Suggestion for gay americans

[BinaryTaoist]

Why not just form a religion that is anchored on homosexuality? Then you can condone marriage within your church and fight in courts over religious freedom...

[Dude!]

we shall worship the god cock

[yojimbo7248]

there are already several religions which will perform gay marriages. having a church recognize gay marriage is not the problem. the issue is the government not recognizing gay marriage.

[underdog]

I don't think this idea would work.

[BinaryTaoist]

but wouldn't it be easier to fight politically because it is now an issue of religious freedom?

[yojimbo7248]

I misread your point. so, you are saying create a church which has a theology based on gayness and then argue that gay marriage is exercising a right to religious practice? kind of like native americans being able to use peyote for religious purposes? interesting idea...Fez, what do you think?

[underdog]

but wouldn't it be easier to fight politically because it is now an issue of religious freedom?

Forming a religion large enough to push an issue of religious freedom would be pretty tough.

Not to mention that the government would still let the churches perform whatever marriage they wanted, they just wouldn't recognize it. It wouldn't solve any problem.

[yojimbo7248]

Maybe gays could have some Joseph Smith character who is visited by an angel in a Christopher Street bar, takes him in the back, and tells this gay prophet God wants all gays to get married. We Americans are suckers for allowing 'religions' to pull stuff out of their asses and claim it is their religious belief. this just might work...Fez has come out so late in life, he has some gay catching up to do. He would be a perfect candidate for the leader position of this new church.

[boobieman]

Why both with religion anyway. Gays want the same things I have. If my wife is in the hospital, they want to be able to get up and see their partner. If I die, with out a will or anything all my stuff, money she has the automatic rights to. I have medical coverage and once we got married all I had to do is just call my HR and give a marriage certificate, from the State not a church, and she is now under my coverage.

I say to the gays, fuck the church and religion, just have the states recognize their partnership and that is all you really need.

Then go out and fight like dogs when you get divorced.

SEEYAYAYYAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[EliSnow]

Why both with religion anyway. Gays want the same things I have. If my wife is in the hospital, they want to be able to get up and see their partner. If I die, with out a will or anything all my stuff, money she has the automatic rights to. I have medical coverage and once we got married all I had to do is just call my HR and give a marriage certificate, from the State not a church, and she is now under my coverage.

I say to the gays, fuck the church and religion, just have the states recognize their partnership and that is all you really need.

Then go out and fight like dogs when you get divorced.

SEEYAYAYYAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

For the most part, this issue isn't about whether religions accept gay marriage or not. They want the states to recognize gay marriage. If their religion doesn't, I'm sure they don't like it, but that's not what this whole debate is about.

[hydee]

Why not just form a religion that is anchored on homosexuality? Then you can condone marriage within your church and fight in courts over religious freedom...

What the GLBT community needs to do is not depend on celebrities and actually fight this thing with grass roots efforts and this time get organized. I belong to GLADD, and a few other organizations that support gay rights and gay equality, and I was shocked when the vote happened in California how the effort dried up and how I only started getting mail and calls for support once the ruling was coming up.

It's not about religion really, it's about partners rights, and freedoms over what happens to kids and property if a family member dies or falls ill.

What I don't really get is that with a domestic partnership, gay couples that go through the process actually have more rights then straight couples after the whole process is done and the partnership is more binding in ways then marriage is especially if set up correctly. So why need the marriage title at all. I mean sure its more time, more paperwork, and a lot of red tape, but I would think that the time and effort is worth it in the end.

I wasn't married in a church I was married in a justice of the peace's living room, and had a civil service, and I don't feel that my 15 year union means any less then someone that had a church wedding, that was ordained by "God".

[KingGeno]

Stop acting gay, stop "being outrageous and over-feminite", and stop with the meatspine leather clad floats if you want people to take you seriously. Have some class.

And if you are in the closet just come out, be true to yourself. The more the better for your cause.

[Misteriosa]

Maybe gays could have some Joseph Smith character who is visited by an angel in a Christopher Street bar

http://www.mazeguy.net/expressive/pray.gif Our Diva of Stonewall.. http://www.mazeguy.net/expressive/pray.gif

[debit]

What's next?

A religion that let's you marry a moose?

[TjM]

What's next?

A religion that let's you marry a moose?

They already have that. It's called Canada

[BinaryTaoist]

What the GLBT community needs to do is not depend on celebrities and actually fight this thing with grass roots efforts and this time get organized. I belong to GLADD, and a few other organizations that support gay rights and gay equality, and I was shocked when the vote happened in California how the effort dried up and how I only started getting mail and calls for support once the ruling was coming up.

It's not about religion really, it's about partners rights, and freedoms over what happens to kids and property if a family member dies or falls ill.

What I don't really get is that with a domestic partnership, gay couples that go through the process actually have more rights then straight couples after the whole process is done and the partnership is more binding in ways then marriage is especially if set up correctly. So why need the marriage title at all. I mean sure its more time, more paperwork, and a lot of red tape, but I would think that the time and effort is worth it in the end.

I wasn't married in a church I was married in a justice of the peace's living room, and had a civil service, and I don't feel that my 15 year union means any less then someone that had a church wedding, that was ordained by "God".


They have more rights? THats interesting... Then why not just rename domestic partnership something like.... Mirriage?

[TheMojoPin]

Stop acting gay

Really?

[hydee]

They have more rights? THats interesting... Then why not just rename domestic partnership something like.... Mirriage?

Some of the contracts that I have read are like business partner contracts where you have to go to court to fight to have your name taken off the contract. Not simply going through a mediator or going through a lawyer and it's done.

So I think calling it a marriage is an understatement to what these contracts provide. Some limit and put terms on each member of the union. Like prenups and such, but others that are 100% into the partnership allow each other 100% entitlement to current and future ownership of property, salaries and rights to children.

To me going through this extra effort, time and resources should mean more then some simple word statement of how the couple feel towards each other.

[tanless1]

i think the gays have been duped by duplicit lawyers. they got their eye on community property division and common law precidents..... how i pity the fool.

(if you are not a predatory lawyer, then this statement was not directed at you)

[Dougie Brootal]

i think the gays have been duped by duplicit lawyers. they got their eye on community property division and common law precidents..... how i pity the fool.

(if you are not a predatory lawyer, then this statement was not directed at you)

:clap::clap::clap:

[EliSnow]

They have more rights? THats interesting... Then why not just rename domestic partnership something like.... Mirriage?

I am not aware of any rights that civil unions have that marriages don't.

[hydee]

I am not aware of any rights that civil unions have that marriages don't.

I admit that I am not a lawyer and I am only going off of what I have read in the past and the people I have spoken to in the GLBT community. So please forgive me if I stepped over a line.

[EliSnow]

I admit that I am not a lawyer and I am only going off of what I have read in the past and the people I have spoken to in the GLBT community. So please forgive me if I stepped over a line.

I don't know if you "stepped over a line." Based upon my knowledge, what you said was inaccurate.

[TripleSkeet]

Why both with religion anyway. Gays want the same things I have. If my wife is in the hospital, they want to be able to get up and see their partner. If I die, with out a will or anything all my stuff, money she has the automatic rights to. I have medical coverage and once we got married all I had to do is just call my HR and give a marriage certificate, from the State not a church, and she is now under my coverage.

I say to the gays, fuck the church and religion, just have the states recognize their partnership and that is all you really need.

Then go out and fight like dogs when you get divorced.

SEEYAYAYYAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

DING DING DING DING

That right there is the problem. THATS why politicians are in no hurry to let gays marry. The insurance companies dont want to fucking cover you!!! Think about how many single guys without medical insurance they would have to automatically cover if gay marriage is allowed.

The main problem with this issue is the same thing as everything else....MONEY. I guarantee if the law suggested stated gays could get married and share in everything straight married couple have EXCEPT medical insurance there would be hardly an issue at all. They cover it with the whole religious argument but thats just bullshit to cover up their real agenda.

[Dude!]

DING DING DING DING

That right there is the problem. THATS why politicians are in no hurry to let gays marry. The insurance companies dont want to fucking cover you!!! Think about how many single guys without medical insurance they would have to automatically cover if gay marriage is allowed.

The main problem with this issue is the same thing as everything else....MONEY. I guarantee if the law suggested stated gays could get married and share in everything straight married couple have EXCEPT medical insurance there would be hardly an issue at all. They cover it with the whole religious argument but thats just bullshit to cover up their real agenda.


i don't buy that

the man on the street
who is against gay marriage
is against the homosexuality itself
and not medical or any other benefits

it is a culture thing
not a money thing

[EliSnow]

DING DING DING DING

That right there is the problem. THATS why politicians are in no hurry to let gays marry. The insurance companies dont want to fucking cover you!!! Think about how many single guys without medical insurance they would have to automatically cover if gay marriage is allowed.

The main problem with this issue is the same thing as everything else....MONEY. I guarantee if the law suggested stated gays could get married and share in everything straight married couple have EXCEPT medical insurance there would be hardly an issue at all. They cover it with the whole religious argument but thats just bullshit to cover up their real agenda.


Nope. A lot of employers recognize "domestic partners" in their health plans and as a result, the partner gets coverage. The insurance company doesn't care because they'll charge a bigger premium. Another insured/member equals more money for the insurance company/administrator.

[badmonkey]

DING DING DING DING

That right there is the problem. THATS why politicians are in no hurry to let gays marry. The insurance companies dont want to fucking cover you!!! Think about how many single guys without medical insurance they would have to automatically cover if gay marriage is allowed.

The main problem with this issue is the same thing as everything else....MONEY. I guarantee if the law suggested stated gays could get married and share in everything straight married couple have EXCEPT medical insurance there would be hardly an issue at all. They cover it with the whole religious argument but thats just bullshit to cover up their real agenda.

Some companies already allow you to have your domestic partner added to your health insurance benefits. I don't know if it has anything to do with individual state law or really any details about it. I only know that there are instances of "if your company policy allows it, then you can add them".

[angrymissy]

I had Jeff on my insurance policy before we were married as a Domestic Partner. Most large Corps offer that. We had to sign an affadavit, and I was taxed on the value of his part of the insurance as income.

[EliSnow]

I had Jeff on my insurance policy before we were married as a Domestic Partner. Most large Corps offer that. We had to sign an affadavit, and I was taxed on the value of his part of the insurance as income.

Exactly. And you can be sure that if your domestic partner is running up bills, the insurance company will look into it and make sure there is no fraud going on, and that the partner is actually a partner.

[Gvac]

I had Jeff on my insurance policy before we were married as a Domestic Partner.

Jeff's gay?

Hmmm.

Who knew?

[Freitag]

I had Jeff on my insurance policy before we were married as a Domestic Partner. Most large Corps offer that. We had to sign an affadavit, and I was taxed on the value of his part of the insurance as income.

I'm trying to think of a joke for this but I'm just vapor-locking.

[Freitag]

Exactly. And you can be sure that if your domestic partner is running up bills, the insurance company will look into it and make sure there is no fraud going on, and that the partner is actually a partner.

And I'm sure the Insurer would have the same reaction as much of the community.

"You're engaged... to HIM?"

[Freitag]

Jeff's gay?

Hmmm.

Who knew?

The term is used on both "sides", but it's used more frequently on the other side because.... marriage isn't legal!

I think "domestic partner" or "cohabitator" are the two legalese words they can use in those situations that don't cause discrimination to either side.

[ToiletCrusher]

More assless chaps.

[TripleSkeet]

Jeff's gay?

Hmmm.

Who knew?

Who didnt?

[TripleSkeet]

I had Jeff on my insurance policy before we were married as a Domestic Partner. Most large Corps offer that. We had to sign an affadavit, and I was taxed on the value of his part of the insurance as income.

But does that domestic partnership work with people of the same sex? Ive never known a gay person that has done that so I really dont know.

[angrymissy]

But does that domestic partnership work with people of the same sex? Ive never known a gay person that has done that so I really dont know.

Yes, it's actually there really for gay people, but they broaden it to apply to straight people too (I don't know why, to avoid drama, I guess). That only applies to insurance though, and you do get taxed on the value of the insurance... I think I had an extra $50 a week reported as income, so I paid more in taxes, if that makes sense.

It's just for company health insurance purposes, the affidavit applies nowhere else and does not make you "officially" domestic partners outside of that.

[EliSnow]

But does that domestic partnership work with people of the same sex? Ive never known a gay person that has done that so I really dont know.

At my old firm, there were several lesbians who had their female partners on the employer plan though the domestic partner route.

And maybe their health care plan didn't have the option or they were unaware they did.

[Crispy123]

Why not just form a religion that is anchored on homosexuality? Then you can condone marriage within your church and fight in courts over religious freedom...

What does being happy and carefree have to do with homosexuality? I say we all should be gay Americans. Why let France have all the fun? My religion is anchored on my gayness!!!

[SatCam]

The term is used on both "sides", but it's used more frequently on the other side because.... marriage isn't legal!

actually it is in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and soon in Vermont and Maine

[TomS59]

gay marriage is just one more thing contributing to the ruination of natural way that things should be occurring

[FezsAssistant]

It's amazing that a religion based on the 'myth' of Jesus (which existed before Christianity was formed by the way) can still control the minds of dumb people in 2009.
I'm at a loss when I see grown adults basing their lives on an invisible man in the sky and their idiotic interpretation of what they think 'he' meant based on the words of other dummies who never met 'him'.

[EliSnow]

gay marriage is just one more thing contributing to the ruination of natural way that things should be occurring

Exactly!! We should stop using medicine or clothes or cars. And no one should shave!

BTW, here is the natural way things occur. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6066606.stm)

[FezsAssistant]

Isn't it interesting that 'liberal, enlightened' Ron has been arguing against gay marriage and 'asshole, conservative' Jimmy and O&A are arguing in favor of it? Just thought I'd point that out to the sheep.

[underdog]

Isn't it interesting that 'liberal, enlightened' Ron has been arguing against gay marriage and 'asshole, conservative' Jimmy and O&A are arguing in favor of it? Just thought I'd point that out to the sheep.

I think Ron is just playing the other side of the coin. I don't think I know a single non-religious person against gay marriage.

And I'm not really surprised Jim and Ant weren't against it. They're pretty consistent on not wanting the government to interfere in anyone's lives.

[EliSnow]

Isn't it interesting that 'liberal, enlightened' Ron has been arguing against gay marriage and 'asshole, conservative' Jimmy and O&A are arguing in favor of it? Just thought I'd point that out to the sheep.

I'm fairly certain that Ron's arguing is a bit to be a counter to Fez on the issue. Every now and then he betrays those positions in response to some callers.

[TomS59]

Exactly!! We should stop using medicine or clothes or cars. And no one should shave!

BTW, here is the natural way things occur. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6066606.stm)

I did not want to upset you pal, I was just throwing it out there that I did not think gay marriage was natural. I was not really using the term of naturally occurring things in all aspects of general life. Please do not tell me thats what you truly inferred.

[EliSnow]

I did not want to upset you pal, I was just throwing it out there that I did not think gay marriage was natural. I was not really using the term of naturally occurring things in all aspects of general life. Please do not tell me thats what you truly inferred.

You have got to be kidding me.

[TomS59]

I am not sure where your traveling Eli. Can you be more clear about what you mean because I think we could make a good conversation out of this if your willing.

[EliSnow]

I am not sure where your traveling Eli. Can you be more clear about what you mean because I think we could make a good conversation out of this if your willing.

My first post: I knew what your point was and was making a joke of it. It wasn't all that complicated to interpret your position on the subject. I added the link to show that the idea that homosexuality isn't natural is in dispute.

My second post: Since your first post wasn't complicated, I sarcastically joked that I didn't get you point. I was hoping that the sarcasm was fairly obvious. Maybe it wasn't.

[TomS59]

My first post: I knew what your point was and was making a joke of it. It wasn't all that complicated to interpret your position on the subject. I added the link to show that the idea that homosexuality isn't natural is in dispute.

My second post: Since your first post wasn't complicated, I sarcastically joked that I didn't get you point. I was hoping that the sarcasm was fairly obvious. Maybe it wasn't.

Oh thanks for explaining. I thought for a second that you believed being gay was alright haha

[underdog]

I'm fairly certain that Ron's arguing is a bit to be a counter to Fez on the issue. Every now and then he betrays those positions in response to some callers.

I think he commented about "you retarded hayseeds following your ridiculous book" when asking for someone to be able to have a good opposition to Fez.

[EliSnow]

Oh thanks for explaining. I thought for a second that you believed being gay was alright haha

If by alright you mean, there's nothing wrong with it, the answer is yes, I do.

[TomS59]

If by alright you mean, there's nothing wrong with it, the answer is yes, I do.

Oh I see we still differ

[TripleSkeet]

It's amazing that a religion based on the 'myth' of Jesus (which existed before Christianity was formed by the way) can still control the minds of dumb people in 2009.
I'm at a loss when I see grown adults basing their lives on an invisible man in the sky and their idiotic interpretation of what they think 'he' meant based on the words of other dummies who never met 'him'.

I dont think theres anything wrong with trying to live your life based on the teachings of Jesus. The world would be a better place if everyone did that.

Problem is the teaching of Jesus and the opinions of the church are 2 way different things. Jesus' entire teachings were centered around not judging people, and treating others the way you want to be treated. The church has a way of fucking up alot of the good parts of catholicism and christianity. Thats why I just pretty much follow my own religion based on the teachings and ignore what the people running the church has to say.

[underdog]

Oh I see we still differ

I don't even know why I'm asking, but what is "wrong" with homosexuality?

[TomS59]

I don't even know why I'm asking, but what is "wrong" with homosexuality?

For my purposes, I believe it is unnatural as far as divine law goes, and it goes against my values and my extreme stronghold to tradition.
Many youngsters are not religious and will thrust their ideas of science and humanity upon people who believe in tradition. They also show no regard to possibly seeing a perspective such as mine due to their continuous blabber going on in their head and spewing out of their mouths.
For those I propose that your evolution and natural selection is very real natural law. By these laws of nature the body is an efficient machine. It looks for ways to reproduce. Homosexuality is a complete contrast to science.

In addition, I understand entirely that it may seem as though I am unaffected by the lives others choose to live. This is not so. Any new statute made in this country involving insurances, dependences, and etc. will eventually directly affect my taxes.

Just as I do not agree with gay marriage, I do not agree with divorce, or single parents continuing to have more children. This strays completely off topic. As fellow listeners, I assume you all will at least be able to rationalize my perspective and see why I feel the way I do.

[Crispy123]

For my purposes, I believe it is unnatural as far as divine law goes, and it goes against my values and my extreme stronghold to tradition.
Many youngsters are not religious and will thrust their ideas of science and humanity upon people who believe in tradition. They also show no regard to possibly seeing a perspective such as mine due to their continuous blabber going on in their head and spewing out of their mouths.
For those I propose that your evolution and natural selection is very real natural law. By these laws of nature the body is an efficient machine. It looks for ways to reproduce. Homosexuality is a complete contrast to science.

In addition, I understand entirely that it may seem as though I am unaffected by the lives others choose to live. This is not so. Any new statute made in this country involving insurances, dependences, and etc. will eventually directly affect my taxes.

Just as I do not agree with gay marriage, I do not agree with divorce, or single parents continuing to have more children. This strays completely off topic. As fellow listeners, I assume you all will at least be able to rationalize my perspective and see why I feel the way I do.


The only continuous blabber in my head is when I read posts like this.

Can you be a little more specific when you cite "divine" law. Im quite sure you think your religion is A # 1 but what are you talking about and where is it spelled out exactly what your law is.

Exactly what tradition is it you are a stronghold to? Being beholden to an idea without any thought or regard to others is pretty much the definition of intolerance. Traditions aren't neccesarily bad but blindly following one is. Slavery was a tradition here in America but one that is not tolerated anymore.

Science has proven that many factors go into sexual orientation and it is not exactly the choice that many would say it is. Science also has many instances of homosexuality in numerous species as well as asexual reproduction.

We are all affected by the lives of others that is why people like Jesus Christ preached about tolerance and understanding. If all you care about is money then I would be very interested to know what religion it is that you follow.

[TobyWong]

I don't even know why I'm asking, but what is "wrong" with homosexuality?

Homosexuals are gay

[brettmojo]

If by alright you mean, there's nothing wrong with it, the answer is yes, I do.
Charles Darwin would disagree.

[TomS59]

Crispy, I understand your point. But it is just that subjective tone in your retort that I tried to point out is typically the "progressive" approach that I always fear. (aka bashing with no regard to your own maturity) It is highly unlikely that no matter what citation I make, you will not see my perspective or even respect anything about my traditions as that they are not your own. Clearly I will not compare my beliefs with slavery as that it has nothing to do to even metaphorically with the topic at hand.


and wong is funny

[underdog]

For my purposes, I believe it is unnatural as far as divine law goes, and it goes against my values and my extreme stronghold to tradition.
Many youngsters are not religious and will thrust their ideas of science and humanity upon people who believe in tradition. They also show no regard to possibly seeing a perspective such as mine due to their continuous blabber going on in their head and spewing out of their mouths.
For those I propose that your evolution and natural selection is very real natural law. By these laws of nature the body is an efficient machine. It looks for ways to reproduce. Homosexuality is a complete contrast to science.

In addition, I understand entirely that it may seem as though I am unaffected by the lives others choose to live. This is not so. Any new statute made in this country involving insurances, dependences, and etc. will eventually directly affect my taxes.

Just as I do not agree with gay marriage, I do not agree with divorce, or single parents continuing to have more children. This strays completely off topic. As fellow listeners, I assume you all will at least be able to rationalize my perspective and see why I feel the way I do.

Do you not wear any clothes with mixed fabrics? Because that's against your book, too. Where's that tradition?

I'm sure there's a billion other things you choose to ignore from your "tradition", why is this such a sticking point?

Most companies already have rules in place for "domestic partnerships" to get insurance, so the raising of insurance rates stuff is already happening, with or without gay marriage.

edit - Oh shit, I hope farmer dave doesn't mix seeds in his fields!

Leviticus 19:19 : You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.

[Crispy123]

Many youngsters are not religious and will thrust their ideas of science and humanity upon people who believe in tradition. They also show no regard to possibly seeing a perspective such as mine due to their continuous blabber going on in their head and spewing out of their mouths.

Crispy, I understand your point. But it is just that subjective tone in your retort that I tried to point out is typically the "progressive" approach that I always fear. (aka bashing with no regard to your own maturity) It is highly unlikely that no matter what citation I make, you will not see my perspective or even respect anything about my traditions as that they are not your own. Clearly I will not compare my beliefs with slavery as that it has nothing to do to even metaphorically with the topic at hand.

Yes my tone is the one that is bashing and subjective.

What is unlikely is that you will repond to anything with substance and will merely vaguely cite a "divine law" or "tradition" and have nothing to back it up with.

[underdog]

What is unlikely is that you will repond to anything with substance and will merely vaguely cite a "divine law" or "tradition" and have nothing to back it up with.

You just described religion.