930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: bearman🐻 on September 10, 2004, 02:28:00 pm
-
Press release here: http://idisk.mac.com/granarymusic/Public/wedrockpr.pdf (http://idisk.mac.com/granarymusic/Public/wedrockpr.pdf)
Should be an interesting show. Sandra will apparently be with full band and there might be some other surprises lined up. Kind of cool that Rollins is doing this as well, good for him. It will also be fun see Rich Morel perform...I hope that he'll have his band there.
-
for Mr. Chutney...
General admission tickets are $40. VIP tickets are available for purchase at $100, giving
the ticket-holder exclusive balcony access, complimentary cocktails courtesy of Svedka
Vodka and entry to an after-show â??meet-and-greetâ? with several of the eveningâ??s
performers.
-
AAAARRRRGH! Freedom to marry. Bleh.
How about this? How about Freedom NOT to marry? How about what the hell is the government doing in the business of marriage anyway? How about marriage laws all discriminate against single people? How about THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE SANCTIONING MARRIAGE!
Let's do away with marriage licenses. Wanna get married? Do it between yourself, your partner, and your loved ones. Why should the general public need to be involved?
(end angry feminist rant)
-
Originally posted by chimbly sweep:
How about Freedom NOT to marry?
Have you been living in a cultural vacuum? The benefit is to allow homosexuals to marry.
-
Even Rhett will have a reason to attend:
Seattleâ??s premiere gay alt-country darlins Purty Mouth
-
thanks kosmo.
-
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Originally posted by chimbly sweep:
How about Freedom NOT to marry?
Have you been living in a cultural vacuum? The benefit is to allow homosexuals to marry. [/b]
Yeah, but turn the argument on its head. Why add to a flawed system? Government intervention in marriage is useless. Let's scrap the civic portion of marriage and let people get married to whomever they want but on their own, without a public function.
-
Originally posted by chimbly sweep:
Yeah, but turn the argument on its head. Why add to a flawed system? Government intervention in marriage is useless. Let's scrap the civic portion of marriage and let people get married to whomever they want but on their own, without a public function.
What "public function" are you talking about?
-
Originally posted by Bombay Chutney:
Originally posted by chimbly sweep:
Yeah, but turn the argument on its head. Why add to a flawed system? Government intervention in marriage is useless. Let's scrap the civic portion of marriage and let people get married to whomever they want but on their own, without a public function.
What "public function" are you talking about? [/b]
The public function of tax breaks, partner benefits, etc., etc...
-
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by Bombay Chutney:
Originally posted by chimbly sweep:
Yeah, but turn the argument on its head. Why add to a flawed system? Government intervention in marriage is useless. Let's scrap the civic portion of marriage and let people get married to whomever they want but on their own, without a public function.
What "public function" are you talking about? [/b]
The public function of tax breaks, partner benefits, etc., etc... [/b]
That's productive...then millions of stay at home moms and dads will be without health coverage. The idea is to extend health coverage to more people, not less.
-
I don't see that marriage is a flawd system. Despite my grumpiness on the board, marriage has generally made me a happier person. How is that a flaw?
-
Originally posted by chaz:
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by Bombay Chutney:
Originally posted by chimbly sweep:
Yeah, but turn the argument on its head. Why add to a flawed system? Government intervention in marriage is useless. Let's scrap the civic portion of marriage and let people get married to whomever they want but on their own, without a public function.
What "public function" are you talking about? [/b]
The public function of tax breaks, partner benefits, etc., etc... [/b]
That's productive...then millions of stay at home moms and dads will be without health coverage. The idea is to extend health coverage to more people, not less. [/b]
You read a lot in to partner benefits. I never said take health care away. But don't get me started on health care. It should be FAR easier to get/deal with. I should probably live in Canada.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
How is that a flaw?
Right now, cuz you're allowed to do it and others aren't.
-
It's not a flaw for me.
I'm all for gay marriage, straight marraige, whatever.
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
How is that a flaw?
Right now, cuz you're allowed to do it and others aren't. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by chaz:
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by Bombay Chutney:
Originally posted by chimbly sweep:
Yeah, but turn the argument on its head. Why add to a flawed system? Government intervention in marriage is useless. Let's scrap the civic portion of marriage and let people get married to whomever they want but on their own, without a public function.
What "public function" are you talking about? [/b]
The public function of tax breaks, partner benefits, etc., etc... [/b]
That's productive...then millions of stay at home moms and dads will be without health coverage. The idea is to extend health coverage to more people, not less. [/b]
You read a lot in to partner benefits. I never said take health care away. But don't get me started on health care. It should be FAR easier to get/deal with. I should probably live in Canada. [/b]
Yeah I figured...I just tend to be more of a realist than an idealist about these things, and the institution of marriage, for better or worse, isn't going anywhere.
*edit* sorry for the quote inside of a quote inside of a quote inside of a quote...
-
You should probably take better care of your health.
Originally posted by Bags:
You read a lot in to partner benefits. I never said take health care away. But don't get me started on health care. It should be FAR easier to get/deal with. I should probably live in Canada. [/QB][/QUOTE]
-
As a gay man, I really don't give a damn whether or not it is called marriage. But I feel like I am discriminated against because the person I choose to care about is the same sex as me. The current government (let's face it) does NOT favor dregs of society...and that includes gay people. (Not that I think gay people are dregs of society...just insert sarcasm there.) Generally, yes, marriage is a fucked up institution. I see it around me all the time (my own parents are proof). But I don't want to do things they way they did, and that doesn't mean that as a gay man I still cannot stand up for other people like me who DO love each other and want the same benefits and legal perks that straight married folks get. Besides, this is just a rock'n'roll show. It would be great to see as many of you as possible show up to this gig. It would mean a lot to me and the folks that put this together. I am trying to help them get the word out. I know it's a lot of dough to fork over, but I really think it will be a great evening and Henry Rollins is always a hoot. You can count on some great performances by Morel and Bob Mould, not to mention Sandra.
-
If Bill Clinton lived in Canada, it would have taken him 39 days to get the bypass surgery he got in three days in the U.S. (http://www.cato.org/cgi-bin/scripts/printtech.cgi/dailys/09-08-04.html)
Originally posted by Bags:
I never said take health care away. But don't get me started on health care. It should be FAR easier to get/deal with. I should probably live in Canada.
-
Originally posted by chimbly sweep:
without a public function.
If you have kids it stops them being bastards.
I thought that was part of the tax break, the marriage is supposed to be a stable relationship within which you raise children.
Personally I coulldnt give two hoots about marriage and I think anyone should be able to marry if that is your thing.
I guess the government has to be involved for things like immigration and to keep track of its morally upright citizens.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?˘:
If Bill Clinton lived in Canada, it would have taken him 39 days to get the bypass surgery he got in three days in the U.S. (http://www.cato.org/cgi-bin/scripts/printtech.cgi/dailys/09-08-04.html)
But if Clinton were poor and had no health insurance how long would it have taken him to get bypass surgery?
-
Let me steal a line from the pro-choice people (of which I am one)
If you're against marriage, don't have one.
Otherwise, shut the fuck up and let the rest of us exercise our choice for marriage. In general, marriage is a stabilizing force in society, and the government SHOULD reward married people for this.
Originally posted by chimbly sweep:
AAAARRRRGH! Freedom to marry. Bleh.
How about this? How about Freedom NOT to marry? How about what the hell is the government doing in the business of marriage anyway? How about marriage laws all discriminate against single people? How about THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE SANCTIONING MARRIAGE!
Let's do away with marriage licenses. Wanna get married? Do it between yourself, your partner, and your loved ones. Why should the general public need to be involved?
(end angry feminist rant)
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
[QB] If you're against marriage, don't have one.
Otherwise, shut the fuck up and let the rest of us exercise our choice for marriage. In general, marriage is a stabilizing force in society, and the government SHOULD reward married people for this.
Umm, that makes perfect sense to me.
-
Oh my God, you're gay? That's the last time I ever post of this board! ;)
Well I'm just a square-o straight white married american male, but I agree with you %100.
Originally posted by bunnyman:
As a gay man, I really don't give a damn whether or not it is called marriage. But I feel like I am discriminated against because the person I choose to care about is the same sex as me. The current government (let's face it) does NOT favor dregs of society...and that includes gay people. (Not that I think gay people are dregs of society...just insert sarcasm there.) Generally, yes, marriage is a fucked up institution. I see it around me all the time (my own parents are proof). But I don't want to do things they way they did, and that doesn't mean that as a gay man I still cannot stand up for other people like me who DO love each other and want the same benefits and legal perks that straight married folks get. Besides, this is just a rock'n'roll show. It would be great to see as many of you as possible show up to this gig. It would mean a lot to me and the folks that put this together. I am trying to help them get the word out. I know it's a lot of dough to fork over, but I really think it will be a great evening and Henry Rollins is always a hoot. You can count on some great performances by Morel and Bob Mould, not to mention Sandra.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Let me steal a line from the pro-choice people (of which I am one)
If you're against marriage, don't have one.
Otherwise, shut the fuck up and let the rest of us exercise our choice for marriage. In general, marriage is a stabilizing force in society, and the government SHOULD reward married people for this.
Rhett, are you just trying to get my goat this week? Cuz I already sold the goat for a 6 pack of schlitz.
-
Originally posted by chimbly sweep:
Rhett, are you just trying to get my goat this week? Cuz I already sold the goat for a 6 pack of schlitz.
Why do you think what Rhett said is unreasonable and how does it have anything to do with feminism?
-
Well, if we go by this article (http://www.rand.org/news/Press.99/cardiac.care.2.2.html), it wouldn't really make a difference if he were poor and uninsured.
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Originally posted by ggwâ?˘:
If Bill Clinton lived in Canada, it would have taken him 39 days to get the bypass surgery he got in three days in the U.S. (http://www.cato.org/cgi-bin/scripts/printtech.cgi/dailys/09-08-04.html)
But if Clinton were poor and had no health insurance how long would it have taken him to get bypass surgery? [/b]
-
I would not take this line as being entirely positive
"Still, one of every four patients in the city who require these procedures fail to get them, particularly if they initiate care at hospitals that offer diagnostic coronary services such as angiograms but that do not perform revascularizations."
-
I would love to have a goat, if we had more land.
By the way, thanks for the advice on hair salons. Went and got a great haircut yesterday. So good, I think it will strengthen my marriage.
Originally posted by chimbly sweep:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Let me steal a line from the pro-choice people (of which I am one)
If you're against marriage, don't have one.
Otherwise, shut the fuck up and let the rest of us exercise our choice for marriage. In general, marriage is a stabilizing force in society, and the government SHOULD reward married people for this.
Rhett, are you just trying to get my goat this week? Cuz I already sold the goat for a 6 pack of schlitz. [/b]
-
Yes, but the failure is in the utilization not in the availability of these services.
Originally posted by mark e smith:
I would not take this line as being entirely positive
"Still, one of every four patients in the city who require these procedures fail to get them, particularly if they initiate care at hospitals that offer diagnostic coronary services such as angiograms but that do not perform revascularizations."
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?˘:
Yes, but the failure is in the utilization not in the availability of these services.
But reading between the lines.....
when people had to switch hospitals, did the new hospital deny to take people without coverage?
Also, clearly, this is going on in an area with over-capacity for such operations, is it like that in the rest of the country?
I might have to accuse you of being disingenuous soon.
-
It is illegal to deny treatment for lack of coverage.
Why is it clear that there is overcapacity?
Originally posted by mark e smith:
when people had to switch hospitals, did the new hospital deny to take people without coverage?
Also, clearly, this is going on in an area with over-capacity for such operations, is it like that in the rest of the country?
I might have to accuse you of being disingenuous soon.
-
(1) That's from the Cato Institute (to which the Fraser Institute in Canada is basically a sister organization -- libertarians). I'll heed their research when you heed that of the New Republic or Michael Moore.
(2) Do we know Clinton needed his surgery overnight? I'd say....no. He did not have a heart attack.
(3) Any chance he was scheduled for surgery that was not an emergency overnight because he's a former president? Just a guess, it could have played a role.
We've been through this before. Gold-plated care for some comes at the denial of any care for others. I'm finished on this, cuz we'll never agree. Which is fine. I am blessed with really excellent, corporately-funded healthcare. Hope I don't lose my job.
Originally posted by ggwâ?˘:
If Bill Clinton lived in Canada, it would have taken him 39 days to get the bypass surgery he got in three days in the U.S. (http://www.cato.org/cgi-bin/scripts/printtech.cgi/dailys/09-08-04.html)
Originally posted by Bags:
I never said take health care away. But don't get me started on health care. It should be FAR easier to get/deal with. I should probably live in Canada.
[/b]
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
If you're against marriage, don't have one.
"If you're for marriage, have one." Oh, except you and you and you and you. You're not allowed, because I don't believe in it for you (even though it's a stabilizing institution...).
You're arguing the converse of the point of the WEDrock benefit.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?˘:
It is illegal to deny treatment for lack of coverage.
Why is it clear that there is overcapacity?
[/QB][/QUOTE]
I know someone who was in the operating theatre about to get a gall stone operation, they found out she didnt have insurance and cancelled the op....
I think I made that up, probably mis-interpreting:
"BUT CITY'S UNDERUSE RATE FOR BYPASS SURGERY AND ANGIOPLASTY IS SUBSTANTIAL"
clearly that means more patients should get the treatment, not that there is overcapacity. I am not very familiar with this foreign language. Sorry.
-
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
If you're against marriage, don't have one.
"If you're for marriage, have one." Oh, except you and you and you and you. You're not allowed, because I don't believe in it for you (even though it's a stabilizing institution...).
You're arguing the converse of the point of the WEDrock benefit. [/b]
I think you just put words in Rhetts mouth.
I took what he said differently to you, but my comprehension is poor today.
-
Originally posted by bunnyman:
Besides, this is just a rock'n'roll show. It would be great to see as many of you as possible show up to this gig. It would mean a lot to me and the folks that put this together. I am trying to help them get the word out.
Bunnyman, you're involved in this event? That is awesomely cool, and in fact a greater reason for me to attend (wasn't planning on it, but it would be a good show....)
-
And that is the big fallacy of the healthcare debate.
Nationalized healthcare does not mean that the current healthcare system is extended to everybody. It means that medical care is rationed and everybody shares a lower quality of care.
And, as I pointed out to Markie, one cannot be denied medical services due to lack of insurance coverage. I've personally got $40,000 in medical bills to prove that.
Originally posted by Bags:
We've been through this before. Gold-plated care for some comes at the denial of any care for others.
-
I interpret that to mean that those in the city who would benefit from the surgery did not always use it, as the article pointed out. I certainly don't think that meant that there were teams of cardiac surgeons twiddling their thumbs while waiting for patients.
Originally posted by mark e smith:
"BUT CITY'S UNDERUSE RATE FOR BYPASS SURGERY AND ANGIOPLASTY IS SUBSTANTIAL"
-
I don't think I did put words in Rhett's mouth...he's defending his right to get married. He said, "Otherwise, shut the fuck up and let the rest of us exercise our choice for marriage."
That's fine. That's not in question.
The issue is that some want that same right and don't have it. Hence, "If you want to get married, get married" rather than "If you don't want to get married, don't get married." Everyone has the ability *not* to get married (the negative), some don't have the right to get married (the affirmative).
He's arguing/defending the flip-side of the argument (though I think it comes from Chimbley's "fuck marriage" rant, but in the context of the thread and the event, his right to being married isn't an issue).
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
If you're against marriage, don't have one.
"If you're for marriage, have one." Oh, except you and you and you and you. You're not allowed, because I don't believe in it for you (even though it's a stabilizing institution...).
You're arguing the converse of the point of the WEDrock benefit. [/b]
I think you just put words in Rhetts mouth.
I took what he said differently to you, but my comprehension is poor today. [/b]
-
I was arguing against Chimbley's argument to do away with the institution of marriage.
I would like to see gays and lesbians have the same rights to get married and get the same benefits from marriage that I do.
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
If you're against marriage, don't have one.
"If you're for marriage, have one." Oh, except you and you and you and you. You're not allowed, because I don't believe in it for you (even though it's a stabilizing institution...).
You're arguing the converse of the point of the WEDrock benefit. [/b]
-
-edit-
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I was arguing against Chimbley's argument to do away with the institution of marriage.
I would like to see gays and lesbians have the same rights to get married and get the same benefits from marriage that I do.
I hear ya. Isn't it good to know that you have a defender in Markie?
-
Well it's always good to have anybody on my side, but especially nice to have Markie.
That didn't sound too gay, did it?
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I was arguing against Chimbley's argument to do away with the institution of marriage.
I would like to see gays and lesbians have the same rights to get married and get the same benefits from marriage that I do.
I hear ya. Isn't it good to know that you have a defender in Markie? [/b]
-
OK at the risk of being chastised (however the hell you spell that) this is my take on the issue. Some may recognize ir from a few months ago...
The problem is NOT that any given segment of society is/is not allowed to marry. The real issue is that certain priviliges in society are attached to marriage when they should not be. For example, in hospitals here when you are in ICU etc you can only have your spouse visit you. Thats totally stupid. I understand the need to keep it to one visitor but the patient should be able to choose anyone at all. Thats is just one of many issues that are attached the same way. What we need to do is separate the things that should not be attached to marriage and assign them where they should be. Not do a band aid fix and change marriage.
While I am not one of those ultra right wing religous freaks (hell I am quite the opposite in fact), but I do think that marriage in and of itself should be maintained M/F. This is my belief, it isnt right or wrong but it is mine and I will stick to it. I am all for everyone being able to live the life they choose and have no issue with anyone living and sleeping with whom they choose. I fell that everyone should be given a fair shake at life. I do though think we need to get rid of these laws that proport to protect groups. All we need is one simple lasw that says (I'll leave it to the klawyers to word it right) in any action you cant make decisions based of issued not relevant. BINGO! Done! No one gets left behind and no one gets special.
OK I'm done... NEXT. :)
-
Originally posted by RatBastard:
What we need to do is separate the things that should not be attached to marriage and assign them where they should be. Not do a band aid fix and change marriage.
Those sounds like contradictory statements to me. You think it's better to individually change every policy, law and benefit, rather than make one change that would level the playing field and make things completely fair and equal for everyone. To me that sounds like thousands of band-aids without actually fixing the real issue.
Unless you're talking about all-encompassing civil-unions or partner registries with all the benefits and responsibilites of marriage. But then you're essentially dealing with semantics. They'd basically be in a marriage-style relationship, without having the word "marriage" associated with it. And we all know how well "separate-but-equal" policies work out.
And it doesn't deal with the fact that many gay people are in love and actually want to be married. They're not just searching to close legal loopholes. They want to be a family.
-
actually its not (IMHO). Liek I said in my example, the choice of who can visit you when you are a patient in ICU should not be attached to marriage. It should be any one person you choose. Thats a small example of what I was getting at. Things like health care should be fixed as well. It is absurd to make a 'family' policy mean employee, spouse, and offspring. That is not always a family in this country. Kind of hard for me to explain it other than that but hey its cool to have different opinions. Life would suck if everyone was always happy happy joy joy! :)
-
Originally posted by RatBastard:
It is absurd to make a 'family' policy mean employee, spouse, and offspring. That is not always a family in this country.
What else should "family policy" mean? Outside of a single parent household, what on earth should it pertain to? Should my grandparents or parents or brother be on my health insurance?
-
No matter what, over half of the marriages in the U.S. (mind you, this isn't the world) end in divorce. You hear that all over the news, in the newspaper, research...everywhere. (And the hell with you conspiracy theorists that say that is just the media talking, and not the truth). So why not let someone else give it a whirl? What would be so wrong about gays marrying? Do people honestly think it would cause eternal world damnation? Do people think it is going to make other countries hate us even more (than they do already for occupying a country we had no right to)? And I think this argument is about much more than rights, considering taxes, health insurance, etc., etc. I think that is offensive. Maybe it's most fundamental...like to people loving each other and making into a legally recognized union called marriage.