9/11 compensation fund is anti-gay

Publius · Post by **Publius** » 2002-07-20 07:38am

Actually, Alyrium Denryle, in the eyes of the law, what you are asking for is special treatement, because, for better of for worse, and regardless of how one feels about the matter, homosexual partnerships are not legally recognised. To extend to such partnerships the same treatment as given to legally recognised marriages would constitute special treatment.

Consider: One can also easily verify that a man or a woman was having an affair outside his or her marriage, but one certainly wouldn't consider offering his or her extramarital partner compensation, would one? Despite the easily verifiable personal relationship, it simply isn't a legal relationship.

Recall that when Vice-Admiral Lord Nelson was killed in the Battle of Trafalgar, compensation was given to Lady Nelson, but not to Lady Hamilton -- whose affair with Lord Nelson was common knowledge, known and permitted congenially even by Lord Hamilton, her husband. Ultimately, regardless of how much Lord Nelson and Lady Hamilton loved one another -- and it was most probably more than most married couples at the time (certainly more than Lord Nelson and Lady Nelson) -- they were not married, and had no legal relationship which might provide any basis for her to receive compensation for his death.

As a result of this, this measure is not discriminatory toward homosexuals at all; it is consistent in being applicable only to de jure or de sanguine family.

The real issue that you seem to be contesting is the fact that homosexuals cannot legally marry in most States of the Union -- which, frankly speaking, is a separate issue. One would expect that if homosexual marriages were legally recognised throughout the Union, that this measure would be applicable to families so constituted, as well.

Publius

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-07-20 09:41am

GRID could have been stopped in this country back in the 1980s if commonly
accepted practices for containing the outbreak of an infectious disease had
been followed, such as:

Identifiying carriers of the Virus
Identifying people who had sexual relationships with the carriers and notifying
them, etc.
etc
etc

Really, just simple basic countermeasures that have been used for a long,
long, long time, but the homosexual community fought it tooth and nail,
crying out that it would be "discrimination" against homos if STANDARD
INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL PRINCIPLES were to be followed.

They dug their own graves, with that, and the general in-fighting amongst
themselves, since they had just achieved "liberation" and didn't want their
dirty laundry to be aired.

http://sunsite.berkeley.edu:2020/dynawe ... START_N%25
Rather informative site, shows all the infighting in SanFran.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-07-20 12:18pm

And why arent gay marriages recognised by law? Because we dont have the same basic rights that heterosexual people do. What pisses me off is that we are not in the position to recieve thes benifits.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-07-20 01:48pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:And why arent gay marriages recognised by law? Because we dont have the same basic rights that heterosexual people do. What pisses me off is that we are not in the position to recieve thes benifits.

I'd really love to marry my dog, and get marriage benefits, but, oh RATS,
I can't do that, so everyone else who opposes me wants to deny me my
basic rights......

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-07-20 02:07pm

Recent research shows that sexual orientation is determined at or shortly after birth and is not chosen by the person. I know i didnt choose to be gay, its what iam. And may I ask what is wrong with being gay? what morality issues are you trying to bring up?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-07-20 03:57pm

Homosexuality occurs frequently in nature, and the position that it is immoral is based entirely in Christianity. There is no justification for not allowing two members of the same sex to get married under the eyes of the law. Marriage is a part of the right to pursuit of happiness, and the US government currently denies gay people this right.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-07-20 04:49pm

Durandal wrote:Homosexuality occurs frequently in nature, and the position that it is immoral is based entirely in Christianity.

*Cough*

Islam

*cough*

The Hadith and homosexuality:

The Hadith are collections of sayings attributed to Muhammad.
Many Hadiths (ahadith) discuss liwat (sexual intercourse between
males). Two examples are:

"When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes."

"Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to." (in reference to the active and passive partners in gay sexual intercourse)

and.......

*cough*

Judaism

*cough*

From the Torah (translated to english)

"Ve-et zachar lo tishcav mishkevei isha to'evah hi" (Vayikra 18:22)

"A man shall not lie with another man as he would lie with a woman, it is an abhorrence (n.1)" (Leviticus 18:22).

*********

"Ve-ish asher yishcav et zachar mishkevei isha to'evah asu shneihem mot yumtu demeihem bam." (Vayikra 20:13).

"A man who lies with a man [in the way of] lying with a woman, both of them have done an abhorrent thing (n.1) and shall die for it." (Leviticus 20:13).

DAMN, the homos have pissed off all 3 of the major monotheistic religions...

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-07-20 05:01pm

Actually christianity technically has no prohibitions against homosexuality, most of what christians spout comes from leviticus, which they are not bound too(if they where every christian goes to hell becase they eat pork, shellfish, and wear clothing of blended textiles)

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2002-07-20 05:17pm

MKSheppard wrote: DAMN, the homos have pissed off all 3 of the major monotheistic religions...

Christianity is essentially an unbelievably successful sect of Judaism, and Islam is a home-brewed Arabic religion which borrows very heavily from both of the above. Virtually Every one of the prophets in Islam excepting Mohammed is taken from the bible (for example Jisu; the greatest prophet until Mohammed, who died and returned from the grave, and then became the only human ever to enter heaven while still alive. Sound familiar?)

The Big 3 monotheistic religions all originate from the same basic region, and all have the same scriptural basis. They differ in some matters in doctrine and their overall direction as religions, but they are astoundingly similar.

Also, Sheppard. I can't abide that *cough* *cough* crap. Dalton will agree with me, it's every bit as tired and unfunny as "all your base are belong to us."

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2002-07-20 05:20pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Actually christianity technically has no prohibitions against homosexuality, most of what christians spout comes from leviticus, which they are not bound too(if they where every christian goes to hell becase they eat pork, shellfish, and wear clothing of blended textiles)

Well, unfortunately, the doctrinally infallible popes have traditionally interpretted the Bible as saying that homosexuality is wrong--and Jesus himself bestowed on them the ultimate authority in that vein. And if you're a protestant, you still have to recognize their word as experts.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2002-07-20 05:20pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote: Also, Sheppard. I can't abide that *cough* *cough* crap. Dalton will agree with me, it's every bit as tired and unfunny as "all your base are belong to us."

Eh, whatever.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-07-20 05:41pm

Then the pope is an idiot. Jesus himself released christians from the laws of leviticus. Iam an athiest and frankly dont give a rats ass. However i get sick of christian bigots holding that particular book ovr my head.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-07-20 05:48pm

Alyrium Denryle you learn somthing new every-day
Leviticus was a big problem as you went to hell for nearly any little thing VS the Currant main Curch of Calthlism where you have six ways to get into heaven no matter what you do

*What happens when time passes in a religion and the world Fundmentaly alteres

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2002-07-20 07:13pm

According to the law where should the governmet draw the line? Can a person be married to multiple partners? There is plenty of evidence that man is not monogamous. OK what about pedifiles, do they have a choice on who they are sexualy attarcted to? Does it make it "right". What is ok and what isn't and who should decide?

Am I being discriminated against for having black hair, and when I want to dye my hair I must first pay for it being bleached? I do not have the right to marry a person from the same sex either, so you are not being discriminated against, your selection maybe limited, but so is EVERYONE ELSES. I personally have the need for a fast car, but legally I have to pass smog, is this disrimination? I personally can not stand a car with less than 200 HP and I cannot stand driving one, it is no longer a choice, I just cannot stand it, it drives me nuts. NO, just because my needs are not being met, does not mean that the law is pointed just at me and my need to go fast. IT applies to everyone if you want to go fast or not.

In this senario with the 911, if they said you are gay, therefore no one legally related to you (including blood relitives) get no money, then yes it is discrimination. They are not saying that. If anyone gay son was in the world trade center they will get compansation. If anyones boyfriend/girlfriend was in the Pentagon they will not. If a GAY man was still married to a female, they would get compensation. As long as the legal document is there. If we did hand out compansations to gay partner in this case, there are also straight girls guys which have a lifetime commitment to each other with out being married (Its rare but it does happen) who would get nothing. So as I see it, there is no discrimation issue with homosexuals with the handouts that the governmet is giving away, it is a matter of legal documentation, not sexual orentation.
Should same-sex marriages be aloud? a different issue. At the time of the compensations it was not legal, the compensations in itself is not discrminating because of sexual orentation.
The Illegal aliens part is also a different issue, and has nothing to do with the discrimination against homosexuality. This a red herring (is that the right term?) . It may be unfair-yes, but the 2 have nothing to do with each other.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-07-20 07:16pm

Was that last line a statement or a question?

If it was a question...

well that depends on the religion, orthodox judism hasnt changed for centuries(there are, non-orthodox jews however)

when the world fundamentaly alters there is a tendancy for revolutions(The renaissance folloowing the black death, bolshevik revolution durring WW1) in religion this at least to me often causes a split in religion, often between those groups that want reform and conservatives that dont like change( as demonstrated by Martin luthers 95 theses in 1517 and the second split of the catholic church)

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-07-20 08:20pm

Judaism, Christianity and Islam all originate from the same intolerant holy book: the Old Testament, and they share the same God (though some Christians are loathe to admit it). But most, if not all, the anti-homosexuality movements originate within Judeo-Christian groups. Muslims don't like it, but they're not as vocal.

According to the law where should the governmet draw the line? Can a person be married to multiple partners? There is plenty of evidence that man is not monogamous. OK what about pedifiles, do they have a choice on who they are sexualy attarcted to? Does it make it "right". What is ok and what isn't and who should decide?

No one is getting hurt when homosexuals are allowed to marry. People do get hurt if pedophiles are allowed to roam free.

If some guy in Utah wants to have multiple wives, fine, but only one should be recognized by the state if he gets the same tax breaks as people who marry single partners.

John · Post by **John** » 2002-07-20 08:21pm

So what is the State's interest in saying Gay's can't marry, shouldn't be compensated? I can't think of one. One form of marriage is as good as any other, as long as the state gets it's money. As for the illegal aliens, shoot and/or deport them.

John · Post by **John** » 2002-07-20 08:24pm

FYI, homosexuality ISN'T normal. Not that the gay man or woman can help themselves (I subscribe to the testosterone bath theory), but that doesn't make ther orientation NORMAL.

Sam Or I · Post by **Sam Or I** » 2002-07-20 09:20pm

[quote]No one is getting hurt when homosexuals are allowed to marry. People do get hurt if pedophiles are allowed to roam free.

If some guy in Utah wants to have multiple wives, fine, but only one should be recognized by the state if he gets the same tax breaks as people who marry single partners.[/quote]

How old was Juliet? Wasn't she like 13? OK, should it be after a girl can bear children despite the Age?

About multiple wives, why only one? Is that not discriminating? I know this is going off subject, but what if one of his other wives was caught in 911? If he loves her just as much should he not get compinsated.

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2002-07-20 09:35pm

"FYI, homosexuality ISN'T normal. Not that the gay man or woman can help themselves (I subscribe to the testosterone bath theory), but that doesn't make ther orientation NORMAL."

Any proof here? Homosexuality is observable among animals as well as humans. That would make it "normal" in the relevant sense of the word. How normal a particular culture would view it as has no bearing upon the matter.

John · Post by **John** » 2002-07-20 09:40pm

If 1% of the population are homosexual, and 99% are heterosexual, then heterosexuality is NORMAL. How hard is that?

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-07-20 09:42pm

If 1% of the population are homosexual, and 99% are heterosexual, then heterosexuality is NORMAL. How hard is that?

Diffrent Deffintions John
Normal Defined by its normal thing in the animal World, VS its normal in Humans, VS its normal in the US

Depends on what your basing your defintion of normal on

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2002-07-20 09:46pm

"If 1% of the population are homosexual, and 99% are heterosexual, then heterosexuality is NORMAL. How hard is that?"

Define "normal". Do you mean "normal" in the sense of uncommon, or in the sense of unnatural, behavior?

"Not that the gay man or woman can help themselves (I subscribe to the testosterone bath theory), but that doesn't make ther orientation NORMAL."

This sounds very much like you consider Heterosexuality to be the only "natural" behavior model, what with them not being able to "help themselves".

Please note that I'm not trying to say you're a bad person or anything. It just happens to be a quarter to four in the morning here, and my weariness blunts my points.

John · Post by **John** » 2002-07-20 10:06pm

I don't want to string gay people up from the nearest tree, nor do I care to bar them from marrying, or serving in the military. I simply point out that homosexuality is not normal for humans, or any other animal. I don't see how you can be intellectually honest and say otherwise.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2002-07-21 02:50am

John you are incorrect. In bonobo chimp society every last one of them is bisexual for thier species it is "normal"

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

9/11 compensation fund is anti-gay

So?

Gay Compensation

Homosexuality

Re: Homosexuality

The Normalacy of Homosexuality.

Re: The Normalacy of Homosexuality.

Normality