Thrown out of an FBO...

"John Theune" wrote in message
news:Uol6h.891$672.696@trndny01...
Actually that can be entirely avoided by simply making your partner your
medical power of attorney. Yes, it more work then for married
heterosexual couples who only need to show ID to prove they should be
there but it's doable.

Some issues can be solved through legal contracts. Some cannot.

For example, none of the federal tax benefits that come from being a married
couple are applicable to same-sex couples. No amount of legal contract
writing can change this.

Jose's example was simply that...an example. It in no way implies that if
you solve that one problem (and as he points out, doing that is not
assured), you have addressed the general problem of government-sanctioned
and government-implemented discrimination against same-sex couples.

By the way, the same problem occurs for hetro couple who are not married.
They lose visitation privileges as well.

But heterosexual couples have a viable legal option to solve the problem.
They can get married. With a single act and a single piece of paper, they
are granted a huge swath of legal rights. Rights that can only partially,
and imperfectly, be emulated through thousands, if not tens of thousands, of
dollars worth of legal action.

Pete

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:09:16 GMT, B A R R Y
wrote:

I think so, but that may not be posssible.

What if they haven't been awake since admission?


Then put those things in writing while you are healthy and entrust
several friends with copies.

Liberty requires accepting a certain amount of responsibility for
being proactive.


Don

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
[...]
There just aren't enough homosexual people in the general problem [...]

"Problem", "population"...I didn't write the word I meant to, but in
hindsight it seems to apply equally.

It is not obvious to anyone (nowadays, or ever, AFAIK) that...

That's a pretty sweeping statement. =Anyone=? (it's obvious to me).
=Ever=? (I'd like to see your time machine - I think in the future we
will have accepted gay couples as loving family units just like we
accept mixed race couples the same way). Care to rephrase, or do you
really mean it to be as sweeping as all this?

I wasn't referring specifically to the actions of gay couples -- I was
referring to the fact that we can (as a society) "discriminate" against
people's *actions* as opposed to their appearance. This
"discrimination" is called the "law."

Let's try a rather elaborately silly example to illustrate my point:

If you decide you're going to stick your finger in your nose in a fine
restaurant, and eat whatever you retrieve, you WILL be escorted from
that restaurant, guaranteed.

However, if you have blue eyes, you won't. One is an action, one is an
appearance. They are both harmless to all concerned, but are treated
quite differently.

Why? Because the vast majority of society is offended by people
eating their own snot, but are not offended by blue-colored eyes.

Mind you, I'm not delving into the reasons WHY society finds
nose-picking obnoxious. It doesn't really make much sense, when you
analyze it, and, quite frankly, I don't care. That's just the way it
is.

Now, if you do your nose picking (and eating) in the privacy of your
own home, or amongst like-minded nose-pickers who find that action to
be particularly exciting, all is well. Keep things private, and
consenting adults can do anything they want.

But when you announce to the non-nose-picking world that snot-eaters
should be given equal rights with blue-eyed restaurant patrons in the
eyes of the state, or that loving nose-picking couples should be
granted the same social rights and legal status as blue-eyed married
couples, I suspect you're going to run into a brick wall.

This is the wall of societal norms that homosexual couples face. It's
an uphill battle to surmount, to say the least. Why in the world the
gay community is wasting their hard-won political capital on such a
losing battle is a mystery. It's an unwinnable fight that -- after last
week's elections -- appears to be severely harming their long-term
cause.

Yes, in general, actions are something we may discriminate based on.
And the =important= actions here are that a loving gay couple is
=loving= That's a Good Thing. It's what we need more of in this world.
They are committed to each other. That is also a Good Thing (and
lacking in many heterosexual married couples). They have proclaimed
this committment for life in front of all. That's a Good Thing (that's
what marriage is about).

I see Good Things. What are the Bad Things you are afraid of?

Nothing. Where's the argument? Back to flying!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I don't practice any religion. I AM an athiest. Name one war that was fought
in in the name of athiesm. Not by athiests, but in the name of athiesm.

mike

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
mike regish wrote:

Which is the exact kind of thinking that makes religion, all religion, a
truly dangerous thing.

I think your religion of atheism or naturalism or whatever you practice is
the most dangerous of all.

Matt

Who was talking about? Don't see me mentioned anywhere here.

mike

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Jose wrote:

If we evolved from random combination of elements, why haven't we
evolved to grow back amputated limbs?


We have. We lost that ability. Why is an interesting question, and I
think the answer is that it "costs" too much. As life gets more complex,
the repair systems need to be more sophisticated, and the overhead
involved in carrying around such a repair system makes those individuals
less likely to survive and reproduce. Ironic, isn't it.

I think we just found someone less intelligent that the former girlfriend
you were talking about.


Matt

I do. No higher power told me to invade Iraq but failed to tell me there
were no WMDs.

mike

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
mike regish wrote:

How about rational thought?
How about not using the false promise of an afterlife with 72 virgins to
convince otherwise good men to murder innocents?

So Matt, why does god hate amputees?

So, Mike, why can't you think rationally?

Matt

Not what the pope says.

mike

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
I don't think any God is going to send homosexuals to any "hell", and
I don't think that homosexuals should be discriminated against because
of their orientation.

I bet you've read Ann Coulter's book "How to Talk to a Liberal If You Really
Have To."

mike
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
It's called "civility", Gary, and it's something the Left has lost long
ago.

Why? What effect does it possibly have on you what it's called.

mike

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
Unfortunately, the label they're trying to usurp has already been
taken. Come up with a new one, and move on.