Science > Abortion > Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"anonymous_joe" |
| Date: |
20 Sep 2005 03:09:31 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
Wow,
This actually, like, matters to somebody!?!?
http://www.boston.com/news/odd/articles/2005/09/20/school_removes_cups_with_gay_author_quote/
Somewhat relatedly, in rhode island a local coffee chain, the now
defunct Bess Eaton, placed
biblical quotes on the coffee cups for some time. The difference being
is that one was done with the intention of recruitment.
.
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
20 Sep 2005 03:26:37 PM |
|
|
"anonymous_joe" <anonymous_joe@spam.net> wrote in message
news:%%ZXe.70764$a02.52734@fe16.lga...
Wow,
This actually, like, matters to somebody!?!?
http://www.boston.com/news/odd/articles/2005/09/20/school_removes_cups_with_gay_author_quote/
Only to religious kooks in Waco, Texas.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
20 Sep 2005 03:35:57 PM |
|
|
What exactly is the "homosexual agenda"? Is there some sort of mass
conspiracy to get people to use the sexual part of their anatomy in
ways they normally wouldn't think of, or would be interested in? Does
the coffee cups have these ways on them with a slogan, "try them, you
might like them"?
Saying a group has an "agenda" is a way to spook people.
- Richard Hutnik
And yes, I am aware that homosexuals are looking to have their
sexuality left alone, and they be respected. Not sure why anyone would
desire otherwise, but hey, people have their agenda. Oh yes, there is
the whole marriage thing, which kind of makes me wonder what the big
deal is. Can someone explain to me why some sort of contract couldn't
be drawn up to allow people to divide property one way or another if
their partnership is disolved? How about going about getting something
like this passed without having the need to get people to accept
something as a marriage they personally don't want to accept as one for
their belief system?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Watch Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
20 Sep 2005 08:53:13 PM |
|
|
wrote:
And yes, I am aware that homosexuals are looking to have their
sexuality left alone, and they be respected. Not sure why anyone would
desire otherwise, but hey, people have their agenda. Oh yes, there is
the whole marriage thing, which kind of makes me wonder what the big
deal is. Can someone explain to me why some sort of contract couldn't
be drawn up to allow people to divide property one way or another if
their partnership is disolved? How about going about getting something
like this passed without having the need to get people to accept
something as a marriage they personally don't want to accept as one for
their belief system?
There are literally 1000+ rights, responsibilities, and privileges in
state and federal law that you simply can't get WITHOUT being married.
Joint incomes taxes; the right to sponsor your spouse for citizenship;
social security benefits; the right to "standing" in a civil case if
your spouse is injured and killed (an UNCLE can sue someone for
wrongful homocide of his niece, by law; a gay spouse, currently,
cannot); and so on and so on. Equality under the law will only be
available to gays if they can get married.
Nobody has to "accept" it on a religious, moral, or aesthetic basis.
They are permitted to hang around in their homes and churches
denouncing how terrible it all is. But as a LEGAL state, it should be
available to gays as well as straights. Believe me, there's a lot of
marriages that I don't "approve" of, either (busty young women marrying
sad old men they don't love just to get the money; couples who marry
even though one or both of them plans to chest on the other; you name
it), but I recognize that other people are entitled to make their own
choices whether I approve of them or not.
The Catholic Church doesn't approve of remarriage after divorce (if the
first was a church marriage). Or of artificial contraceptives, for that
matter. How would you feel if they tried to use their money and power
to make that the law - not for Catholics, but for everyone?
.
|
|
|
| User: "ChalkItUp" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
21 Sep 2005 02:03:02 PM |
|
|
The Watch Dog wrote:
richardhutnik@hotmail.com wrote:
And yes, I am aware that homosexuals are looking to have their
sexuality left alone, and they be respected. Not sure why anyone would
desire otherwise, but hey, people have their agenda. Oh yes, there is
the whole marriage thing, which kind of makes me wonder what the big
deal is. Can someone explain to me why some sort of contract couldn't
be drawn up to allow people to divide property one way or another if
their partnership is disolved? How about going about getting something
like this passed without having the need to get people to accept
something as a marriage they personally don't want to accept as one for
their belief system?
There are literally 1000+ rights, responsibilities, and privileges in
state and federal law that you simply can't get WITHOUT being married.
Therefore, the disparity in rights is between those who are married
versus those who are unmarried.
Joint incomes taxes; the right to sponsor your spouse for citizenship;
social security benefits; the right to "standing" in a civil case if
your spouse is injured and killed (an UNCLE can sue someone for
wrongful homocide of his niece, by law; a gay spouse, currently,
cannot); and so on and so on. Equality under the law will only be
available to gays if they can get married.
How will that bring equality?? There will still be millions of
unmarried people who are deprived of the very rights that you list
above. The fact of the matter is that ANY laws concerning marriage
inherently produce INequality. It seems to me that if you are true to
your ideals as stated above (equality under the law), that you should
NOT be supporting the furtherance of an institution that inherently
produces UNequal rights. You should be favoring the ABOLITION of all
government laws relating to marriage. Did you think about the millions
of people who are unmarried (by choice or not, doesn't matter)? Why
does the gov't provide an incentive for people to opt for marriage? Why
do you support the institution of marriage, an institution which
produces inequality, and in fact wish to broaden its scope?
.
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
22 Sep 2005 01:53:49 PM |
|
|
ChalkItUp wrote:
The Watch Dog wrote:
richardhutnik@hotmail.com wrote:
And yes, I am aware that homosexuals are looking to have their
sexuality left alone, and they be respected. Not sure why anyone would
desire otherwise, but hey, people have their agenda. Oh yes, there is
the whole marriage thing, which kind of makes me wonder what the big
deal is. Can someone explain to me why some sort of contract couldn't
be drawn up to allow people to divide property one way or another if
their partnership is disolved? How about going about getting something
like this passed without having the need to get people to accept
something as a marriage they personally don't want to accept as one for
their belief system?
There are literally 1000+ rights, responsibilities, and privileges in
state and federal law that you simply can't get WITHOUT being married.
Therefore, the disparity in rights is between those who are married
versus those who are unmarried.
Joint incomes taxes; the right to sponsor your spouse for citizenship;
social security benefits; the right to "standing" in a civil case if
your spouse is injured and killed (an UNCLE can sue someone for
wrongful homocide of his niece, by law; a gay spouse, currently,
cannot); and so on and so on. Equality under the law will only be
available to gays if they can get married.
How will that bring equality?? There will still be millions of
unmarried people who are deprived of the very rights that you list
above. The fact of the matter is that ANY laws concerning marriage
inherently produce INequality. It seems to me that if you are true to
your ideals as stated above (equality under the law), that you should
NOT be supporting the furtherance of an institution that inherently
produces UNequal rights. You should be favoring the ABOLITION of all
government laws relating to marriage. Did you think about the millions
of people who are unmarried (by choice or not, doesn't matter)? Why
does the gov't provide an incentive for people to opt for marriage? Why
do you support the institution of marriage, an institution which
produces inequality, and in fact wish to broaden its scope?
Now you're talking. At best, the government should provide for
recognition of a "life partner" or "emergency decision maker" or such,
who would have legal and financial rights such as medical and financial
decision making, access to property and bank accounts, inheritance
rights, responsibility for minor children, etc. in the event of the
individual's unforseeable inability to make decisions for themselves
due to illness or death. Leave the marriages and intoning about the
sacred institutions to whatever church the couple wants to get involved
with.
.
|
|
|
| User: "terri" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
23 Sep 2005 10:29:37 AM |
|
|
In that case all straight people should have to have a legally
recognised "life partner" as well.Whether you are married to them or
not should not be an issue.Marriage is an emotional commitment as well
as a legal one and I think gay people should be allowed to marry a
person of their choice,in church without the federal government
becoming involved over the semantics of whom you can marry and whom you
can't
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
21 Sep 2005 10:59:26 PM |
|
|
On 21-Sep-2005, "ChalkItUp" <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote:
The Watch Dog wrote:
There are literally 1000+ rights, responsibilities, and privileges in
state and federal law that you simply can't get WITHOUT being married.
Therefore, the disparity in rights is between those who are married
versus those who are unmarried.
Wrong, because unmarried people don't need the rights married couples
share with each other.
What a STUPID strawman!!
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "ChalkItUp" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
22 Sep 2005 08:53:24 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 21-Sep-2005, "ChalkItUp" <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote:
The Watch Dog wrote:
There are literally 1000+ rights, responsibilities, and privileges in
state and federal law that you simply can't get WITHOUT being married.
Therefore, the disparity in rights is between those who are married
versus those who are unmarried.
Wrong, because unmarried people don't need the rights married couples
share with each other.
What a STUPID strawman!!
I guess in your world rights are based on need...in which case ~equal
rights~ are entirely subjective, and should not be a part of one's
expectations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
22 Sep 2005 09:42:01 AM |
|
|
ChalkItUp wrote:
flav...@verizon.net wrote:
On 21-Sep-2005, "ChalkItUp" <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote:
The Watch Dog wrote:
There are literally 1000+ rights, responsibilities, and privileges in
state and federal law that you simply can't get WITHOUT being married.
Therefore, the disparity in rights is between those who are married
versus those who are unmarried.
Wrong, because unmarried people don't need the rights married couples
share with each other.
What a STUPID strawman!!
I guess in your world rights are based on need...in which case ~equal
rights~ are entirely subjective, and should not be a part of one's
expectations.
Fine. You are single. You have the right to visit your spouse in the
hospital. You have the right of custody of your spouse's children if
you get a divorce. You automatically inherit your spouse's possessions
on his/her death, as well as Social Security and pension benefits,
subject to his/her will. You can sign a legal contract in your
spouse's name. You automatically become a legal parent of your
spouse's children. You have the right to sue if your spouse is
wrongfully injured or killed. And so on.
The only problem is, you don't have a spouse since you are single. The
rights that married people get are meaningless to a single person since
they deal with the interrelationship of two people that have made a
binding commitment to one another.
Perhaps you should start with what rights that a married couple has
that a single person can even use. I bet you will find that there are
not many, since those rights almost always deal with a spouse in some
way.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "ChalkItUp" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
22 Sep 2005 12:21:16 PM |
|
|
Mark Sebree wrote:
ChalkItUp wrote:
flav...@verizon.net wrote:
On 21-Sep-2005, "ChalkItUp" <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote:
The Watch Dog wrote:
There are literally 1000+ rights, responsibilities, and privileges in
state and federal law that you simply can't get WITHOUT being married.
Therefore, the disparity in rights is between those who are married
versus those who are unmarried.
Wrong, because unmarried people don't need the rights married couples
share with each other.
What a STUPID strawman!!
I guess in your world rights are based on need...in which case ~equal
rights~ are entirely subjective, and should not be a part of one's
expectations.
Fine. You are single.
OK, let's assume I'm single.
You have the right to visit your spouse in the
hospital.
Duh, I don't have a spouse...I'm single, remember. Why can't my single
brother (or friend, co-worker, classmate, cousin, etc.) designate me as
the person who holds the right to visit him in the hospital....just
like married people can do. Why doesn't he have this right that
married people have.
You have the right of custody of your spouse's children if
you get a divorce.
Duh, I don't have a spouse...I'm single, remember...I can't get a
divorce. I'm assuming that in your example, my spouse's children are
also my children. I'm not simply getting custody of my spouse's
kids...I'm getting custody of my own kids. Now, as a single parent, I
already have the right to custody of my children. However, if you mean
(in your example) that the children are my spouse's from a prior
relationship, then I'd be hard pressed to claim custody of his/her
children in any case. But assuming that certain conditions exist in
which I would be able to claim custody of my divorced spouse's kids,
then if the same conditions exist and I am involved in an unmarried
relationship which is breaking up, why don't I have the right to claim
custody of the kids....just like married people can do. Why don't I
have the right that married people have.
You automatically inherit your spouse's possessions
on his/her death,
Why can't my single brother (or friend, co-worker, classmate, cousin,
etc.) designate me as the person who automatically inherits his
possessions....just like married people can do. Why doesn't he have
this right that married people have.
as well as Social Security and pension benefits,
subject to his/her will.
Why can't my single brother (or friend, co-worker, classmate, cousin,
etc.) designate me as the person who gets the SS & pension
benefits....just like married people can do. Why doesn't he have this
right that married people have.
You can sign a legal contract in your
spouse's name.
Why can't my single brother (or friend, co-worker, classmate, cousin,
etc.) designate me as the person who can sign legal contracts in his
name....just like married people can do. Why doesn't he have this
right that married people have.
You automatically become a legal parent of your
spouse's children.
Bad example. Unmarrieds can already legal parents of each other's
children
You have the right to sue if your spouse is
wrongfully injured or killed. And so on.
The only problem is, you don't have a spouse since you are single. The
rights that married people get are meaningless to a single person since
they deal with the interrelationship of two people that have made a
binding commitment to one another.
Don't you think that people make binding commitments to each other
without getting married. What about people that will never get married
due to physical or mental deformities....or even by choice, for that
matter. Shouldn't they have access to the same rights as married
people?
Perhaps you should start with what rights that a married couple has
that a single person can even use.
We've already discussed many.
I bet you will find that there are
not many, since those rights almost always deal with a spouse in some
way.
LOL! Of course they "always deal with a spouse in some way". They are
rights granted exclusively to one class of people...the married. That
is the point of contention...unequal rights granted to a particular
class.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
22 Sep 2005 01:57:45 PM |
|
|
"ChalkItUp" <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127409676.850975.85770@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Duh, I don't have a spouse...I'm single, remember. Why can't my single
brother (or friend, co-worker, classmate, cousin, etc.) designate me as
the person who holds the right to visit him in the hospital....just
like married people can do. Why doesn't he have this right that
married people have.
Medical power of attorney follows next-of-kin laws. A spouse is the closest
legal next-of-kin, followed by the nearest blood relatives. With the
possible exception of a spouse (cf. the Terri Schiavo legal circus), you can
legally override that and establish legal medical power of attorney with any
of the people you mention. However, that power can, and often is, challenged
by legal next-of-kin.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "ChalkItUp" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
22 Sep 2005 02:33:16 PM |
|
|
Dennis Kemmerer wrote:
"ChalkItUp" <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127409676.850975.85770@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Duh, I don't have a spouse...I'm single, remember. Why can't my single
brother (or friend, co-worker, classmate, cousin, etc.) designate me as
the person who holds the right to visit him in the hospital....just
like married people can do. Why doesn't he have this right that
married people have.
Medical power of attorney follows next-of-kin laws. A spouse is the closest
legal next-of-kin, followed by the nearest blood relatives. With the
possible exception of a spouse (cf. the Terri Schiavo legal circus), you can
legally override that and establish legal medical power of attorney with any
of the people you mention. However, that power can, and often is, challenged
by legal next-of-kin.
Once again, you make my point for me. As you say, a spouse is
considered closer kin than the nearest blood relative. Why can't a
single person designate someone as the "closest legal next-of-kin" in
the same way that a spouse is considered such? Why must one get
married in order to produce such a designee? Gov't involvement in
marriage produces a disparity in rights between the married & the
unmarried. If we were really concerned with equal rights for ALL, we
would abandon attempts to broaden the scope of marriage (and the
concomitant accraul of rights not granted to the unmarried) to include
gays, and work toward the repeal of all governmental regulations re
marriage.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
22 Sep 2005 03:41:37 PM |
|
|
"ChalkItUp" <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127417596.079082.236520@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Dennis Kemmerer wrote:
"ChalkItUp" <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127409676.850975.85770@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Duh, I don't have a spouse...I'm single, remember. Why can't my single
brother (or friend, co-worker, classmate, cousin, etc.) designate me as
the person who holds the right to visit him in the hospital....just
like married people can do. Why doesn't he have this right that
married people have.
Medical power of attorney follows next-of-kin laws. A spouse is the
closest
legal next-of-kin, followed by the nearest blood relatives. With the
possible exception of a spouse (cf. the Terri Schiavo legal circus), you
can
legally override that and establish legal medical power of attorney with
any
of the people you mention. However, that power can, and often is,
challenged
by legal next-of-kin.
Once again, you make my point for me. As you say, a spouse is
considered closer kin than the nearest blood relative. Why can't a
single person designate someone as the "closest legal next-of-kin" in
the same way that a spouse is considered such? Why must one get
married in order to produce such a designee? Gov't involvement in
marriage produces a disparity in rights between the married & the
unmarried. If we were really concerned with equal rights for ALL, we
would abandon attempts to broaden the scope of marriage (and the
concomitant accraul of rights not granted to the unmarried) to include
gays, and work toward the repeal of all governmental regulations re
marriage.
Start a movement. Keep us posted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
22 Sep 2005 11:23:14 PM |
|
|
On 22-Sep-2005, "Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
"ChalkItUp" <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Once again, you make my point for me. As you say, a spouse is
considered closer kin than the nearest blood relative. Why can't a
single person designate someone as the "closest legal next-of-kin" in
the same way that a spouse is considered such? Why must one get
married in order to produce such a designee? Gov't involvement in
marriage produces a disparity in rights between the married & the
unmarried. If we were really concerned with equal rights for ALL, we
would abandon attempts to broaden the scope of marriage (and the
concomitant accraul of rights not granted to the unmarried) to include
gays, and work toward the repeal of all governmental regulations re
marriage.
Start a movement. Keep us posted.
& why on earth should anyone HAVE to start a movement to do EXACTLY
what marriage would do - unless one is a sick little scared bigot who
doesn't
want "those icky people" to get what s/he has because then s/he won;t be
"special"???
SIckening.
Utterly sickening.
And all the energy they waste trying to deny gay people equal rights, they
could be doing something *useful* for someone....
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
23 Sep 2005 12:19:42 AM |
|
|
<flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message news:SqLYe.18867$nV1.9442@trnddc06...
On 22-Sep-2005, "Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
"ChalkItUp" <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Once again, you make my point for me. As you say, a spouse is
considered closer kin than the nearest blood relative. Why can't a
single person designate someone as the "closest legal next-of-kin" in
the same way that a spouse is considered such? Why must one get
married in order to produce such a designee? Gov't involvement in
marriage produces a disparity in rights between the married & the
unmarried. If we were really concerned with equal rights for ALL, we
would abandon attempts to broaden the scope of marriage (and the
concomitant accraul of rights not granted to the unmarried) to include
gays, and work toward the repeal of all governmental regulations re
marriage.
Start a movement. Keep us posted.
& why on earth should anyone HAVE to start a movement to do EXACTLY
what marriage would do - unless one is a sick little scared bigot who
doesn't
want "those icky people" to get what s/he has because then s/he won;t be
"special"???
SIckening.
Utterly sickening.
And all the energy they waste trying to deny gay people equal rights, they
could be doing something *useful* for someone....
'ChalkItUp' is too stupid to realize that. Let him/her waste his/her time
while the rest of us focus on equal marriage rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
23 Sep 2005 12:25:48 AM |
|
|
On 23-Sep-2005, "Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
'ChalkItUp' is too stupid to realize that. Let him/her waste his/her time
while the rest of us focus on equal marriage rights.
If only that would happen.
The idiot is trying to convince *us* to do it *instead* of working for equal
rights.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
23 Sep 2005 11:06:08 AM |
|
|
<flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:wlMYe.19504$nV1.10423@trnddc06...
On 23-Sep-2005, "Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
'ChalkItUp' is too stupid to realize that. Let him/her waste his/her time
while the rest of us focus on equal marriage rights.
If only that would happen.
The idiot is trying to convince *us* to do it *instead* of working for
equal
rights.
Ignore him. The subject is just so far out of his league.
The 'unmarried people don't have those rights' schtick is a laughable
strawman, and he'll be busy for the next few decades when it dawns on him
that he's got to re-do all of the next-of-kin statutes and related
international law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
26 Sep 2005 02:55:45 AM |
|
|
On 23-Sep-2005, "Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
<flaviaR@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:wlMYe.19504$nV1.10423@trnddc06...
On 23-Sep-2005, "Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
'ChalkItUp' is too stupid to realize that. Let him/her waste his/her
time
while the rest of us focus on equal marriage rights.
If only that would happen.
The idiot is trying to convince *us* to do it *instead* of working for
equal
rights.
Ignore him.
Of course - already done.
The subject is just so far out of his league.
Yes, I realized that.
Susan
The 'unmarried people don't have those rights' schtick is a laughable
strawman, and he'll be busy for the next few decades when it dawns on him
that he's got to re-do all of the next-of-kin statutes and related
international law.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ChalkItUp" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
23 Sep 2005 07:57:42 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On 22-Sep-2005, "Dennis Kemmerer" <dk@suespammers.org> wrote:
"ChalkItUp" <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Once again, you make my point for me. As you say, a spouse is
considered closer kin than the nearest blood relative. Why can't a
single person designate someone as the "closest legal next-of-kin" in
the same way that a spouse is considered such? Why must one get
married in order to produce such a designee? Gov't involvement in
marriage produces a disparity in rights between the married & the
unmarried. If we were really concerned with equal rights for ALL, we
would abandon attempts to broaden the scope of marriage (and the
concomitant accraul of rights not granted to the unmarried) to include
gays, and work toward the repeal of all governmental regulations re
marriage.
Start a movement. Keep us posted.
& why on earth should anyone HAVE to start a movement to do EXACTLY
what marriage would do - unless one is a sick little scared bigot who
doesn't
want "those icky people" to get what s/he has because then s/he won;t be
"special"???
SIckening.
Utterly sickening.
And all the energy they waste trying to deny gay people equal rights, they
could be doing something *useful* for someone....
You & Dennis should feel free to continue your Chalkitup-bashing fest.
Of course, anyone can see that neither of you have anything substantive
to say. What you seem incapable of understanding (as evidenced by your
"fascist" comment in another post, and you "icky-people" comment above)
is that YOU are taking the conservative position here, not me. What
conservative do you know who wants to eliminate traditional marriage?
What conservative do you know who wants to level the playing field, in
terms of marriage, between gays and straights. Me, fascist?
Bwahahaha! If the gov't gets out of the marriage business, then
EVERYONE has equal rights. Those that are married & those that are
unmarried, those that are gay & those that are straight. So tell me,
why do you conservatives feel so strongly about the institution of
marriage that you agree with laws enacted giving additional rights to
those who are married...and now you want to expand the pool of people
who will be married in the eyes of the gov't?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
23 Sep 2005 11:06:08 AM |
|
|
"ChalkItUp" <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127480262.278925.216250@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
You & Dennis should feel free to continue your Chalkitup-bashing fest.
Wah, wah, wah.
Of course, anyone can see that neither of you have anything substantive
to say.
Horseshit. You're the one posting incorrect assertions about medical powers
of attorney and religious marriage providing legal benefits.
Until you've got the basics down, you don't have a chance of understanding
the legal rights and responsibilities that can be obtained _only_ through a
civil marriage license.
At least do some rudimentary research on a topic before you blow hot air out
your *****. A course in basic logic wouldn't hurt either.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
22 Sep 2005 12:34:11 PM |
|
|
ChalkItUp <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
You have the right to visit your spouse in the
hospital.
Duh, I don't have a spouse...I'm single, remember. Why can't my single
brother (or friend, co-worker, classmate, cousin, etc.) designate me as
the person who holds the right to visit him in the hospital....
People who are in the hospital often are not capable of getting a
signed and notarized document to hospital officials.
Married people don't need to provide such documents.
That is unequal treatment
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "ChalkItUp" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
22 Sep 2005 01:08:51 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
ChalkItUp <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
You have the right to visit your spouse in the
hospital.
Duh, I don't have a spouse...I'm single, remember. Why can't my single
brother (or friend, co-worker, classmate, cousin, etc.) designate me as
the person who holds the right to visit him in the hospital....
People who are in the hospital often are not capable of getting a
signed and notarized document to hospital officials.
Married people don't need to provide such documents.
That is unequal treatment
How do married people who are in the hospital handle the situation? Do
they need to produce a marriage certificate? Of course not. Do they
simply say, "I am the spouse"? If so, then the unmarried need only
say, "I am the designee".
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
22 Sep 2005 01:21:45 PM |
|
|
"ChalkItUp" <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127412531.078277.215820@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
ChalkItUp <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
You have the right to visit your spouse in the
hospital.
Duh, I don't have a spouse...I'm single, remember. Why can't my single
brother (or friend, co-worker, classmate, cousin, etc.) designate me as
the person who holds the right to visit him in the hospital....
People who are in the hospital often are not capable of getting a
signed and notarized document to hospital officials.
Married people don't need to provide such documents.
That is unequal treatment
How do married people who are in the hospital handle the situation? Do
they need to produce a marriage certificate? Of course not. Do they
simply say, "I am the spouse"? If so, then the unmarried need only
say, "I am the designee".
And today, more and more hospitals are recognizing significant others.
I know here at Kent General, BeeBee, and Christiana, they are recognizing
the significant other.
In fact, when my wife was in labor last year and we had to fill out the
forms, the list of choices was more than just parent or spouse.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dennis Kemmerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
22 Sep 2005 01:58:31 PM |
|
|
"ChalkItUp" <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127412531.078277.215820@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
ChalkItUp <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
You have the right to visit your spouse in the
hospital.
Duh, I don't have a spouse...I'm single, remember. Why can't my single
brother (or friend, co-worker, classmate, cousin, etc.) designate me as
the person who holds the right to visit him in the hospital....
People who are in the hospital often are not capable of getting a
signed and notarized document to hospital officials.
Married people don't need to provide such documents.
That is unequal treatment
How do married people who are in the hospital handle the situation? Do
they need to produce a marriage certificate? Of course not. Do they
simply say, "I am the spouse"? If so, then the unmarried need only
say, "I am the designee".
You go try that and get back to us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ChalkItUp" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
22 Sep 2005 02:19:47 PM |
|
|
Dennis Kemmerer wrote:
"ChalkItUp" <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127412531.078277.215820@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ray Fischer wrote:
ChalkItUp <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
You have the right to visit your spouse in the
hospital.
Duh, I don't have a spouse...I'm single, remember. Why can't my single
brother (or friend, co-worker, classmate, cousin, etc.) designate me as
the person who holds the right to visit him in the hospital....
People who are in the hospital often are not capable of getting a
signed and notarized document to hospital officials.
Married people don't need to provide such documents.
That is unequal treatment
How do married people who are in the hospital handle the situation? Do
they need to produce a marriage certificate? Of course not. Do they
simply say, "I am the spouse"? If so, then the unmarried need only
say, "I am the designee".
You go try that and get back to us.
Exactly my point! The laws surrounding marriage produce unequal
rights. If we care about equal rights for ~all~, we should be lobbying
for the gov't to get out of the "marriage business" entirely.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
22 Sep 2005 01:46:39 PM |
|
|
ChalkItUp wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
ChalkItUp <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
You have the right to visit your spouse in the
hospital.
Duh, I don't have a spouse...I'm single, remember. Why can't my single
brother (or friend, co-worker, classmate, cousin, etc.) designate me as
the person who holds the right to visit him in the hospital....
People who are in the hospital often are not capable of getting a
signed and notarized document to hospital officials.
Married people don't need to provide such documents.
That is unequal treatment
How do married people who are in the hospital handle the situation? Do
they need to produce a marriage certificate? Of course not. Do they
simply say, "I am the spouse"? If so, then the unmarried need only
say, "I am the designee".
Go try it. Let us know how it feels to be escorted out by hospital
security.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ChalkItUp" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
22 Sep 2005 02:21:23 PM |
|
|
Pr0r3p wrote:
ChalkItUp wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
ChalkItUp <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
You have the right to visit your spouse in the
hospital.
Duh, I don't have a spouse...I'm single, remember. Why can't my single
brother (or friend, co-worker, classmate, cousin, etc.) designate me as
the person who holds the right to visit him in the hospital....
People who are in the hospital often are not capable of getting a
signed and notarized document to hospital officials.
Married people don't need to provide such documents.
That is unequal treatment
How do married people who are in the hospital handle the situation? Do
they need to produce a marriage certificate? Of course not. Do they
simply say, "I am the spouse"? If so, then the unmarried need only
say, "I am the designee".
Go try it. Let us know how it feels to be escorted out by hospital
security.
Exactly my point! The laws surrounding marriage produce unequal
rights. If we care about equal rights for ~all~, we should be lobbying
for the gov't to get out of the "marriage business" entirely.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
23 Sep 2005 07:17:08 AM |
|
|
ChalkItUp wrote:
Pr0r3p wrote:
ChalkItUp wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
ChalkItUp <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
You have the right to visit your spouse in the
hospital.
Duh, I don't have a spouse...I'm single, remember. Why can't my single
brother (or friend, co-worker, classmate, cousin, etc.) designate me as
the person who holds the right to visit him in the hospital....
People who are in the hospital often are not capable of getting a
signed and notarized document to hospital officials.
Married people don't need to provide such documents.
That is unequal treatment
How do married people who are in the hospital handle the situation? Do
they need to produce a marriage certificate? Of course not. Do they
simply say, "I am the spouse"? If so, then the unmarried need only
say, "I am the designee".
Go try it. Let us know how it feels to be escorted out by hospital
security.
Exactly my point! The laws surrounding marriage produce unequal
rights. If we care about equal rights for ~all~, we should be lobbying
for the gov't to get out of the "marriage business" entirely.
Or, the existing laws could be changed so that everyone does have equal
rights.
And, if you remove government from the "marriage business" entirely who
do you think will be protecting the rights associated with marriage?
.
|
|
|
| User: "ChalkItUp" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
23 Sep 2005 08:31:51 AM |
|
|
Pr0r3p wrote:
ChalkItUp wrote:
Pr0r3p wrote:
ChalkItUp wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
ChalkItUp <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
You have the right to visit your spouse in the
hospital.
Duh, I don't have a spouse...I'm single, remember. Why can't my single
brother (or friend, co-worker, classmate, cousin, etc.) designate me as
the person who holds the right to visit him in the hospital....
People who are in the hospital often are not capable of getting a
signed and notarized document to hospital officials.
Married people don't need to provide such documents.
That is unequal treatment
How do married people who are in the hospital handle the situation? Do
they need to produce a marriage certificate? Of course not. Do they
simply say, "I am the spouse"? If so, then the unmarried need only
say, "I am the designee".
Go try it. Let us know how it feels to be escorted out by hospital
security.
Exactly my point! The laws surrounding marriage produce unequal
rights. If we care about equal rights for ~all~, we should be lobbying
for the gov't to get out of the "marriage business" entirely.
Or, the existing laws could be changed so that everyone does have equal
rights.
And, if you remove government from the "marriage business" entirely who
do you think will be protecting the rights associated with marriage?
If the gov't was out of the marriage business, there would be no
"rights associated with marriage". Everyone, married & unmarried...gay
& straight, would be equal in the eyes of the law. Equal rights for
ALL is the stated goal of the SSM movement, correct?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup |
23 Sep 2005 09:11:51 AM |
|
|
ChalkItUp wrote:
Pr0r3p wrote:
ChalkItUp wrote:
Pr0r3p wrote:
ChalkItUp wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
ChalkItUp <chalkitup37@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
You have the right to visit your spouse in the
hospital.
Duh, I don't have a spouse...I'm single, remember. Why can't my single
brother (or friend, co-worker, classmate, cousin, etc.) designate me as
the person who holds the right to visit him in the hospital....
People who are in the hospital often are not capable of getting a
signed and notarized document to hospital officials.
Married people don't need to provide such documents.
That is unequal treatment
How do married people who are in the hospital handle the situation? Do
they need to produce a marriage certificate? Of course not. Do they
simply say, "I am the spouse"? If so, then the unmarried need only
say, "I am the designee".
Go try it. Let us know how it feels to be escorted out by hospital
security.
Exactly my point! The laws surrounding marriage produce unequal
rights. If we care about equal rights for ~all~, we should be lobbying
for the gov't to get out of the "marriage business" entirely.
Or, the existing laws could be changed so that everyone does have equal
rights.
And, if you remove government from the "marriage business" entirely who
do you think will be protecting the rights associated with marriage?
If the gov't was out of the marriage business, there would be no
"rights associated with marriage". Everyone, married & unmarried...gay
& straight, would be equal in the eyes of the law.
Interesting. Several questions:
- When a loved one is hurt to the point where they can't make their own
medical decisions, who gets to make decisions about their medical care?
Would it be the loved one's spouse (without the government being in
the "marriage business", perhaps there would be no such thing as a
spouse, at least in the eyes of the law?), or the loved one's
parent(s), siblings, etc? Who gets to make these decisions?
- When a loved one dies, who is the one that is given the right to take
possesion of (or inherits) that persons belongings? Who should be
allowed to see to it that the loved one's wishes (in regards to
burial/creamation, funeral service, etc) are seen too?
Equal rights for
ALL is the stated goal of the SSM movement, correct?
They want equal rights in that they should be able to marry the one
they love, as well as enjoy the rights associated with marriage that
heterosexuals have. That is my understanding of what they want.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Starbucks promotes homosexual agenda with coffee cup
Their REAL agenda
Anti-Gay-Rights Bigots LYINGLY Misrepresent Polls, to Serve their Hateful Agenda
Re: The gay agenda is being revealed daily now in SF, Seattle, NY, Portland, etc.
Re: The gay agenda is being revealed daily now in SF, Seattle, NY, Portland, etc.
Re: The gay agenda is being revealed daily now in SF, Seattle, NY, Portland, etc.
Homophobic Bigots -- Your Loathsome Agenda has just REACHED the Drain of Extinction!
NEA's National Agenda
| The Question that DESTROYS the Loathsome & Bigoted ANTI-Gay Rights Agenda.
CRAIG CHILTON ADMITS HIS REAL AGENDA
Re: CRAIG CHILTON ADMITS HIS REAL AGENDA
CRAIG CHILTON ADMITS HIS REAL AGENDA
working-class voters support Bush's Christian right "values agenda."
Re: craig chilton's agenda of LIES, BIGOTRY and HATEMONGERING.
Parents destroy their kid's rainbow drawing, sue school for promoting homosexual agenda
|
|
|
