• 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!

Obama Extends Fed Benefits to Unmarried Partners, Including Same Sex Partners

Jerry said:
If your going to start taking any of this personally, leave the thread. I'm not responsible if you take offense to a general statement about a group.

And hay, my sister was gay. She chose otherwise since then.

edit:
I need a link to a non-pdf please. This comp can't open them.
Click to expand...

Download it. It's free.
 
hazlnut said:
You want to play stupid games, fine:

I asked what are the parameters? Here was your question to 'clarify'.



What I pointed out was that the article didn't give any specific information on how a couple qualifies for these benefits--the parameters of eligibility.

There's been speculation throughout the thread about boyfriend/girlfriend's and roommates getting these benefits and I'm just trying to see if anyone knows what they're talking about.

I think you knew and understood that and were dodging, hoping I would let it drop.

Care to answer now? -- What does a couple need to to in order to qualify for these benefits?
Click to expand...

Oooohhh you don't even know what the question was. Well why didn't you just say so, silly head?

Jerry said:
I really don't know how a federal employee applies for these benefits as I've never been one to know the system. Were you looking for samples of the paperwork?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what they are, not a clue, but I bet I could use my uber debate powers to find out for your lazy ass. So are you lookin for samples of the paperwork, or a general policy, or what?
 
jallman said:
Download it. It's free.
Click to expand...

Not free:
jerry-albums-jerry-s-junk-picture434-untitled.bmp
 
Redress said:
No can do with the non-PDF. Buy a new computer.
Click to expand...

In point of fact I have a new computer...in storage. This one isn't mine and I doubt it'll let me download anyway since I use a guest account.
 
Jerry said:
In point of fact I have a new computer...in storage. This one isn't mine and I doubt it'll let me download anyway since I use a guest account.
Click to expand...

A guest account for a PDF reader? LOL
 
Jerry said:
A guest account to keep my brother from crashing yet another tower with all his stupid downloads.

I'm just collateral damage.
Click to expand...

*bites toung from insulting jerry*

Go to adobe and just download the reader it is a freebee. They are the same people that do photoshop.
 
Re: Obama Extends Fed Benifits to Unmarried Partners, Including Same Sex Partners

Jerry said:
I have no idea what they are, not a clue, but I bet I could use my uber debate powers to find out for your lazy ass. So are you lookin for samples of the paperwork, or a general policy, or what?
Click to expand...

No idea, huh?:shrug: Interesting.

Because, if that's the case, then why did you say this:


Jerry said:
Boy/girlfriends, room mates, etc, are being legitimized as though they are valid, stable unions for raising children, when clearly the evidence shows the contrary.
Click to expand...

Because when you said that, it seemed like you had some information that was not in the article. I thought you knew what you were talking about.

Silly me...

:spank:
 
Re: Obama Extends Fed Benifits to Unmarried Partners, Including Same Sex Partners

hazlnut said:
No idea, huh?:shrug: Interesting.

Because, if that's the case, then why did you say this:

Because when you said that, it seemed like you had some information that was not in the article. I thought you knew what you were talking about.

Silly me...

:spank:
Click to expand...

I covered why I thought that with a quote from the article.

Pay attention much?
 
Re: Obama Extends Fed Benifits to Unmarried Partners, Including Same Sex Partners

Jerry said:
I covered why I thought that with a quote from the article.

Pay attention much?
Click to expand...

My apologies -- I missed post #36 -- this thread has been growing rather fast.

Jerry said:
They say the extension applies to unmarried domestic partners, and also same-sex partners. Logically, if domestic partners were only gay-partners, then they wouldn't need to point out that the extension also includes gays.

As I read it, "unmarried domestic partners" are mainly heteros, and the article wanted to be clear that this would also include those few gay partners as well.

***
I really don't know how a federal employee applies for these benefits as I've never been one to know the system. Were you looking for samples of the paperwork?
Click to expand...

Going back to that explanation -- That's exactly what I'm looking for. Before you and others start speculating on boyfriend-girlfriend's and room mates getting these benefits, I suggest you get all the info.

You've commented before on Domestic Partnerships -- so I just assumed you were familiar with the legal paperwork involved as well as the limitations.

Again, silly me...:3oops:

So, basically, we sould attached to every one of your posts in this thread the following disclaimer:

Jerry said:
I have no idea what [the parameters of eligibility] are, not a clue
Click to expand...

Fair enough?
 
Re: Obama Extends Fed Benifits to Unmarried Partners, Including Same Sex Partners

hazlnut said:
My apologies -- I missed post #36 -- this thread has been growing rather fast.



Going back to that explanation -- That's exactly what I'm looking for. Before you and others start speculating on boyfriend-girlfriend's and room mates getting these benefits, I suggest you get all the info.

You've commented before on Domestic Partnerships -- so I just assumed you were familiar with the legal paperwork involved as well as the limitations.

Again, silly me...:3oops:

So, basically, we sould attached to every one of your posts in this thread the following disclaimer:



Fair enough?
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
Jer, did you just suggest that the only reason for keeping marriage as a thing between men and women is for having and raising kids?

Um... does that mean my current wife and I aren't married?
 
The Jovial One said:
Jer, did you just suggest that the only reason for keeping marriage as a thing between men and women is for having and raising kids?

Um... does that mean my current wife and I aren't married?
Click to expand...

The state's interest in recognizing/promoting/regulating marriage is the raising of children, yes.

The state has no interest in couples who are not, have never, nor will ever raise children. This doesn't mean you can't live together, have a religious ceremony and whatnot, but only that you have no right to the legal buffs of marriage.
 
The Jovial One said:
Jer, did you just suggest that the only reason for keeping marriage as a thing between men and women is for having and raising kids?

Um... does that mean my current wife and I aren't married?
Click to expand...

I must not be either. We don't want kids. But married we are. And how does a piece of paper make someone a better parent? Would we be worse parents without the paper? Just curious.
 
Jerry said:
The state's interest in recognizing/promoting/regulating marriage is the raising of children, yes.

The state has no interest in couples who are not, have never, nor will ever raise children. This doesn't mean you can't live together, have a religious ceremony and whatnot, but only that you have no right to the legal buffs of marriage.
Click to expand...

Factually untrue. I have all the benefits. All legal like. And we'll never have kids. Thank God.
 
Jerry said:
The state's interest in recognizing/promoting/regulating marriage is the raising of children, yes.

The state has no interest in couples who are not, have never, nor will ever raise children. This doesn't mean you can't live together, have a religious ceremony and whatnot, but only that you have no right to the legal buffs of marriage.
Click to expand...

So, I should turn in my marriage license?

Gail's gonna be PISSED!!!
 
Jerry said:
The state's interest in recognizing/promoting/regulating marriage is the raising of children, yes.

The state has no interest in couples who are not, have never, nor will ever raise children. This doesn't mean you can't live together, have a religious ceremony and whatnot, but only that you have no right to the legal buffs of marriage.
Click to expand...

So, if the only pre-qualifier is a willingness to raise children, then you have no problem with gay marriage?

As long as gay and straight couples sign a legal document that they will raise children -- they're in like flynn.

Correct?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Personally me and mines never needed a permission slip from the state to validate our love for each other....


Just sayin.
Click to expand...

And you do have the beautiful little future democrat too!
 
Jerry said:
The state's interest in recognizing/promoting/regulating marriage is the raising of children, yes.

The state has no interest in couples who are not, have never, nor will ever raise children. This doesn't mean you can't live together, have a religious ceremony and whatnot, but only that you have no right to the legal buffs of marriage.
Click to expand...

Really? Where is the case law that makes that determination? I'd like to see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom