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

True, but dixon doesn't want to acknowledge that fact. He seems to think "if you're a homo, you can't have babies!!!'

 

Sure I do. YOU people cant come to acknowledge that this isnt the homosexual couple procreating and it is instead ONE of the homosexual couple and a third party procreating.

- - - Updated - - -

Thats not the homosexual couple procreating. Thtas the third party and ONE OF the homosexual couple procreating.

 

No one has. Its the strawman YOU created.

 

LOL. You said "You people".



- - - Updated - - -

Everyone here recognizes that, Dix. Nothing to throw a hissy fit over.

 

I understand that. But I am not talking about old times, I am talking about now and within the last few years or so. Today, we have a Big Problem with the GOP, not the Democrats, that have effectively denied Gay veterans Equal Benefits due to them and their same-sex spouses that they are most certainly entitled to by virtue of the fact that they proudly served their country just like their Heterosexual counterparts therefore, they deserve no less. As a citizen, I have a big problem with the GOP denying them those Equal benefits, as do many others.

 

Here I simply have to say It Doesn't Matter if they procreate or not as there are no laws requiring that before one can get legally married in any state that I'm aware of. What you should be happy about is that they are even considering procreating with a third party if that's what they really want to do, not that any law requires it just as it does not require it of any Straight, Heterosexual married couple and indeed many Straights do not ever have children. They just marry and enjoy their married life child-less. So, it is basically a Non-Issue that should not concern you and if it does then there is something wrong with your way of thinking.

 

I was responding to your post that began "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." so seems to me we were talking about old times.

I have a bigger problem with some of the benefits that are already being doled out moreso than I do that some more people aren't getting them too.

 

Some people.

 

So what?

 

You are the one making the BS claims, "so" you are full of (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

I hope you two are having fun. You look like you're having fun, Dix. Are you?

 

It isn't a BS claim, are homosexuals sterile?

You are just mad that you can't find anything that heterosexuals can do that homosexuals cannot.

We can breed, just like any other person could.

I am sorry we aren't fundamentally different in any way. But your prejudice is irrational. Demanding that homosexuals are sterile is a BS claim.

 

I never claimed there was anything heterosexuals can do that homosexuals cannot and instead plainly, clearly and repeatedly stated that homosexual COUPLES cannot procreate. Only heterosexual COUPLES have the potential of procreation.

 

Moderately amusing.

 

you have been playing, clearly and repeatedly wrong. Homosexual couples can reproduce. Sure they have to involve a third party, but as I said before, so what?

 

Thought so.

 

Thats not the couple procreating. That is at most ONE of the couple and a third party. If my dog and I hire a surrogate mother to impregnate with my sperm, my dog and I didnt procreate. I and the surrogate procreated.

 

Goalpost moving. While your statement is correct that is not what you and I were initially discussing:

[MENTION=39777]dixon76710[/MENTION] are you against fixing the 14th Amendment issue of giving 1138 Federal rights and benefits to married couples by denying gay couples those same rights?

 

Nope, Ive been consistant for years. Homosexual couples and any couple made up of two people of the same sex cannot procreate.

Not a single marriage law on the books that as much as even mentions sexual orientation, let alone denying gay couples ANYTHING. That is until these court decisions came along adding to the common law, stating that only excluding gay couples from marriage is a violation of the constitution.

 

Are you asserting that gays have been allowed to marry and collect the same 1138 Federal rights and benefits that straight couples have had all this time?

 

Whether a couple can procreate is irrelevant to whether a couple can get a marriage license.

 

Agreed, but it's one of the many arguments anti-gay people have brought up to disallow the Federal rights and benefits of marriage to gays.

 

Im sure there are 10s of thousands that do. Almost every gay man I know, has been married to a woman in the past. No law even concerns itself with the sexual orientation of the parties.

 

Yes it is irrelevant to whether A couple can procreate. Still, the limitation to men and women is because only men and women have the potential of procreation. Its a classification of people. The law is full of them. Not necessarily selected for their precision, but instead for their ease in identification. It is impossible to determine with any accuracy, which couples will procreate. But it is certain that all who do will be exclusively couples made up of a man and a woman. Its easy to detect the inclusion of both a man and a woman.

 

Again, so what? Lots of people do it that way. and yeah it is the couple procreating. The surrogate is only involved to carry the child.