Same-sex partners to get fed benefits

[30ashopper]

Since Y'all are discussing Bibles, I have a cool story. I wanted to give a friend an antique Bible for Christmas one year, went to Scott Antiques and found one! It's gorgeous!

Old English and dedicated to Prince James! He wasn't even King, yet! And, the King James version is even different from this one~~~~~~

Groovy, huh??[/quote]

No. This is a serious discussion of extending federal funding rights to gay federal workers, that, unfortunately, went slight off topic with the Bible, as it always does when gay rights comes up.

Your comment is more appropriate in the sowal chat area.

Slight? Barstow is a slight detour, Hawaii is a major change of plans, and this thread is a trip to Antarctica!

 

[Lynnie]

Based upon how this discussion turned, my interjected comments are just fine. Perhaps it will actually help get you back on track in this thread. You never know! Just keep pushing through - it will happen.

Have a great day!

 

[poppy]

It was about The Obama administration allowing same sex partners to get fed benefits. Very interesting twist has become of it on this thread, Interesting how it becomes more important for some to get their religious beliefs into a thread about politics Guess thats what the world has come to with the INTERNET now, Everyone has a Soap Box to stand on!

NOW YOU'RE COMPLAINING? In post #47 you were the one ramming home the idea of the bible and Christians being the ones who opened up the country and gave us these freedoms and I should do "a little history research". Well I did and it seems your soapbox is missing a few boards.

The reason religion comes into the discussion on Gay rights is because it is one part of the foundation for those against it, the other being the founding fathers, pilgrims or what ever early group one cares to mention. I wasn't the first to bring it up but I felt compelled to respond. And hey, guess what I discovered in my "little history research"?, the pilgrims didn't give two sheets about marriage. They felt it was a civil matter and not the business of the church.

To the rest of you reading this I apologize but I have to respond to the "we were both incorrect" reply.

The question was "exactly which book were the Pilgrims holding when they stepped foot--". It was the the Geneva bible. John Alden possessed a King James version but he was not a Pilgrim. The fact is both versions came ashore with the passsengers of the Mayflower. Choose one, both or neither to help guide you through life and give you comfort, I don't care, just please look closely at the reason you wish to deny rights and benefits to a group of American citizens who don't share 100% of your "values", make it something better than the lame "because the bible says so".

 

[Beanstalk]

NOW YOU'RE COMPLAINING? In post #47 you were the one ramming home the idea of the bible and Christians being the ones who opened up the country and gave us these freedoms and I should do "a little history research". Well I did and it seems your soapbox is missing a few boards.

The reason religion comes into the discussion on Gay rights is because it is one part of the foundation for those against it, the other being the founding fathers, pilgrims or what ever early group one cares to mention. I wasn't the first to bring it up but I felt compelled to respond. And hey, guess what I discovered in my "little history research"?, the pilgrims didn't give two sheets about marriage. They felt it was a civil matter and not the business of the church.

To the rest of you reading this I apologize but I have to respond to the "we were both incorrect" reply.

The question was "exactly which book were the Pilgrims holding when they stepped foot--". It was the the Geneva bible. John Alden possessed a King James version but he was not a Pilgrim. The fact is both versions came ashore with the passsengers of the Mayflower. Choose one, both or neither to help guide you through life and give you comfort, I don't care, just please look closely at the reason you wish to deny rights and benefits to a group of American citizens who don't share 100% of your "values", make it something better than the lame "because the bible says so".

You posted;
"NOW YOU'RE COMPLAINING?"

Umm No just answering another posters question. As I have stated in this thread a couple of times, The Bible thread is one that needs to be started, This is about Same-sex partners to get fed benefits . I agree that I have posted out of context here as well. Your welcome as we all are to post whatever we want. But heck the Bible and its history are respectfully owed their own thread? I will post on it if you wish to start one. Very educational for me and I am sure others.

Thanks for your opinion!

 

[scooterbug44]

On a lighter note............

Benefits Extended To Federal Employees? Domestic Partners

President Obama signed a memo that expanded benefits to domestic partners of federal employees, including same-sex couples. What do you think?

Kath Santrello,
Systems Analyst

"This is just a sneaky way for Obama to make homosexuals American citizens."

James Rudow,
Edge Burnisher

"Like federal employees don't screw around on the job enough as it is. Now they'll be spending all their time on Craigslist trying to find a domestic partner."

Ryan Welker,
Golf Range Attendant

"How immoral! Accessing a partner's flexible spending account to purchase prescription eyewear with pretax earnings is a right that should only be granted to those in religiously-sanctioned heterosexual relationships.?

 

[Beanstalk]

Benefits Extended To Federal Employees? Domestic Partners

President Obama signed a memo that expanded benefits to domestic partners of federal employees, including same-sex couples. What do you think?

Kath Santrello,
Systems Analyst

"This is just a sneaky way for Obama to make homosexuals American citizens."

James Rudow,
Edge Burnisher

"Like federal employees don't screw around on the job enough as it is. Now they'll be spending all their time on Craigslist trying to find a domestic partner."

Ryan Welker,
Golf Range Attendant

"How immoral! Accessing a partner's flexible spending account to purchase prescription eyewear with pretax earnings is a right that should only be granted to those in religiously-sanctioned heterosexual relationships.?

:funn:

 

[Bobskunk]

I'm with Kinky

"I support gay marriage. I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us. " Kinky Friedman

I think that we need to be more compassionate. You can google "gay partner not allowed to be by dying loved ones side" or some other similar word combination, and find countless examples where long time partners were not allowed to visit as they were not family. If there were a legal civil union at the very least, this cruelty would be avoided.

 

[poppy]

You posted;
"NOW YOU'RE COMPLAINING?"

Umm No just answering another posters question. As I have stated in this thread a couple of times, The Bible thread is one that needs to be started, This is about Same-sex partners to get fed benefits . I agree that I have posted out of context here as well. Your welcome as we all are to post whatever we want. But heck the Bible and its history are respectfully owed their own thread? I will post on it if you wish to start one. Very educational for me and I am sure others.

Thanks for your opinion!

No thanks.

And thank you also.

 

[Gidget]

Based upon how this discussion turned, my interjected comments are just fine. Perhaps it will actually help get you back on track in this thread. You never know! Just keep pushing through - it will happen.

Have a great day!

Good one!!

G

 

[tofu]

So those with a moral problem with same sex marriage should just capitulate and abandon their convictions because you think it is too complicated?

Clearly not.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees equal protection from the law.

Federal employees should have equal protection.

But since there is no federal gay marriage (thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act), this is the only way to give those protections.

Hmm. If no one had a problem with the word "marriage" being used, we wouldn't have this mess.

Maybe the other side should just give up instead - how about that?

Maybe we (the other side) shouldn't. Maybe we should stand for the Constitution. Isn't that what America is all about?

Progressives apparently always hold the high ground and the rest of us are just an uninformed group of ignorant masses. Perhaps you think a totally amoral, atheistic society is where we ought to be.

Not to sound blunt or rude, but this is a load and you know it.

If you say progressives always hold the high ground, you forget about conservatives/evangelicals who "hold the high ground" when it comes to morality. Your side seems to own the idea of being "pro family" or "pro traditional values," as if anyone is anti-family or anti-values.