“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Chicago, IL

#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

#122 May 16, 2013
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!

#123 May 16, 2013
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

Location hidden

#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

Location hidden

#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

Location hidden

#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

#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

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#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

“Where is Everyone?”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#129 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.
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!

#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

Location hidden

#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

#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

Location hidden

#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

#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

Location hidden

#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

Wilmington, IL

#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!

#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

Wilmington, IL

#138 May 16, 2013
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

#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

Location hidden

#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:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min No Surprize 1,144,158
EverGreen Belgrade 12 min servonazis 15
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Jacques Ottawa 180,935
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Earthling-1 48,587
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 2 hr TRD 68,795
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 3 hr JOEL 70,617
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 4 hr j_m_w 98,695
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 10:17 am PST

Bleacher Report10:17AM
Bears' Conte Evaluated for Concussion
Bleacher Report10:35 AM
Calvin Johnson Makes Great Catch Between 2 Bears Defenders for 25-Yard TD
NBC Sports10:52 AM
Bears banged up on defense, Detroit takes advantage
Bleacher Report10:53 AM
Cornelius Washington Injury: Updates on Bears DE's Chest and Return
NBC Sports11:17 AM
Lions' Johnson fastest to 10,000 yards receiving - NBC Sports