Page 27 of 40 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 394

Thread: After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

  1. #261
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    re: After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    No kid was forced to attend a gay wedding and in fact the parents could opt out of it. Yet another lie from the anti-ssm crowd.

    As for losing tax exempt status churches like the Roman Catholic Church retain the right to marry whom they want to without losing tax exempt status.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    No kid was forced to attend a gay wedding and in fact the parents could opt out of it. Yet another lie from the anti-ssm crowd.

    As for losing tax exempt status churches like the Roman Catholic Church retain the right to marry whom they want to without losing tax exempt status.
    The two parents that did opt out did so, agreed, but there was no formal opt-out for parents of that event, and some didn't even know about it.

    Furthermore meanwhile in Canada:
    HAMILTON, Ontario, November 9, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Parents and ratepayers in a Hamilton area school board will never know exactly what a homosexual activist told their children during a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) assembly a year ago.

    The Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) of Ontario upheld last week the decision of the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (HWDSB) to “deny access to the record” of the speech.

    Suresh Dominic of Campaign Life Catholics told LifeSiteNews.com that parents of school children should be “outraged that they have been denied the right to know what is being taught to their children.”
    link: LifeSiteNews Mobile | Judge: Parents have no right to know what homosexual activist taught their children in school

    More:
    Parents of children attending a Red Hook, New York, middle school are outraged after a recent anti-bullying presentation at Linden Avenue Middle School.

    The workshop for 13 and 14-year-old girls focused on homosexuality and gender identity. They were also taught words such as "pansexual" and "genderqueer."

    Parents say their daughters were told to ask one another for a kiss and they say two girls were told to stand in front of the class and pretend they were lesbians on a date.

    "She told me, 'Mom we all get teased and picked on enough. Now I'm going to be called a lesbian because I had to ask another girl if I could kiss her,'" parent, Mandy Coon, told reporters.
    Link: Girls Told to Ask for Lesbian Kiss at School - US - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com

    That took three minutes to google.

    As far as losing tax exempt status, I stand by my assertion that it could most certainly happen and there is nothing in the tax law that prevents it. Constitutionally, the church would have an argument to fight it, but when we have decisions that are 5 – 4 at the supreme court level, nothing is out of the realm of possibility if the court would suddenly shift on ideological grounds.

    Gay history is now a requirement in California public schools because of a new state law that says the contributions of gays and lesbians must be included in social studies instruction. Now teachers are figuring out how to incorporate the new material into their classes.
    Link: California Brings Gay History Into The Classroom : NPR

    Come on, homosexuality is now everywhere in the schools in MA, CT, VT, RI, Canada, Europe, of course now that I took some time to point it all out to you, wasting what I already knew you knew, you’ll just say well what’s wrong with that. Well, in CA, and MA, and in Canada there are a vast majority of people that have a problem with it. Whether the promotion of homosexuality in visual or written text form is offensive to you or not is not at issue. What is at issue is that many of you are stating that the Prop 8 proponents lied about the pervasive nature of the agenda once adopted into law. They were clearly correct, and correct that churches could lose their tax exempt status.

    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  2. #262
    Professor
    JoeTrumps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Memphis
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,565

    re: After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    Like Jim Crow laws were just "social issues"? Like inter-racial marriage defied the societal notion of marriage 40 years ago, and instead of letting people get on with their lives without government intervention, we should have let other people decided their future(or lack thereof) by putting it up to a vote? Which would never have passed back then, and still wouldn't pass even in some states today.

    Yeah, sounds like freedom alright.
    ummmm, could you(meaning the left in general) stop comparing EVERY supposed social injustice to inter-racial marriage?!?! It's just gotten so freaking old at this point and it waters down the civil rights movement in general. I'm pretty sure if the NRA used the same tactics you seem to rely on to get laws passed you would be screaming bloody murder. But since they are things you WANT to be law you don't care how it's done(vote or no vote), is that it?

    not good. not good

  3. #263
    Guru
    Aderleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-08-16 @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,294

    re: After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Link: California Brings Gay History Into The Classroom : NPR

    Come on, homosexuality is now everywhere in the schools in MA, CT, VT, RI, Canada, Europe, of course now that I took some time to point it all out to you, wasting what I already knew you knew, you’ll just say well what’s wrong with that. Well, in CA, and MA, and in Canada there are a vast majority of people that have a problem with it. Whether the promotion of homosexuality in visual or written text form is offensive to you or not is not at issue.
    You're right. What is at issue is whether or not prop 8 lead to any of the things you brought up. Since they happened despite the fact that prop 8 passed, and before it was overturned, clearly it was entirely irrelevant to the pattern of gay acceptance that you find so troubling. So thank you for further proving that the prop 8 proponents were entirely full of crap in asserting that voting for prop 8 would prevent normalization of homosexuality in the popular mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    They were clearly correct, and correct that churches could lose their tax exempt status.
    Not so much, no. Clearly you believe otherwise, so why don't you tell me specifically what legal impact the failure of prop 8 would or will have on the tax exempt status of churches.

  4. #264
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    re: After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

    Quote Originally Posted by davidtaylorjr View Post
    Harms society as a whole.
    You can't prove this in any way, so it means nothing. Harm must be measurable to be used as a valid legal argument.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  5. #265
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    re: After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

    Quote Originally Posted by Aderleth View Post
    You're right. What is at issue is whether or not prop 8 lead to any of the things you brought up. Since they happened despite the fact that prop 8 passed, and before it was overturned, clearly it was entirely irrelevant to the pattern of gay acceptance that you find so troubling. So thank you for further proving that the prop 8 proponents were entirely full of crap in asserting that voting for prop 8 would prevent normalization of homosexuality in the popular mind.
    Baloney! You stated that the organizers of the "yes on prop 8" lied. Other than tax exempt status, which by the way they did not lie, they said "could lead to", so I already debunked that gay propaganda citation of yours, but other than that, everything they said has happened, and is happening. YOU LOSE!



    Not so much, no. Clearly you believe otherwise, so why don't you tell me specifically what legal impact the failure of prop 8 would or will have on the tax exempt status of churches.
    Do I need to repeat myself? I already explained how it could lead to the revocation of tax exempt status. In short the courts can rule (especially in CA) that churches are free to marry whomever they wish for any religious freedom of expression reason, BUT, the people have spoken on discrimination of gays, AND, that if the church wishes to discriminate on Californians protected rights, then the church will need to adjust or lose tax exemption, BUT still be free to discriminate.

    Are you really that obtuse that you cannot envision a legal argument designed around this basic premise?


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  6. #266
    Guru
    Aderleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-08-16 @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,294

    re: After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Baloney! You stated that the organizers of the "yes on prop 8" lied. Other than tax exempt status, which by the way they did not lie, they said "could lead to", so I already debunked that gay propaganda citation of yours, but other than that, everything they said has happened, and is happening. YOU LOSE!
    All of those things happened even though prop 8 passed. I.e. they had absolutely nothing to do with prop 8. There was no link between prop 8 and those things. So the propaganda attempts to link those things were totally and completely false. I don't know how else I could possibly phrase this. If you're still incapable of wrapping your mind around the spectacularly obvious causal failure of your allegations, I guess I'll just have to leave you to wallow in your ignorance.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Do I need to repeat myself? I already explained how it could lead to the revocation of tax exempt status. In short the courts can rule (especially in CA) that churches are free to marry whomever they wish for any religious freedom of expression reason, BUT, the people have spoken on discrimination of gays, AND, that if the church wishes to discriminate on Californians protected rights, then the church will need to adjust or lose tax exemption, BUT still be free to discriminate.

    Are you really that obtuse that you cannot envision a legal argument designed around this basic premise?
    No, I'm too knowledgeable about how the law actually works to be taken in by that argument, which resembles a legal argument in much the same way that a duck resembles the Millenium Falcon. But I give up. To be honest I really don't think you have the reasoning skills to understand how unbelievably fuzzy your thinking is here. If you'd like to get in the last word, feel free. I'll be ignoring you.

  7. #267
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    re: After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

    Quote Originally Posted by Aderleth View Post
    All of those things happened even though prop 8 passed. I.e. they had absolutely nothing to do with prop 8. There was no link between prop 8 and those things. So the propaganda attempts to link those things were totally and completely false. I don't know how else I could possibly phrase this. If you're still incapable of wrapping your mind around the spectacularly obvious causal failure of your allegations, I guess I'll just have to leave you to wallow in your ignorance.
    You don't need to phrase anything better. I get what you're saying, but you're just talking about CA. The proponents of Prop 8 were using examples of other nation states and states as examples of what normalizing homosexuality brings to CA. They did not specifically indicate that singularly adopting gay marriage was the harbinger of those social changes. Adopting gay marriage would essentially institutionalize the normalcy of homosexuality (which was already going on by various other legislative measures). Can I BE more clear? You're spending way too much time on those gay sites, and not actually looking into the Prop 8 agenda, and specifically the method to their madness. It's the same argument that a lot of us that are anti SSM BUT are not religious have. Gay marriage is but one aspect of the gay agenda, albeit a large part of it, but really, it all comes down to some of us not accepting the pseudo notion that homosexuality isn't a mental disorder. Many do, including myself, and the FACT that many in this psycho organization, and that one use media embraced peer reviewed fake studies to mark their direction, means very little to someone like myself that sees clearly why those peer reviewed studies aren't worth the paper they're written on.




    No, I'm too knowledgeable about how the law actually works to be taken in by that argument, which resembles a legal argument in much the same way that a duck resembles the Millenium Falcon. But I give up. To be honest I really don't think you have the reasoning skills to understand how unbelievably fuzzy your thinking is here. If you'd like to get in the last word, feel free. I'll be ignoring you.
    Well how typical, of you. You must be a liberal. Please define a legal argument? Exactly what is that? One that follows the law? LOL Perhaps it's one that attempts to change the law? No? How about one that justifies changing or implementing a new law, or a revision of an existing law. please, Sir, with all due respect, a legal argument is one that is compelling enough to cause a judge and or jury to accept the premise as true on its face, true enough that by not acting in a manner to adjust the law, or create a new law, the people would be materially harmed. Gets a bit tricky when you have conflicting freedoms, so, as I presented, the way around that problem is to not take away anyone's freedom, (the church's discriminatory behavior in this case) but require a new standard for reviewing tax exemption in the state of CA. I can't help it if you can't see how that would ever come to fruition, and perhaps you're right, but there's literally a 3 person panel of judges that get to decide if the argument has merit, and whether the will of the people is being served materially. The NUTJOBS sitting on the 9th circuit don't exactly have a great track record for getting things right, or perhaps they might, if they took away tax exemption from churches using this exact same logic? I'm sure the lawyers will clean up the language a bit, but the basic premise is logical, and justifiably consistent with the trend to appease the stronger political base we see forming in our courts today, including the Supreme court, which is literally always a single vote away from one spectrum or the other it seems.


    Don't tell me stupid laws can't get pass the courts, they can and do all the time!


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  8. #268
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    re: After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

    Oh look, another thread about gay couples.

  9. #269
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    re: After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

    Quote Originally Posted by davidtaylorjr View Post
    Also your opinion. I love how to you everything everyone else says is opinion, but whatever you say seems to alwasy be fact...hmm...who is closed-minded?
    nope wrong again

    PLEASE point out the parts that you think are just opinion
    you would have a point if facts didnt always prove you wrong and if you every had evidence supporting you LOL


    would you like to go over my post?
    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) its not factually being redefined i always laugh at this failed strawman THIS IS A FACT, not my opinion
    2.) actually when it comes to a contract definition and parameters you can but the definition already exists so your point is moot. THIS IS A FACT, not my opinion
    3.) the sanctity isnt chnaging, i always laugh at this strawman too "THIS IS A FACT, not my opinion
    4.) only your opinion this is a fact not my opinion
    5.) you being ok with it is meaningless to rights and freedoms and equality, this is also a fact
    if you disagree by all means PLEASE PLEASE provide FACTS proving otherwise.
    I bet anything you wont you will make another deflection post with nothing to prove the statement above wrong
    its funny watching your emotions get the better of you
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  10. #270
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    re: After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

    Quote Originally Posted by davidtaylorjr View Post
    By who? You? Your agenda? The homosexuals? No, it has not been proven, merely given as an opinion.
    by you actually, I have no agenda, the other day when multiple people asked you to prove this lie everything you posted after that proved its true that homosexuality itself is not a sin

    if you disagree please post any facts to support your false claim now, we'd love to read them

    or are you simply back pedaling now, the other day you called it a fact., now you are claiming its just your opinion, maybe you are learning
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

Page 27 of 40 FirstFirst ... 17252627282937 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •