Co-worker can't leave job because of Defense of Marriage Act

[Anonymous]

Listen, this is a political board for discussing -- politics. So you don't agree with me, fine. We're supposed to debate in a democracy. Why do the administrators here have to get so nasty? You're making a living on this site, you'd think you could treat the users with some respect.

First, I'm not the administrator here. Second, the homophobe is complaining about treating others with some respect. The irony, it burns.

[Anonymous]

Ok, here's my erudite opinion on the difference between gay and normal unions:

My opinion is that the government should let people do what they want in their own bedroom. This used to be the argument by many in the gay community. Now they want government endorsement. I say that it cuts both ways if that's what they want. If anyone is interested in my actual opinion, I put homosexuality in with wife swapping, BDSM, etc. Sex is a weird thing, and life is short. If that's what people are into, I'm not going to judge, but the government really shouldn't codify support for these things.

Procreation is quite different. You have young individuals who cannot make decisions for themselves and need a safe environment to grow up in. Procreation is an activity that involves more than just the adults involved. For most of human history, when a man and a woman got together, the woman got pregnant and was that way a good deal of the time. Marriage protects women and children but also promotes a structure that is health for society. Any society should have a great interest in protecting the family, because it's the basic unit of that society. This has nothing to do with odd sexual preferences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Listen, this is a political board for discussing -- politics. So you don't agree with me, fine. We're supposed to debate in a democracy. Why do the administrators here have to get so nasty? You're making a living on this site, you'd think you could treat the users with some respect.

First, I'm not the administrator here. Second, the homophobe is complaining about treating others with some respect. The irony, it burns.

Just more nasty slander. I don't treat gays disrespectfully. I do want to hang on to my wallet. Thanks for letting my points stand though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Listen, this is a political board for discussing -- politics. So you don't agree with me, fine. We're supposed to debate in a democracy. Why do the administrators here have to get so nasty? You're making a living on this site, you'd think you could treat the users with some respect.

First, I'm not the administrator here. Second, the homophobe is complaining about treating others with some respect. The irony, it burns.

I know you'd rather just name call than address any issues, but what did you mean about those "pesky SAHM's"?

[Anonymous]

That's all right. You can call me names tomorrow when you're goldbricking at work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:you have proved my point-it is not about marriage it is about benefits

call it same sex beneifts not marriage.

You got it almost correct. It is about rights. Legal rights. Call it civil rights. Marriage is a civil right and it should be a legal one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In sum, he wants taxpayers to fund his benefits so that he can quit working. Federal benefits are VERY generous, so there's no way that he'd be paying all of the costs.

I love liberal philosophy, you want my money, and if I don't give it you you, I'm a bad person, I have issues, etc. Those extorting the money are morally superior.

Do you feel that way about all family coverage? The SAH spouse of a federal worker with 3 kids also "wants taxpayers to fund [her] benefits so [she] can quit working." In fact, she already has her hand in your pocket - her benefits are already paid for. What's the difference? Is she also extorting money?

Hell, it doesn't have to be a SAHM - one of my co-worker's husband is a Fed, and she's on his health plan because it's better than ours.

I don't see how there is any difference without resorting to homophobia, but please, enlighten me. I'd love to see you try to claim the moral high ground here.

I'll go back to another thread to where I explain the difference between heterosexual and homosexual partners and post it here.

For now, one of the big issues I have is that you are forcing people to pay for something that they don't agree with. Sure, I know, none of us agree with a lot of things that the government does, but this is clearly a cutting edge issue working its way through our country.

I'll provide an example. The federal government also does not allow Fed health benefits to cover abortion. I'm pro-choice, but you know, I totally understand why taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for that.

So forcing people to support gay health insurance at the point of a gun (try not paying your taxes and see what happens) is morally wrong. See there. I CAN claim the moral high ground just like the sanctimonious money takers.

NP.

We forced states to accept the equality of black people. Was that morally wrong? No. Why? Because rights aren't dependent on a majority vote.

The issue IS whether gay people have equal rights, NOT whether a certain percentage of taxpayers deem them worthy.