Equal Benefits for Veterans and Their Same-Sex Spouses Denied By House GOPers

OK, so how then can two homosexual men procreate?

 

Same way any other man does

 

That wouldnt be the "two homosexual men" procreating and would instead be ONE of the homosexual men and a woman procreating.

 

They can't with each other. Are we really going to go down the "procreation" as a requirement for marriage route? If so, I'm 58 and recently married a post-menopausal 57 year old woman. Are you saying we should have been denied an ability to both be married and benefit from 1138 Federal rights and benefits because we not only do not intend to have children, but cannot have childrend?

 

Have you ever seen a mentally ill person (eg paranoia), who recognized his illness? I also have not seen this. For this is not surprising - gays do not think that they are sick. But aggression in the behavior of gays, clearly demonstrates their illness.

 

????? Who said anythining about a "requirement" of procreation other than you, creating the strawman?
Gays and their advocates insist that marriage cant be limited to only heterosexual couples because only heterosexual couples procreate, because not all heterosexual couples are willing and able to procreate. And simultaneosly demanding that marriage be made available to all homosexual couples, because they might choose to adopt or create a child through artificial means. Crazy!

 

Do you actually read the thread before posting or do you normally just post whatever pops into your mind?

 

Whew... Glad to get that cleared up. Now go back and find the person who said they can and straighten him or her out.

 

No one said that or, at least, intended that. Homosexual men have been marrying women and having kids with them for decades in the US. That's where some less-than-educated people get the idea of older men "turning" gay. They don't "turn", they've always been gay. They were simply passing as straight and, in their midlife crisis, realized life is too short to live a lie.

 

Oh brother....

 

I'll take that as a weak sign of disagreement, but an inability to articulate any form of reasonable debate.

 

You are free to take anything any way you want. Grounded in reality or not as well. No skin off my nose.

 

Some would argue that homosexuals are exclusively attracted to the same sex, making those men bisexual. While I would say a homosexual PREFERS the same sex, even though they may engage in heterosexual sex. And we shouldnt be surprised by bisexuals who prefer women because they prefer to start a family with the mother of his future children. But when they are divorced, over 40, looking for sexual gratification, we shouldnt be surprised that some of those bisexual men come to prefer men. I dont know many gay men so my impression from the 10 or 15 gay men in their 40s - 50s that I have become aquainted with might not reflect the whole, but seems that an ex wife and two or three kids is the norm.

 

Yes I have. And unlike you, I can even use my computer and this website to find EVERY single use of require, required, requirement in this thread and see that NO ONE "said anythining about a requirement of procreation other than you, creating the strawman".
Do you actually read the thread before posting or do you normally just post whatever pops into your mind?

 

What do you know about lesbians, dixon?

 

Dont know as many. But chil;dren from a previous heterosexual relationship seems to be the norm also

 

Gold star for you, you know where babies come from. Hooray.

 

Good for you! <applause>

Now, if you can only keep reading and figure out the difference between a homosexual, a bisexual and someone who simply has sex with someone. Example: Do you think men in prison are all gay?

 

You have a source for that as it is inconsistent on my recollection of the GOP's positions in the past on gays in the military, and by inconsistent, I mean "completely in contradiction to".

 

The question here is would Republicans have ordered the Selective Service to not draft Gay and Lesbian personnel simply based on their sexual orientation? No, of course not. They did not move to protect Gays and Lesbians who went into military service. Many feel they did not care about that issue when it actually came down to them completing their mandatory military service as is required by law though they could have introduced and perhaps even passed legislation to do so, thereby at least being on record as having taken that step. So, if it was a good thing for Gay and Lesbian people to go serve in the military and be in harm's way overseas and Republicans made no effort to bring back those folks because they were homosexual and somehow shouldn't serve, then how could they now deny them their well-earned and deserved benefits? That's a great double-standard. They need to do some serious backtracking and pay them what they have earned. And every service member affected should go directly to the Republicans and remind them of that.

 

It was before my time, but my understanding is that during the draft, homosexuals were 4F's, and if they were found to be gay once in service, they were typically dishonorably discharged and that was during democrat and republican Presidencies.

 

Does this have anything to do with your claims about a requirement of procreation, or is this your effort to abandon that bull (*)(*)(*)(*) to move onto the next. No I don't think all men in prison or gay.

 

I'm not claiming there should be a requirement of procreation for marriage. Are you?

 

You were the one having a difficult time understanding that a homosexual couple cannot procreate.

 

homosexual couples can procreate. it just involves a third party.