• 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!

Mary Fallin blocks same-sex benefits

Whatever as and Independent Conservative I am always for states right............One question.....Why do you call yourself a centrist when your one of the biggest libs in DP .......Why are you ashamed..........I wear my conservatism like a badge of honor and would never deny it. God Bless Ronald Reagan

Probably for the same reason that you call yourself "Independent" although you are 99.9999999999999999999% Republican.
 
Why do you hate our troops? I wonder how you would react if some one made it harder for you to get your military benefits just to score political points with a few people...

Being against Homosexuality does not equal being against troops.
 
Now I want you to concentrate like a laser beam as I have said I don't care what gays call their marriage I just don't want the definition of marriage changed.

Lol....the IRONY of this statement is that if the definition of marriage had not been changed in the 50's YOUR marriage would not be recognized as being valid.
 
Lol....the IRONY of this statement is that if the definition of marriage had not been changed in the 50's YOUR marriage would not be recognized as being valid.

And that there have been many changes to the "definition" of marriage in recent years. The definition of marriage used to include husbands being legally able to rape their wives so long as they didn't hurt them too badly in the process. That changed during the time period from the 70s to the 90s.

Sounds like a pretty good change to me.
 
Being against Homosexuality does not equal being against troops.

Nor did I claim it was. What she did, and being against homosexuality are two different things.
 
Lol....the IRONY of this statement is that if the definition of marriage had not been changed in the 50's YOUR marriage would not be recognized as being valid.

It's been changed quite a bit actually. Used to be one man and one woman.
 
Californians got screwed but they had no amendment...............I am not denying anyones rights..
.I just say the definition of marriage should not be changed by a small amount of gays and a "feel Good" bunch of libs.




You are a member of the minority in this kerfuffle.

What you want is not what's going to happen.

Wait and see.
 
It's been changed quite a bit actually. Used to be one man and one woman.

Used to be a lot of things including a man and his concubine. The point being....the silly argument espoused by bigots that somehow the definition of marriage is sacred and can never be changed is really "the definition of marriage shouldn't be changed if we don't like the way its being changed, otherwise its ok".
 
Being against Homosexuality does not equal being against troops.

He's not being against homosexuality. He's being against military service people getting benefits they are legally entitled to.

The people in question are already gay and already married. And by the way, putting their lives on the line for your freedom to say that you don't want them to get these benefits.
 
You are a member of the minority in this kerfuffle.

What you want is not what's going to happen.

Wait and see.

Right, because the country is overwhelmingly decided on the issue....oh wait.....
 
He's not being against homosexuality. He's being against military service people getting benefits they are legally entitled to.

The people in question are already gay and already married. And by the way, putting their lives on the line for your freedom to say that you don't want them to get these benefits.

Ahem, nobody is denying the benefits. They can still get them.
 
No state with a ban have had it overturned.......Only the SCOTUS can do that and they won't touch it.


California's Prop 8 banned SSCM, it was found unconstitutional and the SCOTUS did not overturn the ruling.



>>>>
 
Ahem, nobody is denying the benefits. They can still get them.

And you want to make it harder for troops to get their benefits because you don't like them.
 
Right, because the country is overwhelmingly decided on the issue....oh wait....
.




Wait and see what happens, then come back and tell us all about it.


"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll.




[B]"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP.[/B]
 
Last edited:
And you want to make it harder for troops to get their benefits because you don't like them.

First I don't even think they should get those benefits. That being said, I also believe in the sovereignty of the states and the Federal Government shouldn't dictate the state's morality of standing against homosexuality.
 
First I don't even think they should get those benefits. That being said, I also believe in the sovereignty of the states and the Federal Government shouldn't dictate the state's morality of standing against homosexuality.


So you believe in the sovereignty of the states, those people are legally Civilly Married based on the laws of the state where they were married, the Federal governemnt then is recognizing the morality of that state. It should be recognized right?


>>>>
 
So you believe in the sovereignty of the states, those people are legally Civilly Married based on the laws of the state where they were married, the Federal governemnt then is recognizing the morality of that state. It should be recognized right?


>>>>

Texas, OK, and the like don't recognize it and should not be forced to.
 
First I don't even think they should get those benefits. That being said, I also believe in the sovereignty of the states and the Federal Government shouldn't dictate the state's morality of standing against homosexuality.
So you believe in the sovereignty of the states, those people are legally Civilly Married based on the laws of the state where they were married, the Federal governemnt then is recognizing the morality of that state. It should be recognized right?


>>>>
Texas, OK, and the like don't recognize it and should not be forced to.


That response is not germane to the question posed.

You said you don't believe the federal government should recognize legal Civil Marriages for benefits, they you claimed "sovereignty of the states" and that the federal government should honor marriage laws from the states. Conflicting positions.

#1 You believe in the sovereignty of the states and if the State grants Civil Marriage, then the federal government should respect that.

or

#2 If doesn't matter if a couple is married under the laws of a State that grant them Civil Marriage, the federal government should refuse all benefits to Same-sex Civilly Married couples.​



If you believe in "sovereignty of the states" then you believe that the federal government should honor Civil Marriage entered into equally. If you don't really believe in "sovereignty of the states" then you believe that the federal government should deny benefits to legally married couples.


So which is it?



>>>>
 
First I don't even think they should get those benefits. That being said, I also believe in the sovereignty of the states and the Federal Government shouldn't dictate the state's morality of standing against homosexuality.

Why is this so hard to understand: they are federal benefits, not state benefits.
 
Really he is a Republican and you have to ask this!


I've been a Republican for 35 years...

..................................................Your point?


>>>>
 
another day another failed thread by people against equality and who support discrimination. That was a fun read, its always fun to see those people lose their minds at that though of Americans being treated equally.
 
Really he is a Republican and you have to ask this!

I admit it, I laughed. But I felt bad about it afterwords. Laughing at conservatives is like laughing at the special Olympics.
 
Back
Top Bottom