• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pentagon moves to extend benefits to gay spouses

davidtaylorjr said:
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=davidtaylorjr
Click to expand...

The irony here is hilarious.

You sent me to a blank page...which is an accurate description of how much you know about the subject.

HAHAHA

http://works.bepress.com/davidtaylorjr/

You go to Liberty University?

JESUS CHRIST THIS PAPER IS TERRIBLY WRITTEN. Your structuring is awful. As is the fact that you are using in citations in the paragraph rather than footnotes or endnotes. Seriously, don't they teach you anything? In paragraph quotations mess up the flow of a reader.

And there goes any credibility you have.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
But that itself doesn't make it a waster of tax dollars.

As AT&T and IBM showed (and as davidtaylorjr is desperately trying to avoid discussing) is that such benefits provided serious recruitment and retainment tools. Keeping the best and the brightest in the military is a clear benefit to the country. With many other competing jobs out there offering same sex benefits, the military should offer these to stay competitive.
Click to expand...

Good point. With an all volunteer force, and with high training/replacement costs, retention is an important consideration.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Good point. With an all volunteer force, and with high training/replacement costs, retention is an important consideration.
Click to expand...

AT&T beat the crap out of its competitors once all of the gay tech and gay salesmen started moving over to AT&T when they were the first to offer benefits.

Google has a significant recruitment tool in that they pay more to unwed homosexuals in relationships to even out the compensation after taxes.

If you had a choice between two jobs that offered the same compensation, but one gave you benefits to your partner and the other did not, holding all other factors constant, it's obvious what your choice is.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
And what makes you so credible? Nothing. I proved you wrong by the way. You said I didn't know what the case was.
Click to expand...

Reading your "paper" and I use that extremely loosely, it's clear you do not understand what the case is actually about or what the arguments given where.

Your "paper" is nothing more than a poorly structured and written partisan hitjob.

Liberty is widely considered a joke school.
 
obvious Child said:
Reading your "paper" and I use that extremely loosely, it's clear you do not understand what the case is actually about or what the arguments given where.

Your "paper" is nothing more than a poorly structured and written partisan hitjob.

Liberty is widely considered a joke school.
Click to expand...

In your opinion.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
We have had talented professionals in the military for years, and guess what, they weren't even allowed to say they were gay. So your argument is invalid.
Click to expand...

You're right, gays have been in the military for a long time, they just haven't been able to be open about it until now.

Why do you want to deny soldiers their earned benefits?

davidtaylorjr said:
Once again, I do not have homophobia.

Second, it is still a waste of tax dollars, and, one could argue, that it defies freedom of religion to force people to fund something they don't believe is moral according to their religion. It is offensive to certain religions to fund homosexuality, therefore the Government shouldn't be involved. Otherwise Religions shouldn't have restirctions on when they should speak.
Click to expand...

So all I have to do to stop paying taxes is make up a religion that has beef with everything? Do you think if your local senator was gay, you'd get to refuse all taxes?

These people are soldiers, and they, just like every other soldier, earn their benefits.

Saying that gays should get paid less is insanely hateful.
 
Last edited:
davidtaylorjr said:
Once again, I do not have homophobia.

Second, it is still a waste of tax dollars, and, one could argue, that it defies freedom of religion to force people to fund something they don't believe is moral according to their religion. It is offensive to certain religions to fund homosexuality, therefore the Government shouldn't be involved. Otherwise Religions shouldn't have restirctions on when they should speak.
Click to expand...

Since we have a separation of church and state in this country, your point is invalid.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
No, I'm not. I'm saying rulings of the SCOTUS have been terribly wrong.
Click to expand...

No, what you are saying is you disagree with them. That does not affect the reality that they were correct.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Since we have a separation of church and state in this country, your point is invalid.
Click to expand...

He makes up his own definition of what the amendment means. I don't think he cares about separation of church and state.

His own paper (when properly linked) demonstrated he did not understand the case that declared teacher led prayer to be unconstitutional.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Once again, I do not have homophobia.

Second, it is still a waste of tax dollars, and, one could argue, that it defies freedom of religion to force people to fund something they don't believe is moral according to their religion. It is offensive to certain religions to fund homosexuality, therefore the Government shouldn't be involved. Otherwise Religions shouldn't have restirctions on when they should speak.
Click to expand...

It is offensive to my religion that you be allowed to post on this forum. Perhaps you can explain to me why it is legal for you to post on this forum anyway? How come my religion doesn't count? Don't you respect my religion? If you aren't going to respect my religion, why should I respect yours?

Our actions in Islamic countries are offensive to some Muslims. Therefore the government shouldn't be involved in those countries? Keeping pork legal goes against the religion of some Jews. So pork should be illegal?

Bottom line: why does your religion decide the law?
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
He makes up his own definition of what the amendment means. I don't think he cares about separation of church and state.

His own paper (when properly linked) demonstrated he did not understand the case that declared teacher led prayer to be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

I noticed.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Once again, I do not have homophobia.

Second, it is still a waste of tax dollars, and, one could argue, that it defies freedom of religion to force people to fund something they don't believe is moral according to their religion. It is offensive to certain religions to fund homosexuality, therefore the Government shouldn't be involved. Otherwise Religions shouldn't have restirctions on when they should speak.
Click to expand...

rofl . . . my God. We fund WARS - WARS with tax dollars . . . can the 'it's against their religious views' **** - we KILL PEOPLE. My husband is a trained sniper . . . yeesh. He KILLS PEOPLE - with precision, no less.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
You're right, gays have been in the military for a long time, they just haven't been able to be open about it until now.

Why do you want to deny soldiers their earned benefits?



So all I have to do to stop paying taxes is make up a religion that has beef with everything? Do you think if your local senator was gay, you'd get to refuse all taxes?

These people are soldiers, and they, just like every other soldier, earn their benefits.

Saying that gays should get paid less is insanely hateful.
Click to expand...

Nobody said they should get paid less. I said they shouldn't get marriage benefits for their "partners"
 
These actions prove the same sex marriage movement is largely about money. As I have always suspected.
 
Drake McHugh said:
These actions prove the same sex marriage movement is largely about money. As I have always suspected.
Click to expand...

It's about having the United States government treat same-sex marriage the same as heterosexual marriage. This includes Federal benefits, joint tax returns, etc. It also includes various rules about automatic inheritance, child custody, medical power of attorney, and so on.

If the Federal government took those benefits away from you but not from other people, you'd be demanding those benefits back. How would you react to me then saying that you're just in it for the money?
 
Drake McHugh said:
These actions prove the same sex marriage movement is largely about money. As I have always suspected.
Click to expand...

There's something else I want to point out here.

These are men and women who stepped up and volunteered to serve our country. They are potentially putting their lives in danger. And here you are, griping about homosexual military personnel being granted equal benefits to straight people..

To our troops, on behalf of everyone in America who appreciates our military personnel of every race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, don't listen to guys like Drake here. Their hatred has blinded them to what is really important. Don't hate them back, pity them.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
We have had talented professionals in the military for years, and guess what, they weren't even allowed to say they were gay. So your argument is invalid.
Click to expand...

And this caused some serious losses for the military. I personally know a woman who signed the paperwork admitting she was gay because she had an offer from a prominent company that was willing to pay her much better than the military and also recognize her partner for medical and extra benefits, whereas in the Navy she had to hide the very fact that she was gay not to mention not even being able to attempt to marry her partner. The field she and I were in is severely undermanned and I'm sure she wasn't the only one who got out because of this.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Wrong. The alternative being considered was to grant these benefits to service members' gay partners that were not even spouses since they were then legally barred from marriage. That would have been far more expensive.
Click to expand...

Some benefits. They wouldn't have gotten the most expensive ones, such as medical, dental, housing, and a few others, not as long as DOMA was in place.

I feel that since I am able to get these benefits, there is no reason that same sex spouses shouldn't also get them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom