Dismiss Notice
Thanks for being a member of our community. Please donate toward site expenses if you can.

We Need a "Sexual Orientation Equality" Amendment

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by jaktober, Jul 26, 2012.

Page 2 of 2
  1. kenrichaed

    kenrichaed Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    8,539
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Guess what. I don't like Obama so I guess i'm a racist also right?

    Hahaha
     
    kenrichaed, Jul 26, 2012
    #26
  2. IndieVisible

    IndieVisible New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    Messages:
    468
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So absent of any scientific proofs, what are you going by other then your "feelings" and how is *yours* different then *theirs*
     
    IndieVisible, Jul 26, 2012
    #27
  3. violadude

    violadude New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,209
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Obviously, I didn't say that. Heterosexuals have the right to get married purely for tax benefits. Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to? No one questions heterosexuals motives for marrying when they tie the knot.

    What you are talking about in your polygamy scenario is an EXTRA benefit that would exceed the limits placed on heterosexual and homosexual couples would. That's why I would regulate it more.
     
    violadude, Jul 26, 2012
    #28
  4. Johnny-C

    Johnny-C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    34,039
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    No, it isn't. Really, HOW is polygamy the same topic as other things being express here. Is polygamy a "sexual orientation"? Come on... explain what you mean?

    Actually, I want to see you make the connection between "homosexuality" and "polygamy". :)
     
    Johnny-C, Jul 26, 2012
    #29
  5. Johnny-C

    Johnny-C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    34,039
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    What are you talking about? Huh?!
     
    Johnny-C, Jul 26, 2012
    #30
  6. violadude

    violadude New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,209
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If he's a typical gay supporter you are a typical grammar impaired bigot. The words "your" and "a" should never come after each other in english.
     
    violadude, Jul 26, 2012
    #31
  7. kenrichaed

    kenrichaed Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    8,539
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not at all. If a man marries two women and raises two families then he should get extra tax benefits. You do understand WHY a family gets tax benefits don't you? Its so they have an easier time raising their family or supporting their marriage.

    He now has double the responsibility so your argument is not valid.
     
    kenrichaed, Jul 26, 2012
    #32
  8. kenrichaed

    kenrichaed Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    8,539
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    An obvious sign of no other argument when you start pointing out grammar errors. Thanks for validating my argument.
     
    kenrichaed, Jul 26, 2012
    #33
  9. IndieVisible

    IndieVisible New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    Messages:
    468
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Indie takes note: do not p*ss off violadude!
     
    IndieVisible, Jul 26, 2012
    #34
  10. jaktober

    jaktober Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Messages:
    367
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    18
    "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
     
    jaktober, Jul 27, 2012
    #35
  11. thediplomat2.0

    thediplomat2.0 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Messages:
    9,305
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The suggested amendment seems to not be a sexual orientation equality amendment at all. Instead, the substance indicates that the addition to the Constitution legislates barring of the ability for a government to implement laws regarding sexual orientation, whether for or against any particular issue. This would completely remove marriage from being upheld by the state. Consequently, will civil unions take over in its place?
     
    thediplomat2.0, Jul 27, 2012
    #36
  12. Woogs

    Woogs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2011
    Messages:
    8,395
    Likes Received:
    2,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The only real 'advantage' I see to gays being married is that they could collect survivor benefits from SS. Any other material thing could be taken care of through wills/contracts.

    With the writing on the wall that SS will fade away in time, there will soon be no material benefit to state sanctioned marriage for either straight or gay couples.

    In the end, it's much ado about nothing.
     
    Woogs, Jul 27, 2012
    #37
Page 2 of 2

Share This Page