Skip to comments.
Massachusetts firms drop domestic-partner benefits
washingtontimes.com ^
| December 9, 2004
| Cheryl Wetzstein
Posted on 12/09/2004 8:54:21 AM PST by crushelits
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
To: DBrow
Indeed, we here at largest military contractor are so
steeped in diversity, we can get it online, instructor
lead and even the new diversity...Myers-Briggs personality
type. 16 Flavors
21
posted on
12/09/2004 10:08:59 AM PST
by
jusduat
(I am a strange and recurring anomaly)
To: aShepard
Be careful what you wish for! St. Theresa de Avila, "More tears are caused by answered prayers than unanswered ones."
22
posted on
12/09/2004 10:20:44 AM PST
by
Lonesome in Massachussets
(NYT Headline: "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS", Fake But Accurate, Experts Say)
To: crushelits
The obvious is ALWAYS glossed over. Homosexual relationships are NOT normal.
Now ... "The Goodridge decision changed everything for same-sex couples, she said, and because Baystate doesn't offer domestic-partner benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples, it created an unfair situation for them."
You can not equate a heterosexual relationship with a homosexual relationship, married or not because one is normal, heterosexual and one is ABnormal, homosexual.
23
posted on
12/09/2004 10:23:56 AM PST
by
nmh
(Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
To: Jaded
Homosexuals want special rights and for YOU to pay their health care costs - aids is killing them.
24
posted on
12/09/2004 10:24:52 AM PST
by
nmh
(Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
To: nmh
You can not equate a heterosexual relationship with a homosexual relationship, married or not because one is normal, heterosexual and one is ABnormal, homosexual. But with the issue at hand you can and must compare them on the same level. If Company A is providing health care benes to the same sex partner of an employee because they can not legally get married and thus would never be eligible for spouse benefits then it is not only fair but proper that since they can now get married that to receive spousal benes they must get married.
To continue to provide same sex benes to unmarried same sex couples would be discrimination against unmarried hetero couples and thuse to be fair and just in their bene policies they must then offer spousal benes to ALL partners of unmarried couples.
25
posted on
12/09/2004 10:36:23 AM PST
by
Phantom Lord
(Advantages are taken, not handed out)
To: crushelits
26
posted on
12/09/2004 10:37:57 AM PST
by
rawhide
To: crushelits
Or we could look to the future, embrace diversity as an ideal and move forward.This proves it.....The entire homosexual 'agenda' is not about tolerance, it's about forced acceptance. It's not enough to say 'Look, what you do on your own time is OK, it's just not for me.' No, we need to teach our children that anything gay is OK, unless it's negative (depression, suicide, etc) and then it's not mentioned. We need to 'embrace' diversity, except for the bad parts that don't get mentioned (lower education, drug use, crime, etc.). And obviously, anyone that says different is a hateful bigot that needs to be re-educated.
I've always said that it's easiest for liberals to freely spend other people money and morality. Wife's friends are libs, and were expounding on the virtues of diversity at a recent get-together. I asked when the last time was that they spent in a soup kitchen, or volunteering at an inner city Y or school, or even just contributing $$ to a charity. Dead silence. One guy volunteered at a hospice for AIDS patients - 'safe', upper class, homosexual AIDS patients, but at least he put his money where his mouth is. Otherwise, you never saw so many people shuffling and looking down at their shoes.
A liberal's definition of diversity is a white socialist, a black socialist, a gay socialist, a latino socialist, and so forth. There's all-inclusive diversity for you.
/rant off. I feel better.
27
posted on
12/09/2004 11:17:58 AM PST
by
wbill
To: crushelits
The decision by IBM Corp., the New York Times Co. and Northeastern University to offer health benefits only to "married" same-sex couples pleases some advocates, but troubles others. How about taking all the money away from heterosexuals and dispersing it amongst the homosexual population. Would that please them?
28
posted on
12/09/2004 11:21:19 AM PST
by
Aquinasfan
(Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
To: crushelits
1. Homosexuality is a personal choice, the conscience decision to not abide by 'rites' as you call it, of those who gave up their desires for God's will, not personal will.
2. Therefore, Homosexuality, or the worship of a persons desires vs. the active will of God, is not comparable to actual worshiping Christians nor could any person devoid of a personal Saviour, even acknowledge the difference. Your diatribe is one more in a long line of unbelievers trying desperately to define what you only know vicariously, you have no idea of what you are talking about. Rites and ritual have nothing to do with Christianity, having a personal relationship with Jesus is what being a Christian is all about. Rites, and rituals may help bind us traditionally, but they have no meaning if the people doing the rituals aren't bound by the blood of Jesus, the cross and justification by faith. There is no justification, no redemption without repentance. There is no more evidence available on man's lack of redemption and repentance than to see the queer nation wanting to have it their way.
3. I didn't define the argument, the rules, or the manner of redemption. That was God's decision. IF you think that He doesn't mean what He says, then go on and do your own thing. Just don't try to ramrod YOUR GOD or YOUR BELIEFS down the throats of millions who received HIM and gave up their own free will. That is something you will never understand.
No one is keeping you from doing what's right in your mind, you have no right whatsoever to try to break apart the bonds that we have forged from Calvary. Go start your own queer cult of pseudo-salvation. and take what ever verses out of the bible that you don't like. We'll both get judged, we'll both get what we deserve. We just don't have to be judged side by side. I still have the right of association, and I also have the right to use judgement as God gave me wisdom to know what is life and what is foolishness. Your wanting to force me into a relationship with unrepentant homosexuals is no different than forcing my kids on a bus driven by an alcoholic. It may be natural to get drunk and enjoy every pleasure the body can offer, you have no right to make me join in. What comes natural is not what comes spiritual. Civilization is not built on natural law, it is built on a higher standard. If you want to live in the barnyard, go ahead, as for me and my house, we will worship, and obey the LORD. Good luck on your new religion. You'll never change mine.
29
posted on
12/09/2004 11:43:02 AM PST
by
panzer1
(In His Grip)
To: panzer1
That isn't the writing of crushelits. He mearly posted an article written by someone who supports the homosexual agenda over at DU.
30
posted on
12/09/2004 12:09:54 PM PST
by
Phantom Lord
(Advantages are taken, not handed out)
To: Phantom Lord
To: SeniorMoment
....."the state refuses to even recognize heterosexual couples that have been living together for years as common-law marriages. How the hell is that fair."........
Hey, no problem. 1. Get the car keys, 2. Get in, close the door, and drive to the local town hall. 3. Fill out form, dig $25 out of your wallet, get blood test, then, 4. Stand there with your partner while some guy pronounces you man and wife.
Every one of us heterosexuals have been doing this for centuries, some with lots of flair and fancy, some with none, but all it takes is the guts to make a decision.
Fair, Absolutely!
32
posted on
12/09/2004 3:17:16 PM PST
by
aShepard
To: SeniorMoment
Oppps!
I ranted , then I reread your post. The hypocrisy for the gay agenda vs the live in heteros is disgusting.
Sorry for the rant!
33
posted on
12/09/2004 3:22:13 PM PST
by
aShepard
To: TASMANIANRED
The law of unintended consequences at work.Yes but others in states without the wonderful laws of that state are now, after giving benefits to "same sex partners", are now offering benefits to "opposite sex partners" to avoid lawsuits!!
And then they wonder how to make a profit....
34
posted on
12/09/2004 3:28:51 PM PST
by
Johnny Crab
(Always thankful.)
To: Phantom Lord
I agree unmarried couples don't deserve benefits but you missed the point. Assuming a homosexual is a NORMAL "couple" is where you begin to compare apples and oranges. The day will probably come when a person will be allowed to marry a pet - so should vet bills be covered? I would hope not but suggesting that a homosexual union is normal is as normal as a man marrying his dog.
35
posted on
12/09/2004 6:47:01 PM PST
by
nmh
(Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
To: aShepard
Umm...you just can't use any old guy. He or she must be authorized to perform Holy Matrimony. And you two have to pledge "to be true to each other in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, to love each and honor one another so long as they both shall live." It's not that simple; you actually have to believe in God for a priest to join you before Him in Holy Matrimony.
36
posted on
12/09/2004 6:54:06 PM PST
by
dufekin
(Four more years! Liberals, learn: whiners are losers every time.)
To: DBrow
Military contractors must gleefully embrace diversity to get tax money deposited in their accounts. And this government position ought to be recinded. When you want a good engineer, it matters not a whit if he is a homosexual, a woman, a minority or a majority. All that matters is that he is the best and wants to do the job.
All diversity does is ask the company to take a candidate who is one of the mascots of the left and pretend he is the best candidate and give him the job. This is silly and has been reducing the effectiveness of American firms since the policy got approved in federal contract law. It was dumb then and it is still dumb. Its time to look at it again.
37
posted on
12/09/2004 7:13:43 PM PST
by
KC_for_Freedom
(Sailing the highways of America, and loving it.)
To: EdReform; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; stage left; Yakboy; I_Love_My_Husband; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping. Good news or bad? You decide. I always like it when firms don't offer domestic partnership or whatever it's called benefits.
Astute comment:
***Unless the whole exercise was about somehing other than "having the right to marry" ...
DingDingDing! Winner!
Let me and ItsOurTimeNow know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
38
posted on
12/09/2004 7:19:39 PM PST
by
little jeremiah
(What would happen if everyone decided their own "right and wrong"?)
To: KC_for_Freedom
I agree with you, but I doubt that social engineering using tax dollars will stop in our lifetimes.
Heck, the current tax structure is social engineering.
39
posted on
12/09/2004 8:05:42 PM PST
by
DBrow
To: crushelits
40
posted on
12/09/2004 8:38:34 PM PST
by
BlessedBeGod
(George W. Bush -- The Terror of the Terrorists)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson