On Love....

Everyone should watch this. It is one of the best videos I have seen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY

Thank you for this link...what a awesome stance and one that should make ALL of us take notice!!

No tits....not worth watching. I had always hoped that AIDS would have taken care of it by now.

oh, yeah.................fessee

Why is it that some people are just narrow-minded?

mikecc wrote:

oh, yeah.................fessee

I was trying to write shit in a nice way Mikeeee, Why do you tease so much about spelling?? I even tryed spell check

Olberman looks like he's going to cry.

Although I agree that gay marriage should be legal, I have much different reasons for my stance. Olberman is just spouting emotional rhetoric.

Can't stand Olberman , he is a stuffed shirt pompous ass

as to the gay issue......how they live should be their own business, if they want to allow legal changes to have the same rights as a spuose, great call it a domestic union

maybe that way everyone will be happy

I find the whole gay marriage thing to be kinda silly, but here's the way it is. Those who oppose it say the definition of marriage is only being a union between a man and woman, and they base it on one thing, that being the Bible. Therefore since separation of church and state is still in effect, it is not possible under US law to ban gay marriage on those grounds.

besides the fact the bible is the best selling work of fiction ever written

Somewhere in that oh so loved book called The Bible is a passage that states very clearly that "God created us (man) in his own image." So one could surmize logically that would mean that whether you are male/female, of any race, gay/straight you were created by God in his own image ..... end of argument.

A friend of mine who has spent many years studying the Bible was left speechless by my observation. She told me several days later after speaking with her fellow Bible Study group after many hours of discussion and searching through their research archives that none of them could find fault nor could rebuke with that observation.

The next time someone tells you we're all created in God's image tell them to look around in Walmart and think about that.

slider wrote:

Somewhere in that oh so loved book called The Bible is a passage that states very clearly that "God created us (man) in his own image." So one could surmize logically that would mean that whether you are male/female, of any race, gay/straight you were created by God in his own image ..... end of argument.

OK, we were created in his image. That image being pure, innocent and perfect. Many are still being born pure, innocent and perfect. It is our decisions and actions throughout life that make us less and less like him. So whether you are male/female, of any race, gay/straight you are no longer as God created you..... end of argument.

large women in tight stretch pants was left out

BINGO!!!!! I won the blackout... WoooHoooo!

Blackie Kuhn wrote:

large women in tight stretch pants was left out

Wouldn't that come under "obese person using scooter?"

Did you hear that Wal-Mart is going to go back into Iraq? They used to have stores there, but when the war started, they turned them all into Targets.

wah wah wah waaaaaaaah

Justoo wrote:

slider wrote:

Somewhere in that oh so loved book called The Bible is a passage that states very clearly that "God created us (man) in his own image." So one could surmize logically that would mean that whether you are male/female, of any race, gay/straight you were created by God in his own image ..... end of argument.

OK, we were created in his image. That image being pure, innocent and perfect. Many are still being born pure, innocent and perfect. It is our decisions and actions throughout life that make us less and less like him. So whether you are male/female, of any race, gay/straight you are no longer as God created you..... end of argument.

And some are born with missing or deformed limbs, disfigured faces, blood disorders, non-functional vital organs, rare terminal disorders like progeria, brain damage, etc., etc. And quite often it's a bad gene, not chemical exposure, drug abuse or other man made issues that's the cause. God must be a mess.

I did say many, not all. I allowed for imperfection.

Yeah justoo, I figured that's why you worded it the way you did. Just added my thought.

I know, you can't help it.

I just got that drive in me to spread the word justoo. Do ya feel it brother?

I feel something... oozing up between my toes.

The Other One wrote:

Olberman looks like he's going to cry.

Although I agree that gay marriage should be legal, I have much different reasons for my stance. Olberman is just spouting emotional rhetoric.

Not trying to debate here... just curious. What are your different reasons?

But if you ARE in the mood for an argument... care to point out where Olberman is wrong?

suzyr wrote:

wah wah wah waaaaaaaah

WWJD?

Bighead wrote:

The Other One wrote:

Olberman looks like he's going to cry.

Although I agree that gay marriage should be legal, I have much different reasons for my stance. Olberman is just spouting emotional rhetoric.

Not trying to debate here... just curious. What are your different reasons?

I think we covered this in the old forum, but here goes.

Reason 1: Gays are currently living together and doing everything that a married couple would do. However, they currently are only filing income taxes as single people. This means that a heterosexual DINK (Double Income No Kids) couple who are married and filing a joint income tax return receive only two thirds the personal exemption amount as a homosexual DINK couple who can not marry, therefore being forced to file separately. But wait, you say, why can't the married couple just file separately? They could, but they are still designated as married filing separately and taxed at a higher rate. This is affectionately known as the marriage penalty tax. It is somewhat evened out by exemptions and credits for children, but we're talking about DINK couples here. Also, homesexuals in stable, long-term relationships tend to be in professions that pay very well. So let them marry. They are essentially giving themselves a tax increase. Maybe that will keep the government from wanting more out of the rest of us.

Reason 2: Healthcare. Let's say Harry and Sally are married and both have jobs with employer provided insurance. They're smart, so they have each other double covered. One day, Sally feels a lump on her breast. She goes to the doctor and it turns out to be advanced breast cancer. Sally has to go on chemotherapy and radiation, and eventually is too weak to work. She has to quit her job. At this point, Harry's insurance is there to continue coverage for her treatment. Now let's say that the couple is Harry and Larry, and it's Larry who gets sick with prostate cancer. This couple has not been allowed to marry, and unless they work for a very progressive company whose policy allows domestic partner coverage, and there aren't many of those companies, what happens to Larry when he has to quit his job? COBRA is a joke. A person without a job couldn't possibly afford full premiums, and after 18 months it gets cancelled anyway. So who ends up paying for Larry's treatment? We do. The taxpayers. The government will only pay certain amounts, though, so the hospital has to write off the extra cost, or more precisely they raise the cost for everyone else to make up the difference. Had Harry and Larry been married, they would have had the same options as Harry and Sally. Unless they are insured by AIG, the rest of us don't end up paying their medical bills.

So there you go. In one sense, I agree with Olberman (did I just say that?). Whether gays are getting married or not makes no difference to me personally. I don't feel threatened by it. As long as they leave my kids alone, I don't have a problem with them at all. And truthfully, there are many more straight pedophiles than there are gay pedophiles, so the statement that they would endanger kids is not only ignorant, but may in effect endanger the children of people who focus on gays.

The Other One wrote:

Bighead wrote:

The Other One wrote:

Olberman looks like he's going to cry.

Although I agree that gay marriage should be legal, I have much different reasons for my stance. Olberman is just spouting emotional rhetoric.

Not trying to debate here... just curious. What are your different reasons?

I think we covered this in the old forum, but here goes.

Reason 1: Gays are currently living together and doing everything that a married couple would do. However, they currently are only filing income taxes as single people. This means that a heterosexual DINK (Double Income No Kids) couple who are married and filing a joint income tax return receive only two thirds the personal exemption amount as a homosexual DINK couple who can not marry, therefore being forced to file separately. But wait, you say, why can't the married couple just file separately? They could, but they are still designated as married filing separately and taxed at a higher rate. This is affectionately known as the marriage penalty tax. It is somewhat evened out by exemptions and credits for children, but we're talking about DINK couples here. Also, homesexuals in stable, long-term relationships tend to be in professions that pay very well. So let them marry. They are essentially giving themselves a tax increase. Maybe that will keep the government from wanting more out of the rest of us.

Reason 2: Healthcare. Let's say Harry and Sally are married and both have jobs with employer provided insurance. They're smart, so they have each other double covered. One day, Sally feels a lump on her breast. She goes to the doctor and it turns out to be advanced breast cancer. Sally has to go on chemotherapy and radiation, and eventually is too weak to work. She has to quit her job. At this point, Harry's insurance is there to continue coverage for her treatment. Now let's say that the couple is Harry and Larry, and it's Larry who gets sick with prostate cancer. This couple has not been allowed to marry, and unless they work for a very progressive company whose policy allows domestic partner coverage, and there aren't many of those companies, what happens to Larry when he has to quit his job? COBRA is a joke. A person without a job couldn't possibly afford full premiums, and after 18 months it gets cancelled anyway. So who ends up paying for Larry's treatment? We do. The taxpayers. The government will only pay certain amounts, though, so the hospital has to write off the extra cost, or more precisely they raise the cost for everyone else to make up the difference. Had Harry and Larry been married, they would have had the same options as Harry and Sally. Unless they are insured by AIG, the rest of us don't end up paying their medical bills.

So there you go. In one sense, I agree with Olberman (did I just say that?). Whether gays are getting married or not makes no difference to me personally. I don't feel threatened by it. As long as they leave my kids alone, I don't have a problem with them at all. And truthfully, there are many more straight pedophiles than there are gay pedophiles, so the statement that they would endanger kids is not only ignorant, but may in effect endanger the children of people who focus on gays.

Oh my the world is coming to a end I actually agree with EP

You make a good point, EP.

Much of that isn't too important to me... but a valid argument just the same.

I think one of the hidden reasons that they try to block gays from having certain rights is because of the AIDS factor. While it's true now that anyone can be HIV positive it was once predominately a homosexual disease and an insurance companys nightmare. I have a feeling that this still follows the gay community and there is probably added pressure from insurance companies to prevent any kind of union that might allow coverage of a spouse who is not healthy enough to be working and insured themself.

That is just a theory I have, but when you have politicians with holier than thou gay paranoia already, it's going to sway them further if insurance companies are offering them behind the scenes money to prevent gay unions from happening.

Ratzilla wrote:

I think one of the hidden reasons that they try to block gays from having certain rights is because of the AIDS factor. While it's true now that anyone can be HIV positive it was once predominately a homosexual disease and an insurance companys nightmare. I have a feeling that this still follows the gay community and there is probably added pressure from insurance companies to prevent any kind of union that might allow coverage of a spouse who is not healthy enough to be working and insured themself.

That is just a theory I have, but when you have politicians with holier than thou gay paranoia already, it's going to sway them further if insurance companies are offering them behind the scenes money to prevent gay unions from happening.

If they're getting married just to get an HIV-positive person covered, it would be excluded under the pre-existing conditions clause in most insurance policies. I wonder if the incidence of AIDS is any higher among long-term monogamous gay couples than long-term monogamous straight couples. In theory, it should be zero percent unless one of the partners was already HIV-positive when the relationship began. And that's the same for heterosexuals or homosexuals.

My point is only that gays are labeled with that AIDS red flag to this day. Of course pre-existing conditions are not covered, but an insurance company even mentioning the future potential for AIDS to a homophobic politician looking for excuses to prevent their marriage sends a desired message.