Massachusetts to allow gay marriage

“Just a joke stormy, lighten up.”

“Kind of funny. In a juvenile way.”

“GROW up, wolf”

“CALM down, stormbringer. Do you ever use the word fabulous?”

“Is there a better place for turd humor?”

“im calm. i just think you need to go put it in the joke thread or something”

“Why? Certainly you don't take this gay marriage stuff seriously? I find it humorous.”

“big gay al is funny. youre not.”

“New laws to take effect in California after January 1st:

* AB 205: Provides gay domestic partners with rights and duties nearly identical under state law to married couples. Effective January 2005.

* AB 17: Bans the state from contracting for goods or services of $100,000 or more from a company that does not offer gay domestic partners the same benefits it provides married couples. Effective January 2007.

* AB 196: Bans housing or job discrimination against people whose clothing or appearance differs from that normally associated with their sex, such as transsexuals.”

“* AB 205: Provides gay domestic partners with rights and duties nearly identical under state law to married couples. Effective January 2005.

Bravo. I'm all for it.

* AB 17: Bans the state from contracting for goods or services of $100,000 or more from a company that does not offer gay domestic partners the same benefits it provides married couples. Effective January 2007.

This is akin to affirmative action. If the state wants to recognize, fine, but don't force everyone to have to.

* AB 196: Bans housing or job discrimination against people whose clothing or appearance differs from that normally associated with their sex, such as transsexuals."

This one is absolute bullshlt. This is forcing social morays on the population. This is like saying if some goth punk comes in to apply for a job you have to give it to him even though their chioce in style isn't a reflection of the company or it's costumers.

Equal rights are fine, I'm all for it, but not special rights.”

“i didnt see in ab 196 where it said they have to be given housing or job if they are, just that you couldnt use it to rule someone out.”

“"i didnt see in ab 196 where it said they have to be given housing or job if they are, just that you couldnt use it to rule someone out."

And that's not special treatment? So while all the straight people in a company have to dress a certain way Drag Queen Donny gets to look like freak?”

“Hey, leave Dirtbag Darrel outta this!”

“LOL! Nothin' worse than a hillbilly drag queen! Runny hoes, daisy dukes, the halter top and a Minny Pearl hat are not very flattering on a 300 pound mentally challanged hillbilly.”

“Quit pickin' on Ohio Hiker, Nigal, it ain't nice...”

“"This is forcing social morays on the population"

so is telling someone "youre a man, dress like a man"

and its "mores"”

“"And that's not special treatment? So while all the straight people in a company have to dress a certain way Drag Queen Donny gets to look like freak?"
Nigal


Have you EVER seen RuPaul dressed as a man? It's disgusting.”

“im trying to imagine.............nope cant do it”

“It's a good thing Rev Al Sharpton isn't gay.”

“"Bans housing or job discrimination against people whose clothing or appearance DIFFERS FROM THAT NORMALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR SEX, such as transsexuals."

the way i read that,you can dress like the opposite sex, as long as it falls in line with what the opposite sex is required. if women in the company have to wear hose with their dresses or no skirts above the knee, etc, then i would expect the same of cross-dressers/transsexuals.”

“I'm pretty sure that the transexuals that were complaining the most about being discriminated against were the ones who went to Michael Jackson's doctor.”

“"so is telling someone "youre a man, dress like a man"

I never said that. It's a matter of forcing people to accept something they shouldn't have to. The housing issue is a good step but when it comes to the work place the company has it's right to choose those that reflect it's image properly.”

“So if someone believes that black people don't fit their business image, it should be okay to only hire white people?

I know this isn't the issue at hand, but it seems consistent with your argument. Appearance should be something that reflects professionalism, but professionalism does not necessarily mean gender-specific clothing.”

“AB 17: Bans the state from contracting for goods or services of $100,000 or more from a company that does not offer gay domestic partners the same benefits it provides married couples. Effective January 2007.

This is akin to affirmative action. If the state wants to recognize, fine, but don't force everyone to have to.

I disagree. This is forcing equal benefits for non-traditional families. Most companies in California already offer these types of benefits, also.”

“"So if someone believes that black people don't fit their business image, it should be okay to only hire white people?”

Don’t even try to play the race card. It is totally separate and has nothing to do with the issue.

“I disagree. This is forcing equal benefits for non-traditional families.”

It forcing companies to accept something they might not feel is acceptable. And it IS just like affirmative action.”

“Don’t even try to play the race card. It is totally separate and has nothing to do with the issue.

You might have missed the second part of that statement:

I know this isn't the issue at hand, but it seems consistent with your argument. Appearance should be something that reflects professionalism, but professionalism does not necessarily mean gender-specific clothing.

It forcing companies to accept something they might not feel is acceptable. And it IS just like affirmative action.

Sure it is forcing some companies to choose between an acceptance of equal benefits for gay employees or not having government contracts! I'm glad the state government is showing some conviction to equality in treatment. The big knock against affirmitive action has always been the whole "quota" thing. This doesn't seem to relate to that.”

“The "special rights" issue is a tough one - especially with "transgendered" people.

In theory, I think protections are important (with exceptions for very small businesses?). It seems unfair that someone who does decide they need a sex change to feel "whole" should lose their job because they are experimenting with living as the opposite sex.

On the other hand, regulations like this could leave people afraid to not hire or fire cross dressers and transexuals.

Add to that, that a lot of people who decide to change gender are multi-problem difficult to deal with people. Of course, I am less likely to know about the well-balanced ones, because I come in contact with them through the mental health field - but I do know of a few transexuals (only one through non-professional channels) who have filed discrimination suits for losing jobs when they were obviously a pain to deal with.

Yes, there are transexuals who were great workers who have been fired from their jobs because employers, co-workers, or customers just found the idea intolerable. The problem here is the burden of proof.”

“The "special rights" issue is a tough one - especially with "transgendered" people.

In theory, I think protections are important (with exceptions for very small businesses?). It seems unfair that someone who does decide they need a sex change to feel "whole" should lose their job because they are experimenting with living as the opposite sex.

On the other hand, regulations like this could leave people afraid to not hire or fire cross dressers and transexuals.

Add to that, that a lot of people who decide to change gender are multi-problem difficult to deal with people. Of course, I am less likely to know about the well-balanced ones, because I come in contact with them through the mental health field - but I do know of a few transexuals (only one through non-professional channels) who have filed discrimination suits for losing jobs when they were obviously a pain to deal with.

Yes, there are transexuals who were great workers who have been fired from their jobs because employers, co-workers, or customers just found the idea intolerable. The problem here is the burden of proof.”

“well, at leastr it's not complicated....

i say let's just go back to the days of bigotry and ethnocentric hatred. at least you knew where you stood. the bi-sexual, crossdressing, jewish, nazi, sweedish, sheep-humping lobby would never go for it though.......”

“I agree on the enforcement issue, Ped. I wonder about how they will go about that.”

“The race analogy doesn't work all the way. I think it should be permissible for a store that wants a certain look to ask its employees to groom and dress themselves in a certain way, even if that way is say "White, WASP, preppy."

I've seen stores where everyone, regardless of race or ethinicity was dressed in preppy looking rugby shirts and clean, pressed blue-jeans. I might not want to work there, but I wouldn't sick the civil rights division of the Justice Department on them either.

On the other hand, some stores - such as ABERCROMBIE & FITCH stand accused of including skin color in the their standards for their look. Apparently,black and brown faces go to the stock room, white ones go up front where the customers can see them. To me, that is over the line. It's one thing to ask people to dress like what they aren't - another to not hire them.

If the shoe was on the other foot - if I was told that Fridays were cross dressing days at a place I was asking to work at - I might get pissed off, refuse a job offer, or demand that they at least pay for my Friday wardrobe (and provide a dressing room on site), but I wouldn't sue. If they refused to hire me because I'm a heterosexual man, I might be contacting someone's legal department.”

“We had a transsexual working for us. Very few people even knew.

I’d imagine firing a ‘problem’ transsexual or cross-dresser would be just as risky as firing anyone else. You just document their #&%!$-ups for a period of time before booting them – like anyone else. We’ve had people file suits against us for wrongful termination but after their files are reviewed, the case goes no further.”

“Imagine a store that says all men wear slacks and women wear skirts. Should a man be allowed to wear the skirt? A woman to wear the slacks?”

“man, leave artex alone, phaeddy....”

“Dear Ann Landers,

Somebody I know wants to marry my brother's dog. Should I tell my brother to advise the person to wait until it's legal in Massachusetts?”

“And you thought cross-dressers were sick.

Everytime this thread comes up, some fool has to try to throw bestiality into the mix. Sickos.”

“Dear Ann,

Somebody I know is practicing polygamy. He says it's none of anyone's business how many wives he can have. What's your opinion on that?”

“Are you asking ann landers or me?”

“Dear Ann,

There's this Roman Catholic priest I know... He wants to leave the church and marry the 17 year-old boy he's been having sexual relationships with over the past few years. His conscience is torturing him because although he's in the priesthood, he cannot deny his God-given natural desires. He thinks its nobody's business who he has relationships with. Oh yeah, the 17 year-old boy says he's in love with the priest and wants to marry too. What are your thoughts on this?”

“Ahh, you're posting blind rhetoric without room for discussion, apparently. Carry on.”

“m silver, that was just plain stupid.”

“Dear Ann,

My friend's grandmother wants to marry her granddaughter. And the granddaughter feels likewise. She's 21 years old and thinks its nobody's business who she can have a marriage relationship with. But they both want the state of Massachusetts to grant full benefits in the event of the grandmother's death (she's 84). What do you have to say about this?”

“those that are hollering "special treatment", where were you when they were receiving "special treatment", like beatings and ostracism?”

“add something intelligent to the conversation or shut up.”

“If women are allowed to vote, cats and dogs will be sleeping together in no time.”

“your analogies are weak, stupid, and pathetic attempts at at undercutting intelligent discourse with what you alone perceive as wry, witty comparisons to deviant behaviour.”

“good one tilt.”

“The same kinds of things were said when marriage became secularized in the 50s and 60s ...e.g., "Why, homosexuals will want to get married!!!"

Not that there's anything wrong with that! <<< My best Seinfeld impression.

Now the polygamist in Utah (and he's not even a Mormon) is going to successfull get his conviction reversed ...based on the Massachusetts law and the Texas sodomy case. And he's absolutely right.

What's that I see coming over the horizon?!

You wanna dance ya gotta pay the fiddler.”

“Yeah, it's about time the government started staying out of people's bedrooms anyway.”

“giving gays equal rights (or maybe even more than equal rights, just for the sake of argument and nigal doesnt take us off on a tangent) will NOT lead to beastiality or pedophilia becoming legal. those are cases where someone is victimized. homosexuality is not.”