• 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!

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

All of those things except tax exemption HAVE already happened in states that allow SSM. I know of a few examples just in MA alone. Do some research, try googling the "little black book", and teacher takes kids to gay wedding.. You'll see that your websites claiming they are lies are actually lying to you both. :)


Tim-

Complete and utter bull ****
 
I have stated my position. Do you not understand that you've been responding to a series of posts asking for sources? Perhaps you should read for context before commenting on an ongoing thread. Incidentally, you're obviously not reading my sources very closely, because they discuss exactly what I'm claiming they do:

The fact that proponents of prop 8 produced lots of ads that flat out lied about what prop 8 did. Do you deny either that such ads existed, or that they were factually inaccurate? If not, whether or not they're "rabidly pro homosexual" (as moronic as that designation is) is irrelevant.

Ya know for someone claiming I'm vulnerable to propaganda, you seem well adept at accepting sources that flat out lie. Well, lets do this then shall we. Show me an ad that specifically states that churches will lose their tax exemption status, or is it more likely that the ads said that churches could lose their tax exempt status/ It's a small word and easily left out when adopting the opinion of others, but it makes a big difference when stating something is a lie, or potentially true.


Tim-
 
You're moving the goal posts now. No one said grade school kids were being shown how to fist another boy,

Actually you're moving the goalposts. I've never said anything about fisting. Love the blatant hypocrisy though. All I said is that sex ed is and has always been required to be age appropriate, and that prop 8 has nothing to do with that.

BUT, they are being taught homosexual normalcy WHICH is a matter of opinion with no shred of scientific fact.

To the extent that that's true at all, what on earth does it have to do with prop 8? Did the passage of prop 8 impact that at all?

Now, I'm sure you'll say that peer reviewed studies from this psychological associate vs. that psychological association are facts, but can we at least agree that many people do NOT assign the same level of scientific discipline to the social sciences, as they do to the more commonly accepted hard sciences that rely on repeatable and unequivocal data?

Sure, so long as you'll agree that this is entirely irrelevant to any argument I've made.


It hasn't yet, but it is completely rational to expect it to happen.

No, it's really really not.


All it takes is one legal challenge, and precedent supports government requiring certain thresholds to continue tax exemption status.

Setting aside for the moment that you're very, very wrong about that, you've as much as admitted my point. If it takes one legal challenge, than it is still not true that failing to pass prop 8 resulted in churches losing their tax exempt status or being required to marry gay people. That was an outright lie, and you've just basically demonstrated as much.


Currently the climate, even in California, does not and probably wouldn't support taking away churches right to marry whomever they choose, and whether that should be a requirement to receive tax exemption, but it damn well could easily go the other way, and YOU should know it.

Not without a constitutional amendment it couldn't. And you should know that, if you're going to comment on this subject.
 
Did you google? I'm guessing not. ;)


Tim-

No need. Your claims are complete and utter bull ****. Sorry.

The "little black book" was about providing STD information to kids and the wedding you are referencing forced no child to attend the wedding. It was THEIR TEACHER's Wedding...and no one was required to attend. Just bull **** and scare tactics....nothing more.
 
Did you google? I'm guessing not. ;)


Tim-

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.
 
Ya know for someone claiming I'm vulnerable to propaganda, you seem well adept at accepting sources that flat out lie. Well, lets do this then shall we. Show me an ad that specifically states that churches will lose their tax exemption status, or is it more likely that the ads said that churches could lose their tax exempt status/ It's a small word and easily left out when adopting the opinion of others, but it makes a big difference when stating something is a lie, or potentially true.

The notion that churches could lose their tax exempt status as a result of prop 8 not passing is a lie. You're now demonstrating a very poor understanding of the law.
 
There is equal rights, the people in states that voted and support SSM bans have every right to do so. SSM is not this over-hyped "equal rights" mantra that many want to push. It's a social issue that redefines legal marriage that people can support or not support and have those beliefs upheld in law.

Easy for you to say, when you're not the one being denied rights.
 
No, what I'm fine with is people voting and having their beliefs put into law on social issues. I view it as tyranny to override that process because a minority didn't get their way in some states.

So Brown v Board is tyranny?
 
I do care about freedom and liberty, that's why I respect the rights of those who disagree with me and recognize the issue as a social issue that, those who disagree with me on, can have their votes heard and put into legal action. People are free to vote on issues, they have the liberty to believe what they want and have the democratic process change laws. Forcing same sex marriage is not a constitutional right, the default definition is that marriage is between a man and woman. The law has to change to accommodate for same sex marriages and have the term of "marriage" be redefined. It's a social issue discussing changing a legal definition, and on such a change people can have their voices heard and their votes cast like with other issues.

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.
 
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.

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-
 
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
 
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.

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.
 
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-
 
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.


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.
 
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-
 
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?
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
 
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
 
1.) State courts do not have jurisdiction over federal benefits and
2.) the SCOTUS has already allowed states that have them to keep their bans thereby boxing out the federal courts :2wave:
3.) Like I said the day the decisions came down, really more of a Pyrrhic victory for the left.

1.) good thing i didnt say they did
2.) factually wrong, no they have not, they have not heard the case yet
3..) left?????? sorry many people support equal rights for gays including those on the right but thank you for exposing your biased
 
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
I can't help it if you guys don't accept the facts. I'm not going through all of that again, no need, you are closed minded.
 
I can't help it if you guys don't accept the facts. I'm not going through all of that again, no need, you are closed minded.

BOOM! i knew it, i knew youd dodge it and bail out!
thats what i thought you have ZERO facts to support you and you know it, thats why you wont post them and YOUR opinion of anybody being closed minded is meaningless. Its actually super ironic because only one of us has ever been caught denying facts. lol. Nice try though.

Let us know when you are ready to man up and post facts supporting your false claim, we have been waiting!
 
the courts disagree with you :shrug:

If you are required by law to get a government issued marriage license, marriage is no longer a right, therefore, the government should get out of the marriage business.
 
If you are required by law to get a government issued marriage license, marriage is no longer a right, therefore, the government should get out of the marriage business.

yes i have heard your opinion on this before a few times and my reply is always the same, marriage is a right and im glad government protects my contract, i wouldnt have it any other way. :shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom