VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 05:06:29 03/20/03 Thu
Author: Eric
Subject: Re: Leahy comes through for Vermont but shafts women and gay Vermonters
In reply to: James 's message, "Re: Leahy comes through for Vermont but shafts women" on 18:00:02 03/19/03 Wed

I need to chime in and this is a political issue. Leahy voted for DOMA and Jimmy loves it. I disagree.

Bulldog should skip the message if he (or she) thinks this board should be limited to discussion of Liz Ready or Act 60.

James is worried about protecting the institution of marriage yet he says he has an ex wife. It would appear that he's done his part to contribute to the erosion of marriage in this country. Thanks. He can't blame that on gays and lesbians unless, perhaps, he left his wife for a man or she left him for a woman.

My understanding is that some legal scholars think DOMA may be unconstitutional because of the Constitution's full faith and credit clause. It is in there. Look it up.

The government doesn't "mandate" that employers provide health insurance to anyone. Not employees, not depedent children, not spouses or domestic partners. (In fact, unlike heterosexual spouses, gay and lesbian partners pay income tax on the value of DP health insurance. Isn't that discrimination enough??). What Vermont's civil union law says is that for purposes of (voluntary) employer provided health insurance, civil union partners must be treated like spouses if an employer offers depedent health insurance. You call it a mandate, I call it equality under the law.

OK. James is not homophobic. But his arguments are.

Where did you ever get called racist???????

>James is far from homphobic, bigoted, racist or
>anything of the sort. The racist part I can prove
>quite easily with a picture of my son and ex wife
>which are not white the last I check. I can't for the
>life of me figure out where you could have interpreted
>anything I wrote as assigning motives, you'd have to
>stretch pretty far to get that one. I guess if calling
>me a fetus fanatic makes you happy than I will grant
>you that one. Far from bigoted, far from privledged
>(boy I wish I was though), poor as hell, and just
>trying to make it day by day. I never called you a
>name and never said a hateful thing to you and I am
>sorry if something in your life makes you so bitter
>and hateful but you should do what I did to cure the
>anger and hate that I used to carry around with me,
>have a couple traumatic incidents occur right on top
>of each other that tears you apart and makes you want
>to die. After that, you'll realize that hate and anger
>have no place in your life.
>
>On your points:
>
>1. My personal opinion is that the benefits like SS,
>healthcare etc should not be for the spouse just
>because you are married but rather for your family if
>you have children. I am aware that this in not a
>popular opinion.
>
>2. To answer this point with complete accuracy I
>would need to look up some stats. I have no problem
>with gay couples raising children or grandarents
>raising children or single parent families but the
>proof is there that the traditional family is the best
>way to do it. Saying it is the best is not the same as
>saying its the only way.
>
>3. I agree that "heterosexuals" have destroyed
>marriage. Divorce is like buying groceries to some of
>these people, just something you do.
>
>4. There is nothing in the Constitution about this
>issue so from a constructionist point of view it cant
>be unconstitutional. I'll be honest, i don't care who
>is "married" as an institutional concept. What I care
>about is the government mandated that employers pay a
>partners healthcare and other benefits. In the case of
>raising a child then there is merit for everyone
>pitching in as children are obviously the most
>important thing for the continuation of any society
>and as such those that are raising children should get
>special benefits. i dont care what the relationship of
>the people raising the child, their color or their
>sexuality.
>
>5. Having an interracial child which would lead one
>to assume I was in an interracial marriage, I would
>urge you to watch your ignorance in your baseless
>assertions.
>
>
>>James,
>>
>>It sounds like you are comfortable attributing motives
>>to me while feigning righteous idignation when others
>>expose you for the bigoted, right wing, fetus fanatic
>>that you are.
>>
>>Enjoy your heterosexual, male, and presumably white
>>priviledge. There are more than 1000 federal benefits
>>that married heterosexuals enjoy that committed,
>>loving, gay and lesbian couples (many in civil unions)
>>are excluded from due to DOMA. That's not anti gay?
>>
>>A few points:
>>
>>1) Let's take your anti gay logic a bit further.
>>Infertile or older heterosexual couples should not be
>>permitted to marry because they cannot "procreate".
>>OK with me. Are you prepared to support federal
>>legislation to that effect?
>>
>>2) Unless you are relying on the Family Research
>>Council, there's no evidence that children raised in
>>gay and lesbian households suffer any damage. Except
>>from school yard bullies and bigots like you.
>>
>>3) I'll concede that the institution of marriage is
>>threatened. But not by gay and lesbian couples.
>>Heterosexuals have screwed it up. They divorce like
>>crazy.
>>
>>4) Many legal scholars admit that DOMA is probably
>>unconstitutional. In time, we'll see.
>>
>>5) Finally, your logic is the same logic used to
>>prohibit interracial marriages. In hindsight, that
>>was wrong. You are too.
>>
>>
>>>Eric,
>>>
>>> Spend less time assigning motives and more time
>>>breathing and you won't be so uptight. Are the gays
>>>that don't support civil unions or gay marriage
>>>homophobic? I think they would be suprised to hear
>>>that they were. DOMA is not anti-gay. I never said I
>>>was a fan of Barr or Sheltra so don't make illogical
>>>jumps about people whom you know nothing about.
>>>Marriage as an institution has been denegrated to a
>>>point of not really mattering anymore, it was and
>>>should be a lifelong commitment formed out of love
>but
>>>there is also a responsibility inherent within it,
>>>procreation. You may disagree with all the experts,
>>>but a strong family with a father and a mother is the
>>>best way to raise a child. I don't believe in out of
>>>wedlock births, does that amke me anti singles?
>>>Don't assign motives to others especially if all you
>>>can assume is the worst. I disagree with a lot of
>>>people but I try to look at the argument from all
>>>points of view before jumping to a conclusion that
>>>those that feel differently than I do are monsters.
>>>Killing fully formed babies through partial birth
>>>abortion is a monsterous act but I don't go around
>>>calling everyone that supports the act murderers and
>>>monsters. You may disagree with my point of view and
>>>feel that myself or others have come to the wrong
>>>conclusions as I do about you, but assigning motives
>>>to those that hold different believes (unless they
>>>have clearly stated their motives) does little to
>>>advance the debate.
>>>
>>>
>>>>DOMA isn't anti gay?
>>>>
>>>>Former Rep. Bob Barr, an anti gay activist,
>sponsored
>>>>this legislative gay bashing to protect one of this
>>>>three marriages. From what we'll never know and
>>we'll
>>>>also never know which of his marriages he was trying
>>>>to "defend."
>>>>
>>>>Welcome to the anti gay club James. State Rep.
>Nancy
>>>>Sheltra would be proud.
>>>>
>>>>>DOMA isn't anti gay and it is sad you feel that
>way.
>>>>>Leahy supporting the ban on partial birth abortion
>>is
>>>>>one of the few things that he has done that is
>>right.
>>>>>Killing a fully formed child is indefensible to
>even
>>>>>most pro choice individuals.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I guess you missed the news last week. Leahy, the
>>>>>>good "pro choice" Catholic, voted to outlaw
>>>so-called
>>>>>>"partial birth abortion."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So much for local control. But, then again, he
>>>voted
>>>>>>for the anti gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks for nothing Pat!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He's not as pure as you'd like us to believe but,
>>in
>>>>>>the end, I'll probably hold my nose and vote for
>>>him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I can imagine that Jack McMuffin is any better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I think that you are going to have a hard time
>>>>>finding
>>>>>>>a viable candidate that has a better record on
>>>>>>>stepping up to the plate in protection of a
>>woman's
>>>>>>>right to choose.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Leahy lost my support when he voted to ban
>>>>so-called
>>>>>>>>"partial birth abortion." Some liberal!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>March 8, 2003
>>>>>>>>>The Associated Press:
>>>>>>>>>"BURLINGTON — Efforts to fight pollution in
>Lake
>>>>>>>>>Champlain got a big boost thanks to $6.9
>million
>>>>in
>>>>>>>>>federal grants announced Friday by Sen. Patrick
>>>>>>>>Leahy."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://timesargus.nybor.com/Regional_News/Story
>/
>>6
>>>1
>>>>9
>>>>>4
>>>>>>7
>>>>>>>.
>>>>>>>>h
>>>>>>>>>tml
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Thank you Pat!

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.