Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Ah, there you have it. Discrimination against law abiding tax paying fellow citizens.I think the issue is probably that giving a different label to what is supposed to be the exact same thing smacks of separate but equal. If the idea is that homosexuals should have the same legal, secular rights and privileges to marriage as heterosexuals, but people are unwilling to use the same label, then clearly they are NOT thought of as being the same.
Civil unions for gays is certainly much closer to equality, but the need to give it a different name than straights use sounds too much like an unwillingness to really allow gays to have the same privileges. Having the legal unions all be labelled civil unions rather than marriage would be a better solution IMO. I don't think heterosexuals would be willing to give up the marriage label, though. Of course, removing government from marriage entirely would also work, but that's not happening any time soon.
Nonsense, their relationship IS different. Thus the need to define it differently. The end result is the same while understanding marriage as a traditional term.
You and your boyfriend just move to another country.
Oh, I'm waiting to see some gay person try to move into military housing with their gay partner. Obamination opened up a can of worms, but as usual didn't see the side effects.
So DON'T move to the State that doesn't recognize your agreement...
IDIOT.
Okay, picture this scenario.......................
A couple marries in a state that recognizes gay marriage, and they are also entitle to federal tax breaks because they are married.
The breadwinner's job tells them that they are going to have to transfer to another district, because their expertise is needed over in another city.
That city also happens to be in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage.
So, should the gay couple who was LEGALLY married end up taking a tax liability in the sense that they'd have to each file single (and at a higher tax bracket) than what they had before in filing jointly as married?
Sorry, but if the federal government is going to give tax breaks, they should apply equally.
No I want gays to achieve their goals without trashing the values of others so people like you will stfu about it.
If you didnt see it as "trashing values" there wouldnt be a problem. Would it?
Nope I wouldn't. People can do whatever they want in this great country. Including gays. What you can't do IS REDEFINE AND FORCE that redefined definition on someone who has lived their entire life believing something else.
You want gay people to do what you want them to do so you can move on with life?
No I want gays to achieve their goals without trashing the values of others so people like you will stfu about it.
How is my marriage trashing your values? Explain please.
Perhaps YOU missed the plethora of responces that advocated that this is a State's issue...Translation, if you form a legal union partnership in one state, another state doesn't have to recognize it. That seems pretty stupid. But now you want the FED to enforce conflicts between states? Isn't that a problem, given the 11th Amendment?
So DON'T move to the State that doesn't recognize your agreement...
IDIOT.
Okay, picture this scenario.......................
A couple marries in a state that recognizes gay marriage, and they are also entitle to federal tax breaks because they are married.
The breadwinner's job tells them that they are going to have to transfer to another district, because their expertise is needed over in another city.
That city also happens to be in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage.
So, should the gay couple who was LEGALLY married end up taking a tax liability in the sense that they'd have to each file single (and at a higher tax bracket) than what they had before in filing jointly as married?
Sorry, but if the federal government is going to give tax breaks, they should apply equally.
Sounds to me like you need to get Congress to pass a change the law and the Presdient to sign it.They arent. Presently, the Fed Gvmnt does not recognize same-sex couples as married.Okay, picture this scenario.......................
A couple marries in a state that recognizes gay marriage, and they are also entitle to federal tax breaks because they are married.
Which is what the whole issue is about in the first place. People who live together for a long time, sharing in each others lives SHOULD be able to have visitation rights in the hospital, property rights (because they've lived together and bought things together) as well as the tax breaks enjoyed by hetero people living together.
If you didnt see it as "trashing values" there wouldnt be a problem. Would it?
Nope I wouldn't. People can do whatever they want in this great country. Including gays. What you can't do IS REDEFINE AND FORCE that redefined definition on someone who has lived their entire life believing something else.
Ah, so you are saying that allowing gay marriage is REDEFINING AND FORCING you to have a gay marriage. Right? Because otherwise, it doesn't affect you at all.
Sounds to me like you need to get Congress to pass a change the law and the Presdient to sign it.They arent. Presently, the Fed Gvmnt does not recognize same-sex couples as married.
Which is what the whole issue is about in the first place. People who live together for a long time, sharing in each others lives SHOULD be able to have visitation rights in the hospital, property rights (because they've lived together and bought things together) as well as the tax breaks enjoyed by hetero people living together.
You and your boyfriend just move to another country.
Oh, I'm waiting to see some gay person try to move into military housing with their gay partner. Obamination opened up a can of worms, but as usual didn't see the side effects.
Okay, picture this scenario.......................
A couple marries in a state that recognizes gay marriage, and they are also entitle to federal tax breaks because they are married.
The breadwinner's job tells them that they are going to have to transfer to another district, because their expertise is needed over in another city.
That city also happens to be in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage.
So, should the gay couple who was LEGALLY married end up taking a tax liability in the sense that they'd have to each file single (and at a higher tax bracket) than what they had before in filing jointly as married?
Sorry, but if the federal government is going to give tax breaks, they should apply equally.
Interestingly enough, I was in the military for 20 years, and my primary job was in pay and personnel, which meant that every 6 months, I'd gather up the service records of those that were eligible in the command to take the Navy Wide Advancement Exam, and would add up their award scores for personal awards, their evaluation averages, as well as how much time in service and time in paygrade they had. All those were used in calculating their final score for the exam.
And...........I knew pretty much who was and wasn't gay in the command, as many people trusted me, because I knew how to keep my mouth shut about others.
Guess what? Gays generally had better evaluations and were awarded more personal awards than their straight counterparts. Why? Simple...........they pay better attention to detail.
How much do you know about DADT and it's impact on the military? I enlisted in 1982, and retired in 2002. DADT was probably one of the stupidest policies that I'd seen while serving.
Nope I wouldn't. People can do whatever they want in this great country. Including gays. What you can't do IS REDEFINE AND FORCE that redefined definition on someone who has lived their entire life believing something else.
What? Heres the thing you dont seem to realize. YOU think the gays should do what you want them to do and everything would be swell. While the GAYS think you should accept what they want to do and everything would be swell.
Let's be clear here.
I personally believe marriage to be a sham. I don't have a dog in this fight. I simply understand and respect those that hold the "meaning" dear. So i don't want to force anything on anyone.
This reminds me of the let's give trophies to everyone mentality. It diminishes the value of those that were successful. Or the idea that girls should be allowed to join the boyscouts. You guys try so hard to blur the lines then when you can't you switch to dividing people.
Nope I wouldn't. People can do whatever they want in this great country. Including gays. What you can't do IS REDEFINE AND FORCE that redefined definition on someone who has lived their entire life believing something else.
Ah, so you are saying that allowing gay marriage is REDEFINING AND FORCING you to have a gay marriage. Right? Because otherwise, it doesn't affect you at all.
Bodecea...open your mind.
To many, it is forcing them to redefine what they have already experienced.
It is not so hard to understand.
What's really sad is A LOT of people believe Obama made this decision from his heart when it was forced upon him by demands from large donor groups.
Oh gawd, So now Obama was scarred that the gays would vote for Romney so he had to say he supported gay marriage? Where in the world does that make sense?
Obama took a stance that could hurt him more than help him. The gays are already with him. He faces alienating the independents that may disagree with his opinion.
Let's keep the debate honest for once shall we. I never mentioned Romney or votes. I spoke to money. It is well known that several organized groups were refusing to donate to his superpac UNLESS he took a stand publicly
You and your boyfriend just move to another country.
Oh, I'm waiting to see some gay person try to move into military housing with their gay partner. Obamination opened up a can of worms, but as usual didn't see the side effects.
Okay, picture this scenario.......................
A couple marries in a state that recognizes gay marriage, and they are also entitle to federal tax breaks because they are married.
The breadwinner's job tells them that they are going to have to transfer to another district, because their expertise is needed over in another city.
That city also happens to be in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage.
So, should the gay couple who was LEGALLY married end up taking a tax liability in the sense that they'd have to each file single (and at a higher tax bracket) than what they had before in filing jointly as married?
Sorry, but if the federal government is going to give tax breaks, they should apply equally.
Interestingly enough, I was in the military for 20 years, and my primary job was in pay and personnel, which meant that every 6 months, I'd gather up the service records of those that were eligible in the command to take the Navy Wide Advancement Exam, and would add up their award scores for personal awards, their evaluation averages, as well as how much time in service and time in paygrade they had. All those were used in calculating their final score for the exam.
And...........I knew pretty much who was and wasn't gay in the command, as many people trusted me, because I knew how to keep my mouth shut about others.
Guess what? Gays generally had better evaluations and were awarded more personal awards than their straight counterparts. Why? Simple...........they pay better attention to detail.
How much do you know about DADT and it's impact on the military? I enlisted in 1982, and retired in 2002. DADT was probably one of the stupidest policies that I'd seen while serving.
You and your boyfriend just move to another country.
Oh, I'm waiting to see some gay person try to move into military housing with their gay partner. Obamination opened up a can of worms, but as usual didn't see the side effects.
Interestingly enough, I was in the military for 20 years, and my primary job was in pay and personnel, which meant that every 6 months, I'd gather up the service records of those that were eligible in the command to take the Navy Wide Advancement Exam, and would add up their award scores for personal awards, their evaluation averages, as well as how much time in service and time in paygrade they had. All those were used in calculating their final score for the exam.
And...........I knew pretty much who was and wasn't gay in the command, as many people trusted me, because I knew how to keep my mouth shut about others.
Guess what? Gays generally had better evaluations and were awarded more personal awards than their straight counterparts. Why? Simple...........they pay better attention to detail.
How much do you know about DADT and it's impact on the military? I enlisted in 1982, and retired in 2002. DADT was probably one of the stupidest policies that I'd seen while serving.
WHat I put in bold is crap...and you are generalizing based on a stereotype that has never been proven to be true.
It is like saying that gay men are better than straiught men at color coordinating.
I am pro gay marriage....but I think you are full of shit.
Oh gawd, So now Obama was scarred that the gays would vote for Romney so he had to say he supported gay marriage? Where in the world does that make sense?
Obama took a stance that could hurt him more than help him. The gays are already with him. He faces alienating the independents that may disagree with his opinion.
Let's keep the debate honest for once shall we. I never mentioned Romney or votes. I spoke to money. It is well known that several organized groups were refusing to donate to his superpac UNLESS he took a stand publicly
My bullshit alarm just went off. It happens whenever someone says "it is well known" or "it's common knowledge" without providing a link.
Can you provide a link? Please dont respond with why you cant give me a link...a link is fine
Interestingly enough, I was in the military for 20 years, and my primary job was in pay and personnel, which meant that every 6 months, I'd gather up the service records of those that were eligible in the command to take the Navy Wide Advancement Exam, and would add up their award scores for personal awards, their evaluation averages, as well as how much time in service and time in paygrade they had. All those were used in calculating their final score for the exam.
And...........I knew pretty much who was and wasn't gay in the command, as many people trusted me, because I knew how to keep my mouth shut about others.
Guess what? Gays generally had better evaluations and were awarded more personal awards than their straight counterparts. Why? Simple...........they pay better attention to detail.
How much do you know about DADT and it's impact on the military? I enlisted in 1982, and retired in 2002. DADT was probably one of the stupidest policies that I'd seen while serving.
WHat I put in bold is crap...and you are generalizing based on a stereotype that has never been proven to be true.
It is like saying that gay men are better than straiught men at color coordinating.
I am pro gay marriage....but I think you are full of shit.
Hey, sorry that you don't believe it, but that's what the data showed.
And...........fwiw............gay men ARE better than straight men at color coordinating. Matter of fact, one of the guys that got me from dressing like a backwoods redneck to dressing in a manner that would attract the ladies was a gay shipmate. Additionally, whenever we went on liberty, the chicks would flock to him and he'd direct them my way.
And yeah..........gays DO pay better attention to detail. Wanna know why? Simple actually, because they knew their sexuality would result in them being ostracized, so they take steps to make sure they can keep their sexuality secret, while being able to spot others who are sexually inclined like them.
What do you think "gaydar" is all about?
Nope I wouldn't. People can do whatever they want in this great country. Including gays. What you can't do IS REDEFINE AND FORCE that redefined definition on someone who has lived their entire life believing something else.
Ah, so you are saying that allowing gay marriage is REDEFINING AND FORCING you to have a gay marriage. Right? Because otherwise, it doesn't affect you at all.
Bodecea...open your mind.
To many, it is forcing them to redefine what they have already experienced.
It is not so hard to understand.
Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between a man and a woman. It is centuries of tradition. A civil union can be created to give all the same perks as traditional marriage so what's the big fucking deal? Is this just a ploy to diminish the traditional values of most Americans or just a political weapon to divide the people? Cause it sure seems so since there is an alternative that achieves the same goal, civil union legislation.
That, and the homos want us to like them.
I could care less if you like me. In fact, I'd be a little worried if you liked me.
