Gays ripping off businesses...
lab~rat >:-)
chest, did you see that new stinker of a movie he has coming out, I
Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry? According to IMDB, "Two straight,
single Brooklyn firefighters (Sandler, James) pretend to be a gay
couple in order to receive domestic partner benefits. "
Now, I don't mean to get started, but this is exactly the shit I've
been bitching about for years. Here, two people rip off a company
based on a FREAKING ACT PERFORMED IN THE BEDROOM.
Jesus christ, the liberals are killing this country. I think I'll
marry my dog so I can stay in a kennel instead of a hotel...
--
lab~rat >:-)
Stupid humans...
Red
It will sink to the bottom because who wants to see this sort of
crap. Not me and I bet not many more.
lab~rat >:-)
It's a movie formula they continue to make and I never understand why:
-Fake fags
-Boy pretends to be girl
-Girl pretends to be boy
-Girl in man's body
-Man in girl's body
It must be for those psychologically confused people experimenting
with their sexuality.
Neocon Oil Cheerleaders
--
Hate Greed Death Bush
Maps / Legends
news:b9o4839938abqrv23...@4ax.com:
> Jesus christ, the liberals are killing this country. I think I'll
> marry my dog so I can stay in a kennel instead of a hotel...
That's a really smart idea, you seem like a sensible thinker
lab~rat >:-)
<n...@spamm.com> puked:
I don't give a shit what happens in other people's bedrooms, in fact,
this world would be a better place if people kept it in their
bedrooms, but as you see, homosexuals have worked their hardest to
keep their bedroom activities in the public eye.
I wrote this as a business owner, not as someone trying to change what
people do in their bedrooms. I can understand how someone that is at
the receiving end of a McPaycheck wouldn't understand what the point
was...
benrrrrrrrrand, esq
bobandcarole
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 06:27:59 -0700, Red <RedRedCoun...@aol.com> puked:
75% of Hollywood is queer anyway.
SapperPest19
wrote:
>First let me say I hate Adam Sandler. Now that I got that off my
Maybe I'm missing the point but where is the ripping off of
businesses?
bobandcarole
wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:24:29 GMT, "lab~rat >:-)" <c...@cheeze.net>
FAGGOT...
lab~rat >:-)
<ma...@legends.com> puked:
I've been accused of thinking outside the box. In fact, I'm pretty
sure that this movie was drawn up around some of my usenet rants...
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
They are pretending to be gay to get domestic partner benefits. This
is what I've ranted about before, gay marriage opens the door for
people to get entitlements based on a sex act.
Red
> In article <t4q483pbnp9g80ler8d877a89l7frdu...@4ax.com>, c...@cheeze.net says...
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 06:27:59 -0700, Red <RedRedCoun...@aol.com> puked:
>
> - Show quoted text -
So Neocon is a cocksucker! I thought there was something truly odd
about you and your rants.
lab~rat >:-)
<po...@circumstance.org> puked:
I MUST BE SECRETLY GAY!!!
Red
What's a homophobe? is it a strobe light of some sort?
edonline
"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
news:c3s48393769tq6tcr...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:21:04 -0500, SapperPest19 <b...@laptop2.com>
> puked:
>
>>On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:24:29 GMT, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>First let me say I hate Adam Sandler. Now that I got that off my
>>>chest, did you see that new stinker of a movie he has coming out, I
>>>Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry? According to IMDB, "Two straight,
>>>single Brooklyn firefighters (Sandler, James) pretend to be a gay
>>>couple in order to receive domestic partner benefits. "
>>>
>>>Now, I don't mean to get started, but this is exactly the shit I've
>>>been bitching about for years. Here, two people rip off a company
>>>based on a FREAKING ACT PERFORMED IN THE BEDROOM.
>>>
>>>Jesus christ, the liberals are killing this country. I think I'll
>>>marry my dog so I can stay in a kennel instead of a hotel...
>>
>>Maybe I'm missing the point but where is the ripping off of
>>businesses?
>
> They are pretending to be gay to get domestic partner benefits.
Yeah, I'm sure that happens a lot in RL. "Hey Joe, let's pretend you and I
are gay partners so we can get domestic partnership benefits from the
company!"
>This
> is what I've ranted about before, gay marriage opens the door for
> people to get entitlements based on a sex act.
>
Not a sex act, but a relationship. Just as heterosexuals receive
entitlements for theirs.
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
What's a homoprobe? Or am I better off not knowing?
FDR
Back in the 50's conservative America laughed out loud at Uncle Milton
dressing up as a woman and getting kissed. And Jack lemon pretending to be
a woman and getting married. This stuff is not new to America, or society.
Sheesh.
lab~rat >:-)
<edonlineSPAMOUT!@comcast.net> puked:
>
>"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>news:c3s48393769tq6tcr...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:21:04 -0500, SapperPest19 <b...@laptop2.com>
>> puked:
>>
>>>On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:24:29 GMT, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>First let me say I hate Adam Sandler. Now that I got that off my
>>>>chest, did you see that new stinker of a movie he has coming out, I
>>>>Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry? According to IMDB, "Two straight,
>>>>single Brooklyn firefighters (Sandler, James) pretend to be a gay
>>>>couple in order to receive domestic partner benefits. "
>>>>
>>>>Now, I don't mean to get started, but this is exactly the shit I've
>>>>been bitching about for years. Here, two people rip off a company
>>>>based on a FREAKING ACT PERFORMED IN THE BEDROOM.
>>>>
>>>>Jesus christ, the liberals are killing this country. I think I'll
>>>>marry my dog so I can stay in a kennel instead of a hotel...
>>>
>>>Maybe I'm missing the point but where is the ripping off of
>>>businesses?
>>
>> They are pretending to be gay to get domestic partner benefits.
>
>Yeah, I'm sure that happens a lot in RL. "Hey Joe, let's pretend you and I
>are gay partners so we can get domestic partnership benefits from the
>company!"
Suppose they are only gay on the weekends. You know, like bi people.
>
>>This
>> is what I've ranted about before, gay marriage opens the door for
>> people to get entitlements based on a sex act.
>>
>
>Not a sex act, but a relationship. Just as heterosexuals receive
>entitlements for theirs.
>
Should a dog fucker get veterinary health care for his partner?
SapperPest19
wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:21:04 -0500, SapperPest19 <b...@laptop2.com>
>puked:
>
>>On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:24:29 GMT, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>First let me say I hate Adam Sandler. Now that I got that off my
>>>chest, did you see that new stinker of a movie he has coming out, I
>>>Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry? According to IMDB, "Two straight,
>>>single Brooklyn firefighters (Sandler, James) pretend to be a gay
>>>couple in order to receive domestic partner benefits. "
>>>
>>>Now, I don't mean to get started, but this is exactly the shit I've
>>>been bitching about for years. Here, two people rip off a company
>>>based on a FREAKING ACT PERFORMED IN THE BEDROOM.
>>>
>>>Jesus christ, the liberals are killing this country. I think I'll
>>>marry my dog so I can stay in a kennel instead of a hotel...
>>
>>Maybe I'm missing the point but where is the ripping off of
>>businesses?
>
>They are pretending to be gay to get domestic partner benefits. This
>is what I've ranted about before, gay marriage opens the door for
>people to get entitlements based on a sex act.
I understand the premise of the movie. I can't figure out what
business is being ripped off.
lab~rat >:-)
<_removespam...@hotmail.com> puked:
Are you just trying to argue with me or didn't you read how they keep
doing the same crap over and over?
And BTW, it isn't politically correct to laugh at cross dressers
anymore. If Uncle Miltie walked out on stage in drag today and
someone laughed, he'd sue them for publicly humiliating him or some
stupid liberal shit...
Children of a Lesser Ice
> First let me say I hate Adam Sandler. Now that I got that off my
> chest, did you see that new stinker of a movie he has coming out, I
> Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry? According to IMDB, "Two straight,
> single Brooklyn firefighters (Sandler, James) pretend to be a gay
> couple in order to receive domestic partner benefits. "
>
> Now, I don't mean to get started, but this is exactly the shit I've
> been bitching about for years. Here, two people rip off a company
> based on a FREAKING ACT PERFORMED IN THE BEDROOM.
In this case I'm offended, not by Sandler playing a gay character, but that
the character is supposedly some sort of babe magnet. Yeah, right. Sandler?
There's a line in the movie where some investigator is accusing Sandler of
not being truly gay because the investigator has sworn affidavits from "over
a dozen women" that they've screwed Sandler's character. Again: yeah, right.
And on top of that he's got a piece of arse chasing him (Jessica Biel). That
might be more believable if, say, Daniel Craig or Christian Bale or Brad
Pitt were in the role(s), but Sandler?
I guess the producers didn't want to buy into the usual stereotypes of gay
men being well-groomed, educated, wealthy, and dedicated to their looks and
bodies by casting two homely schlubs to get married to each other instead.
The combination of Sandler and James will be so much better for the box
office than it would have to cast John Rhys-Meyers and Sean William Scott
together. You can really see the gayness in the Sandler/James pairing.
-------------------------------------
Icebreaker
"Ronnie...pooh-bear...baby. We belong together. We're like a cobra and a
mongoose."
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
>Jesus christ, the liberals are killing this country.
>
Interesting juxtaposition of words, highlighting the fact that
the on-going conflagration between Conservative-vassals versus
Liberal-vassals is a very different fight from that between the
controlling elitist-Republicans with -- not against -- the very
same controlling elitist-Democrats. Very different indeed. See?
Everyone *BOYCOTT* the American flag. And *BOYCOTT* the 2008
so-called "elections". Political ergo legal promises made to
lowly Serfdom by the controlling elitists (alias "Democrats"
and "Republicans") aren't worth the paper they're printed on...
Ex-Republican,
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRoJ1mJljD7YrHM/nEQJ2agCdFXMfZU6Dh3NqRIu7kIc4Lhbn2A0AoMMC
XJjjBDyIsMo2xAX+daUu6hW8
=A4uw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
The one that provides benefits to married couples. Benefits for two
people cost more than benefits for one.
SapperPest19
wrote:
Why not give us an example of a company that has been ripped off by
gays because of this movie.
And I understand the concept of benefits for 2 costing more than
benefits for 1. Health insurance for me - $82. Same insurance for me
and my wife - $252.
Zeligg
wrote:
>First let me say I hate Adam Sandler. Now that I got that off my
>chest, did you see that new stinker of a movie he has coming out, I
>Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry? According to IMDB, "Two straight,
>single Brooklyn firefighters (Sandler, James) pretend to be a gay
>couple in order to receive domestic partner benefits. "
>
>Now, I don't mean to get started, but this is exactly the shit I've
>been bitching about for years. Here, two people rip off a company
>based on a FREAKING ACT PERFORMED IN THE BEDROOM.
Am I missing something or wouldn't this be considered heterosexuals
ripping off businesses?
>
>Jesus christ, the liberals are killing this country. I think I'll
>marry my dog so I can stay in a kennel instead of a hotel...
I guess if your relationship choices are that limited you gotta go
with the one species that would have sex with you (provided you
brought along peanut butter).
Zeligg
"You are megalomaniac, the worst kind, because you're a monstrous and
perverted idiot."
Oz' love letter to Zeligg
FDR
Take a pill and relax. You're all worked up over some imaginary wrong.
FDR
You do realize that married heterosexuals get tax benefits from the
government. Therefore married people rip off single people all the time.
KK
> Now, I don't mean to get started, but this is exactly the shit I've
> been bitching about for years. Here, two people rip off a company
> based on a FREAKING ACT PERFORMED IN THE BEDROOM.
I don't believe domestic partner status requires sex to be affirmed. And
in this case, it's the city rather than a company - but since they're
complying with the rules how is it a "rip-off"?
Each of the last three employers I've worked for have offered domestic
partner benefits. It doesn't only apply to same-sex couples - and while I
was living with a previous GF we both changed jobs and would have used
each others' partner benefit if we went without a job for any amount of
time.
KK
> I don't give a shit what happens in other people's bedrooms, in fact,
> this world would be a better place if people kept it in their
> bedrooms, but as you see, homosexuals have worked their hardest to
> keep their bedroom activities in the public eye.
>
> I wrote this as a business owner, not as someone trying to change what
> people do in their bedrooms.
You're not required to offer domestic partner benefits. And I'd oppose
any movement to do that.
lab~rat >:-)
Well that's good for you. I can't imagine there being a suit against
a corporation for not offering domestic partners benefits, can you?
<ok, I'm being sarcastic here>
lab~rat >:-)
<_removespam...@hotmail.com> puked:
Now isn't that liberal of you, offering me drugs to resolve my
problems. LOL ;)
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
I have none. But the fact that I brought this up in the newsgroups
years ago and they made a movie about it means that evidently at least
TWO PEOPLE IN THE FREAKIN WORLD THOUGHT OF THE IDEA. Think it's
possible more might?
Besides, any company giving benefits to a gay partner is being held
hostage by the gay community and ripped off. Those benefits are for
married people, not deviants.
>
>And I understand the concept of benefits for 2 costing more than
>benefits for 1. Health insurance for me - $82. Same insurance for me
>and my wife - $252.
And that's appropriate. Now if you were fucking a dog, would you
expect them to give benefits to the dog, too?
lab~rat >:-)
<_removespam...@hotmail.com> puked:
OTOH, married people end up combining income and buying a lot of
frivolous things single people wouldn't buy, throwing sales tax into
the coffers that single people ordinarily wouldn't. Plus they have
kids, and those kids cost far more than any tax deduction would allow,
and those kids grow up to be future taxpayers.
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
>On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:24:29 GMT, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net>
>wrote:
>
>>First let me say I hate Adam Sandler. Now that I got that off my
>>chest, did you see that new stinker of a movie he has coming out, I
>>Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry? According to IMDB, "Two straight,
>>single Brooklyn firefighters (Sandler, James) pretend to be a gay
>>couple in order to receive domestic partner benefits. "
>>
>>Now, I don't mean to get started, but this is exactly the shit I've
>>been bitching about for years. Here, two people rip off a company
>>based on a FREAKING ACT PERFORMED IN THE BEDROOM.
>
>Am I missing something or wouldn't this be considered heterosexuals
>ripping off businesses?
In this case it is. The only difference when gay people do it is that
they have sex together. It's still ripping off the company.
>>
>>Jesus christ, the liberals are killing this country. I think I'll
>>marry my dog so I can stay in a kennel instead of a hotel...
>
>I guess if your relationship choices are that limited you gotta go
>with the one species that would have sex with you (provided you
>brought along peanut butter).
>
Just don't use crunchy...
curmudgeon
Jesus Christ, the liberals are killing this country. I think I'll
marry my dog so I can stay in a kennel instead of a hotel...
I wonder what Republican Vice President Dick Cheney's
lesbian daughter thinks of this movie?
FDR
I don't know. Drug companies are very conservative.
FDR
Like what? Married people tend to have kids and buy houses. I didn't know
houses were frivilous.
David Johnston
wrote:
Why should married couples get benefits based on a sex act?
KK
>>
>>You're not required to offer domestic partner benefits. And I'd oppose
>>any movement to do that.
>
> Well that's good for you. I can't imagine there being a suit against
> a corporation for not offering domestic partners benefits, can you?
>
> <ok, I'm being sarcastic here>
And I'd oppose it. But until you're required to do it, I'm not sure what
your bitch about it is.
KK
>
> OTOH, married people end up combining income and buying a lot of
> frivolous things single people wouldn't buy, throwing sales tax into
> the coffers that single people ordinarily wouldn't.
Good point. Gay couples (on average) make more and spend more than their
hetero counterparts.
JohnN
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:25:04 -0500, SapperPest19 <b...@laptop2.com>
> puked:
> >gays because of this movie.
>
> I have none. But the fact that I brought this up in the newsgroups
> years ago and they made a movie about it means that evidently at least
> TWO PEOPLE IN THE FREAKIN WORLD THOUGHT OF THE IDEA. Think it's
> possible more might?
Too bad you didn't copyright the story then. And I bow to your powers
as a prophet.
But don't you think the TV shows "Bosom Buddies" and "Will & Grace"
might have been more influential than you?
> Besides, any company giving benefits to a gay partner is being held
> hostage by the gay community and ripped off. Those benefits are for
> married people, not deviants.
If a business wants to extend domestic partner benefits to its
employees, thats not being ripped off. Besides, DP benefits also
apply to heterosexual couples.
>
>
> >And I understand the concept of benefits for 2 costing more than
> >benefits for 1. Health insurance for me - $82. Same insurance for me
> >and my wife - $252.
>
> And that's appropriate. Now if you were fucking a dog, would you
> expect them to give benefits to the dog, too?
You failed to notice the extra cost of health insurance for his
partner costs him an additional $230 per month. A homosexual employee
would pay the same amount to insure his/her domestic partner. The
$230 cost to the employee is hardly ripping off the business.
JohnN
benrrrrrrrrand, esq
>On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:18:33 -0500, "benrrrrrrrrand, esq"
><po...@circumstance.org> puked:
>
>>On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:24:29 GMT, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>First let me say I hate Adam Sandler. Now that I got that off my
>>>chest, did you see that new stinker of a movie he has coming out, I
>>>Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry? According to IMDB, "Two straight,
>>>single Brooklyn firefighters (Sandler, James) pretend to be a gay
>>>couple in order to receive domestic partner benefits. "
>>>
>>>Now, I don't mean to get started, but this is exactly the shit I've
>>>been bitching about for years. Here, two people rip off a company
>>>based on a FREAKING ACT PERFORMED IN THE BEDROOM.
>>>
>>>Jesus christ, the liberals are killing this country. I think I'll
>>>marry my dog so I can stay in a kennel instead of a hotel...
>>
>>
>>HOMOPHOBE!!!!
>
>I MUST BE SECRETLY GAY!!!
must be and you know you are!!!
Jebus Saves
"curmudgeon" <britica...@bresnan.net> wrote in message
news:KoOdndurlcORCB_b...@bresnan.com...
or the gay President, does he plan on seeing it with Jeff Gannon or will
they make a orgy out of it and bring the whole Neocon Velvet Brigade?
SapperPest19
wrote:
Ok...based on the title of the thread, I thought maybe gays were
ripping off businesses.
>But the fact that I brought this up in the newsgroups
>years ago and they made a movie about it means that evidently at least
>TWO PEOPLE IN THE FREAKIN WORLD THOUGHT OF THE IDEA. Think it's
>possible more might?
It's been a subject of political debates for quite a while.
>Besides, any company giving benefits to a gay partner is being held
>hostage by the gay community and ripped off. Those benefits are for
>married people, not deviants.
I don't believe in gay marriage. But I do not have a problem with two
people of the same sex forming some sort of legal partnership.
>>And I understand the concept of benefits for 2 costing more than
>>benefits for 1. Health insurance for me - $82. Same insurance for me
>>and my wife - $252.
>
>And that's appropriate. Now if you were fucking a dog, would you
>expect them to give benefits to the dog, too?
If I had kids, I doubt I'd be fucking them but they could be included
on my insurance.
You are confusing two separate issues here. Do you really thing that
insurance companies would take a marriage into account if the
government didn't recognize it? If marriage were strictly a religious
thing, would the insurance companies play along? I doubt it. I would
guess that it is the legal partnership that the insurance companies
look at, not the church's recognition. That being the case, it could
be possible and acceptable to have a legal partnership without having
a marriage.
JFlexer
news:pan.2007.06.27....@furburger.net...
You're not required to offer benefits to any family members, domestic
partner, married spouse, or child.
I would oppose any measure requiring benefits for some, not all. If you
offer for one, you should offer for all.
--
-J
** Keeper of Betty Buckley and Bette Midler **
Dionisio
> Now, I don't mean to get started, but this is exactly the shit I've
> been bitching about for years. Here, two people rip off a company
> based on a FREAKING ACT PERFORMED IN THE BEDROOM.
So, it's just like marriage... Where's the problem?
Or are we to take it that you've never heard of folks getting hitched for the sole benefit
of increasing their Social Security or Welfare? Haven't heard of people using a wedding to
get an otherwise illegal alien into the country? And then there are the folks who simply
want money... Then there's the elderly; Can't have kids, but oh the Medicaid and Medicare
benefits! The ultimate kicker is the folks who swear their vows so that neither will have
to testify against the other when they are sworn in before a judge and jury.
This ain't nothin' new. And I'm sure others could come up with more interesting scenarios.
Solution? Abolish marriage. That'll show the connivers!
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
Remember, every time you open your mouth to talk, your mind walks out and parades up and
down the words.
--Edwin H. Stuart
(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)
KK
> I would oppose any measure requiring benefits for some, not all.
On what grounds would you base that opposition? What business of yours is
it how much an employer contributes to an employee's insurance plan, or
which company's plan he chooses?
> If you
> offer for one, you should offer for all.
Says you.
Dionisio
> Good point. Gay couples (on average) make more and spend more than their
> hetero counterparts.
Common assumption, but false.
Argument:
Queers make more money and are more intelligent than straights.
Articles:
* University of Maryland study
* Where the myth came from
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND AT COLLEGE PARK
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 1994
STUDY: GAY WORKERS EARN LESS THAN NON-GAY PEOPLE IN SAME JOBS
First Scientific Study of Anti-Gay Job Discrimination Questions Myth of "Gay Elite"
WASHINGTON -- An independent study at the University of Maryland at College Park on the
impact of anti-gay job discrimination has found that gay men and lesbians earn less than
their non-gay counterparts with similar education, training and occupations. The findings
refute the stereotype of gay people as an "affluent elite" unworthy of equal rights under
the law. Federal civil rights laws do not protect Americans from being fired, refused
work, paid less or otherwise treated unfairly in the job market solely because of their
sexual orientation.
The study, "Economic Evidence of Sexual Orientation Discrimination," marks the first
scientific economic research conducted on the problem of job discrimination on the basis
of sexual orientation. The study found that gay men earned 11 to 27 percent less than
non-gay counterparts with similar age, education, occupation, marital status and
residence. Lesbians earned five to 14 percent less. The study will appear in an upcoming
edition of the peer-reviewed journal Industrial and Labor Relations Review, published at
Cornell University.
"Far from having some mysterious advantage in the labor market, gay workers face
discrimination that actually hits them where it hurts -- in their paychecks," said School
of Public Affairs Professor Lee Badgett, who studied data from the General Social Survey,
a national random sample of the U.S. population collected by the National Opinion Research
Center at the University of Chicago. Badgett's study applied research methods developed in
the study of race and sex discrimination to the area of sexual orientation.
No federal law forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Employment
Non-Discrimination Act, which is currently before Congress, would forbid such
discrimination in employment practices. Opponents of the law, testifying before the Senate
Labor and Human Resources Committee, cited data from marketing surveys to paint gay people
as an "affluent elite" that do not deserve legal protection from discrimination.
"The stereotype of gay prosperity is based on marketing surveys of gay magazine readers
and people attending gay events. Those marketing surveys are biased toward people with
higher incomes," Badgett said. "Representative data and statistical techniques reveal an
economically diverse lesbian and gay community with people who are poor as well as rich,
with most falling in the middle. The real economic difference between gay and straight
Americans is the daily struggle of lesbians and gay men against the psychological and
economic effects of discrimination."
----------
Where the myth came from:
CHRISTIANITY TODAY, November 14, 1994 Reprinted without permission.
A letter to the editor:
A news article on homosexuality [North American Scene, Sept. 12] reported that "recent
census data" show the average homosexual makes more than $50,000 annually. In fact, the
data came not from any census but from a Wall Street Journal questionnaire that included
information on sexual orientation. The results, not surprisingly, indicated that
homosexual readers of the Journal have rather high salaries. But so do all other
identifiable groups that subscribe to the Wall Street Journal. Few poor people subscribe.
Accurate information on homosexuals' salaries is available, however. A recent study by the
University of Maryland (USA Today, Aug, 24, 1994) found that gay and bisexual men average
$22,876, while their heterosexual counterparts averaged $28,381. The results were similar
for women, with heterosexual women earning $18,277 to the $15,187 average for lesbian and
bisexual women. This national random poll indicates that not only do lesbian women and gay
men make less than half that stated in the CT article, they also earn almost 20 percent
less than heterosexuals. The pay gap remained even after accounting for differences in
education and job experience.
Whether or not homosexuals make more or less than heterosexuals is not relevant.
Stephen W. Wells
Pocatello, Idaho
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
I am a homosexual and I have an agenda. To wit;
To live my life with dignity.
To be free of oppression.
To care for my mate. (23 years now in my case)
To be able to earn an honest living.
To be a good citizen.
To care for my fellow human beings.
To make a positive contribution to my community.
To partake of equal opportunity.
To be free to express my views.
And all I ask is that I am allowed to do these things.
Seems there is a contingent in our society that is so afraid that if I am allowed to do
these things, they will lose their very souls...
-- Alie...@cybergate.com (Dustin Hood), 24 Jul 1995
makanamess
> First let me say I hate Adam Sandler. Now that I got that off my
> chest, did you see that new stinker of a movie he has coming out, I
> Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry? According to IMDB, "Two straight,
> single Brooklyn firefighters (Sandler, James) pretend to be a gay
> couple in order to receive domestic partner benefits. "
>
> been bitching about for years. Here, two people rip off a company
> based on a FREAKING ACT PERFORMED IN THE BEDROOM.
>
> marry my dog so I can stay in a kennel instead of a hotel...
>
> lab~rat >:-)
> Stupid humans...
it's just a stupid fucking movie, tardo. you seriously need to pull
that stick up your ass out a notch or two.
KK
>
> KK wrote:
>
>> Good point. Gay couples (on average) make more and spend more than their
>> hetero counterparts.
>
> Common assumption, but false.
Learn to read. I said gay couples, not individual gays. From the context
of the thread, it can be understood that we're talking about gay
households vs. straight households.
Gay people who cohabitate are more likely to be two professionals than
straight couples are. Plus, fewer child expenditures.
Wyle Coyote
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 06:27:59 -0700, Red <RedRedCoun...@aol.com> puked:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 27, 9:24?am, "lab~rat >:-)" <c...@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> First let me say I hate Adam Sandler. Now that I got that off my
> >> chest, did you see that new stinker of a movie he has coming out, I
> >> Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry? According to IMDB, "Two straight,
> >> single Brooklyn firefighters (Sandler, James) pretend to be a gay
> >> couple in order to receive domestic partner benefits. "
>
> >> Now, I don't mean to get started, but this is exactly the shit I've
> >> been bitching about for years. Here, two people rip off a company
> >> based on a FREAKING ACT PERFORMED IN THE BEDROOM.
>
> >> Jesus christ, the liberals are killing this country. I think I'll
> >> marry my dog so I can stay in a kennel instead of a hotel...
>
> >> --
> >> lab~rat >:-)
> >> Stupid humans...
>
> >crap. Not me and I bet not many more.
>
> It's a movie formula they continue to make and I never understand why:
>
> -Fake fags
> -Boy pretends to be girl
> -Girl pretends to be boy
> -Girl in man's body
> -Man in girl's body
>
> It must be for those psychologically confused people experimenting
> with their sexuality.
>
> lab~rat >:-)
> Stupid humans...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Of course we know these people in Hollywood making these gay themed
movies aren't gay.
Thier just ACTING gay in the movie!
I can't help but to wonder...why?
Why is Hollywood so concerned? Why don't they have gay actors play
gay roles?
Wyle Coyote
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 07:02:58 -0700, Neocon Oil Cheerleaders
> <n...@spamm.com> puked:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <t4q483pbnp9g80ler8d877a89l7frdu...@4ax.com>, c...@cheeze.net says...
>
> I don't give a shit what happens in other people's bedrooms, in fact,
> this world would be a better place if people kept it in their
> bedrooms, but as you see, homosexuals have worked their hardest to
> keep their bedroom activities in the public eye.
>
> I wrote this as a business owner, not as someone trying to change what
> the receiving end of a McPaycheck wouldn't understand what the point
> was...
>
> --
> lab~rat >:-)
> Stupid humans...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ok, so what have you got against people on the receiving end of a
McPaycheck??? ;-)
Wyle Coyote
> "lab~rat >:-)" <c...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>
> news:c3s48393769tq6tcr...@4ax.com...> >>On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:24:29 GMT, "lab~rat >:-)" <c...@cheeze.net>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>First let me say I hate Adam Sandler. Now that I got that off my
> >>>chest, did you see that new stinker of a movie he has coming out, I
> >>>Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry? According to IMDB, "Two straight,
> >>>single Brooklyn firefighters (Sandler, James) pretend to be a gay
> >>>couple in order to receive domestic partner benefits. "
>
> >>>Now, I don't mean to get started, but this is exactly the shit I've
> >>>been bitching about for years. Here, two people rip off a company
> >>>based on a FREAKING ACT PERFORMED IN THE BEDROOM.
>
> >>>Jesus christ, the liberals are killing this country. I think I'll
> >>>marry my dog so I can stay in a kennel instead of a hotel...
>
> >>businesses?
>
> > They are pretending to be gay to get domestic partner benefits.
>
> are gay partners so we can get domestic partnership benefits from the
> company!"
>
> >This
> > is what I've ranted about before, gay marriage opens the door for
> > people to get entitlements based on a sex act.
>
> entitlements for theirs.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good point. Now that I think about it, I guess only the REAL
desperate would stoop to such levels.
I can't imagine any financially secure straight male marrying another
male just for the bennies.
Now illegals and men living under bridges are a different story.
Trace
> First let me say I hate Adam Sandler. Now that I got that off my
> chest, did you see that new stinker of a movie he has coming out, I
> Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry? According to IMDB, "Two straight,
> single Brooklyn firefighters (Sandler, James) pretend to be a gay
> couple in order to receive domestic partner benefits. "
>
> Now, I don't mean to get started, but this is exactly the shit I've
> been bitching about for years. Here, two people rip off a company
> based on a FREAKING ACT PERFORMED IN THE BEDROOM.
>
> Jesus christ, the liberals are killing this country. I think I'll
> marry my dog so I can stay in a kennel instead of a hotel...
>
> lab~rat >:-)
> Stupid humans...
Just like the 15 to 30 million wetbacks here from latin america.
Squirting out babies to have an anchor and get those welfare dollars.
Every new child is a raise since their wic and other benefits that are
being stolen will be increased to feed the new mouths.
Wyle Coyote
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wrong as it might be, I hear ya! If the US Gov is willing to grant
these illegals amnesty and do nothing to stop them from securing the
benefits of the welfare system funded by tax payers doallars, then why
should a group or groups of U.S. citizens who want thier rights
benefit from the system as well, right or wrong??? Illegal
immigration is wrong and gay marriage is wrong, but the U.S. gov is
funding the illegals and I say the gays should get on in there and get
thiers too, as off kilteras I think gay marriage may be. How else do
you fight a corrupt Govt'? I also think blacks should fight to
legalize CRACK!!!
Dionisio
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:04:25 -0400, Dionisio wrote:
>>Common assumption, but false.
>
> Learn to read. I said gay couples, not individual gays.
As though couples aren't composed of individuals...
> From the context
> of the thread, it can be understood that we're talking about gay
> households vs. straight households.
And are households not composed of individuals? Hmm...?
Learn to think.
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
On a recent [1994] radio program on Eau Claire's Christian broadcasting station: "When I
supported the E.R.A. 20 years ago, no one suggested my motivation for doing so was that I
was a woman. When I supported the A.D.A., no one said I did so because I was disabled.
When I led programs for the deaf, no one said it was because I was hard of hearing. When I
supported the Civil Rights Restoration Act, no one said it was because I was black. And
yet when I oppose discrimination against gays and lesbians, they suggest that it's only
because of my sexual orientation. This is the politics of personal destruction: If they
can't win the argument on the merits, they go after the person."
-- Representative (Wisconson) Steve Gunderson
bobblahblah
> chest, did you see that new stinker of a movie he has coming out, I
> Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry? According to IMDB, "Two straight,
> single Brooklyn firefighters (Sandler, James) pretend to be a gay
> couple in order to receive domestic partner benefits. "
>
> Now, I don't mean to get started, but this is exactly the shit I've
> been bitching about for years. Here, two people rip off a company
> based on a FREAKING ACT PERFORMED IN THE BEDROOM.
>
> Jesus christ, the liberals are killing this country. I think I'll
> marry my dog so I can stay in a kennel instead of a hotel...
>
> --
> lab~rat >:-)
> Stupid humans...
It's a movie. From what I hear, to get those benefits from a company they
have to prove that they have been partners for however long. You can't just
bring some guy home one night and make him your life mate.
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:35:45 -0400, "FDR"
><_removespam...@hotmail.com> puked:
>
>>
>>"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>>news:t4q483pbnp9g80ler...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 06:27:59 -0700, Red <RedRed...@aol.com> puked:
>>>
>>>>On Jun 27, 9:24?am, "lab~rat >:-)" <c...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>>>>> First let me say I hate Adam Sandler. Now that I got that off my
>>>>> chest, did you see that new stinker of a movie he has coming out, I
>>>>> Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry? According to IMDB, "Two straight,
>>>>> single Brooklyn firefighters (Sandler, James) pretend to be a gay
>>>>> couple in order to receive domestic partner benefits. "
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, I don't mean to get started, but this is exactly the shit I've
>>>>> been bitching about for years. Here, two people rip off a company
>>>>> based on a FREAKING ACT PERFORMED IN THE BEDROOM.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jesus christ, the liberals are killing this country. I think I'll
>>>>> marry my dog so I can stay in a kennel instead of a hotel...
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> lab~rat >:-)
>>>>> Stupid humans...
>>>>
>>>>It will sink to the bottom because who wants to see this sort of
>>>>crap. Not me and I bet not many more.
>>>
>>> It's a movie formula they continue to make and I never understand why:
>>>
>>> -Fake fags
>>> -Boy pretends to be girl
>>> -Girl pretends to be boy
>>> -Girl in man's body
>>> -Man in girl's body
>>>
>>> It must be for those psychologically confused people experimenting
>>> with their sexuality.
>>
>>Back in the 50's conservative America laughed out loud at Uncle Milton
>>dressing up as a woman and getting kissed. And Jack lemon pretending to be
>>a woman and getting married. This stuff is not new to America, or society.
>>Sheesh.
>>
>
>Are you just trying to argue with me or didn't you read how they keep
>doing the same crap over and over?
>
>And BTW, it isn't politically correct to laugh at cross dressers
>anymore.
Wrong as Mrs. Doubtfire, the White Chicks, Juwanna Mann, Viola (from
She's the Man), Clive (from The Hot Chick) and John Travolta's
character from Hairspray can all attest.
JFlexer
news:yL-dndatbbX5Rh_b...@giganews.com...
In California, you have to be registered as domestic partners, and you must
provide notarized proof when you apply for the benefit. Also, to be
registered in California is no light thing... to dissolve a domestic
partnership, you must go through traditional divorce proceedings.
Apparently, we are good enough to actually be MARRIED (even though Dom.
Ptnr's have nearly all the same state-granted rights), but we're plenty
good enough to get divorced...
Dennis Kemmerer
news:pan.2007.06.27....@furburger.net...
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:14:59 +0000, lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>
>> this world would be a better place if people kept it in their
>> bedrooms, but as you see, homosexuals have worked their hardest to
>> keep their bedroom activities in the public eye.
>>
>> I wrote this as a business owner, not as someone trying to change what
>> people do in their bedrooms.
>
> any movement to do that.
Actually, under California law, companies that do business here _are_
required to offer the same benefits to state-registered domestic partners as
they offer to couples who have a valid marriage license. Specifically, Code
Section 297.5(a) states that 'registered domestic partners shall have the
same rights, protections, and benefits ... as are granted to and imposed
upon spouses.'
The entire domestic partnership code is available at
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/fam/297-297.5.html.
Neocon Oil Cheerleaders
> >> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 06:27:59 -0700, Red <RedRed...@aol.com> puked:
> >>
> >> >On Jun 27, 9:24?am, "lab~rat >:-)" <c...@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> >> chest, did you see that new stinker of a movie he has coming out, I
> >> >> Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry? According to IMDB, "Two straight,
> >> >> single Brooklyn firefighters (Sandler, James) pretend to be a gay
> >> >> couple in order to receive domestic partner benefits. "
> >> >>
> >> >> Now, I don't mean to get started, but this is exactly the shit I've
> >> >> been bitching about for years. Here, two people rip off a company
> >> >> based on a FREAKING ACT PERFORMED IN THE BEDROOM.
> >> >>
> >> >> Jesus christ, the liberals are killing this country. I think I'll
> >> >> marry my dog so I can stay in a kennel instead of a hotel...
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> lab~rat >:-)
> >> >> Stupid humans...
> >> >
> >> >crap. Not me and I bet not many more.
> >>
> >> It's a movie formula they continue to make and I never understand why:
> >>
> >> -Fake fags
> >> -Boy pretends to be girl
> >> -Girl pretends to be boy
> >> -Girl in man's body
> >> -Man in girl's body
> >>
> >> It must be for those psychologically confused people experimenting
> >> with their sexuality.
> >>
> >> lab~rat >:-)
> >> Stupid humans...
> >>
>
> this world would be a better place if people kept it in their
> bedrooms, but as you see, homosexuals have worked their hardest to
> keep their bedroom activities in the public eye.
>
> I wrote this as a business owner, not as someone trying to change what
> the receiving end of a McPaycheck wouldn't understand what the point
> was...
>
> --
> lab~rat >:-)
>
Bokonon
> Now, I don't mean to get started, but this is exactly the shit I've
> been bitching about for years. Here, two people rip off a company
> based on a FREAKING ACT PERFORMED IN THE BEDROOM.
LOL. Yet another right-wing idiot getting all riled up over a work of
FICTION.
Damn, you unAmerican right-wing radicals are fucking stupid.
--
"History! Read it and weep!"
-Bokonon
_______________________________________________
When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
lab~rat >:-)
>On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:24:29 +0000, lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>
>> Now, I don't mean to get started, but this is exactly the shit I've
>> been bitching about for years. Here, two people rip off a company
>> based on a FREAKING ACT PERFORMED IN THE BEDROOM.
>
>I don't believe domestic partner status requires sex to be affirmed. And
>in this case, it's the city rather than a company - but since they're
>complying with the rules how is it a "rip-off"?
>
>Each of the last three employers I've worked for have offered domestic
>partner benefits. It doesn't only apply to same-sex couples - and while I
>was living with a previous GF we both changed jobs and would have used
>each others' partner benefit if we went without a job for any amount of
>time.
My issue is the inevitable mandate that will require equal benefits.
If you work for a benevolent company that will include your GF, that's
great. But I don't suspect that an unmarried couple will be suing for
equal benefits anytime soon...
lab~rat >:-)
<anon...@remailer.cyberiade.it> puked:
>On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>>Jesus christ, the liberals are killing this country.
>>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>Interesting juxtaposition of words, highlighting the fact that
>the on-going conflagration between Conservative-vassals versus
>Liberal-vassals is a very different fight from that between the
>controlling elitist-Republicans with -- not against -- the very
>same controlling elitist-Democrats. Very different indeed. See?
Who mentioned Democrats?
lab~rat >:-)
>On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:27:41 +0000, lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>
>>
>> OTOH, married people end up combining income and buying a lot of
>> frivolous things single people wouldn't buy, throwing sales tax into
>> the coffers that single people ordinarily wouldn't.
>
>Good point. Gay couples (on average) make more and spend more than their
>hetero counterparts.
Yeah, but they generally don't produce little taxpayers...
lab~rat >:-)
>On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:22:06 +0000, lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>You're not required to offer domestic partner benefits. And I'd oppose
>>>any movement to do that.
>>
>> Well that's good for you. I can't imagine there being a suit against
>> a corporation for not offering domestic partners benefits, can you?
>>
>> <ok, I'm being sarcastic here>
>
>And I'd oppose it. But until you're required to do it, I'm not sure what
>your bitch about it is.
Call me Nostrodumbass...
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
>On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:52:03 GMT, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:46:05 -0500, SapperPest19 <b...@laptop2.com>
>>puked:
>>
>>>On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:25:13 GMT, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:21:04 -0500, SapperPest19 <b...@laptop2.com>
>>>>puked:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:24:29 GMT, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>First let me say I hate Adam Sandler. Now that I got that off my
>>>>>>chest, did you see that new stinker of a movie he has coming out, I
>>>>>>Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry? According to IMDB, "Two straight,
>>>>>>single Brooklyn firefighters (Sandler, James) pretend to be a gay
>>>>>>couple in order to receive domestic partner benefits. "
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now, I don't mean to get started, but this is exactly the shit I've
>>>>>>been bitching about for years. Here, two people rip off a company
>>>>>>based on a FREAKING ACT PERFORMED IN THE BEDROOM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jesus christ, the liberals are killing this country. I think I'll
>>>>>>marry my dog so I can stay in a kennel instead of a hotel...
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe I'm missing the point but where is the ripping off of
>>>>>businesses?
>>>>
>>>>They are pretending to be gay to get domestic partner benefits. This
>>>>is what I've ranted about before, gay marriage opens the door for
>>>>people to get entitlements based on a sex act.
>>>
>>>I understand the premise of the movie. I can't figure out what
>>>business is being ripped off.
>>
>>The one that provides benefits to married couples.
>
>Why should married couples get benefits based on a sex act?
Clearly it isn't based on a sex act. Gays may think it is and that's
why they compare their marriage to real marriage, but it truly isn't.
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
>On Jun 27, 12:25 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <c...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:25:04 -0500, SapperPest19 <b...@laptop2.com>
>> puked:
>> >Why not give us an example of a company that has been ripped off by
>> >gays because of this movie.
>>
>> I have none. But the fact that I brought this up in the newsgroups
>> years ago and they made a movie about it means that evidently at least
>> TWO PEOPLE IN THE FREAKIN WORLD THOUGHT OF THE IDEA. Think it's
>> possible more might?
>
>Too bad you didn't copyright the story then. And I bow to your powers
>as a prophet.
>
>But don't you think the TV shows "Bosom Buddies" and "Will & Grace"
>might have been more influential than you?
Bosom Buddies had nothing to do with partner benefits and I've never
seen Will and Grace. What's that about.
>> Besides, any company giving benefits to a gay partner is being held
>> hostage by the gay community and ripped off. Those benefits are for
>> married people, not deviants.
>
>If a business wants to extend domestic partner benefits to its
>employees, thats not being ripped off. Besides, DP benefits also
>apply to heterosexual couples.
What if a company DOES NOT want to extend benefits to homosexual
couples? I think this is the point of the matter.
>
>>
>>
>> >And I understand the concept of benefits for 2 costing more than
>> >benefits for 1. Health insurance for me - $82. Same insurance for me
>> >and my wife - $252.
>>
>> And that's appropriate. Now if you were fucking a dog, would you
>> expect them to give benefits to the dog, too?
>
>You failed to notice the extra cost of health insurance for his
>partner costs him an additional $230 per month. A homosexual employee
>would pay the same amount to insure his/her domestic partner. The
>$230 cost to the employee is hardly ripping off the business.
The homosexual partner will have a same-sex partner. Suppose a
company doesn't care to insure, or further, employ, a homosexual?
lab~rat >:-)
<britica...@bresnan.net> puked:
>"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>news:b9o4839938abqrv23...@4ax.com...
> Jesus Christ, the liberals are killing this country. I think I'll
> marry my dog so I can stay in a kennel instead of a hotel...
>
>I wonder what Republican Vice President Dick Cheney's
>lesbian daughter thinks of this movie?
>
If she's like me she won't go see it because of that awful Adam
Sandler. I hope he doesn't do that stupid 'little boy' act because
then it'll be like a gay pedophile movie...
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
>On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:25:52 GMT, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:25:04 -0500, SapperPest19 <b...@laptop2.com>
>>puked:
>>
>>>On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:52:03 GMT, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:46:05 -0500, SapperPest19 <b...@laptop2.com>
>>>>puked:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:25:13 GMT, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:21:04 -0500, SapperPest19 <b...@laptop2.com>
>>>>>>puked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:24:29 GMT, "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>First let me say I hate Adam Sandler. Now that I got that off my
>>>>>>>>chest, did you see that new stinker of a movie he has coming out, I
>>>>>>>>Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry? According to IMDB, "Two straight,
>>>>>>>>single Brooklyn firefighters (Sandler, James) pretend to be a gay
>>>>>>>>couple in order to receive domestic partner benefits. "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Now, I don't mean to get started, but this is exactly the shit I've
>>>>>>>>been bitching about for years. Here, two people rip off a company
>>>>>>>>based on a FREAKING ACT PERFORMED IN THE BEDROOM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Jesus christ, the liberals are killing this country. I think I'll
>>>>>>>>marry my dog so I can stay in a kennel instead of a hotel...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Maybe I'm missing the point but where is the ripping off of
>>>>>>>businesses?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They are pretending to be gay to get domestic partner benefits. This
>>>>>>is what I've ranted about before, gay marriage opens the door for
>>>>>>people to get entitlements based on a sex act.
>>>>>
>>>>>I understand the premise of the movie. I can't figure out what
>>>>>business is being ripped off.
>>>>
>>>>The one that provides benefits to married couples. Benefits for two
>>>>people cost more than benefits for one.
>>>
>>>Why not give us an example of a company that has been ripped off by
>>>gays because of this movie.
>>
>>I have none.
>
>Ok...based on the title of the thread, I thought maybe gays were
>ripping off businesses.
It's a revisited topic, and the movie shows the potential of gay
unions doing so.
>
>>But the fact that I brought this up in the newsgroups
>>years ago and they made a movie about it means that evidently at least
>>TWO PEOPLE IN THE FREAKIN WORLD THOUGHT OF THE IDEA. Think it's
>>possible more might?
>
>It's been a subject of political debates for quite a while.
>
>>Besides, any company giving benefits to a gay partner is being held
>>hostage by the gay community and ripped off. Those benefits are for
>>married people, not deviants.
>
>I don't believe in gay marriage. But I do not have a problem with two
>people of the same sex forming some sort of legal partnership.
>
>>>And I understand the concept of benefits for 2 costing more than
>>>benefits for 1. Health insurance for me - $82. Same insurance for me
>>>and my wife - $252.
>>
>>And that's appropriate. Now if you were fucking a dog, would you
>>expect them to give benefits to the dog, too?
>
>If I had kids, I doubt I'd be fucking them but they could be included
>on my insurance.
>
>You are confusing two separate issues here. Do you really thing that
>insurance companies would take a marriage into account if the
>government didn't recognize it? If marriage were strictly a religious
>thing, would the insurance companies play along? I doubt it. I would
>guess that it is the legal partnership that the insurance companies
>look at, not the church's recognition. That being the case, it could
>be possible and acceptable to have a legal partnership without having
>a marriage.
And would a business be allowed not to honor that marriage while still
honoring real marriages?
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
>"KK" <_K...@furburger.net> wrote in message
>news:pan.2007.06.27....@furburger.net...
>> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:14:59 +0000, lab~rat >:-) wrote:
>>
>>> I don't give a shit what happens in other people's bedrooms, in fact,
>>> this world would be a better place if people kept it in their
>>> bedrooms, but as you see, homosexuals have worked their hardest to
>>> keep their bedroom activities in the public eye.
>>>
>>> I wrote this as a business owner, not as someone trying to change what
>>> people do in their bedrooms.
>>
>> You're not required to offer domestic partner benefits. And I'd oppose
>> any movement to do that.
>
>You're not required to offer benefits to any family members, domestic
>partner, married spouse, or child.
>
>I would oppose any measure requiring benefits for some, not all. If you
>offer for one, you should offer for all.
If you don't recognize gay marriage, you shouldn't be obligated to do
so it that case.
lab~rat >:-)
<d...@suespammers.org> puked:
Well there ya fucking go!
Is there a law against firing someone whose lifestyle doesn't portray
the image you want for your company? That's the route I'd take...
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
Nothing. Except that they don't understand what people that write
those checks know...
lab~rat >:-)
<n...@spamm.com> puked:
LOL. I admit it's a small business, but 23 employees are more than
none.
> I hope we can all find a way to help lab~rat find his inner woman, all those years of denial, big air scoops on your muscle cars didn't do anything for you, did they.
Forced cold air = more HP.
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
>x-no-archive: yes
>"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>news:b9o4839938abqrv23...@4ax.com...
>> First let me say I hate Adam Sandler. Now that I got that off my
>> chest, did you see that new stinker of a movie he has coming out, I
>> Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry? According to IMDB, "Two straight,
>> single Brooklyn firefighters (Sandler, James) pretend to be a gay
>> couple in order to receive domestic partner benefits. "
>>
>> Now, I don't mean to get started, but this is exactly the shit I've
>> been bitching about for years. Here, two people rip off a company
>> based on a FREAKING ACT PERFORMED IN THE BEDROOM.
>>
>> Jesus christ, the liberals are killing this country. I think I'll
>> marry my dog so I can stay in a kennel instead of a hotel...
>>
>> --
>> lab~rat >:-)
>> Stupid humans...
>
>
>We're supposed to believe either of those guys could make it as a
>firefighter? PuhLeeze.
>
It's easier to believe that they're gay.
lab~rat >:-)
<seattled...@hotmail.com> puked:
>
>"lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>news:b9o4839938abqrv23...@4ax.com...
>
>> Now, I don't mean to get started, but this is exactly the shit I've
>> been bitching about for years. Here, two people rip off a company
>> based on a FREAKING ACT PERFORMED IN THE BEDROOM.
>
>LOL. Yet another right-wing idiot getting all riled up over a work of
>FICTION.
>
>Damn, you unAmerican right-wing radicals are fucking stupid.
As proven earlier in the thread, benefits for domestic partners is NOT
fiction and required to be provided in California. Now go back to
work for someone, this is a concern for your BOSS, not underlings...
Mitchell Holman
What if a company doesn't want to extend benefits
to jewish couples or black couples or handicapped
couples? Is that their "right" as well?
Mitchell Holman
LEWISTON, Maine --An investigator for the Maine Human Rights
Commission has found reasonable grounds for a manager's claim
that he was fired from his job at DeCoster farms because he's
an atheist.
Cacy Cantwell says Austin "Jack" DeCoster told him before he
was fired that they might have to "part ways" because Cantwell
didn't believe in God.
The backing of the investigator bolsters Cantwell's case, which
is expected to go before the full commission, said Patricia Ryan,
executive director. Cantwell was working for Maine Contract Farming,
a DeCoster subsidiary where he was hired as a manager in 2003.
DeCoster is the region's largest brown egg producer.
The official reason for Cantwell's firing in November 2006 was
"poor job performance," but the commission's investigator, Barbara
Lelli, said Cantwell received no written warnings about performance
problems.
Cantwell, who was provided housing he shared with a non-married
partner, two of his children and three of her children, said he
was criticized by DeCoster, a devout Christian, who didn't approve
of the living arrangement.
On another occasion, DeCoster brought up God in a conversation, and
Cantwell responded by saying he was an atheist and didn't believe
in God.
http://nogod.tribe.net/thread/324dfb8c-87c5-484f-b676-ad8a1fbb5f8c
red
> "lab~rat >:-)" <c...@cheeze.net> wrote in message
>
> news:t4q483pbnp9g80ler...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 06:27:59 -0700, Red <RedRedCoun...@aol.com> puked:
> >>> chest, did you see that new stinker of a movie he has coming out, I
> >>> Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry? According to IMDB, "Two straight,
> >>> single Brooklyn firefighters (Sandler, James) pretend to be a gay
> >>> couple in order to receive domestic partner benefits. "
>
> >>> been bitching about for years. Here, two people rip off a company
> >>> based on a FREAKING ACT PERFORMED IN THE BEDROOM.
>
> >>> marry my dog so I can stay in a kennel instead of a hotel...
>
> >>> lab~rat >:-)
> >>> Stupid humans...
>
> >>crap. Not me and I bet not many more.
>
> > It's a movie formula they continue to make and I never understand why:
>
> > -Fake fags
> > -Boy pretends to be girl
> > -Girl pretends to be boy
> > -Girl in man's body
> > -Man in girl's body
>
> > It must be for those psychologically confused people experimenting
> > with their sexuality.
>
> dressing up as a woman and getting kissed. And Jack lemon pretending to be
> a woman and getting married. This stuff is not new to America, or society.
> Sheesh.
>
>
>
>
>
> > lab~rat >:-)
> > Stupid humans...- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Big difference in my eyes from dressing up like a woman and being gay!
JohnN
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:32:21 -0000, JohnN <jnorri...@hotmail.com>
> puked:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 27, 12:25 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <c...@cheeze.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:25:04 -0500, SapperPest19 <b...@laptop2.com>
> >> puked:
> >> >Why not give us an example of a company that has been ripped off by
> >> >gays because of this movie.
>
> >> I have none. But the fact that I brought this up in the newsgroups
> >> years ago and they made a movie about it means that evidently at least
> >> TWO PEOPLE IN THE FREAKIN WORLD THOUGHT OF THE IDEA. Think it's
> >> possible more might?
>
> >Too bad you didn't copyright the story then. And I bow to your powers
> >as a prophet.
>
> >But don't you think the TV shows "Bosom Buddies" and "Will & Grace"
> >might have been more influential than you?
>
> Bosom Buddies had nothing to do with partner benefits and I've never
> seen Will and Grace. What's that about.
In BB the two pretend women, stick it to the Man by getting housing in
a sorority. Not partner benefits, but still ripping off the college.
Will & Grace is about two adults, one female the other male, who share
an apartment. They are not married and one is GAY.
> >> Besides, any company giving benefits to a gay partner is being held
> >> hostage by the gay community and ripped off. Those benefits are for
> >> married people, not deviants.
>
> >If a business wants to extend domestic partner benefits to its
> >employees, thats not being ripped off. Besides, DP benefits also
> >apply to heterosexual couples.
>
> What if a company DOES NOT want to extend benefits to homosexual
> couples? I think this is the point of the matter.
If a company does not want to extend benefitrs to same gender couples
the company can just not do it. If that gets their public relations
panties in a knot the company can just give benefits to married
couples.
I can't imagine a single rational business scenario that would exclude
same gender or unmarried partner benefits especially since the bulk of
the cost is borne by the employee.
>
>
> >> >And I understand the concept of benefits for 2 costing more than
> >> >benefits for 1. Health insurance for me - $82. Same insurance for me
> >> >and my wife - $252.
>
> >> And that's appropriate. Now if you were fucking a dog, would you
> >> expect them to give benefits to the dog, too?
>
> >You failed to notice the extra cost of health insurance for his
> >partner costs him an additional $230 per month. A homosexual employee
> >would pay the same amount to insure his/her domestic partner. The
> >$230 cost to the employee is hardly ripping off the business.
>
> The homosexual partner will have a same-sex partner. Suppose a
> company doesn't care to insure, or further, employ, a homosexual?
Then that company should have the balls to state just that. Unlike
religious believers, who choose to be religious - they are not born
that way, homosexuals are rarily protected byt he anti-discrimination
laws in the USA. Therefore a business can fire any homosexual
employee without legal penalty (depending on the jurisdiction).
Many corporations choose to extend benefits to same gender and
unmarried partners. They believe it is good business to keep their
employees happy. They also recognise that it good business to hire
the best people possible, not just those with peculiar social or
persoanl characteristics.
JohnN
JohnN
SapperPest19
wrote:
Ocean's Thirteen is a movie that shows the potential of people ripping
off a casino. Live Free or Die Hard is a movie that shows the
potential of an Internet-based terrorist organization causing havoc.
Here's the key word: "movie". They are not real. If your movie were a
documentary, you would have a point. It is not so you do not. You
don't find the movie entertaining and that's fine.
Perhaps you should have read my entire post. The best way to answer
your question would be to simply quote the last sentence of my
previous post.
"That being the case, it could be possible and acceptable to have a
legal partnership without having a marriage."
You seem to be confusing the religious definition of marriage and the
legal ramifications behind the legal partnership that is labeled for
simplicity as marriage.
SapperPest19
wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:01:44 GMT, KK <_K...@furburger.net> puked:
Ok...if the hetero couple has fertility issues, should they not be
eligible?
Victor Velazquez
news:4682b4b7$0$4646$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> KK wrote:
>
>> Good point. Gay couples (on average) make more and spend more than their
>> hetero counterparts.
>
<snip>
> Where the myth came from:
> CHRISTIANITY TODAY, November 14, 1994 Reprinted without permission.
<snip>
And CT wouldn't have, like, an agenda or anything, would they?
P.S. And we are talking about couples/households, here. Because gay
commitment is still considered transgressive (among many straights and even
some gays), gay people tend to wait longer than straights to do it.
Therefore, a sample of gay households should reveal a higher net worth than
straights.
It should surprise no one that single gays make less than single straights.
Discrimination is still very real. Generally speaking, gays might be less
aggressive than straights to buck for promotion, etc (for fear of making
waves). Also, musical theater and food service jobs pay far below the
national average income.
P.P.S. Okay, that last one was a joke.
P.P.P.S. This is my theory, which is mine.
Victor Velazquez
news:k37583l8nabs5n7hp...@4ax.com...
I wonder if that won't change as gay commitment becomes more accepted by the
mainstream? Not produce, mind you, but all the really important parts of
childcare. Based on my tiny sample size (one cousin and a guy I work out
with), 50% of gay men already want to be parents. ;-)
Victor Velazquez
I'd go with this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
Victor Velazquez
> Besides, any company giving benefits to a gay partner is being held
> hostage by the gay community and ripped off. Those benefits are for
> married people, not deviants.
Yeah, we don't actually call them that any more.
> Now if you were fucking a dog, would you
> expect them to give benefits to the dog, too?
Dogs can't give meaningful consent for sexual relations, let alone proposals
of marriage.
With that out of the way, I do take your central point: that this film
likely will serve to glamorize fraud. But then one could make the same
point about the "Ocean's" oeuvre and the reasonable response would probably
be something like, "but it's only a movie."
Victor Velazquez
Why would gays have different reasons for wanting to get married than
straights?
Audie Murphy's Ghost
JohnN <jnor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In [Bosom Buddies] the two pretend women, stick it to the Man by
> getting housing in a sorority. Not partner benefits, but still
> ripping off the college.
Bosom Buddies didn't involve a college or a sorority, and nobody got
ripped off. Other that that, good summary.
Wyle Coyote
> "lab~rat >:-)" <c...@cheeze.net> wrote innews:hf7583ljvnhrqhra7...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:32:21 -0000, JohnN <jnorri...@hotmail.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
People are born black, jewish(as birthright) and often handicapped.
The jury's still out as to whether people are born gay.
JohnN
wrote:
> In article <1183037489.552211.209...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
> JohnN <jnorri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In [Bosom Buddies] the two pretend women, stick it to the Man by
> > getting housing in a sorority. Not partner benefits, but still
> > ripping off the college.
>
> Bosom Buddies didn't involve a college or a sorority, and nobody got
> ripped off. Other that that, good summary.
I was wrong, sorry fans of Bosom Buddies.
JohnN
David Johnston
wrote:
>>>>I understand the premise of the movie. I can't figure out what
>>>>business is being ripped off.
>>>
>>>The one that provides benefits to married couples.
>>
>>Why should married couples get benefits based on a sex act?
>
>Clearly it isn't based on a sex act.
What's so clear about that?
Victor Velazquez
news:1183046546....@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> People are born black, jewish(as birthright) and often handicapped.
> The jury's still out as to whether people are born gay.
Sure, if the jury is comprised solely of straight people who don't know
(that they know) any homosexuals.
lab~rat >:-)
<vict...@notnow.com> puked:
That really has nothing to do with the discussion.
Just curious, does it make you people happy to have the government
intervene in private business?
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
Yeah, but any time some guy I knew dressed like a woman for Halloween,
I always questioned what was going on there. I mean christ, isn't a
vampire good enough for ya?
lab~rat >:-)
<Noe...@comcast.com> puked:
Absolutely. Why wouldn't it be?
And it would be the decision of people to work there or do business
with that company. I can understand government dictating government
jobs, but private companies should have their own say over personnel
issues.
Boothbay
> On Jun 27, 9:52?am, "lab~rat >:-)" <c...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 06:27:59 -0700, Red <RedRedCoun...@aol.com> puked:
>
> > >On Jun 27, 9:24?am, "lab~rat >:-)" <c...@cheeze.net> wrote:
> > >> First let me say I hate Adam Sandler. Now that I got that off my
> > >> chest, did you see that new stinker of a movie he has coming out, I
> > >> Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry? According to IMDB, "Two straight,
> > >> single Brooklyn firefighters (Sandler, James) pretend to be a gay
> > >> couple in order to receive domestic partner benefits. "
>
> > >> Now, I don't mean to get started, but this is exactly the shit I've
> > >> been bitching about for years. Here, two people rip off a company
> > >> based on a FREAKING ACT PERFORMED IN THE BEDROOM.
>
> > >> Jesus christ, the liberals are killing this country. I think I'll
> > >> marry my dog so I can stay in a kennel instead of a hotel...
>
> > >> lab~rat >:-)
> > >> Stupid humans...
>
> > >crap. Not me and I bet not many more.
>
> > It's a movie formula they continue to make and I never understand why:
>
> > -Fake fags
> > -Boy pretends to be girl
> > -Girl pretends to be boy
> > -Girl in man's body
> > -Man in girl's body
>
> > It must be for those psychologically confused people experimenting
> > with their sexuality.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
That won't stop you for going to the movies, would it?
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
>On Jun 28, 8:17 am, "lab~rat >:-)" <c...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:32:21 -0000, JohnN <jnorri...@hotmail.com>
>> puked:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jun 27, 12:25 pm, "lab~rat >:-)" <c...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:25:04 -0500, SapperPest19 <b...@laptop2.com>
>> >> puked:
>> >> >Why not give us an example of a company that has been ripped off by
>> >> >gays because of this movie.
>>
>> >> I have none. But the fact that I brought this up in the newsgroups
>> >> years ago and they made a movie about it means that evidently at least
>> >> TWO PEOPLE IN THE FREAKIN WORLD THOUGHT OF THE IDEA. Think it's
>> >> possible more might?
>>
>> >Too bad you didn't copyright the story then. And I bow to your powers
>> >as a prophet.
>>
>> >But don't you think the TV shows "Bosom Buddies" and "Will & Grace"
>> >might have been more influential than you?
>>
>> Bosom Buddies had nothing to do with partner benefits and I've never
>> seen Will and Grace. What's that about.
>
>In BB the two pretend women, stick it to the Man by getting housing in
>a sorority. Not partner benefits, but still ripping off the college.
>Will & Grace is about two adults, one female the other male, who share
>an apartment. They are not married and one is GAY.
Gotcha. We should probably throw Three's Company in there, too.
>
>> >> Besides, any company giving benefits to a gay partner is being held
>> >> hostage by the gay community and ripped off. Those benefits are for
>> >> married people, not deviants.
>>
>> >If a business wants to extend domestic partner benefits to its
>> >employees, thats not being ripped off. Besides, DP benefits also
>> >apply to heterosexual couples.
>>
>> What if a company DOES NOT want to extend benefits to homosexual
>> couples? I think this is the point of the matter.
>
>If a company does not want to extend benefitrs to same gender couples
>the company can just not do it. If that gets their public relations
>panties in a knot the company can just give benefits to married
>couples.
>
>I can't imagine a single rational business scenario that would exclude
>same gender or unmarried partner benefits especially since the bulk of
>the cost is borne by the employee.
That's not true in all instances.
>
>>
>>
>> >> >And I understand the concept of benefits for 2 costing more than
>> >> >benefits for 1. Health insurance for me - $82. Same insurance for me
>> >> >and my wife - $252.
>>
>> >> And that's appropriate. Now if you were fucking a dog, would you
>> >> expect them to give benefits to the dog, too?
>>
>> >You failed to notice the extra cost of health insurance for his
>> >partner costs him an additional $230 per month. A homosexual employee
>> >would pay the same amount to insure his/her domestic partner. The
>> >$230 cost to the employee is hardly ripping off the business.
>>
>> The homosexual partner will have a same-sex partner. Suppose a
>> company doesn't care to insure, or further, employ, a homosexual?
>
>Then that company should have the balls to state just that. Unlike
>religious believers, who choose to be religious - they are not born
>that way, homosexuals are rarily protected byt he anti-discrimination
>laws in the USA. Therefore a business can fire any homosexual
>employee without legal penalty (depending on the jurisdiction).
If the employee doesn't personify the image a company wants to
portray, the company should fire them as they see fit.
>Many corporations choose to extend benefits to same gender and
>unmarried partners. They believe it is good business to keep their
>employees happy. They also recognise that it good business to hire
>the best people possible, not just those with peculiar social or
>persoanl characteristics.
There are a lot of decisions that go into hiring people. Let me ask
you this, your business cyclically slows down and you have to fire one
of two people. One is the family man with children the other is the
gay man that may or may not have a 'domestic partner'. All things
being equal, who goes?
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
Good thing you apologized, I hear the Bosom Buddies fans are a rough
crowd...