The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[Der Mike]

Apparently you have no idea which words Der Mike has used so far and he is more then intelligent enough to dress them up so he won't get banned.

Again, feel free to provide some proof of your claims. I take the whole "You use racial slurs" line rather personally and it is simply me being nice that I'm not raising more of a stink about it.

BTW : Is that all you can say? Nitpicking over 1 word? Figures...

I dispute almost all of what you say.

@DM : CORDIAL??? By basically saying the all people have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex?????

It's called EQUALITY. Interracial marriage was unequal because black men couldn't marry white women and white men couldn't marry black women.

Inherently unequal.

Circular reasoning if I ever read some. Your freedom is everybody else's freedom too. How generous. As long as *you* decide what that freedom is everybody is allowed to join in.

No, you want to change the rules.

You claim equality issues.

I point out it's NOT an equality issue. You are unable to dispute that so you complain that it's mentioned.

I'm sure that the Constitution would have something to say about that. Establishment clause and all that...

My question is, can the Religious Right offer a reason to not allow gay people the same civil rights afforded to straight married couples that doesn't originate in their religious beliefs?

Gay people have equal civil rights, so take the strawman leave it outside please.
-=Mike

[frulad]

Gay people can have their wishes overridden by the partner's families in terms of health care for their partner. Married couples have final say.

Gay couples can't claim their partner on their tax returns or file joint tax returns. Straight couples can.

Many companies refuse to allow a gay person's partner be placed on their helath insurance in the same way a married person can have their spouse on their insurance.

And so on...

Doesn't seem equal to me.

[Jan]

Can anybody more conversant with Domestic Partnership Agreements (Vyce? Dauriel? Anybody?)) tell me whether those would address any of the items Frulad brings up? Because if they do, then most of my objections are no longer valid. If not, then I respectfully disagree with Dauriel that DPA's are the step to take.

Jan

[Der Mike]

Gay people can have their wishes overridden by the partner's families in terms of health care for their partner. Married couples have final say.

Not with power of attorney forms.

Gay couples can't claim their partner on their tax returns or file joint tax returns. Straight couples can.

Which generates penalties.

Many companies refuse to allow a gay person's partner be placed on their helath insurance in the same way a married person can have their spouse on their insurance.

Most do cover them. Which is a purely business decision.

And so on...

Doesn't seem equal to me.

Doesn't make it unequal.
-=Mike

[Radhil]

Can anybody more conversant with Domestic Partnership Agreements (Vyce? Dauriel? Anybody?)) tell me whether those would address any of the items Frulad brings up? Because if they do, then most of my objections are no longer valid. If not, then I respectfully disagree with Dauriel that DPA's are the step to take.

Jan

I may be horribly mistaken (I Am Not A Lawyer) but I believe most domestic parternship laws cover mostly the property and household rights over a particular home. DPAs don't touch at all on personal rights - medical powers, financials, taxing, yada - that are more common in marriage, or even civil unions. I know that's the rough picture, and I've had it from a friend, so no real solid fact here. Also, certain places have changed the laws to accomodate the homosexual population rather than grant marriage, so mileage varies from state to state, or maybe even city to city.

[Towelmaster]

Again, feel free to provide some proof of your claims. I take the whole "You use racial slurs" line rather personally and it is simply me being nice that I'm not raising more of a stink about it.

I dispute almost all of what you say.

It's called EQUALITY. Interracial marriage was unequal because black men couldn't marry white women and white men couldn't marry black women.

First of all : do not mix my quotes with those of someone else, as you have just done.

Secondly : read your own comments in the first 1.240 pages of this thread. I am not prepared to do your homework for you. These were so nice I actually had them in my temporary bookmarks :

http://jmsnews.com/forums/showpost.php?p=22141&postcount=552

And this one : http://jmsnews.com/forums/showpost.p...&postcount=798

And this one : http://jmsnews.com/forums/showpost.p...&postcount=826

And this one : http://jmsnews.com/forums/showpost.p...&postcount=872

But don't worry, I cleaned up that dirt now.

And thirdly : I do not claim equality-issues, that is exactly where you are wrong. Probably because you can't be arsed to read someone else's postings twice or read the context in which they are placed. I address the issue of personal freedom. Who are you to determine what another person's freedom is.


PLEASE do not give me the 'I take this rather personal' crap as you have willfully insulted several people here(including the likes of Captain Montoya, the people Mexico, myself, and so on), only to pretend afterwards to be deaf when we objected. Oh no, wait a minute; you said you couldn't give a damn about any objections, or something to that effect. Again; read your own postings before you act all insulted.

Just presume that my posting comes from a European left-wing commie bastard or something. In one ear and out the other. You will have no problem with that I suspect. You already showed your contempt for cultures who do not see the world like you do. My turn to say that I don't give a flying f*ck.

Nuff said.

[Jan]

Let your friendly neighborhood moderator remind everybody once again about the 'Ignore' feature. To make use of this handy feature, simply click on the members name and follow the link to that person's public profile. Under their name is a handy link to 'Add _________ to your ignore list'.

And just to clear up a couple of misapprehensions...

--exactly ONE person has ever been banned from the JMSNews forums. That person was unsmart enough to post what might have been construed as serious threats against the President. One other person has been blocked from posting but not from reading.

--Jan doesn't have heart attacks. She is, however, more easily annoyed at some times rather than others (like now when brush fire smoke is doing nasty things to her sinuses). Annoy her enough and she'll close a thread and it'll stay closed until and unless DougO reopens it.

--Jan also doesn't get angry, certainly over 'potty language'. As long as it's not directed at another poster *and* not overdone (my, Ranger 1 or DougO's call), *and* not hate speech, I don't care what words you use.

--and so...I'll say this once. EVERYbody will now and henceforth discuss *issues* and not personalities. I don't care who insulted who first, or when, or how or how long ago or if they contradict themselves or any other social maladroitnesses they commit. It's up to you to keep yourself under control.

Jan
Moderator

[Towelmaster]

I respond to actual postings that are later on denied by the poster.

But you know what? I'll ban myself from this forum and make everybody happy.

/off

[Dr Maturin]

--exactly ONE person has ever been banned from the JMSNews forums. That person was unsmart enough to post what might have been construed as serious threats against the President. One other person has been blocked from posting but not from reading.

Did it happen in this thread? That one was chock full of hilarity.

[Der Mike]

First of all : do not mix my quotes with those of someone else, as you have just done.

Secondly : read your own comments in the first 1.240 pages of this thread. I am not prepared to do your homework for you. These were so nice I actually had them in my temporary bookmarks :

http://jmsnews.com/forums/showpost.php?p=22141&postcount=552

And this one : http://jmsnews.com/forums/showpost.p...&postcount=798

And this one : http://jmsnews.com/forums/showpost.p...&postcount=826

And this one : http://jmsnews.com/forums/showpost.p...&postcount=872

Hmm, let's look at them:

Referring to the downright psychotic rambling that populated the early pages of this thread as psychotic rambling is simply a reciting of facts.

As for the posts on Mexico, I never criticized MEXICANS. I, in fact, said I don't blame them for coming here. I said the Mexican gov't is inept and has run the country into a crapheap. It wasn't an insult of Mexicans. The Mexican gov't is corrupt beyond all repair. The people are simply victimized.

As for Islam --- feel free to dispute ANY of it. It is and was violent. The Koran IS the "literal" word of God for Islam and any attempt to "explain" it as being more moderate than it actually is tends to lead to jihad and fatwas involving death.

And thirdly : I do not claim equality-issues, that is exactly where you are wrong. Probably because you can't be arsed to read someone else's postings twice or read the context in which they are placed. I address the issue of personal freedom. Who are you to determine what another person's freedom is.

You wish to CHANGE law. A REASON must be given. Don't give me "morals" because it's immaterial. If a group cannot win by the ballot box, they should take the hint.

PLEASE do not give me the 'I take this rather personal' crap as you have willfully insulted several people here(including the likes of Captain Montoya, the people Mexico, myself, and so on), only to pretend afterwards to be deaf when we objected.

Re-read the posts you posted, Sparky. The criticism was SOLELY about MEXICAN GOVERNMENT.

As I said, I don't blame the Mexicans for swarming here. If I was living in a country so ineptly run, I'd leave, too. It's like a parent leaving Mississippi because they want their child to be at least moderately educated.

Oh no, wait a minute; you said you couldn't give a damn about any objections, or something to that effect. Again; read your own postings before you act all insulted.

Don't contribute [EDITED personal remark]

Just presume that my posting comes from a European left-wing commie bastard or something. In one ear and out the other. You will have no problem with that I suspect. You already showed your contempt for cultures who do not see the world like you do. My turn to say that I don't give a flying f*ck.

Nuff said.

Goodie for you. [EDIT personal comment deleted]

If you need help [EDITED], let me know. I'd be glad to help.
-=Mike

EDITS: I believe I just said that everybody was to discuss issues, didn't I?

[Jan]

I respond to actual postings that are later on denied by the poster.

To repeat:

I don't care who insulted who first, or when, or how or how long ago or if they contradict themselves or any other social maladroitnesses they commit.

But you know what? I'll ban myself from this forum and make everybody happy.

If you can't help but take things personally, then perhaps that's best. The same goes for *anybody* else who's posted that they took __________ personally or that _________ insulted them. The point is discussion, not mudslinging.

Did it happen in this thread? That one was chock full of hilarity.

Possibly. The offending posts were completely deleted by DougO so it's hard to be sure.

Jan
Moderator

[Towelmaster]

Don't contribute [EDITED personal remark]
.
-=Mike

BWAHAHAAAAA! Priceless.

Thanks for the 'moderation' Jan.

Bye now. If jms were dead he'd be rolling in his grave.

[EDITED the same remark twice now]

[Der Mike]

Nice issue there, TM.

You'll be...[EDIT-yes, nice issue, Mike]
-=Mike

[Moderator: Perhaps you didn't think I was serious about discussing issues, not each other?]

[Der Mike]

Ironic, since I was discussing the issue and others simply became personal because I'm one of the few able to discuss gay marriage without losing my mind.
-=Mike

[Jan]

Then I suggest you return to the issue.

And going back to that issue...anybody know what effect (if any) domestic partnerships can/do have on inheritance? In some states, for instance, a will is automatically thrown out if the spouse isn't bequeathed at least 50% of the deceased's estate. I'm assuming that the same wouldn't be true for DP.

Maybe this would be easier if we actually defined marriage and the rights it bestows, because they're often subtle. There are a whole lot of things that a spouse can do, including being allowed to even visit the spouse in the hospital. Then there are other things about being 'next of kin' a married couple has, such as the determination of who's notified in case of emergency.

It's not just all big things, it's less obvious things, too.

Jan