Comments
121 - 140 of 166 Comments Last updated May 19, 2013

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121
May 16, 2013
 
squishymama wrote:
We draw the line at two consenting unrelated adults.
Until society changes again and it gets redefined again.
Great, let's just keep changing the rules every time a vocal minority starts screaming about something. What's the point of having rules if we're just gonna constantly change them anyway?

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122
May 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

RedheadwGlasses wrote:
Just this week you didn't believe gays were lacking in rights .
Because they're not.

And Mimi was wrong. She said gays didn't get social security. How come no one called out on THAT collossal lie?

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#123
May 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Because your the only one who cant understand she was talking about spousal death benefits.
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Because they're not.
And Mimi was wrong. She said gays didn't get social security. How come no one called out on THAT collossal lie?

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

Tacoma, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124
May 16, 2013
 
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I have always "agreed" that two gay men don't get the same "benefits" (not to be confused with "rights"
What to your mind is the difference. Just so we don't "confuse" them.

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

Tacoma, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#125
May 16, 2013
 
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Because they're not.
And Mimi was wrong. She said gays didn't get social security. How come no one called out on THAT collossal lie?
SPOUSAL SURVIVOR BENEFITS. It's part of SS. If my spouse dies I could qualify for benefits on his social security record. Likewise he with mine. If it was a gay couple who are legally married in their state and one died, the other couldn't claim the same "benefits" from SS that I can because the feds don't give them equal spousal rights. You know, the same CIVIL RIGHTS that everyone else are allowed because we are all (supposed to be) created equal, at least according to the Founding Fathers.

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

Tacoma, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#126
May 16, 2013
 
So what do you guys (not edog tyvm) think? Wouldn't the equal access clause work here? I mean equal access to courts, schools, etc...wouldn't that include government services (like courts right?) like civil marriage and all of the benefits/rights that go with? I know someone way smarter about constitutional law (like pretty much any lawyer) has/is already looking at this. Just a random thought.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#127
May 16, 2013
 
Mimi Seattle wrote:
<quoted text>
What to your mind is the difference. Just so we don't "confuse" them.
If you really don't know, then it's no wonder you, and others, are screaming about inequality.

Just because certain privileges are given to some, doesn't mean EVERYBODY automatically qualifies for them too. If so, then I shouldn't have to pay taxes because religious groups don't have to. I could go on and on with examples.

Toj

“Equality”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#128
May 16, 2013
 
Mimi Seattle wrote:
So what do you guys (not edog tyvm) think? Wouldn't the equal access clause work here? I mean equal access to courts, schools, etc...wouldn't that include government services (like courts right?) like civil marriage and all of the benefits/rights that go with? I know someone way smarter about constitutional law (like pretty much any lawyer) has/is already looking at this. Just a random thought.
I think what needs to be done is the same thing that needed to be done when blacks finally received their civil rights. I don't see any difference between discrimination between minorities that because of skin color and/or heritage and gays b/c of their sexual orientation. They're all people, even if some people can't gasp that fact between a person and sheep.

Toj

“Equality”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#129
May 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
If you really don't know, then it's no wonder you, and others, are screaming about inequality.
Just because certain privileges are given to some, doesn't mean EVERYBODY automatically qualifies for them too. If so, then I shouldn't have to pay taxes because religious groups don't have to. I could go on and on with examples.
It applies to ALL religious groups that qualify.

Benefits to disabled people apply to all disabled people THAT QUALIFY.

What most Americans are saying is that the right to marry should apply to ALL ADULT PEOPLE. You have to qualify as a person. Not a cow, spider, donkey, etc.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#130
May 16, 2013
 
Another peek into the mind of dog....
He equates himself with a building
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
If you really don't know, then it's no wonder you, and others, are screaming about inequality.
Just because certain privileges are given to some, doesn't mean EVERYBODY automatically qualifies for them too. If so, then I shouldn't have to pay taxes because religious groups don't have to. I could go on and on with examples.

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131
May 16, 2013
 
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
If you really don't know, then it's no wonder you, and others, are screaming about inequality.
Just because certain privileges are given to some, doesn't mean EVERYBODY automatically qualifies for them too. If so, then I shouldn't have to pay taxes because religious groups don't have to. I could go on and on with examples.
All within certain demographics.

i.e.

Religious groups are GROUPS not individuals, if we allow tax exemption for one religion, we have to allow for all religions else it violates the first amendment establishment language.

Gay people, black people, white people, bi people, asexual people, etc, are all PEOPLE so what we allow for one group of people, we need to allow for all groups of people regardless of their skin color, sexual orientation, religion, etc. Discrimination is illegal, yet we seem to think (not me, but you and your ilk) that it's somehow all right to systematically discriminate against a certain group because we (again not me) think they are icky and feel uncomfortable.threatened with/around/by them. Otherwise it is hypocritical and simply wrong.

Horses, sheep = animals who can not enter into contracts; can not give informed consent.

Lamps = inanimate object...see above as pertains to animals, same thing.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#132
May 16, 2013
 
Mimi Seattle wrote:
So what do you guys (not edog tyvm) think? Wouldn't the equal access clause work here? I mean equal access to courts, schools, etc...wouldn't that include government services (like courts right?) like civil marriage and all of the benefits/rights that go with? I know someone way smarter about constitutional law (like pretty much any lawyer) has/is already looking at this. Just a random thought.
Yes,b ut only if we get DOMA repealed and pass gay marriage legislation at the federal level.

FOr instance, MN now has legal gay marriage (well, starting 8/1). But they still can't file their state income taxes as married/filing jointly, because you have to file your state taxes the same as you file federal (I don't know if that's a federal rule or a MN state rule), and they can't file jointly for federal taxes.

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#133
May 16, 2013
 
RedheadwGlasses wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes,b ut only if we get DOMA repealed and pass gay marriage legislation at the federal level.
FOr instance, MN now has legal gay marriage (well, starting 8/1). But they still can't file their state income taxes as married/filing jointly, because you have to file your state taxes the same as you file federal (I don't know if that's a federal rule or a MN state rule), and they can't file jointly for federal taxes.
Yeah I know, DOMA is the worst thing they ever did. I think it's probably not constitutional and will eventually be repealed. The government has no place putting religious moral standards into law, and that's exactly what DOMA is.

I never lived anywhere you had to file state taxes with federal taxes. <shrug> We filed them of course, just there was no rule that they had to be done together. Of course WA has no state income tax so it's not a thing here.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#134
May 16, 2013
 
Mimi Seattle wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah I know, DOMA is the worst thing they ever did. I think it's probably not constitutional and will eventually be repealed. The government has no place putting religious moral standards into law, and that's exactly what DOMA is.
I never lived anywhere you had to file state taxes with federal taxes. <shrug> We filed them of course, just there was no rule that they had to be done together. Of course WA has no state income tax so it's not a thing here.
WE don't have to file our taxes together here, but whatever form you use for federal, you have to use the state's version of that status for your state filing as well. So you can't file "Head of household" with federal" and then regular "married/jointly" with the state.

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

Tacoma, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#135
May 16, 2013
 
RedheadwGlasses wrote:
<quoted text>
WE don't have to file our taxes together here, but whatever form you use for federal, you have to use the state's version of that status for your state filing as well. So you can't file "Head of household" with federal" and then regular "married/jointly" with the state.
Oh ok gotcha. IIRC it works like that in all the other states I've lived in too. It would be so weird to go back to filing state income taxes after all these years. LOL

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#136
May 16, 2013
 
Mimi Seattle wrote:
so what we allow for one group of people, we need to allow for all groups of people regardless of their skin color, sexual orientation, religion, etc. Discrimination is illegal, yet we seem to think (not me, but you and your ilk) that it's somehow all right to systematically discriminate against a certain group because we (again not me) think they are icky and feel uncomfortable.threatened with/around/by them.
Hmmm... Too bad you don't think Christians should be able to exercise their rights... in public, I mean.... Christians make you feel uncomfortable? Threatened?

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#137
May 16, 2013
 
Pray tell,,,
What "Rights" cannot they exercise?
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm... Too bad you don't think Christians should be able to exercise their rights... in public, I mean.... Christians make you feel uncomfortable? Threatened?

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Braidwood, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#138
May 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

RACE wrote:
Pray tell,,,
What "Rights" cannot they exercise?
<quoted text>
Saying Merry Christmas, putting up a Nativity scene, having a Christmas play, caroling....

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#139
May 16, 2013
 
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Saying Merry Christmas, putting up a Nativity scene, having a Christmas play, caroling....
As we'v told you countless times, Christians (heck, and nonChristians) can do all of that. Just don't put a nativity scene on government property.

And I know plenty of public schools here who do include "real" christmas songs in their winter concerts.

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

Tacoma, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#140
May 16, 2013
 
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm... Too bad you don't think Christians should be able to exercise their rights... in public, I mean.... Christians make you feel uncomfortable? Threatened?
Christians can exercise ALL of their rights and in public too IMO. And, um, no they don't make me feel uncomfortable or threatened. I can talk to/hang out with/go to church related functions (pot lucks and such) with large groups of them and be perfectly at ease. I can do the same with Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Atheists, and so on. But then I'm special like that; I don't let something as superficial as a fairly tale come between me and someone who might be really cool to know. <shrug>

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

101 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min forks_make_us_fat 1,082,152
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 9 min Eric 68,396
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 21 min Terry rigsby 48,944
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 25 min Jacques from Ottawa 174,916
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 27 min truth-facts 45,824
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 38 min Uzi 68,045
last post wins! (Apr '13) 47 min Concerned_American 299
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 5 hr Mister Tonka 97,562
•••

Beach Hazards Statement for Cook County was issued at July 28 at 2:52PM CDT

•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••