CLB tiếng Anh BE - Nơi hội tụ của những người Việt trẻ năng động, sáng tạo và chuyên nghiệp - "TẦNG

@ Anh Duck: anh cứ cẩn thận ko là lúc "xuống" Diêm Vương hỏi tội đấy hờ hờ sợ chưa
@ Chị Quỳnh: chị ui topic tuần nè đúng là nóng hổi nhưng em thấy hơi khoai

Ôi Xôi Thịt Đại Đế vẫn dễ xương như thuở còn là mem bơ

hứ... anh đã nhát thì chớ em cứ hay dọa dẫm anh thế nhỉ? Diêm Vương có hỏi thì anh "chối tội" bằng cách đổ hít lên em he he...
Chịp chịp, nói chung là dạo này topic của BE toàn khoai lang, khoai tây... cứ đến discuss là "ra vứn đề" ía mừ...

=================================================================================
1 - FOR NEWCOMERS => INSTRUCTIONS here - and REGISTRATION here - OVERVIEW here (page 31)
2 - Kế hoạch, cơ cấu hoạt động chung của các "phòng ban" trong BE club (page 2)
3 - Lịch sử và chặng đường phát triển của BE CLUB(page 1)
4 - Các gương mặt tiêu biểu tại BE CLUB(page 1)
5 - Topic + tham khảo cho tuần này CN 20/04/2008: Same-*** Marriages (page 44)
=================================================================================
Được boyhn81 sửa chữa / chuyển vào 09:03 ngày 18/04/2008

To: Alex: Cảm ơn bạn đã tiếp thu ý kiến của thành viên BE một cách công minh. Tôi hiểu để quản lý được một Box lớn mạnh như EC là một việc khó khăn và vì thế các quy định là rất cần thiết để có thể phát triển được Box này theo hướng tích cực.
To: All: Topic rất hot nhưng cũng rất challenging. Yêu cầu các thành viên có sự chuẩn bị trước buổi off để buổi off tới đạt chất lượng cao. BE''s members vốn là những người rất "chịu chơi", không sợ khó, phải không nhỉ ???

úi nhìn cách bác Đăng khen anh Xôi Thịt dễ xương kìa hihi
@ Anh Duck: tất nhin là ông ấy sẽ ko tin anh roài ^^
@ Anh Vĩnh: vâng thưa "sếp"

Rân chơi sợ gì mưa rơi.
Mưa rơi to qúa rân chơi đi về

Chúc mừng chị Quyềnh tái xuất giang hồ với 1 topic rất hot
Thêm tài liệu tham khảo :
Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives
12 Reasons Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society
1. Homo***uality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
2. Hetero***ual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears''s 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Hetero***ual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn''t changed at all: women are property, Blacks can''t marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That''s why we only have one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That''s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Hetero***ual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven''t adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

Chào cả nhà! Cả tuần ăn nằm với SV ở thực địa nên ko tham chiến đc trên diễn đàn. See u all on Sunday!
@ Quyềnh: (without) *** (everything) is zero.

For more information:
Same-*** Marriage is a Feminist Issue
In the battle for lesbian and gay rights, the issue of equal marriage rights has taken center stage. In a crucial election year, and with many other issues on the table affecting women, why are feminists advocating for same-*** marriage rights?
NOW''s History on Lesbian Rights
NOW''s mission is to promote equality for women?"all women. The human and civil rights of all women are included in this effort. For more than 30 years, NOW has been a leader in the struggle for lesbian rights. In 1971 NOW issued its first policy statement recognizing lesbian rights as a feminist issue. The statement acknowledged that a woman''s right to independence and self-determination includes the right to define and express her own ***uality and to choose her own lifestyle. This policy cited some of the more blatant forms of discrimination against lesbians?"employment, education, child custody and marriagê?"emphasizing that lesbian couples are denied all the economic and legal benefits granted to married women, including tax deductions, insurance benefits, inheritance rights and more.
Throughout the next three decades, NOW''s work on lesbian rights remained strong and decisive, covering such issues as discrimination in the military, anti-sodomy laws, electing lesbian and gay candidates to political office, hate crimes legislation, and expanding same-*** partners'' rights. In 1995, NOW made official its support for same-*** marriage, stating that the choice of marriage is a fundamental constitutional right, protected under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and should not be denied because of a person''s ***ual orientation.
NOW continues to advocate for lesbian rights, including the right to share fully and equally in the rights and responsibilities of marriage. More information on NOW''s stand on lesbian rights is available online.
Same-*** Marriage Emerges as a Dominant Issue
For years, the Lesbian/Gay/Bi***ual/Transgender and feminist communities have recognized that same-*** couples cannot participate fully in our society if they are denied the rights and responsibilities offered to hetero***ual couples through marriage. This has led to cases in various states where same-*** couples have filed suit in order to secure their right to marry, and NOW has participated in amicus curiae (or "friend of the court") briefs in those cases.
The right wing immediately seized upon this issue to rally its ultra-conservative supporters. Like the issues of reproductive rights and affirmative action, same-*** marriage can be used to stir up feelings of fear, intolerance and hate. It is also used as a wedge issue, in order to split apart groups that might otherwise agree on issues and pit them against each other.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996 and signed by former President Bill Clinton, defined marriage as "the legal union between one man and one woman," and asserted that no state is required to recognize a same-*** marriage performed in another state. In ad***ion, 38 states have passed their own Defense of Marriage acts.
In 2000, then-Governor Howard Dean signed a law granting civil unions to same-*** couples in Vermont, making it the most comparable option to marriage in the country. Both California and Hawaii have passed domestic partnership laws, which offer same-*** couples some of the benefits given to married people, but fall far short of providing equal treatment. None of these options offer the hundreds of federal benefits available to married couples.
On Nov. 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court made history by ruling that both same-*** and opposite-*** couples are entitled to equal marriage rights under the Massachusetts State Constitution. On Feb. 4, 2004, the same court clarified its ruling, stating that only access to civil marriage (not civil unions) would provide equal protection to same-*** couples under the state constitution.
Terrified that the fight will come next to the U.S. Supreme Court, and that a slim majority of justices might find laws denying equal marriage rights unconstitutional, the radical right is attempting to amend the U.S. Constitution. The Federal Marriage Amendment, introduced in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and supported by President George W. Bush, is an attempt to write discrimination and bigotry into our Constitution, and to overrule any state action on behalf of equal marriage rights.
Why Not Civil Unions or Partnerships?
While the practice of granting civil unions or partnerships to same-*** couples at the state level has been an important advance in the fight for equality, these options do not carry the full legal benefits or the cultural significance of marriage. The substitution of civil unions, in fact, assigns same-*** couples to second-class status?"separate and unequal.
Same-*** couples across the country are denied more than 1,000 federal protections and rights. Most states deny committed lesbian and gay couples hundreds of ad***ional benefits. These federal and state rights range from the ability to file joint tax returns to the crucial responsibility of making decisions on a partner''s behalf in a medical emergency.
The inability to marry has both emotional and financial consequences. Same-*** couples are not allowed to share Social Security, Medicare, Family and Medical Leave, health care, disability, military and other benefits. They cannot inherit 401(k)s and other property from their life partner without a will. According to Lambda Legal, same-*** couples can lose more than $10,000 per year upon retirement due to a lack of Social Security benefits that would be bestowed upon opposite-*** married couples in identical situations.
This discrimination also affects the children of same-*** couples. Lesbian and gay parents are unable to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. In most states, there is no law guaranteeing a non-custodial, biological or adoptive parent''s visitation rights or requiring child support from such a parent.
With an argument this strong on behalf of equal marriage rights, the right wing has had to resort to absurd claims. The charge, repeated over and over again, that allowing lesbian and gay couples to wed will somehow tarnish the institution of marriage makes little sense. When many people hear the phrase "the institution of marriage" they think of unions sanctified by the church. However, the struggle for same-*** marriage is about legal rights?"it does not demand that churches perform same-*** marriage ceremonies.
This right-wing propaganda also ignores the fact that many same-*** couples, a large number of them with children, already exist, and will continue to exist regardless of a constitutional amendment. Won''t giving these families the rights and benefits they deserve make them stronger? And if more families are flourishing, isn''t that good for marriage in general and our society as a whole?
The struggle for equal marriage rights is a feminist issue, because women will not be equal until they can pursue their dreams free from discrimination.
More information about NOW''s work on lesbian rights is available online.
Ad***ional talking points on same-*** marriage: www.hrcactioncenter.org/actioncenter/talking.html

and more:
Same-*** Marriage FAQ
Questions and Answers
There are now several countries and one U.S. state in the world that recognize same-*** marriage. This FAQ answers some of the most frequently asked questions about these unions.
Q. What countries currently allow same-*** registered partnerships / civil unions or provide some form of spousal rights for gay couples?
A.
Denmark, 1989.
Norway, 1996.
Sweden, 1996.
Iceland, 1996.
France, 1999.
Vermont, USA, 2000.
Germany, 2001.
Finland, 2002.
Luxembourg, 2004.
New Zealand, 2004.
Connecticut, USA, 2005.
Britain, 2005.
New Jersey, USA, 2006.
New Hampshire, USA, 2008.
Oregon, USA, 2008.
Maine, USA.
California, USA.
Washington, USA.
Hawaii, USA.
The rights available to same-*** couples vary from country to country.
What countries currently allow same-*** marriage?
A.
The Netherlands, 2001.
Belgium, 2003.
Massachusetts, USA, 2004.
Canada, 2005.
Spain, 2005.
Q. Can anyone get married in these countries?
A. In both Canada and Belgium there are no restrictions regarding nationality.
There is a long residency requirement in the Netherlands.
Massachusetts has a resident only clause in their marriage law.
Q. Will these marriages be recognized in the United States?
A. For now, some legal experts are saying yes. They will be legally binding unions. Other experts are saying not necessarily, since states aren''t obligated to validate marriages from another locale.
Q. How does Canada now define marriage?
A. The new national policy approved by the Canadian Cabinet on June 17, 2003, views marriage as a way to publicly recognize a committed relationship between two adults.
Q. Will churches be required to perform same-*** weddings throughout the world?
A. No. The laws apply to civil weddings only.
Q. Aren''t same-*** marriages and registered partnerships the same?
A. No. Although registered partnerships give same-*** couples most of the benefits and protections of civil marriage, the couples are not legally married.