Same-sex couples to get federal marriage benefits: attorney general

[JoeMoma]

There is a certain way that some things are supposed to work!

 

[defcon4]

This has been one of the two primary arguments I've had against homo marriage from the outset. The money has to come from somewhere. This means we all have to subsidize homo couples for absolutely no reason. For heteros it was the likelihood of procreation. The pro homo fascists use the anecdotal incidence of heteros not having children as a dishonest excuse. Dog wagging.
Procreation is moot for homos. This is a ripoff.

If they pay into SS they should get the payoff regardless of being homo or not. If they are committed into a binding homo relationship they should be able to get what normal couples get.

Not if they can't make babies. I ain't subsidizing nobody with my money on a humbug. Tell those homo-leeches to get it from a voluntary source.

I am not known for favoring homo lifestyle, and when they get in my face I am not super selective in my vocabulary, but there are normal couples who have no babies for various reasons (some are infertile, some pursues career and do not want babies, some just doesn't like children) but under the principle of Justice blindfolded, contractually bound homo couples should have the right to get the same secular treatment as anybody else.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Same-sex couples to get federal marriage benefits attorney general Reuters
Ok? Wasn't that the whole point of gay couples being able to get married. I mean the real reason, the one that really matters but is covered up in social equality issues. The money. Not that social equality isn't important, it just isn't the real reason anything gets done.

Wrong.

It was a comprehensive civil rights issue, with the benefits of marriage an aspect of the right of gay Americans to due process and equal protection of the law.

They already had that. If they married a person of the opposite gender they would get the same benefits as heteros.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

This has been one of the two primary arguments I've had against homo marriage from the outset. The money has to come from somewhere. This means we all have to subsidize homo couples for absolutely no reason. For heteros it was the likelihood of procreation. The pro homo fascists use the anecdotal incidence of heteros not having children as a dishonest excuse. Dog wagging.
Procreation is moot for homos. This is a ripoff.

If they pay into SS they should get the payoff regardless of being homo or not. If they are committed into a binding homo relationship they should be able to get what normal couples get.

Not if they can't make babies. I ain't subsidizing nobody with my money on a humbug. Tell those homo-leeches to get it from a voluntary source.

I am not known for favoring homo lifestyle, and when they get in my face I am not super selective in my vocabulary, but there are normal couples who have no babies for various reasons (some are infertile, some pursues career and do not want babies, some just doesn't like children) but under the principle of Justice blindfolded, contractually bound homo couples should have the right to get the same secular treatment as anybody else.

You've fallen for the anecdotal trap. It's one of the arguments the homo agenda tries to use to wag the dog. It's like George Burns smoking cigars every day and living to 100 proves that smoking is good for you.
Besides the fact that those hetero couples who can't conceive are anomalous, they provide the two gender parenting condition that children need, thus qualifying them for adoption privileges.

 

[Syriusly]

This has been one of the two primary arguments I've had against homo marriage from the outset. The money has to come from somewhere. This means we all have to subsidize homo couples for absolutely no reason. For heteros it was the likelihood of procreation. The pro homo fascists use the anecdotal incidence of heteros not having children as a dishonest excuse. Dog wagging.
Procreation is moot for homos. This is a ripoff.

If they pay into SS they should get the payoff regardless of being homo or not. If they are committed into a binding homo relationship they should be able to get what normal couples get.

Not if they can't make babies. I ain't subsidizing nobody with my money on a humbug. Tell those homo-leeches to get it from a voluntary source.

You subsidize 80 year old's who get married. And they aren't going to be making any babies.

You just don't want homosexuals to have the same benefits as straights.

 

[Syriusly]

Same-sex couples to get federal marriage benefits attorney general Reuters
Ok? Wasn't that the whole point of gay couples being able to get married. I mean the real reason, the one that really matters but is covered up in social equality issues. The money. Not that social equality isn't important, it just isn't the real reason anything gets done.

Wrong.

It was a comprehensive civil rights issue, with the benefits of marriage an aspect of the right of gay Americans to due process and equal protection of the law.

They already had that. If they married a person of the opposite gender they would get the same benefits as heteros.

Clearly they didn't- no more than mixed race couples had the same benefits as white couples just because they could get the same benefits if they just married a person of the same race.

 

[Syriusly]

I don't understand why is it worthy of any discussion now.
Why do people get benefits anyhow? Makes no sense to me
I mean marriage benefits. Why?
Marriage is a free choice of anyone not concerning any special benefits.

Because hetero married couples can procreate. Tax breaks, etc., offset hardships generated by child rearing. Homos can't procreate so those benefits are unnecessary.

So you don't want the children born to- and being raised by homosexuals to benefit from the tax breaks given to straight parents?

Why exactly do you want to penalize the children of gay couples?

 

[HenryBHough]

I can think of several older men and women who have no interest in sex but have a deep interest in the head of household tax bennies. This whole thing has some very broadening of possibilities for them!

 

[defcon4]

This has been one of the two primary arguments I've had against homo marriage from the outset. The money has to come from somewhere. This means we all have to subsidize homo couples for absolutely no reason. For heteros it was the likelihood of procreation. The pro homo fascists use the anecdotal incidence of heteros not having children as a dishonest excuse. Dog wagging.
Procreation is moot for homos. This is a ripoff.

If they pay into SS they should get the payoff regardless of being homo or not. If they are committed into a binding homo relationship they should be able to get what normal couples get.

Not if they can't make babies. I ain't subsidizing nobody with my money on a humbug. Tell those homo-leeches to get it from a voluntary source.

I am not known for favoring homo lifestyle, and when they get in my face I am not super selective in my vocabulary, but there are normal couples who have no babies for various reasons (some are infertile, some pursues career and do not want babies, some just doesn't like children) but under the principle of Justice blindfolded, contractually bound homo couples should have the right to get the same secular treatment as anybody else.

You've fallen for the anecdotal trap. It's one of the arguments the homo agenda tries to use to wag the dog. It's like George Burns smoking cigars every day and living to 100 proves that smoking is good for you.
Besides the fact that those hetero couples who can't conceive are anomalous, they provide the two gender parenting condition that children need, thus qualifying them for adoption privileges.

If they pay into the system they should get some back just like everybody else. We are talking about inheritance, right to visit, right to get survival benefits and so forth.

 

[defcon4]

You just don't want homosexuals to have the same benefits as straights.

It is not the benefits, the issue is homos raising children to become homos because their homo environment conditions them to believe that it is natural.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

This has been one of the two primary arguments I've had against homo marriage from the outset. The money has to come from somewhere. This means we all have to subsidize homo couples for absolutely no reason. For heteros it was the likelihood of procreation. The pro homo fascists use the anecdotal incidence of heteros not having children as a dishonest excuse. Dog wagging.
Procreation is moot for homos. This is a ripoff.

If they pay into SS they should get the payoff regardless of being homo or not. If they are committed into a binding homo relationship they should be able to get what normal couples get.

Not if they can't make babies. I ain't subsidizing nobody with my money on a humbug. Tell those homo-leeches to get it from a voluntary source.

I am not known for favoring homo lifestyle, and when they get in my face I am not super selective in my vocabulary, but there are normal couples who have no babies for various reasons (some are infertile, some pursues career and do not want babies, some just doesn't like children) but under the principle of Justice blindfolded, contractually bound homo couples should have the right to get the same secular treatment as anybody else.

You've fallen for the anecdotal trap. It's one of the arguments the homo agenda tries to use to wag the dog. It's like George Burns smoking cigars every day and living to 100 proves that smoking is good for you.
Besides the fact that those hetero couples who can't conceive are anomalous, they provide the two gender parenting condition that children need, thus qualifying them for adoption privileges.

If they pay into the system they should get some back just like everybody else. We are talking about inheritance, right to visit, right to get survival benefits and so forth.

They don't pay into any marriage system. Inheritance and survival benefits, etc. can all be drawn up contractually without forcing anyone else to subsidize or acquiesce to. Visitation rights I believe are an area that should be reconsidered but no need to apply something as unnecessarily comprehensive as legal marriage.

 

[defcon4]

If they pay into SS they should get the payoff regardless of being homo or not. If they are committed into a binding homo relationship they should be able to get what normal couples get.

Not if they can't make babies. I ain't subsidizing nobody with my money on a humbug. Tell those homo-leeches to get it from a voluntary source.

I am not known for favoring homo lifestyle, and when they get in my face I am not super selective in my vocabulary, but there are normal couples who have no babies for various reasons (some are infertile, some pursues career and do not want babies, some just doesn't like children) but under the principle of Justice blindfolded, contractually bound homo couples should have the right to get the same secular treatment as anybody else.

You've fallen for the anecdotal trap. It's one of the arguments the homo agenda tries to use to wag the dog. It's like George Burns smoking cigars every day and living to 100 proves that smoking is good for you.
Besides the fact that those hetero couples who can't conceive are anomalous, they provide the two gender parenting condition that children need, thus qualifying them for adoption privileges.

If they pay into the system they should get some back just like everybody else. We are talking about inheritance, right to visit, right to get survival benefits and so forth.

They don't pay into any marriage system. Inheritance and survival benefits, etc. can all be drawn up contractually without forcing anyone else to subsidize or acquiesce to. Visitation rights I believe are an area that should be reconsidered but no need to apply something as unnecessarily comprehensive as legal marriage.

I believe I stated on this thread that I oppose homo unions considered to be marriage. They should be considered Civil Union but SCOTUS made the ruling whether I like or not. So, all the laws apply at the present.

 

[HenryBHough]

They should be considered Civil Union but SCOTUS made the ruling whether I like or not. So, all the laws apply at the present.

The only question any of us should be asking of ourselves at this point it:

"How can I profit from this?"

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Not if they can't make babies. I ain't subsidizing nobody with my money on a humbug. Tell those homo-leeches to get it from a voluntary source.

I am not known for favoring homo lifestyle, and when they get in my face I am not super selective in my vocabulary, but there are normal couples who have no babies for various reasons (some are infertile, some pursues career and do not want babies, some just doesn't like children) but under the principle of Justice blindfolded, contractually bound homo couples should have the right to get the same secular treatment as anybody else.

You've fallen for the anecdotal trap. It's one of the arguments the homo agenda tries to use to wag the dog. It's like George Burns smoking cigars every day and living to 100 proves that smoking is good for you.
Besides the fact that those hetero couples who can't conceive are anomalous, they provide the two gender parenting condition that children need, thus qualifying them for adoption privileges.

If they pay into the system they should get some back just like everybody else. We are talking about inheritance, right to visit, right to get survival benefits and so forth.

They don't pay into any marriage system. Inheritance and survival benefits, etc. can all be drawn up contractually without forcing anyone else to subsidize or acquiesce to. Visitation rights I believe are an area that should be reconsidered but no need to apply something as unnecessarily comprehensive as legal marriage.

I believe I stated on this thread that I oppose homo unions considered to be marriage. They should be considered Civil Union but SCOTUS made the ruling whether I like or not. So, all the laws apply at the present.

I oppose any unions, marriage or otherwise, that force others to acquiesce to and subsidize an irrelevant personal behavior choice and that result in children being intentionally placed in homes devoid of a two-gender parenting situation with no option.

 

[defcon4]

I am not known for favoring homo lifestyle, and when they get in my face I am not super selective in my vocabulary, but there are normal couples who have no babies for various reasons (some are infertile, some pursues career and do not want babies, some just doesn't like children) but under the principle of Justice blindfolded, contractually bound homo couples should have the right to get the same secular treatment as anybody else.

You've fallen for the anecdotal trap. It's one of the arguments the homo agenda tries to use to wag the dog. It's like George Burns smoking cigars every day and living to 100 proves that smoking is good for you.
Besides the fact that those hetero couples who can't conceive are anomalous, they provide the two gender parenting condition that children need, thus qualifying them for adoption privileges.

If they pay into the system they should get some back just like everybody else. We are talking about inheritance, right to visit, right to get survival benefits and so forth.

They don't pay into any marriage system. Inheritance and survival benefits, etc. can all be drawn up contractually without forcing anyone else to subsidize or acquiesce to. Visitation rights I believe are an area that should be reconsidered but no need to apply something as unnecessarily comprehensive as legal marriage.

I believe I stated on this thread that I oppose homo unions considered to be marriage. They should be considered Civil Union but SCOTUS made the ruling whether I like or not. So, all the laws apply at the present.

I oppose any unions, marriage or otherwise, that force others to acquiesce to and subsidize an irrelevant personal behavior choice and that result in children being intentionally placed in homes devoid of a two-gender parenting situation with no option.

see my message #30

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You just don't want homosexuals to have the same benefits as straights.

It is not the benefits, the issue is homos raising children to become homos because their homo environment conditions them to believe that it is natural.

I can't speak to the effect the abnormality of homosexual activity might have on children in the home. My objection to homo adoption is the same for single parenting by choice and it is rooted in the data of the past fifty years. Kids need mom and dad, not one or two of just either.
As for benefits, why? It's a personal behavior choice that affects no one but those partaking so why must others concede and subsidize?

 

[Syriusly]

You just don't want homosexuals to have the same benefits as straights.

It is not the benefits, the issue is homos raising children to become homos because their homo environment conditions them to believe that it is natural.

I can't speak to the effect the abnormality of homosexual activity might have on children in the home. My objection to homo adoption is the same for single parenting by choice and it is rooted in the data of the past fifty years. Kids need mom and dad, not one or two of just either.
As for benefits, why? It's a personal behavior choice that affects no one but those partaking so why must others concede and subsidize?

Your objection to 'homo adoption' appears to be based upon either you:
a) not wanting children awaiting homes to be adopted or
b) just because you are against 'homos'

Facts and Statistics

In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.

That would be around 33,000 children will wait for 3 or more years to be adopted. These kids will be in the foster care system- often with no real parental figures- but you prefer that to 'homo parents' or single parents.

Because you care for the welfare of these kids sooooo much.

In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.

Yes- 23,396 kids aging out of the foster care system- you would prefer that they age out of the foster care system without any families- rather than have the horror of gay parents who want to support them emotionally and financially for the rest of their lives.

Because you care for the welfare of these kids soooooooo much.

 

[Syriusly]

If they pay into SS they should get the payoff regardless of being homo or not. If they are committed into a binding homo relationship they should be able to get what normal couples get.

Not if they can't make babies. I ain't subsidizing nobody with my money on a humbug. Tell those homo-leeches to get it from a voluntary source.

I am not known for favoring homo lifestyle, and when they get in my face I am not super selective in my vocabulary, but there are normal couples who have no babies for various reasons (some are infertile, some pursues career and do not want babies, some just doesn't like children) but under the principle of Justice blindfolded, contractually bound homo couples should have the right to get the same secular treatment as anybody else.

You've fallen for the anecdotal trap. It's one of the arguments the homo agenda tries to use to wag the dog. It's like George Burns smoking cigars every day and living to 100 proves that smoking is good for you.
Besides the fact that those hetero couples who can't conceive are anomalous, they provide the two gender parenting condition that children need, thus qualifying them for adoption privileges.

If they pay into the system they should get some back just like everybody else. We are talking about inheritance, right to visit, right to get survival benefits and so forth.

They don't pay into any marriage system. Inheritance and survival benefits, etc. can all be drawn up contractually without forcing anyone else to subsidize or acquiesce to. Visitation rights I believe are an area that should be reconsidered but no need to apply something as unnecessarily comprehensive as legal marriage.

Everyone pays into our 'marriage system'.

You do- I do. Just that you want to limit recipients to straight couples- regardless of whether they can or want to have children.

All just a rather sad rationalization for wanting discrimination.