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.
This is one thing I agree with you on. I think couples who make a vow to each other should get tax breaks, the right to cover the other on their insurance and the spouse should receive benefits if one spouse dies. It seems pretty basic and fair. It is important to leave religion out of it because of the separation of church and state.
That said, the military is probably the worst place to conduct social experiments and force people to accept things that may go against their beliefs. DOMA worked well for years and hopefully nothing really changed since doing away with it. There will always be those who are intolerant and our troops are already put in enough dangerous situations without adding any other thing to deal with. You have to trust your fellow soldiers with your life and even if there is one guy who can't accept gays, it could be bad for everyone. I also worry about troops in the Arab countries because some of them kill gays.
I don't know the best way, but military has always had it's own rules and they do things that are best for safety and morale and maybe we shouldn't mess with any of it. We've come a long way and people accept things over a time as they learn to let go of their prejudices, but just don't know if you can speed that up. When people feel pushed to do something, they might resist more.
As far as a person's rights, we either all have rights or none of us have rights. Our constitution doesn't allow giving rights to some while denying the same to others.
That's why it has to be decided in the Supreme Court. We have a nation in decline and decay, I expect DOMA to be struck down by the Supreme Court, we are simply becoming too degenerate to survive.
Can you explain how two adults in a monogamous relationship filing a married tax return is degenerate?
.
New York appeals court strikes down DOMA - CNN.com
The long and the short of their decision is that DOMA violates the 14th amendment, which is exactly correct. DOMA is unequal protection of the laws, granting special privileges to opposite-sex couples and withholding them from same-sex couples.
A same-sex married couple cannot file a federal married tax return, nor can a same-sex spouse collect Social Security death benefits, nor can they exercise a myriad of other privileges extended to opposite-sex couples.
So, either remove the marriage privileges that are currently granted only to opposite-sex couples, or grant them to same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike.
There is no rational objection anyone can raise to granting the privilege of a married tax return to same-sex couples. There is no rational objection anyone can raise to granting Social Security death benefits to same-sex couples.
No societal harm arises from these activities.
.
This is one thing I agree with you on. I think couples who make a vow to each other should get tax breaks, the right to cover the other on their insurance and the spouse should receive benefits if one spouse dies. It seems pretty basic and fair. It is important to leave religion out of it because of the separation of church and state.
That said, the military is probably the worst place to conduct social experiments and force people to accept things that may go against their beliefs. DOMA worked well for years and hopefully nothing really changed since doing away with it. There will always be those who are intolerant and our troops are already put in enough dangerous situations without adding any other thing to deal with. You have to trust your fellow soldiers with your life and even if there is one guy who can't accept gays, it could be bad for everyone. I also worry about troops in the Arab countries because some of them kill gays.
I don't know the best way, but military has always had it's own rules and they do things that are best for safety and morale and maybe we shouldn't mess with any of it. We've come a long way and people accept things over a time as they learn to let go of their prejudices, but just don't know if you can speed that up. When people feel pushed to do something, they might resist more.
As far as a person's rights, we either all have rights or none of us have rights. Our constitution doesn't allow giving rights to some while denying the same to others.
You're confusing DOMA and DADT. DADT has been gone for a year with no problems, thanks.
That's why it has to be decided in the Supreme Court. We have a nation in decline and decay, I expect DOMA to be struck down by the Supreme Court, we are simply becoming too degenerate to survive.
Can you explain how two adults in a monogamous relationship filing a married tax return is degenerate?
.
One man sticking his dick in another man's ass is degenerate, and providing them with government benefits because of such behavior is even more degenerate.
That's why it has to be decided in the Supreme Court. We have a nation in decline and decay, I expect DOMA to be struck down by the Supreme Court, we are simply becoming too degenerate to survive.
Can you explain how two adults in a monogamous relationship filing a married tax return is degenerate?
.
One man sticking his dick in another man's ass is degenerate, and providing them with government benefits because of such behavior is even more degenerate.
Aka government sticks its nose where it doesn't belong AGAIN....government has no business in marriage...its a contract between people that's all...no need for government to enforce people's beliefs in what marriage is based on some book of fiction.
You are completely ignoring the fact that a contract carries legal issues which must be resolved by government. As long as people keep breaking those contracts through divorce and upon their deaths, government will be involved. Striking down DOMA has nothing to do with enforcing people's beliefs. This has to do with enforcing the law.
This is one thing I agree with you on. I think couples who make a vow to each other should get tax breaks, the right to cover the other on their insurance and the spouse should receive benefits if one spouse dies. It seems pretty basic and fair. It is important to leave religion out of it because of the separation of church and state.
That said, the military is probably the worst place to conduct social experiments and force people to accept things that may go against their beliefs. DOMA worked well for years and hopefully nothing really changed since doing away with it. There will always be those who are intolerant and our troops are already put in enough dangerous situations without adding any other thing to deal with. You have to trust your fellow soldiers with your life and even if there is one guy who can't accept gays, it could be bad for everyone. I also worry about troops in the Arab countries because some of them kill gays.
I don't know the best way, but military has always had it's own rules and they do things that are best for safety and morale and maybe we shouldn't mess with any of it. We've come a long way and people accept things over a time as they learn to let go of their prejudices, but just don't know if you can speed that up. When people feel pushed to do something, they might resist more.
As far as a person's rights, we either all have rights or none of us have rights. Our constitution doesn't allow giving rights to some while denying the same to others.
DOMA is the Defense of Marriage Act which is a federal law passed during the Gingrich/Clinton era. It states that for purposes of the federal laws which award cash and prizes to married people, those cash and prizes are only for one man-one woman type marriages.
The appeals courts are saying that DOMA violates the "equal protection of the laws" part of the 14th amendment.
.
Are there separate bathrooms for men and women in PRIVATE homes? OR just in yours?Aka government sticks its nose where it doesn't belong AGAIN....government has no business in marriage...its a contract between people that's all...no need for government to enforce people's beliefs in what marriage is based on some book of fiction.
You are completely ignoring the fact that a contract carries legal issues which must be resolved by government. As long as people keep breaking those contracts through divorce and upon their deaths, government will be involved. Striking down DOMA has nothing to do with enforcing people's beliefs. This has to do with enforcing the law.
The claim that DOMA violates the 14th Amendment is too stupid for words to describe. If that's a violation, then how about separate restrooms for men and women? The law has always made distinctions between men and women, and for a very good reason. Why shouldn't the law also make distinctions between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples? Marriage laws exist for one reason: two protect mothers and their children. Homosexuals can never have children, so there's no social benefit to providing a couple of homos shacking up together with those benefits.
Aka government sticks its nose where it doesn't belong AGAIN....government has no business in marriage...its a contract between people that's all...no need for government to enforce people's beliefs in what marriage is based on some book of fiction.
You are completely ignoring the fact that a contract carries legal issues which must be resolved by government. As long as people keep breaking those contracts through divorce and upon their deaths, government will be involved. Striking down DOMA has nothing to do with enforcing people's beliefs. This has to do with enforcing the law.
The claim that DOMA violates the 14th Amendment is too stupid for words to describe.
If that's a violation, then how about separate restrooms for men and women?
Marriage laws exist for one reason: two protect mothers and their children. Homosexuals can never have children, so there's no social benefit to providing a couple of homos shacking up together with those benefits.
Can you explain how two adults in a monogamous relationship filing a married tax return is degenerate?
.
One man sticking his dick in another man's ass is degenerate, and providing them with government benefits because of such behavior is even more degenerate.
how is it any of your business what one man does with another, fuckwit?
is there a list of approved sexual activities somewhere?
This is one thing I agree with you on. I think couples who make a vow to each other should get tax breaks, the right to cover the other on their insurance and the spouse should receive benefits if one spouse dies. It seems pretty basic and fair. It is important to leave religion out of it because of the separation of church and state.
That said, the military is probably the worst place to conduct social experiments and force people to accept things that may go against their beliefs. DOMA worked well for years and hopefully nothing really changed since doing away with it. There will always be those who are intolerant and our troops are already put in enough dangerous situations without adding any other thing to deal with. You have to trust your fellow soldiers with your life and even if there is one guy who can't accept gays, it could be bad for everyone. I also worry about troops in the Arab countries because some of them kill gays.
I don't know the best way, but military has always had it's own rules and they do things that are best for safety and morale and maybe we shouldn't mess with any of it. We've come a long way and people accept things over a time as they learn to let go of their prejudices, but just don't know if you can speed that up. When people feel pushed to do something, they might resist more.
As far as a person's rights, we either all have rights or none of us have rights. Our constitution doesn't allow giving rights to some while denying the same to others.
You're confusing DOMA and DADT. DADT has been gone for a year with no problems, thanks.
Sorry, I did. I still think DADT should have stayed in force.
I do believe in equal rights for all, not just some. Despite my hurried answer where I made a mistake, I am in agreement with many on the issue.
A thousand pardons for my mistake.
One man sticking his dick in another man's ass is degenerate, and providing them with government benefits because of such behavior is even more degenerate.
how is it any of your business what one man does with another, fuckwit?
Someone asked the question, douchebag, and I answered it. If you don't want an answer, then don't ask for it. Furthermore, the minute the government taxes me to provide perverts with benefits, their sexual proclivities become my business. If you want to keep the government out of your personal affairs, then don't demand that it get involved in them.
is there a list of approved sexual activities somewhere?
Yes there is. For instance, having sex with a 5-year-old is on the strictly prohibited list. So is having sex with your sister. The only question here is whether anal sex is on the list, not whether the list exists.
One man sticking his dick in another man's ass is degenerate, and providing them with government benefits because of such behavior is even more degenerate.
how is it any of your business what one man does with another, fuckwit?
Someone asked the question, douchebag, and I answered it. If you don't want an answer, then don't ask for it. Furthermore, the minute the government taxes me to provide perverts with benefits, their sexual proclivities become my business. If you want to keep the government out of your personal affairs, then don't demand that it get involved in them.
is there a list of approved sexual activities somewhere?
Yes there is. For instance, having sex with a 5-year-old is on the strictly prohibited list. So is having sex with your sister. The only question here is whether anal sex is on the list, not whether the list exists.
how is it any of your business what one man does with another, fuckwit?
Someone asked the question, douchebag, and I answered it. If you don't want an answer, then don't ask for it. Furthermore, the minute the government taxes me to provide perverts with benefits, their sexual proclivities become my business. If you want to keep the government out of your personal affairs, then don't demand that it get involved in them.
is there a list of approved sexual activities somewhere?
Yes there is. For instance, having sex with a 5-year-old is on the strictly prohibited list. So is having sex with your sister. The only question here is whether anal sex is on the list, not whether the list exists.
On your "list", would heterosexual couples who like anal sex be disqualified from civil marriage?
Someone asked the question, douchebag, and I answered it. If you don't want an answer, then don't ask for it. Furthermore, the minute the government taxes me to provide perverts with benefits, their sexual proclivities become my business. If you want to keep the government out of your personal affairs, then don't demand that it get involved in them.
Yes there is. For instance, having sex with a 5-year-old is on the strictly prohibited list. So is having sex with your sister. The only question here is whether anal sex is on the list, not whether the list exists.
On your "list", would heterosexual couples who like anal sex be disqualified from civil marriage?
Apparently anal sex is degenerate only when two men do it. The same must be true for oral sex.
.
On your "list", would heterosexual couples who like anal sex be disqualified from civil marriage?
Apparently anal sex is degenerate only when two men do it. The same must be true for oral sex.
.
I wonder if voyeurism is on that list....because a LOT of posters here talk MORE about gay sex than gays do.
how is it any of your business what one man does with another, fuckwit?
Someone asked the question, douchebag, and I answered it. If you don't want an answer, then don't ask for it. Furthermore, the minute the government taxes me to provide perverts with benefits, their sexual proclivities become my business. If you want to keep the government out of your personal affairs, then don't demand that it get involved in them.
Do you realize you just claimed that giving someone else government marriage benefits costs you money?
is there a list of approved sexual activities somewhere?
Yes there is. For instance, having sex with a 5-year-old is on the strictly prohibited list. So is having sex with your sister. The only question here is whether anal sex is on the list, not whether the list exists.
Correct. Sex with a minor causes societal harm. Sex between two consenting adults does not.
.
Someone asked the question, douchebag, and I answered it. If you don't want an answer, then don't ask for it. Furthermore, the minute the government taxes me to provide perverts with benefits, their sexual proclivities become my business. If you want to keep the government out of your personal affairs, then don't demand that it get involved in them.
Do you realize you just claimed that giving someone else government marriage benefits costs you money?
Yes, actually, it does cost me money. I personally don't believe the government should be providing privileges of any kind to anyone for any reason. However, so long as it does, it should have a good reason. Allowing to fuck buddies of the same sex to feel like they're normal isn't a good reason. Why should they have any more rights than a single person?
One could argue all day that Sex between two consenting adults can cause plenty of harm. For instance, it spreads diseases.
However, no one is making that argument. The issue here is whether two consenting adults should be entitled to government benefits just because they are having sex with each other. No one has made a valid case for that.
Someone asked the question, douchebag, and I answered it. If you don't want an answer, then don't ask for it. Furthermore, the minute the government taxes me to provide perverts with benefits, their sexual proclivities become my business. If you want to keep the government out of your personal affairs, then don't demand that it get involved in them.
Do you realize you just claimed that giving someone else government marriage benefits costs you money?
Yes, actually, it does cost me money. I personally don't believe the government should be providing privileges of any kind to anyone for any reason. However, so long as it does, it should have a good reason. Allowing to fuck buddies of the same sex to feel like they're normal isn't a good reason. Why should they have any more rights than a single person?
Yes there is. For instance, having sex with a 5-year-old is on the strictly prohibited list. So is having sex with your sister. The only question here is whether anal sex is on the list, not whether the list exists.
Correct. Sex with a minor causes societal harm. Sex between two consenting adults does not.
.
One could argue all day that Sex between two consenting adults can cause plenty of harm. For instance, it spreads diseases.
However, no one is making that argument. The issue here is whether two consenting adults should be entitled to government benefits just because they are having sex with each other. No one has made a valid case for that.
