Witnesses Give Personal Accounts of DOMA Consequences
Does America really ...
Does America really need more proof to understand that DOMA is not only unconstitutional (see US Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 1) but it is also MORALLY wrong! Fuck religion. DO WHAT IS RIGHT IN YOUR HEART!!! COMMON SENSE, COMMON JUSTICE, COMMON GOOD! Most kids have it, where does it go when you turn 18??
to add: If marriage ...
to add: If marriage were a religious institution, then ATHIESTS wouldn't be allowed to be married!!
EVERYONE WHO PAYS ...
EVERYONE WHO PAYS TAXES SHOULD BE ALOUD THE SAME BENEFITS - OTHER WISE IS DESCRIMINATION (IS THIS HAPPENING IN THE USA?) IF YOU DONT WANT TO GIVE SAME SEX COUPLES THE SAME BENEFITS WELL THEN THEY SHOUDN'T PAY TAXES AT ALL FAIR IS FAIR. OR ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT SAME SEX COUPLES ARE GOING TO BE PAYING TAXES TO TAKE CARE OR OPPOSITE SEX COUPLES? THAT SOUNDS RIDICULOUS, STUPID & NOT FAIR AT ALL!!!! GAY SHOULD MARRY LESBIANS AND BEAT THE SYSTEM - U WANNA PLAY WITH US, WE PLAY WITH U!
with overwhelming ...
with overwhelming support of Dems in Congress, Bill Clinton signed DOMA. Liberals didn't say a word, or demand gay marriage. Now they're complaining about this discriminating Democrat supported law. Hey, let wait until Bush gets in to demand gay marriage. It's all about politics, not about gays and marriage. Obama was elected after supporting man/woman marriage only. He says he's evolving, but only enough to string the gays along and get their vote.
"No, a gay person ...
"No, a gay person cannot petition their foreign partners to live with them in the US, unlike straight people. They do not have the same rights." I didn't know that. Thanks for adding that information. I notice "hitcharide1" has been suspiciously quiet.
No, a gay person ...
No, a gay person cannot petition their foreign partners to live with them in the US, unlike straight people. They do not have the same rights.
I hate to point it ...
I hate to point it out but you should have another "ha" in there. Five "ha's" just doesn't do justice, does it...lol.
"but I deal with ...
"but I deal with the law, history, and common sense" What a load of horseshit. You can't even put together an argument where you support your supposition with evidence. ha ha ha ha ha (literally)
Again, you ...
Again, you throwing a label on something doesn't make it so. I understand you'd rather debate wild conjecture and remote possibilities but I deal with the law, history, and common sense. I totally understand you don't like that. You want to change the parameters of the valid argument, but you don't get to, you aren't allowed to dictate to me how I feel, you can't change history, and common sense left you long ago. In honesty I pity you and hope you seek help for your issues.
No, I supported ...
No, I supported what I said, you just don't like the facts. This is YOUR problem, I can't help you with that (nor would I feel inclined.) You can call me hateful because I don't agree with you, and if that gets you through the day, go for it. I could care less about you, and you have serious issues if you find people "hateful" that don't even know you. Because someone doesn't agree with you is not hate, and your whiny attitude is very off-putting.
We're not parsing ...
We're not parsing anything. Now go study the concepts I delineated in my last post. Study first "ad hominem attack" and then you *might* understand the difference between an accurately descriptive adjective and an ad hominem. Until you can demonstrate working knowledge of the difference of those idea I won't waste anymore time responding to an indoctrinated fool you can't even support his assertions with basic evidence.
"All you've done is ...
"All you've done is demean and demagogue what I've said while saying nothing in return of substance." Lies and hypocrisy ad nauseum. It is you, despite who has been unable to support your assertions. Your lesson for the day is to look up and study the following terms whose meaning escapes you: Honesty: Evidence: Strawman fallacy: Ad hominem attack: At the end of the day you still won't be a less hateful person but you might at least be able to present a cogent argument.
Ah, we're parsing ...
Ah, we're parsing what are adjectives and names. And I bet were I to call you such names, then they'd be names and not adjectives! And I gave many arguments and the only one you had was "because I say so!" Yes, you are bitter (adjective.) Yes, you are flighty (still an adjective..lol.) What part of "if you don't like the law, change the law" do you not get? And what part of "you'll have my active opposition" do you not get? Don't whine, it just makes you look bitchy.
"I won and will ...
"I won and will rest on my merits" HAHAHAHAHA Typical behavior for a right-winger, declare victory and run away. Have a nice life wallowing in your hate you pitiful little man.
""Liar" and " ...
""Liar" and "hypocrite" are certainly names, aren't they" No, they are adjectives which accurately describe your behavior. "Bitter, shrill and flighty is no way to go thru life." I'm none of those things; I just have no qualms pointing out how your worldview is one based upon willful ignorance, indefensible arguments, and hatred based on your religious indoctrination. You've still not given one legitimate argument against gay marriage that isn't religious claptrap.
Whoops..almost ...
Whoops..almost forgot. "Liar" and "hypocrite" are certainly names, aren't they? Just pointing out the only argument you've had is "it's a right of equality because I say so!" When you have history on your side, I'll listen. When you have 51 percent of the population on your side, I'll listen. Wherever it comes up for a vote you lose, you won't get reciprocity thru federal statute because of the law, so you still lose. Bitter, shrill and flighty is no way to go thru life.
Great Scott, you're ...
Great Scott, you're still responding, full of sound and fury and yet still signifying nothing. I'll go out on a limb here and suggest there's no agreeing on this issue between us. All you've done is demean and demagogue what I've said while saying nothing in return of substance. I suspect you'd like the tin man more than a strawman, but that's another story...lol. Tell you what, you take the last word, I won and will rest on my merits, you go ahead and rant, but do enjoy!
You're a liar ...
You're a liar because I've never called you any names and you're a hypocrite because you've resorted to strawman fallacies, and ad hominem attacks in a vain attempt to prove your point. Furthermore, you've made numerous claims, none of which you've been able to support. "As for religious indoctrination, that's so silly and off base that it doesn't merit a respons" Religion, by its very nature, requires indoctrination. Otherwise there would be no followers of any religion.
I didn't say I ...
I didn't say I hated *you*, I hate your backwards, uninformed, hateful attitude. "ou have nothing to bolster your "arguments" but a lot of puling, whining and name calling" I'll add liar and hypocrite to your qualities I hate.
By the way, I don't ...
By the way, I don't hate you...I don't even know you and suspect I could care less about you. You find me backwards, I find you odd. You find me uninformed yet you have nothing to bolster your "arguments" but a lot of puling, whining and name calling, impressive indeed. As for religious indoctrination, that's so silly and off base that it doesn't merit a response, and I don't respond to malicious bigoted attacks against religion anyhow. Anything else?
I suspect you're a ...
I suspect you're a liberal by how "tolerant" you are..lol. How you can ignore the oft repeated is beyond me. Thousands of years of historical evidence of marriage and NONE of it involving gays. Seriously, can you not read or do you just not like the facts? I understand your side, and I understand your resentment and bitterness, none of which gives you the right to dictate to a majority who are against gay marriage. If you don't like the law, change the law.
"but it is not a ...
"but it is not a natural right for gay people" Oops, you fail again. What "natural" right is there for straight marriage? "Also sorry you hate my "religious claptrap" I don't hate your religious claptrap, I hate your backwards, uninformed, hateful attitude. However, I understand it is your religious indoctrination that makes you this way.
Don't know how many ...
Don't know how many times I have to explain it to you, but here goes. You have no natural right to it, you saying otherwise means diddly. If you can, in your state legislature, pass it, then go for it, then you'll have it, but it is not a natural right for gay people. Also sorry you hate my "religious claptrap" which last I checked we all have a right to, may even be an amendment in the Constitution (broad hint there, look it up.)
Once again, massive ...
Once again, massive logic failure on your part. Give me one good reason that isn't some religious claptrap or strawman fallacy why gay couple shouldn't be allowed to marry. Good luck with that
Untrue. Gay ppl ...
Untrue. Gay ppl have the same rights as any citizen. Gay marriage is not a right. Any couple or grouping of ppl can muster whatever legal framework they want for their partnership, I suspect it happens all the time. I'd like a million dollars but I don't have a right to it just because others have it, I'm not allowed to force others to give it to me, and I can't hate those who do have it just because. Try again.