Coca-Cola superbowl ad

Are there not states that recognize gay unions/marriages? I think there is, is there not?

As far as health care, I believe that's at a business level, no?

A company can offer insurance to your S.O. Regardless of marriage? Right?

There are, yes. We are actually getting married in CA this April. I've mentioned before that the benefits most important to me are PNOK and estate/retirement account taxation/handling. It is a family protection thing for us. The good thing is that with the SCOTUS DOMA decision the federal government will now recognize our marriage even if our home state does not, so we will finally have those protections; thus the timing.
 
So what if states agreed to legalize gay marriage but still held it different than heterosexual marriage? Would that be ok? Say taxes had to be filed separate. Separate health insurance. Etc etc.

What about that is acceptable?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
I'm not flaming, this is an honest questions.

Are you implying that homosexual couples should move to states that recognize marriages, and seek and employer that offers insurance to their partner?

No. I was seeking answer to alternative ways to understand the subject better.
 

I think it's the companies decision actually. I know the company I work for does.

This is where I have the problem. Years ago a "compromise" was made to make partnerships a legally binding contract. Essentially making it a marriage in the states eyes. But, that wasn't good enough. Gay rights activists wanted it to be a marriage and not a contract. Which seems odd because most churches don't recognize sane sex marriage.

It's almost like compromise wasn't enough.
 
There are, yes. We are actually getting married in CA this April. I've mentioned before that the benefits most important to me are PNOK and estate/retirement account taxation/handling. It is a family protection thing for us. The good thing is that with the SCOTUS DOMA decision the federal government will now recognize our marriage even if our home state does not, so we will finally have those protections; thus the timing.

That's right. I remember you guys getting hitched. Congrats.

You shod do a blog or something.

Ok. Pnok??
So if the fed will recognize your marriage regardless of the state, then what's the problem? The gay community should be good to go.
 
does it affect any of you in the least bit if two men or women get married?

no.

So why do you care? It offend you that someone wants to be happy?

I'm far from righteous. I just don't get offended by people wanting to enjoy the same freedoms i have.
 
I think it's the companies decision actually. I know the company I work for does.

This is where I have the problem. Years ago a "compromise" was made to make partnerships a legally binding contract. Essentially making it a marriage in the states eyes. But, that wasn't good enough. Gay rights activists wanted it to be a marriage and not a contract. Which seems odd because most churches don't recognize sane sex marriage.

It's almost like compromise wasn't enough.

Interesting. So the activist pushed the issue further, causing more harm than good.
 
So what if states agreed to legalize gay marriage but still held it different than heterosexual marriage? Would that be ok? Say taxes had to be filed separate. Separate health insurance. Etc etc.

Why would you legalize it but not give full benefits. You're not giving equal rights if there is a caveat. Those would be conditional rights, not full equal rights.
 
does it affect any of you in the least bit if two men or women get married?

no.

So why do you care? It offend you that someone wants to be happy?

I'm far from righteous. I just don't get offended by people wanting to enjoy the same freedoms i have.

We are trying to have an adult conversation and you come in here spewing hate.
 
Why would you legalize it but not give full benefits. You're not giving equal rights if there is a caveat. Those would be conditional rights, not full equal rights.

You make good points but you need to lose the word rights. It's privileges. I don't have any rights over my wife. I have privileges. If we divorce I lose those privileges.
 
We are trying to have an adult conversation and you come in here spewing hate.

I think you just took that the wrong way. I don't think he meant anything by it.

You can learn a lot by just asking them simple question, and being honest with yourself. "How does this affect me?"
 
When it comes to equality, compromise should never be enough.

There is no compromise is equity. Though compromise be part of the beginning steps, full equality needs to be the final step. It is time for that final step. :good!:
 
I think you just took that the wrong way. I don't think he meant anything by it.

You can learn a lot by just asking them simple question, and being honest with yourself. "How does this affect me?"

He's not gay.

Overall It doesn't hurt me personally. Personally I could care less.
 
You make good points but you need to lose the word rights. It's privileges. I don't have any rights over my wife. I have privileges. If we divorce I lose those privileges.

My wife has the right to make me a damn ham sammich when she's in the kitchen. :)
 
He's not gay.

Overall It doesn't hurt me personally. Personally I could care less.

I never assumed he was gay. I was simply saying, I don't think he was spewing hate, I think you took it the wrong way.
 
Interesting. So the activist pushed the issue further, causing more harm than good.

I believe they are looking further than a compromise. The full rights need to be equal, IMO. I would term activist as people wanting and needing these rights to be accepted and laws passed for the acceptance of those same human rights.
 
That's right. I remember you guys getting hitched. Congrats.

You shod do a blog or something.

Ok. Pnok??
So if the fed will recognize your marriage regardless of the state, then what's the problem? The gay community should be good to go.

First, thank you.

PNOK = personal next of kin - married spouses automatically default to closest next of kin for one another.

For us, we will be mostly good to go. I know there are some individual state protections granted married folks that would not carry over, but that is not a concern for us; others might feel differently. Also, some folks find it important to marry in their home/birth states. Not for us, though. I'll likely be dead before that would be possible for me - I'd guess TN will be one of the last states to legalize, and it will probably be a court decision at that. Nothing personal, though. I still love Tennessee.
 
I believe they are looking further than a compromise. The full rights need to be equal, IMO. I would term activist as people wanting and needing these rights to be accepted and laws passed for the acceptance of those same human rights.

Compromise would have took the sting out a little. Couple years later, go at it again after folks have seen it's no big deal.
 
I never assumed he was gay. I was simply saying, I don't think he was spewing hate, I think you took it the wrong way.

It's very difficult for me to take you seriously with your avatar. I can only think of a hoochies coochie.
 
It's very difficult for me to take you seriously with your avatar. I can only think of a hoochies coochie.

I thought about that last night. I wonder if my avatar is what led people to believe I was being racist?
 

VN Store



Back
Top