Christian friends of gays and lesbians

[AVG-JOE]

What local, state or federal laws did you list?

The giving heterosexual 'different' treatment is a completely different subject.
Homosexuals have the same "rights" that any other person in this country has.

Not true. Patently untrue.

The Social Security Act defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

If Adam and Steve live monogamously for 25 years, get married in the eyes of the state of Massachusetts, and Steve comes to an untimely demise in freak scuba diving incident while the two of them are celebrating their 25th in The Bahamas, Adam gets NOTHING from Steve's Social Security record, even though Steve was the major bread winner and Adam stayed home to care for their Pomeranians.

If Adam were a madam or Steve was a Stephanie, her surviving spouse Adam would be entitled to widows benefits at age 60. Not so with a grieving Adam at Steve's funeral. That my friend is blatant discrimination by the Federal Government.

To add insult to tax-payers injury, if Steve was a heterosexual whore and married several women over the years, each and every one of them who put up with his bullshit for at least 10 years would be entitled to benefits - and the family maximum for benefits would not count against any of them - no matter how many times Steve got married, they would ALL be entitled to full widows payments.

"Marriage", in the eyes of the government, matters.

 

[logical4u]

What local, state or federal laws did you list?

The giving heterosexual 'different' treatment is a completely different subject.
Homosexuals have the same "rights" that any other person in this country has.

Not true. Patently untrue.

The Social Security Act defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

If Adam and Steve live monogamously for 25 years, get married in the eyes of the state of Massachusetts, and Steve comes to an untimely demise in freak scuba diving incident while the two of them are celebrating their 25th in The Bahamas, Adam gets NOTHING from Steve's Social Security record, even though Steve was the major bread winner and Adam stayed home to care for their Pomeranians.

If Adam were a madam or Steve was a Stephanie, her surviving spouse Adam would be entitled to widows benefits at age 60. Not so with a grieving Adam at Steve's funeral. That my friend is blatant discrimination by the Federal Government.

To add insult to tax-payers injury, if Steve was a heterosexual whore and married several women over the years, each and every one of them who put up with his bullshit for at least 10 years would be entitled to benefits - and the family maximum for benefits would not count against any of them - no matter how many times Steve got married, they would ALL be entitled to full widows payments.

"Marriage", in the eyes of the government, matters.

So, it is about the government dole....

 

[logical4u]

Read John Locke....and his theories on Social Contracts. Secular laws are NOT drawn from religion, they are drawn from society coming up with contractual agreements (some good, some not so good) to protect their life, liberty, and property.

And for anyone to believe that "world was created 6000 years ago and Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden"...I've got some oceanfront property for them in AZ.

I get it, a man said it, therefore it is true....
Our laws are not based on laws without Judeo-Christian beliefs. Those countries have set classes, with set laws for each class (it allows people that are born into the higher classes to 'sin' against the people in the lower classes with lesser punishments or no punishments at all). It was not until the Commandments that people considered applying laws, equally. It was not until the Lord and our Savior came to earth that those laws were extended to people that were not 'your' people, or from other countries.
John Locke has theories. I have theories, do you only 'follow' him because he says what you want to hear?
If you have proof that laws are applied, equally in civilizations where Christianity has had no influence, please link, or list.

I do not believe the earth is 6000 years old. I believe parts of Genesis are in the Lord's time. I do not know how that equates to 'earth' time. I just don't believe 'evolutionists' that want to say they have all the answers, except: for how life started, why there is such a huge variety of life, what that Almighty Being was that traveled with the Israelites in the desert, etc, etc, etc.

Show me an Evolutionist who says they have all the answers, plz.

"That" was my point. They do not, but they present 'part' of the theory as fact. That is deception.

 

[logical4u]

I got news for you...right now, if they are a hetero couple, that happens a lot. And yes, the government backs them. The government doesn't care what their reasons for marrying are. Convenience marriagese happen a lot....but just hetero ones (except in a few states like MA and now CA)



Ah...here comes the pedophile/animal argument....talk to me when children and animals can give legal consent in a marriage contract....ok?




I most certainly did....not my fault when you don't want to recognize what is right in front of your nose. But...I've gotten used to the selective blindness of people like you....for example, you being selectively blind that heteros ALREADY marry for convenience reasons and have for a very, very, very long time.

What local, state or federal laws did you list?

The giving heterosexual 'different' treatment is a completely different subject.
Homosexuals have the same "rights" that any other person in this country has.

I see you didn't click on the link I gave you.

You gave me a link described as a man with "theories". I asked you for evidence, not a giant "IF".

 

[logical4u]

Hi Logical:

What local, state or federal laws did you list?

The giving heterosexual 'different' treatment is a completely different subject.
Homosexuals have the same "rights" that any other person in this country has.

Thank you for stating the facts. Those among us who 'choose' to participate in this deviant homosexual behavior have the same rights as every heterosexual person in the USA. These deviants expect to receive 'extra rights' as a reward for their homosexuality cuckoo.

I would have nothing to say to these depraved souls, if they would only keep their immorality behind closed doors WHERE IT BELONGS. What two men or two women do behind closed doors is none of our business. However, parading homosexuality before my children and grandchildren 'and' expecting special rights to boot cuckoo !!!!?????

You have GOT to be kidding me. There are no professing homosexuals in my kingdom, at least none keep their heads beyond noon ... Psalm 101:8.

GL,

Terral

Let's rewrite your post, shall we?

Thank you for stating the facts. Those among us who 'choose' to participate in this deviant fundamental christian behavior have the same rights as every non-religious or religious person in the USA. These deviants expect to receive 'extra rights' as a reward for their fundamentalism cuckoo.

I would have nothing to say to these depraved souls, if they would only keep their immorality behind closed doors WHERE IT BELONGS. What these fundamentalists do behind closed doors is none of our business. However, parading their reactionary fundamentalism before my children and grandchildren 'and' expecting special rights to boot cuckoo !!!!?????

You have GOT to be kidding me. There are no professing holier-than-thous in my kingdom, at least none keep their heads beyond noon ...

Let us remember that RELIGION is a choice....and you are trying to shove it down our throats.

Please list that "immoral" behavior that is being paraded in front of your children or grandchildren (which BTW, cannot be yours and your partner's biologically, your children depend on the co-operation of another that is willing to give their child away).

 

[DiveCon]

What local, state or federal laws did you list?

The giving heterosexual 'different' treatment is a completely different subject.
Homosexuals have the same "rights" that any other person in this country has.

Not true. Patently untrue.

The Social Security Act defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

If Adam and Steve live monogamously for 25 years, get married in the eyes of the state of Massachusetts, and Steve comes to an untimely demise in freak scuba diving incident while the two of them are celebrating their 25th in The Bahamas, Adam gets NOTHING from Steve's Social Security record, even though Steve was the major bread winner and Adam stayed home to care for their Pomeranians.

If Adam were a madam or Steve was a Stephanie, her surviving spouse Adam would be entitled to widows benefits at age 60. Not so with a grieving Adam at Steve's funeral. That my friend is blatant discrimination by the Federal Government.

To add insult to tax-payers injury, if Steve was a heterosexual whore and married several women over the years, each and every one of them who put up with his bullshit for at least 10 years would be entitled to benefits - and the family maximum for benefits would not count against any of them - no matter how many times Steve got married, they would ALL be entitled to full widows payments.

"Marriage", in the eyes of the government, matters.

and if they live to be 150 each they would both get the SSI that they paid into
not so for a hetero couple, they can only get for ONE

 

[bodecea]

What local, state or federal laws did you list?

The giving heterosexual 'different' treatment is a completely different subject.
Homosexuals have the same "rights" that any other person in this country has.

I see you didn't click on the link I gave you.

You gave me a link described as a man with "theories". I asked you for evidence, not a giant "IF".

No, I linked to the rights the government gives us....there are over 1000 of them.

 

[bodecea]

Hi Logical:



Thank you for stating the facts. Those among us who 'choose' to participate in this deviant homosexual behavior have the same rights as every heterosexual person in the USA. These deviants expect to receive 'extra rights' as a reward for their homosexuality cuckoo.

I would have nothing to say to these depraved souls, if they would only keep their immorality behind closed doors WHERE IT BELONGS. What two men or two women do behind closed doors is none of our business. However, parading homosexuality before my children and grandchildren 'and' expecting special rights to boot cuckoo !!!!?????

You have GOT to be kidding me. There are no professing homosexuals in my kingdom, at least none keep their heads beyond noon ... Psalm 101:8.

GL,

Terral

Let's rewrite your post, shall we?

Thank you for stating the facts. Those among us who 'choose' to participate in this deviant fundamental christian behavior have the same rights as every non-religious or religious person in the USA. These deviants expect to receive 'extra rights' as a reward for their fundamentalism cuckoo.

I would have nothing to say to these depraved souls, if they would only keep their immorality behind closed doors WHERE IT BELONGS. What these fundamentalists do behind closed doors is none of our business. However, parading their reactionary fundamentalism before my children and grandchildren 'and' expecting special rights to boot cuckoo !!!!?????

You have GOT to be kidding me. There are no professing holier-than-thous in my kingdom, at least none keep their heads beyond noon ...

Let us remember that RELIGION is a choice....and you are trying to shove it down our throats.

Please list that "immoral" behavior that is being paraded in front of your children or grandchildren (which BTW, cannot be yours and your partner's biologically, your children depend on the co-operation of another that is willing to give their child away).

We get to see people on street corners preaching their hate to us...coming to our doors unwanted and trying to tell us we are going to hell...telling businesses in some areas what they can or cannot sell on Sundays...just for starters.


And may I add, your child may not be yours biologically too. Does that matter?

 

[CurveLight]

Do you have a different set of laws than I do?
There is no movement afoot to kill homosexuals in this country (Christians would want you to live long enough to find the Lord's grace and be forgiven so you could help the rest of us get to heaven thru your prayers).
There is no movement to stop homosexuals from going anywhere the public goes. The military is a different story (and if the Wiiki link guy is an example, it will be even harder for homosexuals to 'prove' their 'military integrity')
Your 'Bill of Rights' is my 'Bill of Rights'. You can marry a person of the opposite sex if you meet the qualifications: you are not currently married, the other person agrees to marry you, etc.

Homosexual activists have decided 'the same' isn't good enough. They want a special status (like a spoiled child throwing a tantrum). IF, the homosexual activists are appeased, what wacko group will be appeased next: beastiality groups, polygamous groups, people that want to marry their sibings, etc?

It will set a precedent that if you whine, you will get your way, no matter what it costs.

If I tell you that your sin is not a sin, or 'let you' use a radical minority to corrupt children into thinking that homosexuality is not a sin and breaks none of the Commandments, then I am supporting your lifestyle. If my tax dollars are used to pay for one patient that knowingly participated in homosexual acts and got aids, then I am supporting your lifestyle. If my tax dollars go to give homosexuals a special status, then I am supporting their sin.
Our president and the mayor are declaring the mosque in NYC about 'practicing' their religion (BTW those people believe in killing homosexuals). If they are supporting that, why are they so against Christians 'practicing' theirs?

The State giving a lot of laws and Rights to one couple that is denied to another couple based purely on gender is discrimination so your claim the laws are "equal" is pure bullshit and if your dumbass knew anything about being an American you would no religion is not a legitimate source to try and justify your bigotry.

Based on your logic, anyone or anything that is part of a couple should be treated as a married couple that can (for 90%+ of cases), produce children that will grow up to support society? So if 'a couple' of co-workers want to beat the system, the government should back them? If 'a couple' of children want to collect welfare, the government should support them? A person wants to be 'a couple' with an animal and give the animal health insurance, the government should back them?

I asked you to back up your statements. You did not. Either you are speaking falsely, or you are unwilling to list your 'evidence'. Which is it?

Lol! Keep lying and saying I've not supported my claims you pathetic Jesus hating bigot.

 

[CurveLight]

Let me get this straight:
when I say that "lewd, perverse, or immoral behavior" includes homosexual acts, you tell me that it didn't say "homosexual", so that doesn't count (even though the apostles went into greater detail on this, and called it sinful)
when I say the destruction of "S+G" was about "sin", you tell me I said it was about homosexuality, and go on to say it had nothing to do with homosexuality

when you say there is nothing about homosexuals in "S+G" and I ask you how men demanding male visitors from Lot to 'know' (engage in sex) can be anything, but, homosexual, you tell me that there were women there too.

when I ask you where it says that (after receiving so tongue lashing from you), you want me to "interpret" the Bible

when I ask you to show 'specifically' where it demonstrates David and Jonathan had homosexual sex, again you tell me that I must 'interpret' the Bible

So, where my examples are very clear to the point that only one 'coveting homosexuality' (like a marijaunna smoker defends the drug) would not agree they demonstrated the Bible refers to homosexuality as 'sin', your examples are words that are chapters apart and re-arranged to twist the meaning of the story.

As for the middle east: it was there in Biblical times, the traditions, the methods of survival were very similar as they are today, throughout most of the middle east (with the exception of cities). Because the names were different, doesn't mean it didn't exist. This is another example of your siezing the most insignificant points to try and give yourself some credibility.

If you want to be credible, back up your statements:
give the chapter and verse of where the Lord praises homosexual acts
give the chapter and verse that says David and Johnathan had 'relations, knew each other, begat, used each, etc'.
I would even be impressed if you could:
give the chapter and verse where the Lord declares homosexual acts not sinful

If you want to tell me it is hidden again, then give me the secret code that lets homosexual activists "know" that is what the story is about, and what is hidden and what isn't.

Otherwise, it appears you are twisting facts and making your own version of history.

You're a dishonest fuckwad. You clearly tried to blame homosexuality for S+G and when it's shown why that is bullshit you go on a red herring marathon. What a waste.

How many times do I have to print in black and white for you to comprehend? I said the Lord destroyed "S+G" over sinfulness.

You are the one that denied homosexuality had "anything" to do with it. When I ask you to explain how men demanding to have sex with "male" vistitors has nothing to do with homosexuality, you ignore the question.

Who is being dishonest? I will print the Biblical passages to back up my statements. Where are your Biblical passages?

You are being dishonest as scripture never says anything about homosexuality in relation to S+G. I've also proven "all the people" showed up at Lot's door and you ignore that to try and claim they wanted homosexual sex you dishonest fucking bitch.

 

[AVG-JOE]

What local, state or federal laws did you list?

The giving heterosexual 'different' treatment is a completely different subject.
Homosexuals have the same "rights" that any other person in this country has.

Not true. Patently untrue.

The Social Security Act defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

If Adam and Steve live monogamously for 25 years, get married in the eyes of the state of Massachusetts, and Steve comes to an untimely demise in freak scuba diving incident while the two of them are celebrating their 25th in The Bahamas, Adam gets NOTHING from Steve's Social Security record, even though Steve was the major bread winner and Adam stayed home to care for their Pomeranians.

If Adam were a madam or Steve was a Stephanie, her surviving spouse Adam would be entitled to widows benefits at age 60. Not so with a grieving Adam at Steve's funeral. That my friend is blatant discrimination by the Federal Government.

To add insult to tax-payers injury, if Steve was a heterosexual whore and married several women over the years, each and every one of them who put up with his bullshit for at least 10 years would be entitled to benefits - and the family maximum for benefits would not count against any of them - no matter how many times Steve got married, they would ALL be entitled to full widows payments.

"Marriage", in the eyes of the government, matters.

and if they live to be 150 each they would both get the SSI that they paid into
not so for a hetero couple, they can only get for ONE

That's bullshit, man... for MARRIED couples (as defined by the Social Security Act) qualifying spouses are entitled to benefits on their partners record - whether or not they take those benefits depends on several things, not the least of which is what benefits they are entitled to on their own record. Adam and Steve are denied an option that other married couples have on the basis of the gender of one of them. That is discrimination, plain and simple.

SSI is a welfare benefit paid from the General Tax Revenue Fund to disabled and aged individuals based on need. It has nothing to do with Social Security taxes or potential benefits paid from the Social Security Trust Funds.

 

[DiveCon]

Not true. Patently untrue.

The Social Security Act defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

If Adam and Steve live monogamously for 25 years, get married in the eyes of the state of Massachusetts, and Steve comes to an untimely demise in freak scuba diving incident while the two of them are celebrating their 25th in The Bahamas, Adam gets NOTHING from Steve's Social Security record, even though Steve was the major bread winner and Adam stayed home to care for their Pomeranians.

If Adam were a madam or Steve was a Stephanie, her surviving spouse Adam would be entitled to widows benefits at age 60. Not so with a grieving Adam at Steve's funeral. That my friend is blatant discrimination by the Federal Government.

To add insult to tax-payers injury, if Steve was a heterosexual whore and married several women over the years, each and every one of them who put up with his bullshit for at least 10 years would be entitled to benefits - and the family maximum for benefits would not count against any of them - no matter how many times Steve got married, they would ALL be entitled to full widows payments.

"Marriage", in the eyes of the government, matters.

and if they live to be 150 each they would both get the SSI that they paid into
not so for a hetero couple, they can only get for ONE

That's bullshit, man... for MARRIED couples (as defined by the Social Security Act) qualifying spouses are entitled to benefits on their partners record - whether or not they take those benefits depends on several things, not the least of which is what benefits they are entitled to on their own record. Adam and Steve are denied an option that other married couples have on the basis of the gender of one of them. That is discrimination, plain and simple.

SSI is a welfare benefit paid from the General Tax Revenue Fund to disabled and aged individuals based on need. It has nothing to do with Social Security taxes or potential benefits paid from the Social Security Trust Funds.

it is not bullshit
i did not say what you said was wrong in the first place
just that currently a married couple can only collect SSI (not SSDI) from ONE of their TWO account
the other one just disapears
if you dont believe that, ask any retired couple

 

[CurveLight]

and if they live to be 150 each they would both get the SSI that they paid into
not so for a hetero couple, they can only get for ONE

That's bullshit, man... for MARRIED couples (as defined by the Social Security Act) qualifying spouses are entitled to benefits on their partners record - whether or not they take those benefits depends on several things, not the least of which is what benefits they are entitled to on their own record. Adam and Steve are denied an option that other married couples have on the basis of the gender of one of them. That is discrimination, plain and simple.

SSI is a welfare benefit paid from the General Tax Revenue Fund to disabled and aged individuals based on need. It has nothing to do with Social Security taxes or potential benefits paid from the Social Security Trust Funds.

it is not bullshit
i did not say what you said was wrong in the first place
just that currently a married couple can only collect SSI (not SSDI) from ONE of their TWO account
the other one just disapears
if you dont believe that, ask any retired couple

As usual, you're fucking clueless.

"3. Claim twice. Spouses in dual-earner marriages who have reached their full retirement ages can claim Social Security twice: first as spouses, then using their own work records."
http://www.articles.moneycentral.ms...aPlan/6-ways-to-get-more-social-security.aspx


Also try to pay attention to how a non-working spouse can collect up to 50% of the working spouse's benefits. It doesn't take a genius to see the benefits denied to gays. Just a dishonest divecon.

 

[DiveCon]

That's bullshit, man... for MARRIED couples (as defined by the Social Security Act) qualifying spouses are entitled to benefits on their partners record - whether or not they take those benefits depends on several things, not the least of which is what benefits they are entitled to on their own record. Adam and Steve are denied an option that other married couples have on the basis of the gender of one of them. That is discrimination, plain and simple.

SSI is a welfare benefit paid from the General Tax Revenue Fund to disabled and aged individuals based on need. It has nothing to do with Social Security taxes or potential benefits paid from the Social Security Trust Funds.

it is not bullshit
i did not say what you said was wrong in the first place
just that currently a married couple can only collect SSI (not SSDI) from ONE of their TWO account
the other one just disapears
if you dont believe that, ask any retired couple

As usual, you're fucking clueless.

"3. Claim twice. Spouses in dual-earner marriages who have reached their full retirement ages can claim Social Security twice: first as spouses, then using their own work records."
http://www.articles.moneycentral.ms...aPlan/6-ways-to-get-more-social-security.aspx


Also try to pay attention to how a non-working spouse can collect up to 50% of the working spouse's benefits. It doesn't take a genius to see the benefits denied to gays. Just a dishonest divecon.

you are a fucking moron
show me one place where i have said i wanted to deny anything to gay couples?
ANYWHERE
you lying piece of shit

and your link doesnt work

 

[CurveLight]

and if they live to be 150 each they would both get the SSI that they paid into
not so for a hetero couple, they can only get for ONE

That's bullshit, man... for MARRIED couples (as defined by the Social Security Act) qualifying spouses are entitled to benefits on their partners record - whether or not they take those benefits depends on several things, not the least of which is what benefits they are entitled to on their own record. Adam and Steve are denied an option that other married couples have on the basis of the gender of one of them. That is discrimination, plain and simple.

SSI is a welfare benefit paid from the General Tax Revenue Fund to disabled and aged individuals based on need. It has nothing to do with Social Security taxes or potential benefits paid from the Social Security Trust Funds.

it is not bullshit
i did not say what you said was wrong in the first place
just that currently a married couple can only collect SSI (not SSDI) from ONE of their TWO account
the other one just disapears
if you dont believe that, ask any retired couple

it is not bullshit
i did not say what you said was wrong in the first place
just that currently a married couple can only collect SSI (not SSDI) from ONE of their TWO account
the other one just disapears
if you dont believe that, ask any retired couple

As usual, you're fucking clueless.

"3. Claim twice. Spouses in dual-earner marriages who have reached their full retirement ages can claim Social Security twice: first as spouses, then using their own work records."
Social Security benefits advantages for married couples - MSN Money


Also try to pay attention to how a non-working spouse can collect up to 50% of the working spouse's benefits. It doesn't take a genius to see the benefits denied to gays. Just a dishonest divecon.

you are a fucking moron
show me one place where i have said i wanted to deny anything to gay couples?
ANYWHERE
you lying piece of shit

and your link doesnt work

Show one place where I said you wanted to deny gay couples anything you fucking amateur idiot. I said you are clueless because you claimed one account simply "disappears." Try the link again in this post you whiny dishonest bitch.

 

[DiveCon]

That's bullshit, man... for MARRIED couples (as defined by the Social Security Act) qualifying spouses are entitled to benefits on their partners record - whether or not they take those benefits depends on several things, not the least of which is what benefits they are entitled to on their own record. Adam and Steve are denied an option that other married couples have on the basis of the gender of one of them. That is discrimination, plain and simple.

SSI is a welfare benefit paid from the General Tax Revenue Fund to disabled and aged individuals based on need. It has nothing to do with Social Security taxes or potential benefits paid from the Social Security Trust Funds.

it is not bullshit
i did not say what you said was wrong in the first place
just that currently a married couple can only collect SSI (not SSDI) from ONE of their TWO account
the other one just disapears
if you dont believe that, ask any retired couple

As usual, you're fucking clueless.

"3. Claim twice. Spouses in dual-earner marriages who have reached their full retirement ages can claim Social Security twice: first as spouses, then using their own work records."
Social Security benefits advantages for married couples - MSN Money


Also try to pay attention to how a non-working spouse can collect up to 50% of the working spouse's benefits. It doesn't take a genius to see the benefits denied to gays. Just a dishonest divecon.

you are a fucking moron
show me one place where i have said i wanted to deny anything to gay couples?
ANYWHERE
you lying piece of shit

and your link doesnt work

Show one place where I said you wanted to deny gay couples anything you fucking amateur idiot. I said you are clueless because you claimed one account simply "disappears." Try the link again in this post you whiny dishonest bitch.

right there you fucking moron

 

[DiveCon]

and i see why you didnt include the whole quote you dishonest fuck

A person may choose to sign up for only the spousal benefits at full retirement age and continue accruing delayed retirement credits on his or her own Social Security record. That person can then file for benefits based on his or her own work at a later date and receive a higher monthly benefit, thanks to the delayed retirement credits.

which totally supports what I said you fucking moron

 

[CurveLight]

and i see why you didnt include the whole quote you dishonest fuck

A person may choose to sign up for only the spousal benefits at full retirement age and continue accruing delayed retirement credits on his or her own Social Security record. That person can then file for benefits based on his or her own work at a later date and receive a higher monthly benefit, thanks to the delayed retirement credits.

which totally supports what I said you fucking moron

Lol! If it's accruing delayed credits how does it "disappear" you dumbfuck?

 

[CurveLight]

and i see why you didnt include the whole quote you dishonest fuck

A person may choose to sign up for only the spousal benefits at full retirement age and continue accruing delayed retirement credits on his or her own Social Security record. That person can then file for benefits based on his or her own work at a later date and receive a higher monthly benefit, thanks to the delayed retirement credits.

which totally supports what I said you fucking moron

it is not bullshit
i did not say what you said was wrong in the first place
just that currently a married couple can only collect SSI (not SSDI) from ONE of their TWO account
the other one just disapears
if you dont believe that, ask any retired couple

you are a fucking moron
show me one place where i have said i wanted to deny anything to gay couples?
ANYWHERE
you lying piece of shit

and your link doesnt work

Show one place where I said you wanted to deny gay couples anything you fucking amateur idiot. I said you are clueless because you claimed one account simply "disappears." Try the link again in this post you whiny dishonest bitch.

right there you fucking moron

You are so fucking stoopid. That isn't me saying you want to deny benefits to gays.

 

[DiveCon]

and i see why you didnt include the whole quote you dishonest fuck

A person may choose to sign up for only the spousal benefits at full retirement age and continue accruing delayed retirement credits on his or her own Social Security record. That person can then file for benefits based on his or her own work at a later date and receive a higher monthly benefit, thanks to the delayed retirement credits.

which totally supports what I said you fucking moron

Show one place where I said you wanted to deny gay couples anything you fucking amateur idiot. I said you are clueless because you claimed one account simply "disappears." Try the link again in this post you whiny dishonest bitch.

right there you fucking moron

You are so fucking stoopid. That isn't me saying you want to deny benefits to gays.

no, its YOU that is stupid,


tell us again how you can out run your cell phone signal by driving faster