Equal Rights For All? [Pic]

Submitted by: Buiadh 5 years ago in

Everyone deserves equal rights, no?
There are 116 comments:
Female 515
Southern US...typical. I know plenty of people that grew up with out fathers and are now perfectly happy...a dick has nothing to do with this...dick
0
Reply
Male 1,059
P.S. I know what would make those kids happy again -- A FATHER!
0
Reply
Male 1,059
What a crock. They didn`t treat her because she didn`t have insurance??? What country is this portraying, Canada? The UK? Cuba?

In the U.S., everyone gets treated. EVERYONE. Regardless of their ability to pay. But maybe this is a look at the future under Obamacare, where a Death Panel decided to ration away her health care and give it to a bigger Democrat Party donor?
0
Reply
Male 523
@markust123
And there`s 6.
0
Reply
Male 4,863
Are you a woman eddy666? You seam to have a problem letting things go. How about we do this. I will ignore your comments and you ignore mine. I do that with five other people on here. It takes a lot of the negativity out of the site. And just so you know one of the five people I skip over is on the extreme left. Consider yourself #6. That`s funny #6. I didn`t plan the #6 coincidence. I`d like to say it has been good knowing you. I won`t be back to read your response.
0
Reply
Male 294
I sometimes pretend all lesbians are unattractive. It helps protect my ego, since otherwise that would mean no matter how good looking I was I wouldn`t ever have a chance. Actually, I also pretend that attractive open lesbians secretly like men deep down inside and don`t realize it. Kind of like with amber heard(I`m think that`s her name).

On a more serious note, it`s sad that we even still have to talk about this sort of dumb sh*t when there are issues that actually deserve attention. Two people claim to love each other and want to get married it doesn`t matter who they are. If it`s so wrong and it makes god angry or w/e then let god be angry at the horrible gays and send them all to the fiery pits of hell. That`s their problem.

But that would mean not enforcing one`s will on other people, and that can`t be allowed. They must live by my rules and beliefs or else they`re clearly wrong and must be made to see the error of their ways.
0
Reply
Male 523
@markust123
You read my conditions. Are you saying you are unable to meet them?
0
Reply
Male 60
Homosexual propaganda! Give me a break!
0
Reply
Female 961
@Quackor "its fake, inr eal life there are no hot lesbians"

Why yes there are! Yes, there are some very manly scary woman in the world (not just lesbians) but there are some very hot lesbians too!
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@MeGrendel: Ok. For the record attacking spelling online is a lazy, dumb form of ad hominem so I understand your response, I just couldn`t stand your first comment with the response so soon after. You`re one of the right-wingers I respect on IAB, I hold you to a higher standard.
0
Reply
Male 8,447
Quackor-"in real life there are no hot lesbians"

I`d have to dissagree with that statement. I`ve got a good friend that proves that false. She`s a babe!
0
Reply
Male 2,855
its fake, in real life there are no hot lesbians
0
Reply
Male 4,863
@eddy666 "How am I trolling?"

Attacking someone in the same exact way, all day long, on pretty much any comment they make, in a variety of different posts, all to get a rise out of them, is the epitome of being a troll. At the least it is being a petty stalker. Either way knock it off.
0
Reply
Male 8,447
patchgrabber-"You`re such an effing hypocrite"

My apologies, I guess that did sound like a spelling flame.

I just thought `I googles` had a funny sound to it. Was making a joke of the result, not the attempt.
0
Reply
Male 3,369
MeGrendel: "
I`m not fighting it, just telling you that`s what`s necessary."

ok. I apologize.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@MeGrendel: [quote]You googles? Didn`t your momma tell you you`d go blind.

Inability to develop any reasonable discusion duly noted.[/quote]

MeGrendel (only 8 comments later):[quote]Wow, a spelling flame. The last refuge of losing a debate. [/quote]

You`re such an effing hypocrite.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Maybe she should use that health card because her eyes are half the size of her head. That can`t be good. Also this is only really a problem in America, from what I understand. At the very least it isn`t a problem here.
0
Reply
Male 8,447
Angilion-"seperate it into the three different things currently"

Yes, that may work.

markust123-"Marriage is not being redefined. It is expanding to include loving gay couples."

Which is the definition of `redefine`. (I think most people are seeing that I consider `redefine` a negative thing. I do not. It`s just what is necessary..or do what Angilion said.)

FreedomFrie-"This is either a marriage equality issue "

To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that term. I don`t think it means what you think it means."
0
Reply
Male 8,447
QueenZira-"The last time we "redefined marriage" we let black and white couples legally marry"

Which was a good thing. Now work on removing the `opposite sex` portion of the definition of marriage.

jtrebowski-"MeGrendels kin fighting the redefinition of marriage."

I`m not fighting it, just telling you that`s what`s necessary.

So pointing out the facts to you is being against it? Interesting viewpoint (and by `interesting` I mean f`d up).

`Marriage` is a term. It has a legal definition, which currently includes the term `of the opposite sex`. That needs to be changed.

The fact that two women want to get married does not bother me...I don`t think I`m their type, anyway.
0
Reply
Male 4,164
dont get it
she got sick and died becuse they whern`t married?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
The fake cutoff limit strikes again:


We`re talking about a situation in which the UK has been taken over by a radical group and has withdrawn from the EU/USE. I think the distinction wouldn`t matter under such extreme circumstances.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]By integrating civil marriage fully, to repeal it they would have to be more obviously exposing a prejudice, rather than being able to do it more quietly, or on a technicality, if it`s seperate.[/quote]

I disagree - in both cases it would require a change to existing law that would immediately affect a large number of people and which couldn`t possibly be done quietly.

[quote]It would be harder for them for the EXACT same reason it`s hard for us to get integrated marriage in the first place: they would be seen as "messing with the definition of marriage".[/quote]

In a hypothetical situation where such a thing could happen, they would be seen as "restoring the right definition of marriage", "rescuing marriage from corruption" and suchlike.

We`re talking about a situation in which the UK has been taken over by a radical group and has withdrawn from the EU/USE. I think the distinction wouldn`t matter under such extr
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Bishops sit in the House of Lords. It`s more a part of the government than it should be.[/quote]

Oh yes, the lords spiritual. I`d forgotten about them. A tiny minority of a remnant of a body that used to have serious power but doesn`t any more (the house of lords).

It`s more of a part in government than it should have, I agree, but it`s not something I see as important enough to care about and I think my original point still holds - the existence of a couple of percent of the members of a group that can delay a law if the government allows them to doesn`t mean that religion has more power in the UK than in the USA.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@Angilion

"Yes we do, but it doesn`t mean anything. It hasn`t been part of the government for a long time."

Bishops sit in the House of Lords. It`s more a part of the government than it should be.
0
Reply
Male 2,552
Same poo; different day.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@Angilion

It`s not a massive cause for concern, and making sure that such a hardline government doesn`t get into power in the first place is the more important priority.

However, it`s not a good idea to be complacent. And why make it easy for them?

By integrating civil marriage fully, to repeal it they would have to be more obviously exposing a prejudice, rather than being able to do it more quietly, or on a technicality, if it`s seperate.

It would be harder for them for the EXACT same reason it`s hard for us to get integrated marriage in the first place: they would be seen as "messing with the definition of marriage".
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]PS: We do have an official state religion, the Church of England. It`s an embarrassing fact, but a fact all the same.[/quote]

Yes we do, but it doesn`t mean anything. It hasn`t been part of the government for a long time. It`s certainly not true that it means that religion has a bigger effect on government in the UK than it does in the USA, which was the comparison I was replying to. In practice, we have more seperation of church and state than they do.

The state religion in the UK is a historical artefact stemming from the medieval church and monarchy competing for power. It`s only ceremonial nowadays, even more so than the monarchy. The monarchy still technically retains some power even though royal power hasn`t been used since 1708 (1832 if you include King William`s indirect use of it to force the Reform Act through).

I don`t even know who the archbishop of Canterbury is.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Crucially, having civil partnerships being a legally seperate entity from civil marriage means that it is more vulnerable to being modified or even removed in future than it would be if it were fully integrated into civil marriage.[/quote]

Now there`s someone making an actual point. I don`t think it`s actually cause for concern (see below), but it`s a rational point rationally made.

[quote]Don`t get me wrong, I am *very* happy with civil partnerships in this country. Now all I want to see is it made as safe as possible from being reversed by any future hardline government.[/quote]

I think it doesn`t matter in practice. A hypothetical future hardline government with a large enough majority in the commons to force changes to laws and the will to outlaw homosexual marriage could do so regardless of the extent to which it was integrated with older marriage laws.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I disagree Angilion. Marriage will remain exactly the same. Just because a new group of people are recognized as legally married does not change marriage in any way.[/quote]

We can disagree in a civil manner, then. I think that changing the criterion for marriage to such an extent that it requires laws to be rewritten to accomodate the new meaning is a change in the definition of marriage. You don`t. No common ground there.

[quote]Now that the stigma of Interracial marriage is gone their marriages are exactly the same as any other marriage. That will happen with gay marriages as well.[/quote]

I expect so. I think it`s a fair redefinition of marriage.

Of course, there are still people who disapprove of "interracial" marriages and don`t regard them as valid. The same is true for homosexual marriages. Can`t legislate that away, not without dreadful tyranny.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@Angilion

"Identical is equal."

While I agree with you on that point, I do need to point out that while identical is equal, seperate can lead to not being identical.

Crucially, having civil partnerships being a legally seperate entity from civil marriage means that it is more vulnerable to being modified or even removed in future than it would be if it were fully integrated into civil marriage.

Don`t get me wrong, I am *very* happy with civil partnerships in this country. Now all I want to see is it made as safe as possible from being reversed by any future hardline government.

PS: We do have an official state religion, the Church of England. It`s an embarrassing fact, but a fact all the same.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Get to calling your MPs ladies and gentlemen, lobbying parliament and what not, bribe them with tea proof crumpets and scones if you have to, I wanna see Angie cry.[/quote]

Which says a lot about you, both about your personality and your inability or unwillingness to understand any different point of view. Not that you have any idea what my point of view is.

Why bother when you can have a nice simple worldview consisting of people who completely agree with you and enemies to be defeated and dominated, preferably weeping?

Not very queenly, unless you`re going for the cliched evil queen.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Dearie if it`s such a non sequitor then why did it have EVERYTHING to do with what you said? Just ignoring my arguments isn`t going to help you.[/quote]

It had nothing to do with anything I said or with reality, which makes it a non-sequitor. I`m ignoring your arguments when there`s nothing more to them than non-sequitors and political posturing.

[quote]And you *don`t* have it liar.[/quote]

You are so spectacularly ignorant of the UK that you think it actually has a real state religion, i.e. a theocracy. Or perhaps that was more political posturing in lieu of an actual argument. Either way, you`re in no position to be making claims about reality here.

I know a few married homosexual couples. They have identical rights and responsibilities to married heterosexual couples, because that`s the law in the UK.

Identical is equal. Unless, of course, you mean something else by "equal". Many group advocates do.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Over it I-A-B.
0
Reply
Male 523
@markust123 How am I trolling? I just want you to recognize that you are not what you walk around pretending to be. Cut the self-righteous bullpoo and I`ll stop. You`re no better than anyone on this site. (Except for Madest, I`m not going to demean you that much) You used to make good and interesting points. Now all you do is throw around personal attacks to anyone that has a differing opinion than you. I`m not going to stop calling you out for this nonsense, either. I know you`re better than this.
0
Reply
Male 4,863
They used to ban people for being trolls. Too bad they don`t anymore.
0
Reply
Male 523
@Markust It`s from an older post that I just got around to checking today, so you might not get it. I`m keeping count of everytime you say something that is ironic when taking some of your previous comments into consideration. I`ve noticed that recently you have been strongly accusing people of being slaves to opinion media and partisan politics, yet a lot of the things you say are right in line with such things. For example, that time you accused 5cats and myself of being paid by Fox news to infiltrate I-A-B. The personal attack in this post reminds me of something a certain angry individual from the Fox News channel would say.
0
Reply
Male 243
This is either a marriage equality issue - or stop giving odd tax advantages to married people issue
0
Reply
Male 2,214
You want equality in America? Wow....We don`t do that here. Never did.
0
Reply
Male 2,422
Let the religious people keep their marriage word, but make it so that only the government is able to issue the privileges associated with it to everybody in the form of civil unions. That way if they want to get married they can, but it won`t mean anything accept in the eyes of God and they will have to apply for a civil union from the government to get any privileges. Just divorce the word and symbolism from the material benefits.
0
Reply
Male 4,863
"That`s 5, Markust."

What is up with this weird game you have been playing against me all day? What are you in junior high?
0
Reply
Male 4,863
"It was a joke. Calm down homeboy."

I was watching Kids who Kill or something and they said "She suffers from serious intellectual retardation". It was too good of a line not to use.
0
Reply
Male 523
@markust123
Also, calling someone stupid rather than arguing against their allegedly stupid idea? That`s 5, Markust.
0
Reply
Male 523
@markust123
It was a joke. Calm down homeboy.
0
Reply
Female 3,562
Denying people the right to marry is denying them the right to raise a family. I`d rather orphaned children were raised by a same-sex marriage than getting stuck in foster homes.
0
Reply
Male 4,863
I disagree Angilion. Marriage will remain exactly the same. Just because a new group of people are recognized as legally married does not change marriage in any way. Now that the stigma of Interracial marriage is gone their marriages are exactly the same as any other marriage. That will happen with gay marriages as well. And the people opposing gay marriage will be seen as just as big of bigots as those who opposed interracial marriage.
0
Reply
Female 2,228

0
Reply
Female 2,228
Dearie if it`s such a non sequitor then why did it have EVERYTHING to do with what you said? Just ignoring my arguments isn`t going to help you.

And you *don`t* have it liar.

Get to calling your MPs ladies and gentlemen, lobbying parliament and what not, bribe them with tea proof crumpets and scones if you have to, I wanna see Angie cry.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I`ll go one better and make a Ray Bradburyish wager right this minute. I bet the US will have full national Marriage Equality before the UK does.[/quote]

You lose, as we had it years ago and you haven`t got it yet.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Fighting "Separate but Equal," which is never actually equal, is not a struggle for dominance.[/quote]

A lovely non-sequitor. Did you really think it was relevant to anything?

[quote]If you can`t stomach actually standing up for yourself and demanding the Human Dignity you rightfully deserve, then maybe you never actually deserved it at all.[/quote]

I don`t need to force a fight and beat other people to show my dominance over them in order to think I have dignity. I also don`t need random capitalisation, whatever you think that means.

I could marry another man and get a religious blessing for the marriage with some religions. The UK isn`t the USA, the laws aren`t all the same here. I don`t need to advocate dividing humanity by sexual orientation as the first step in everything (which is, obviously, required for advocating for homosexuals or heterosexuals). I don`t need to fight for the sake of fighting.
0
Reply
Male 4,863
"Why don`t we just get rid of marriage as a legal status? That way Markust can say he`s married to his boyfriend and I can say I`m married to my car without worrying about what other people define as marriage!"

You apparently suffer from a serious intellectual retardation.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
I`ll go one better and make a Ray Bradburyish wager right this minute. I bet the US will have full national Marriage Equality before the UK does. Without all of that cowardly ceding of undeserved ground and settling for a lower ontological status we tend to get s#it done over here a good deal faster.

If I`m wrong I will eat my digital hat with a comely side of Crow and humble pie washed down with shut up juice. Who`ll take me up on it?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Marriage is not being redefined.[/quote]

Yes, it is. If you change the definition from "one person of each sex" to "two people regardless of sex", you`re redefining it.

[quote]It will be the same as it was after interracial couples were allowed to marry.[/quote]

Which was also a redefinition of marriage.

Marriage has been redefined in various ways over time. It doesn`t help to advocate redefining marriage while claiming you aren`t - that`s an obvious contradiction that makes you look dishonest and there`s no need for it. Leave the dishonesty for the other side - they need it because their argument is baseless rubbish.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]You idea would work if they were genuinely concerned about marriage, they are not. They just want to block ANYTHING that makes being gay more "normal". That`s the real agenda here.[/quote]

You`re sure about that for *everyone* who objects to gay marriage? I`m not, since what they`re objecting to is very specifically the word `marriage`, so I think they are at least in part objecting to the word `marriage`.

Even if you`re right (and I think you`re not), my idea would still remove the cloak they`re hiding behind, which would cut their support further and faster than provoking conflict for the sake of conflict.

Which is why I`m sure it won`t happen, because conflict for the sake of conflict is what`s wanted by enough people with enough power.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]If we just let that other group have the watered down, subordinated categorization[/quote]

Which is completely different to either the reality here or my proposal. So it doesn`t matter which of my posts you were replying to, you`re making stuff up to suit your argument.

Why are you more concerned with a fight than with rights?
0
Reply
Male 523
Why don`t we just get rid of marriage as a legal status? That way Markust can say he`s married to his boyfriend and I can say I`m married to my car without worrying about what other people define as marriage!
0
Reply
Male 4,863
Marriage is not being redefined. It is expanding to include loving gay couples. Marriage will be exactly as it has been for straights as it will for gays. It will be the same as it was after interracial couples were allowed to marry. And none of the ridiculous scare tactics are going to stop it. Love and tolerance has won. More people supports gay marriage than appose it and as the older generation dies off acceptance will only grow.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
I`ll drink to that, queen zira
0
Reply
Female 2,228
Wait a sec. State sponsored religion. For Europe. WE aren`t like that.

I`mma gonna do a victory lap now. URRRRRUUUUUUP!
0
Reply
Female 2,228
And those militant religions don`t *own* the word Marriage. It`s not their word, it doesn`t belong to them in any special way, we don`t have to tediously carve out a whole new semantic category to placate their delicate sensibilities.

I do know that youngsters grow up wishing to be Married someday, not "civil unioned" or "domestically partnered," Married. If we just let that other group have the watered down, subordinated categorization it will affect the way society sees them and the way they see themselves. They are not a generic knock off brand inferior in some grand metaphysical way to those who actually have "Marriages".

They are Equal In The Eyes Of The LAW.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
We`re not like Europe where there`s actually such a thing as a "State Church," state sponsored religion. Anglican Church of England, default Greek Orthodoxy for all Greeks, and so on. I don`t know if you`re operating from that assumption or not but either way it doesn`t hold here.

And religions already choose whether or not to marry couples on their own terms, Rabbis don`t have to marry a Jewish/Gentile couple, Catholics don`t have to marry the divorced and remarried. None of that would change.

What we`re dealing with here is militant religion trying to dictate secular law, which is a big no no.
0
Reply
Female 1,803
"So I`d remove the word `marriage` from the law entirely and seperate it into the three different things currently slopped under the word:

1) Personal, the vows to each other. Wedding, from the OE `weddian`, meaning `to vow`.

2) Legal, the government recognition of the relationship and the source of *all* the legal rights and responsibilities. Civil partnership, as it`s a legal contract like a business partnership.

3) Religious recognition of the relationship. Leave it totally up to each religion whether they approve or not, on whatever grounds they choose, and what they call it. Blessing, maybe, but it`s up to them.

That would solve all the problems fairly and without fighting.

So it won`t happen."

You idea would work if they were genuinely concerned about marriage, they are not. They just want to block ANYTHING that makes being gay more "normal". That`s the real agenda here.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
Angilion,

I`d go along with that.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
But of course that may just be me being quintessentially American again.

Here in the states we like to tell epic stories to our future youngsters about the struggles their forebears had. Stories that begin with, "So there we were, wading elbows deep in s#it when He/She appeared and everything changed..."
0
Reply
Female 2,228
Fighting "Separate but Equal," which is never actually equal, is not a struggle for dominance.

It is a fight to be on the same plane as everyone else.

If you can`t stomach actually standing up for yourself and demanding the Human Dignity you rightfully deserve, then maybe you never actually deserved it at all.

0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]
Yeah, it`s those dominant gays that`s the problem.[/quote]

You`re free to think that if you like, but I disagree with you.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
So I`d remove the word `marriage` from the law entirely and seperate it into the three different things currently slopped under the word:

1) Personal, the vows to each other. Wedding, from the OE `weddian`, meaning `to vow`.

2) Legal, the government recognition of the relationship and the source of *all* the legal rights and responsibilities. Civil partnership, as it`s a legal contract like a business partnership.

3) Religious recognition of the relationship. Leave it totally up to each religion whether they approve or not, on whatever grounds they choose, and what they call it. Blessing, maybe, but it`s up to them.

That would solve all the problems fairly and without fighting.

So it won`t happen.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
Angilion

Yeah, it`s those dominant gays that`s the problem.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
`some don`t care one way or the other (that`d include me).`

Cross your fingers? Really?

No, don`t believe you.



0
Reply
Male 12,365
Unfortunately, the fighting usually isn`t actually about rights.

It`s about the word `marriage` and it`s about fighting for the sake of imposing dominance.

You can see this in the UK, where we did a runaround to avoid the fighting. Simple solution - define civil partnerships as being legally *exactly* the same as civil marriages. Everyone has the same couple-related rights. Problem solved, right?

Wrong. There are too many people who want to fight over the word `marriage` and for the sake of fighting to impose dominance, so they`ve spent a decade devotedly promoting conflict.

It`s not even really about the word `marriage`, that`s just an excuse. People who recognise homosexual marriages call them that regardless of what title is on the government`s forms. People who don`t recognise homosexual marriages won`t call them that regardless of what title is on the government forms. It`s really just fighting for the sake of imposing dominance.
0
Reply
Male 3,369
MeGrendels kin fighting the redefinition of marriage.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
Marriage Inequality is some people having the right to marry someone they love and some other people conspicuously NOT having that right.

The last time we "redefined marriage" (gotta love the terminology here) we let black and white couples legally marry, before that society wasn`t too cool with that either. Miscegenation they called it.

Semantics is the last refuge of scoundrels.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
`Hi, were a committed gay couple and we`d like equal rights with straight couples when it comes to health care.`

`No problem, you just need to be married.`

`Great, we`ll get married.`

`No, you won`t.`

`Why not?`

`Apples and oranges. drat off and die, faggots.`
0
Reply
Male 8,447
QueenZira-"On Marriage Equality"

Love how they name these things.

There is no Marriage InEquality (at least how you mean it). If you`re married, get the benefits of that married couples enjoy.

What you`re talking about is re-defining `marriage`.

Marriage: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law .

What you`re attempting to do is eliminate the `of the opposite sex as husband or wife`, but keep the `consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law`.

To do so, you have to go against the tradition of a society. Some people are for it, some people are against it, and some don`t care one way or the other (that`d include me).

But, until that is done, the term `Marriage Equality` is meaninless, as it does not, by definition and legally, refer to anything else besides a union of the opposite sex.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
`Currently, marriage between homosexuals is not allowed in the US, that is a different issue. `

No, that is the issue. homosexuals are not allowed the same rights. This was a case in point.

Obviously if there was marriage equalty they would have the same rights. And we wouldn`t need to have this discussion. But there isn`t and this post points out some of the actual consequences of that as it effects actual people.

Why do you have a problem with simple equality?
0
Reply
Male 678
@MeGrendel

...Did you mean green on green writing?
0
Reply
Male 715
let`s see my insurance though my job is 37.85 a week and my insurance when I was unemployed was 44.50 a week yeah it`s impossible to get insured...
0
Reply
Male 4,793
This country blows.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
On Marriage Equality not being allowed in the US- MA. NY. VT. CT. NH. IA. MD. WA. and DC. just looked up and said, "Say Whaaa?"

True enough DOMA prevents federal recognition but it is quickly undergoing death by a thousand paper cuts (many unconstitutional rulings just this very week) and will probably be before SCOTUS as soon as `13.

And I haven`t even mentioned all the states in play for the `12 elections with ballot measures TBA, it`s looking to be a real scrapper this time around, no done deals for the anti equality side.

LET THE GAMES BEGIN! *GONG*
0
Reply
Male 8,447
BlankTom-"let ME see MY GIRLFRIEND"

I stand corrected. Read it incorrectly several times. (Small screen, blue on blue writting).

My apologies.
0
Reply
Male 1,674
@MeGrendel "Why didn`t the doctors let ME see MY GIRLFRIEND when she got sick"

Again, comprehension.
0
Reply
Male 8,447
BlankTom-"The strip makes no claims to a or b."

Panel 6: "why didn`t the doctors see my girlfriend when she got sick?"

That insinuates a) a doctor will not see a homosexual as the artist is stating that the only reason the doctor would not see her is because she`s a girl`s girlfriend.

This is false.

Panel 7: "didn`t accept my health insurance that would save her life"

Is clearly inferring that
1) the lady could not get insurance on her own because she was homosexual (this covers b) that a homosexual in incapable of getting insurance) and
2) that without insurance she could not be saved (this covers b.1) the partner`s insurance was the ONLY way for her to get treatment).

Both are false.
0
Reply
Male 1,674
@MeGrendel The strip makes no claims to a or b. Try to pay more attention to what you`re reading, chief.
0
Reply
Male 8,447
BlankTom-"Wrong in this scenario buddy"

The scenario is bull. It`s insinuating that:
a) a doctor will not see a homosexual
b) that a homosexual in incapable of getting insurance (b.1, also that the partner`s insurance was the ONLY way for her to get treatment)
c) that the inability of a homosexual to marry will end up in lack of healthcare and death.

All (a, b, b.1 & c) are incorrect and bear absolutely NO resemblance to reality.

This strip could have easily said the same about an unmarried hetero couple, and it would have been exactly the same: correct on the fact that they could share no insurance and incorrect in all the implied assumptions.
0
Reply
Male 8,447
LordJim-"You are avoiding the question."

I did not avoid it at all.

One couple is married, one is not. Irregardless if the unmarried couple is gay or hetero, they do not enjoy some of the benefits that married couples do.

So yes, apple to oranges.

Currently, marriage between homosexuals is not allowed in the US, that is a different issue. I don`t care one way or the other, but it will mean a basic re-definition of the term `marriage`.

Now, when/if marriage is re-defined to include homosexuals, they will either enjoy the same benefits of marriage (as they should) or THEN you can say they are being denied the benefits.
0
Reply
Male 1,674
@MeGrendel "And the ability of a person to obtain health insurance has nothing to do with their sexual orientation."

Wrong in this scenario buddy
0
Reply
Male 1,243
The US is a mighty f*cked up place.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
`Notice the difference...` Of course I noticed the difference. I bloody wrote it. But in places where gay marriage is not allowed that diference is exactly the point.

You are being slippery, civil partnerships are recognised but do they carry the same rights? Apples and oranges? You are avoiding the question.
0
Reply
Male 3,369
@MeGrendel: Sigh. If my wife was a stay at home mom, it would be cheaper for her to go on the plan my employer provides rather than get her own. Since the couple in this scenario is obviously gay, most likely the can`t get married, which puts them at a disadvantage as far as affording insurance. Why would anyone defend that?
0
Reply
Male 186
Preachy IAB is preachy again.
0
Reply
Male 526
You can`t simultaneously whine that homosexuals shouldn`t be allowed to marry because it is against your religion, deny homosexuals rights that married couples get because they`re not technically married, and continue to think that you are being equal or fair. I don`t give a damn what you end up calling `gay marriage` - be it civil unions or partnerships - as long as gays get the rights they deserve.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
You shouldn`t even have to marry to have the same rights as married couples. Some people marry after less than a year of being together, some people don`t marry at all. Is their relationship any less committed? No.
0
Reply
Male 8,447
@LordJim

Notice the difference in your first statemnt and the second:
Marriage vs. partnership.
Marriage vs. partnership.
Marriage vs. partnership.

You`re asking for `equality` for two different situations. (now, once gays can marry, and these two were married, and you still had the same problem, THEN it would be `inequality`)

If a heterosexual couple are not married, but just in a relationship, then they would not be able to share insurance and may not be kept informed (visiting rights vary depending on hospital and seriousness of condition).

Now, when gays are allowed to marry, they`ll have the same rights. Until then, it`s apples to oranges.

And the ability of a person to obtain health insurance has nothing to do with their sexual orientation.
0
Reply
Male 7,123
MeGrendel
I`m not fully briefed on US health care (although I try to keep up) so could you answer a couple of questions?

If one person in a heterosexual marriage is hospitalised does the spouse have visiting rights? Does a couple in a gay partnership have the same rights?

If one person in a heterosexual marriage has health insurance does that generally cover the spouse? Does a couple in a gay partnership have the same rights?

If one person in a heterosexual marriage becomes ill their spouse will be kept informed and consulted regarding treatment.Does a couple in a gay partnership have the same rights?

It`s about equality, not `being a lesbo`.

`The girlfriend is free to obtain health care without insurance.` Is that really the case? That an uninsured person in the US can freely get appropriate health care for serious conditions? I`d formed a different impression, but I`m always happy to be corrected.

0
Reply
Female 3,726
@MeGrendel: Don`t like it when someone hands you your ass? Didn`t you insult jtrebowski first with "googles"?

Get over it, you`re a little old for this.
0
Reply
Male 8,447
Wow, a spelling flame. The last refuge of losing a debate.

I beg your humble forgiveness for posting in a rush.

So far that`s one meaningless insult and a spelling flame.

Just for future reference, I sometimes drop the `T` off of the back end of a `not` when I`m in a hurry.

Not exactly successful debating technique.

0
Reply
Male 546
Lol.... I get a kick out of stories, don`t you? So PC, I love it!
0
Reply
Male 8,447
@QueenZira

Funny
0
Reply
Male 3,369
"Inability to spell "discussion" duly noted."

LOL!!!!!
0
Reply
Male 3,369
@MeGrendel: Oops. I went to a private school.
0
Reply
Male 736
Inability to spell "discussion" duly noted.
0
Reply
Male 303
This story is also a warning against private health care.
0
Reply
Female 2,228

0
Reply
Male 8,447
jtrebowski-"I Googles"

You googles? Didn`t your momma tell you you`d go blind.

Inability to develop any reasonable discusion duly noted.
0
Reply
Male 3,369
MeGrendel: I Googles "closeted homosexual", and your name came up. You might want to get some help with that.
0
Reply
Male 8,447
So her girlfriend was denied healthcare due to being a lesbo?

Myth: doesn`t happen.

The girlfriend is free to get her own health insurance.

The girlfriend is free to obtain health care without insurance.

Dumb scenario.
0
Reply
Male 1,674
@MeGrendel I think what she`s saying is her Girlfriend is a stay at home mom who doesn`t have insurance and their state doesn`t allow same sex partners to share insurance.

Since she was uninsured, she wasn`t able to get the same treatment as someone who was insured and then ultimately died due to her condition (most likely related to her extreme anorexia).
0
Reply
Male 10,338
No. Just trollin`. I take it back.
0
Reply
Male 5,413
I shed a tear.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Flame war? I liked the cartoon, that`s why I subbed it. Why are you getting so defensive? Do you feel like you *should* be offended by this?
0
Reply
Male 8,447
So her girlfriend was denied healthcare due to being a lesbo?

Myth: doesn`t happen.

The girlfriend is free to get her own health insurance.

The girlfriend is free to obtain health care without insurance.

Dumb scenario.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Wha wha wha... SHUT! UP!

Seriously! Talk about preaching to the choir!

Probably 99.9% of IABers (including me), agree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

Go post this on a US government website or something. Maybe a Baptist website if you wanna start a flame war.

0
Reply
Male 612
i`m pretty sure that actual good people don`t go around bragging about the good deeds they do.
0
Reply
Female 3,726
|-(

Because those homophobes think you`re ruining the sanctity of marriage. That`s why you can`t get married.

But I supposed it`s okay to marry a hooker in a drive through wedding by Elvis with stripper witnesses only to get divorced a week later when your husband decides to run off with your cuckold. Ahhh, good ole` American values!
0
Reply
Male 1,674
why, in this person`s reality, are all women anorexic?
0
Reply
Male 1,239
She needs to eat.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Link: Equal Rights For All? [Pic] [Rate Link] - Everyone deserves equal rights, no?
0
Reply