Additionally, you shouldn't hate at all since that will just justify their reasoning. You must find a way to love them.
Texas is fine. The only reason to get pissed about how conservative it is would be a childish desire to make everyone agree with you or else deem them lesser.
TSo that is an awful lot of civil disobedience I endorse. What I don't endorse is government ignoring it's own laws. That sets a very bad precident in my opinion.
As a native-born Texan, I 100% support Pflamm's characterization of this backwards, Jesus-freak encrusted, hateful former-slave state. There is nothing socially redeeming about Texas, or the South at large. A haven of hatred and prejudice, all wrapped up in the leather cover of a Bible.
Kirkland, i would avoid blanket statements like that even if the mojority of texans are ignorant and hateful in this regard. just about everyone i know and work with here in dallas are very open/excepting/tolerant of the gay community, especially towards this particular issue. not everyone's a redneck.
Texas is fine. The only reason to get pissed about how conservative it is would be a childish desire to make everyone agree with you or else deem them lesser.
Yes, how dare I expect to be treated equally under the law. Or to not have the religious mores of fundamentalist nonsense sects used as reasons to keep folks such as myself in a limbo of second-class citizenship.
Just like childish Rosa Parks who wanted to sit in the front of a bus.
I hope you can refrain from this style of posting.
Fellows
hey, Trumptman brought up the idea of taking on an accent
Sure its over-the top
But then again he was also the one who called the state of Texas "intolerant" I am illustrating that if it is true that it is intolerant then there may be a reason that there seem to be fewer Hate crimes there
For instance there are probably fewerr hate crimes in Wyoming per capita now because I am sure that either gay people keep it quiet or they move the heck away as fast as possible . . . perhaps to climes that they imagine will be more supportive
My Ex-girlfriend has cousins in Texas and they sit around the dinner table and grill her on what it is like to live in "Soddom" where they literally expect it to go up in God-blessed flames of judgement anyday now
and guess what, they think that it would be the right thing . . . THEY WANT IT TO HAPPEN!!
I might sound biggotted to think the following, but I don't think that her cousins are that out of the ordinary for Texas
BTW, she ended up living there (outside of Denton) for three years while she went to music school, and felt, in her words, as if she was "living on Mars where there isn't a person that I could simply talk to for hundreds of miles around", you see, she is a practicing Buddhist . . . she would probably get rocks thrown at her if she let it be known too (as happened to another Buddhist friend who briefly lived in Mossourri - -rocks thrown at her house, everyday until she moved, after she talked about her beliefs to a person in the public library) . . . (which may speak more aout her than Texas though)
By the way Trumpt: could you please explain your post about your kids . . . it makes no sense to me at all>>> what is this about prodding and homophobia?
And the glassy stares of lovin are from other people not my kid . . . besides that whole post was just a joke . . . I thought it was obviouse . . .
The timing on this is so horrible... its going to make conservative voters come out in throngs... whether its wrong or right, laws are enacted by the majority.
The timing on this is so horrible... its going to make conservative voters come out in throngs... whether its wrong or right, laws are enacted by the majority.
I dissagree . .
I worked out at the local WMCA today . . and there were a bunch of stodgy old men . . I mean OLD . .. obviouse WW2 vets . . some even had their old Marine Tattoos . . . and they werre talking about it and all of them were saying: let em do it, it aint hurtin nobody
I think when Grover originally said that this would bite back for Bush in the election I think that he was right . . . I think more people than might expect are thinking: "SO WHAT?! who does it hurt?"
Kirkland dude you have texas all wrong.. its a fairly democratic state... first female gov, one fo the longest held quorum democratically. Tho right now yeah its a little wierd, its not at all what you say it is, nor was it ever. Except maybe East Texas jk
If you consider Matthew Shepard to be convincing or even a trend you are wrong.
I could be beat down by a couple of men tomorrow. They could cruelly beat me to death for whatever hateful reasons they care to conjure. The difference is my death wouldn't be front page news because I happen to be a white heterosexual male.
There are people killed everyday for all sorts of reasons. In fact take a look at this FBI Hate Crime Report. It shows that more hate crimes for anti-white than for homosexuals. It also shows many more crimes both for race and religion.
A whole lot of those crimes go unreported or don't necessarily get classified as hate crimes.
Beating up gays is a hobby to large groups of people, including Texas (violence in the 90's around montrose & westheimer, for instance).
BTW: you can't trust crime stats at all, especially ones from big cities.
Kirkland dude you have texas all wrong.. its a fairly democratic state... first female gov, one fo the longest held quorum democratically. Tho right now yeah its a little wierd, its not at all what you say it is, nor was it ever. Except maybe East Texas jk
Texas is a Republican state, and trending both more Republican and further to the right. Richards was the last gasp of a moderately Democratic electorate which has since collapsed into right-wing fanaticism, sending folks like John Cornyn and Pete Sessions to Washington as homegrown politicos viciously redraw the lines to deny even majority-Democratic areas a Congressional voice.
I think when Grover originally said that this would bite back for Bush in the election I think that he was right
When I say it, lay the house down on a wager, baby! ;-)
We know what happens to conservatives who oppose civil rights. I wonder if Karl Rove and Co know this issue is a loser for the conservatives and if this is why there has been a deafening silence from the White House with regard to the SanFran marriages.
I'm Hetero and married (...happily waiting for a mini-me ;-)
I fully support Gay Marriage.
Marriage is about Love, and should not be a privilege.
For centuries, homosexuality was ignored. Now that it's fully recognised, there is not ANY reason to refuse the best to two person who love each other.
Next step is adoption. (which is also something that's all about love ;-)
In Europe, and particularly in France we have 'PACS' (there's already a thread about that). A civil union that gives any couple, Gay and Heteros the same civil (and fiscal) rights. It's a first step, and it's a huge success here ;-)
First of all this is changing, even without homosexual marriage. It would change with civil unions. It is also changing at the request of cohabitating heterosexual couples.
My own married partner isn't guaranteed health insurance. I do have the option of putting her on my plan but I must pay to do so. If I didn't have the money, she wouldn't have the health insurance.
The issue of health insurance affects everyone, not just homosexual couples.
Nick
But it's an option for heterosexuals, not homosexuals. This issue doesn't affect everyone equally and as long as businesses can decide they'll offer care for marriages and not civil unions it will continue to be an equal rights issue.
Even if "civil unions" and "marriages" are recognized uniformily by everyone it will be a civil rights issue, because creating a new institution called "civil union" relegates homosexuals to second-class citizenship. Separate is inherently unequal.
Fellowship is a white, male, heterosexual Christian living in Texas. You and Pfflam have projected nothing but hate at what you perceive him to be. You've not directed the hate directly at him, just at what he happens to be.Nick
BTW, that is absurd . . . I feel warm good feelings for Fellowship . . .he started out on these boards as a punching bag but ended up showing people that he is genuine, warm and good hearted
He also has opened up some since coming aboard, and, well, geez, I like the guy
Now this stereotype was just that, and it should be obviouse . . . if it isn't then maybe you harbor fears of its truth
but, cliches become cliches not because they pinpoint a truth but because they are a form of simplifying a common predjudice
Some predjudices come about because of the repetition of the reality of the issue in question . . . others grow out of ulterior motives (most hate based predjudices are the latter)
Anyway . . . I would bet that my stereotyping is a little of both instances: "intolerance" repeated throughout history forming a stereotype of the Texas redneck pick-up truck driver who drags African Americans around for fun, and, a little redneck bashing based on my sinful bigotry . . .
now of course Texas is not all rednecks . . . . and that is obviouse as well . . .. heck, Hiouston even has an up-and coming art scene . . . with real artists, not just a Thomas Kincaid Gallery in the mall . . pompous arse smirck worthy of a smack
Even if "civil unions" and "marriages" are recognized uniformily by everyone it will be a civil rights issue, because creating a new institution called "civil union" relegates homosexuals to second-class citizenship. Separate is inherently unequal.
ok, i haven't read all three pages, but i throw my thoughts in (you are welcome to ignore or discount them as you see fit)...
first the background...white male, married 19 years in june, i have no homosexuals in my family but i do have many homosexual friends that i love dearly...they are warm and kind and gentle and loving people (which are terms i would also use to describe my many heterosexual friends also)...so i wish nothing but good things for them and to be treated in kind and gentle and loving and fair minded ways...i wish them anything they want...
but i am also 42 years old and i thought i would never see civil unions allowed, so i was thinking, "dang, that is great, they can have civil unions, they can have them in church and they can tell everyone they are married...in a few years nobody will be able to tell the difference between marriage and civil unions and that will be great"
but the more i thought about it the more i don't agree...i can't see where "separate but equal" is doable...and i can't see why we need two laws to perform the same function...
so perhaps someone can help me understand "separate but equal"...do we have that anywhere today in society?? have we ever had that anywhere in history??
untill someone can explain it to me better i would have to say that i can not as an american except "separate but equal"
so please send me the examples, because i can't think of any...
g
the closest i can get is rosa parks and the bus...but that wasn't equal...whites could go to the back if they wanted...and it wouldn't be equal if the front seats were better maintained etc
men's bathrooms and women's bathrooms don't work...they are separate but different....i can't go into a woman's room and use the urinal, a woman can't go into a men's room and use the tampon machine, etc
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
This isn't true at all. You don't have to broadcast your sexuality in order for your same sex partner to not get health insurance.
First of all this is changing, even without homosexual marriage. It would change with civil unions. It is also changing at the request of cohabitating heterosexual couples.
My own married partner isn't guaranteed health insurance. I do have the option of putting her on my plan but I must pay to do so. If I didn't have the money, she wouldn't have the health insurance.
The issue of health insurance affects everyone, not just homosexual couples.
Nick
Originally posted by Kirkland
As a native-born Texan, I 100% support Pflamm's characterization of this backwards, Jesus-freak encrusted, hateful former-slave state. There is nothing socially redeeming about Texas, or the South at large. A haven of hatred and prejudice, all wrapped up in the leather cover of a Bible.
You are a sad, hateful man. When you keep sending out so much hate, I'm not surprised that plenty of it keeps coming back to you. We all reap what we sow and you sow plenty of hate.
Since you so liken the homosexual rights debate to civil rights, perhaps you can follow the advice of Dr. King.
?To develop a sense of black consciousness and peoplehood does not require that we scorn the white race as a whole. It is not the race per se that we fight but the policies and ideology that leaders of that race have formulated to perpetuate oppression.?
Fellowship is a white, male, heterosexual Christian living in Texas. You and Pfflam have projected nothing but hate at what you perceive him to be. You've not directed the hate directly at him, just at what he happens to be.
You should choose to hate the people directly oppressing you, not some stereotype. Additionally, you shouldn't hate at all since that will just justify their reasoning. You must find a way to love them.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
TSo that is an awful lot of civil disobedience I endorse. What I don't endorse is government ignoring it's own laws. That sets a very bad precident in my opinion.
Nick
Guantanamo Bay.
Originally posted by Kirkland
As a native-born Texan, I 100% support Pflamm's characterization of this backwards, Jesus-freak encrusted, hateful former-slave state. There is nothing socially redeeming about Texas, or the South at large. A haven of hatred and prejudice, all wrapped up in the leather cover of a Bible.
Kirkland, i would avoid blanket statements like that even if the mojority of texans are ignorant and hateful in this regard. just about everyone i know and work with here in dallas are very open/excepting/tolerant of the gay community, especially towards this particular issue. not everyone's a redneck.
Originally posted by groverat
Texas is fine. The only reason to get pissed about how conservative it is would be a childish desire to make everyone agree with you or else deem them lesser.
Yes, how dare I expect to be treated equally under the law. Or to not have the religious mores of fundamentalist nonsense sects used as reasons to keep folks such as myself in a limbo of second-class citizenship.
Just like childish Rosa Parks who wanted to sit in the front of a bus.
Originally posted by Fellowship
This is a truly bigoted post pfflam
As a native Texan I do take offense to this.
I hope you can refrain from this style of posting.
Fellows
hey, Trumptman brought up the idea of taking on an accent
Sure its over-the top
But then again he was also the one who called the state of Texas "intolerant" I am illustrating that if it is true that it is intolerant then there may be a reason that there seem to be fewer Hate crimes there
For instance there are probably fewerr hate crimes in Wyoming per capita now because I am sure that either gay people keep it quiet or they move the heck away as fast as possible . . . perhaps to climes that they imagine will be more supportive
My Ex-girlfriend has cousins in Texas and they sit around the dinner table and grill her on what it is like to live in "Soddom" where they literally expect it to go up in God-blessed flames of judgement anyday now
and guess what, they think that it would be the right thing . . . THEY WANT IT TO HAPPEN!!
I might sound biggotted to think the following, but I don't think that her cousins are that out of the ordinary for Texas
BTW, she ended up living there (outside of Denton) for three years while she went to music school, and felt, in her words, as if she was "living on Mars where there isn't a person that I could simply talk to for hundreds of miles around", you see, she is a practicing Buddhist . . . she would probably get rocks thrown at her if she let it be known too (as happened to another Buddhist friend who briefly lived in Mossourri - -rocks thrown at her house, everyday until she moved, after she talked about her beliefs to a person in the public library) . . . (which may speak more aout her than Texas though)
By the way Trumpt: could you please explain your post about your kids . . . it makes no sense to me at all>>> what is this about prodding and homophobia?
And the glassy stares of lovin are from other people not my kid . . . besides that whole post was just a joke . . . I thought it was obviouse . . .
Originally posted by kraig911
The timing on this is so horrible... its going to make conservative voters come out in throngs... whether its wrong or right, laws are enacted by the majority.
I dissagree . .
I worked out at the local WMCA today . . and there were a bunch of stodgy old men . . I mean OLD . .. obviouse WW2 vets . . some even had their old Marine Tattoos . . . and they werre talking about it and all of them were saying: let em do it, it aint hurtin nobody
I think when Grover originally said that this would bite back for Bush in the election I think that he was right . . . I think more people than might expect are thinking: "SO WHAT?! who does it hurt?"
Originally posted by trumptman
If you consider Matthew Shepard to be convincing or even a trend you are wrong.
I could be beat down by a couple of men tomorrow. They could cruelly beat me to death for whatever hateful reasons they care to conjure. The difference is my death wouldn't be front page news because I happen to be a white heterosexual male.
There are people killed everyday for all sorts of reasons. In fact take a look at this FBI Hate Crime Report. It shows that more hate crimes for anti-white than for homosexuals. It also shows many more crimes both for race and religion.
A whole lot of those crimes go unreported or don't necessarily get classified as hate crimes.
Beating up gays is a hobby to large groups of people, including Texas (violence in the 90's around montrose & westheimer, for instance).
BTW: you can't trust crime stats at all, especially ones from big cities.
Originally posted by kraig911
Kirkland dude you have texas all wrong.. its a fairly democratic state... first female gov, one fo the longest held quorum democratically. Tho right now yeah its a little wierd, its not at all what you say it is, nor was it ever. Except maybe East Texas
Texas is a Republican state, and trending both more Republican and further to the right. Richards was the last gasp of a moderately Democratic electorate which has since collapsed into right-wing fanaticism, sending folks like John Cornyn and Pete Sessions to Washington as homegrown politicos viciously redraw the lines to deny even majority-Democratic areas a Congressional voice.
I think when Grover originally said that this would bite back for Bush in the election I think that he was right
When I say it, lay the house down on a wager, baby! ;-)
We know what happens to conservatives who oppose civil rights. I wonder if Karl Rove and Co know this issue is a loser for the conservatives and if this is why there has been a deafening silence from the White House with regard to the SanFran marriages.
This is a booby trap for the religious right.
I fully support Gay Marriage.
Marriage is about Love, and should not be a privilege.
For centuries, homosexuality was ignored. Now that it's fully recognised, there is not ANY reason to refuse the best to two person who love each other.
Next step is adoption. (which is also something that's all about love ;-)
In Europe, and particularly in France we have 'PACS' (there's already a thread about that). A civil union that gives any couple, Gay and Heteros the same civil (and fiscal) rights. It's a first step, and it's a huge success here ;-)
Originally posted by trumptman
First of all this is changing, even without homosexual marriage. It would change with civil unions. It is also changing at the request of cohabitating heterosexual couples.
My own married partner isn't guaranteed health insurance. I do have the option of putting her on my plan but I must pay to do so. If I didn't have the money, she wouldn't have the health insurance.
The issue of health insurance affects everyone, not just homosexual couples.
Nick
But it's an option for heterosexuals, not homosexuals. This issue doesn't affect everyone equally and as long as businesses can decide they'll offer care for marriages and not civil unions it will continue to be an equal rights issue.
Originally posted by trumptman
Fellowship is a white, male, heterosexual Christian living in Texas. You and Pfflam have projected nothing but hate at what you perceive him to be. You've not directed the hate directly at him, just at what he happens to be.Nick
BTW, that is absurd . . . I feel warm good feelings for Fellowship . . .he started out on these boards as a punching bag but ended up showing people that he is genuine, warm and good hearted
He also has opened up some since coming aboard, and, well, geez, I like the guy
Now this stereotype was just that, and it should be obviouse . . . if it isn't then maybe you harbor fears of its truth
but, cliches become cliches not because they pinpoint a truth but because they are a form of simplifying a common predjudice
Some predjudices come about because of the repetition of the reality of the issue in question . . . others grow out of ulterior motives (most hate based predjudices are the latter)
Anyway . . . I would bet that my stereotyping is a little of both instances: "intolerance" repeated throughout history forming a stereotype of the Texas redneck pick-up truck driver who drags African Americans around for fun, and, a little redneck bashing based on my sinful bigotry . . .
now of course Texas is not all rednecks . . . . and that is obviouse as well . . .. heck, Hiouston even has an up-and coming art scene . . . with real artists, not just a Thomas Kincaid Gallery in the mall . . pompous arse smirck worthy of a smack
Originally posted by groverat
Even if "civil unions" and "marriages" are recognized uniformily by everyone it will be a civil rights issue, because creating a new institution called "civil union" relegates homosexuals to second-class citizenship. Separate is inherently unequal.
first the background...white male, married 19 years in june, i have no homosexuals in my family but i do have many homosexual friends that i love dearly...they are warm and kind and gentle and loving people (which are terms i would also use to describe my many heterosexual friends also)...so i wish nothing but good things for them and to be treated in kind and gentle and loving and fair minded ways...i wish them anything they want...
but i am also 42 years old and i thought i would never see civil unions allowed, so i was thinking, "dang, that is great, they can have civil unions, they can have them in church and they can tell everyone they are married...in a few years nobody will be able to tell the difference between marriage and civil unions and that will be great"
but the more i thought about it the more i don't agree...i can't see where "separate but equal" is doable...and i can't see why we need two laws to perform the same function...
so perhaps someone can help me understand "separate but equal"...do we have that anywhere today in society?? have we ever had that anywhere in history??
untill someone can explain it to me better i would have to say that i can not as an american except "separate but equal"
so please send me the examples, because i can't think of any...
g
the closest i can get is rosa parks and the bus...but that wasn't equal...whites could go to the back if they wanted...and it wouldn't be equal if the front seats were better maintained etc
men's bathrooms and women's bathrooms don't work...they are separate but different....i can't go into a woman's room and use the urinal, a woman can't go into a men's room and use the tampon machine, etc