Good news for same sex partners

Status
Not open for further replies.
Foxrac said:
Well, you are not gay or bisexual so I don't see your opinion as valuable as gay/bisexual. It is just straight people are taking control of gay people's life and treat us as second class citizen.

The include homosexual couples as relative in deportation cases are good because it is fair as heterosexual, and you need give a set of example about why it is bad taste.
Click to expand...

Or I can just agree to disagree.
 
TXgolfer said:
That is not true. If you read the article again you will see that homosexual couples are treated as relatives rather than couples, so there is a difference. Also heterosexual couples are given consideration as a matter of law, whereas homosexual couples are given consideration as relatives as a matter of executive order. Most likely the validity of that executive order, and the President's authority to make it will be decided in court.

But, good luck.
Click to expand...

Oh really, thank you for have a set of example.

There is a problem that I found.
Married Gay Couple Faces Deportation | NBC Bay Area
Lesbian married in the US faces deportation to Pakistan | Gay Star News

Does change the policy to include as relative, will resolve the deportation in couple links?
 
Foxrac said:
I don't know about Steinhauer was point at who? He should mention exact member name.

I just want heterosexual people to understand about homosexual people instead of criticize them, put them in bad side, discrimination and mistreatment.

I expected some gay members willing to discuss in this thread, but it didn't happened. I'm only person that praised at government for change the policy that make fair for homosexual people, since rest of you drowned my thread down. I'm not interested to see repeated of other threads with all debate, argument, quibbling, bashing, etc over gay rights issues. I just want all anti-gay comments to out of thread.
Click to expand...

Foxrac, I meant, I thought YOU were attempting to pontificate your views. You mentioned you did not want any homophobic comments being made, anti-gay and said no religious discussion is allowed.

I can understand that there should not be any nasty hateful comments directed at homosexuals allowed anywhere. However, it appears you do not want anything "negative" stated about this new policy of Obama. the article you posted is VERY political, yet you are trying to say political discussion is not allowed either, and yet, you are the one bringing it up. You are attempting to "block" anything from being discussed if it is contrary to how you feel, or what you think is right.

That is what pontificate means. It is a form of bullying and is just as hateful and demeaning as anyone who would make a hateful comment about homosexuals. You can not win any arguments by employing that tactic. You will just make many enemies. I am saying this as a concerned AD member even though you think I am trying to "sabotage" your thread.

Really, I am not. No one should be prohibited from discussing how they feel about a certain subject, especially if it is a Constitutional right. it just means that those who would abuse their authority to prohibit others from their rights should be knocked out of their position ... correct?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr2679
 
Steinhauer said:
I wasn't trying to play games. I don't play games about religion. It is too sacred for me. I was just wondering why that is all. And no, I am not trying to bother you either, I just thought if you are going to make a statement that religious discussion is not allowed, that you could maybe explain why.
Click to expand...

Because God doesn't matter in this country anymore. We're no longer allowed to say The Pledge of Alliance" in school because we may offend someone (obviously not U.S. soldiers), Christmas is now reduced to "The C word," soon our money will no longer say "In God We Trust." ABC now forbids employees from wearing a U.S. flag on their lapel. I suspect it'll be a matter of time before "God Bless America" is banned because it's not sensitive enough. The sad reality, Steinhauer, is on this forum too, you can discuss penis size, sex, and just about everything else inappropriate, but there's no tolerance for God. It's now life in the U.S.

Laura
 
Steinhauer said:
Foxrac, I meant, I thought YOU were attempting to pontificate your views. You mentioned you did not want any homophobic comments being made, anti-gay and said no religious discussion is allowed.

I can understand that there should not be any nasty hateful comments directed at homosexuals allowed anywhere. However, it appears you do not want anything "negative" stated about this new policy of Obama. the article you posted is VERY political, yet you are trying to say political discussion is not allowed either, and yet, you are the one bringing it up. You are attempting to "block" anything from being discussed if it is contrary to how you feel, or what you think is right.

That is what pontificate means. It is a form of bullying and is just as hateful and demeaning as anyone who would make a hateful comment about homosexuals. You can not win any arguments by employing that tactic. You will just make many enemies. I am saying this as a concerned AD member even though you think I am trying to "sabotage" your thread.

Really, I am not. No one should be prohibited from discussing how they feel about a certain subject, especially if it is a Constitutional right. it just means that those who would abuse their authority to prohibit others from their rights should be knocked out of their position ... correct?

Veterans
Click to expand...

Excuse me, that's not true about how I was pontificate and the moderator, Naisho set own guideline about allow to use political words in limited way. I have no doubt that my thread has piece of politcal inside because some gay rights are subjecting to political, however I don't welcome you and other members who have serious critical views on homosexuality to post here, so I rather to see gay members or straight members who know about policy change, especially look at txgolfer's post and I think he made a good point because he thinks the policy change is bad for homosexual couples. I'm in middle of disputed about whichever policy change is good or bad.

I noticed that you always start politcal discussion in other threads too, so I'm not alone to brought it up.

Speaking about constitutional rights, Alldeaf forum is private forum, not government and you don't have constitutional protection, especially freedom of speech in this forum. Some original posters can restrict the discussion to specified topic, instead of generalized like in article. I'm just try to prevent this thread from getting out of control and getting locked up.

I created a new thread in same section about gay show and I remind members whoever oppose or have negative view on homosexuality, are not welcomed and asked them to not post.
 
Lau2046 said:
Because God doesn't matter in this country anymore. We're no longer allowed to say The Pledge of Alliance" in school because we may offend someone (obviously not U.S. soldiers), Christmas is now reduced to "The C word," soon our money will no longer say "In God We Trust." ABC now forbids employees from wearing a U.S. flag on their lapel. I suspect it'll be a matter of time before "God Bless America" is banned because it's not sensitive enough. The sad reality, Steinhauer, is on this forum too, you can discuss penis size, sex, and just about everything else inappropriate, but there's no tolerance for God. It's now life in the U.S.

Laura
Click to expand...

US soldiers - that's not true, not all US soldiers believe in the God and you are just silly, phobic person.

The religious discussion is off limit and not allowed in this forum.
 
Foxrac said:
US soldiers - that's not true, not all US soldiers believe in the God and you are just silly, phobic person.
Click to expand...
Laura didn't say the all US soldiers believe in God. She was referring to the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. She stated that she didn't think reciting the the pledge was offensive to American soldiers.
 
Reba said:
Laura didn't say the all US soldiers believe in God. She was referring to the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. She stated that she didn't think reciting the the pledge was offensive to American soldiers.
Click to expand...

Ok, the original definition of Pledge of Allegiance didn't include "God" until 1954.

I don't think that government will restrict the religions in their workplace, but private companies like ABC can, because our constitution protects liberty and freedom from government.
 
Foxrac said:
Ok, the original definition of Pledge of Allegiance didn't include "God" until 1954.

I don't think that government will restrict the religions in their workplace, but private companies like ABC can, because our constitution protects liberty and freedom from government.
Click to expand...

It's interesting how you keep discussing issues unrelated to "Your" thread. Yet when another member comments on any of your posts your rules do not apply.
 
Foxrac said:
Ok, the original definition of Pledge of Allegiance didn't include "God" until 1954.

I don't think that government will restrict the religions in their workplace, but private companies like ABC can, because our constitution protects liberty and freedom from government.
Click to expand...

It's interesting how you keep discussing issues unrelated to "Your" thread. Yet when another member comments on any of your posts the rules change to suit your views.
 
Foxrac said:
Ok, the original definition of Pledge of Allegiance didn't include "God" until 1954.
Click to expand...
I don't think that was the point but OK.

Some places already have quit saying the Pledge and flying the American flag because they were afraid people would be offended, and it wasn't for the "under God" reason. They actually believe that any reference to or symbol of loyalty to America isn't inclusive and might offend non-Americans. Sad.
 
impaired said:
It's interesting how you keep discussing issues unrelated to "Your" thread. Yet when another member comments on any of your posts your rules do not apply.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, my thread is already messed up because you and other members are too stubborn or refuse to respect my wish.

No doubt about my thread will get locked up soon and I have to answer the Reba's question.

Also, FYI, this thread is in GLBT Lounge, that's not subjecting to debate or criticize of homosexuality, however it will be different and less restrictive, if it is in on-topic debate section. Any negative or critical views on homosexuality in GLBT Lounge is strongly discouraged, also see LinuxGold's statement that sticky in section.
 
Reba said:
I don't think that was the point but OK.

Some places already have quit saying the Pledge and flying the American flag because they were afraid people would be offended, and it wasn't for the "under God" reason. They actually believe that any reference to or symbol of loyalty to America isn't inclusive and might offend non-Americans. Sad.
Click to expand...

Oh I see, the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't offend me, but have a serious questionnaire about revised definition that added in 1954, however it isn't my wish to debate about Pledge of Allegiance.

I noticed that Pledge of Allegiance is commonly used in K-12 schools but non-existed at college level.
 
Foxrac said:
Oh I see, the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't offend me, but have a serious questionnaire about revised definition that added in 1954, however it isn't my wish to debate about Pledge of Allegiance.

I noticed that Pledge of Allegiance is commonly used in K-12 schools but non-existed at college level.
Click to expand...
Maybe because colleges don't have a home room period.
 
Steinhauer said:
Foxrac, I meant, I thought YOU were attempting to pontificate your views. You mentioned you did not want any homophobic comments being made, anti-gay and said no religious discussion is allowed.

I can understand that there should not be any nasty hateful comments directed at homosexuals allowed anywhere. However, it appears you do not want anything "negative" stated about this new policy of Obama. the article you posted is VERY political, yet you are trying to say political discussion is not allowed either, and yet, you are the one bringing it up. You are attempting to "block" anything from being discussed if it is contrary to how you feel, or what you think is right.

That is what pontificate means. It is a form of bullying and is just as hateful and demeaning as anyone who would make a hateful comment about homosexuals. You can not win any arguments by employing that tactic. You will just make many enemies. I am saying this as a concerned AD member even though you think I am trying to "sabotage" your thread.

Really, I am not. No one should be prohibited from discussing how they feel about a certain subject, especially if it is a Constitutional right. it just means that those who would abuse their authority to prohibit others from their rights should be knocked out of their position ... correct?

Veterans
Click to expand...

I forgot to mention.

This thread is in GLBT Lounge, that's not place to debate or criticize of homosexuality, unless it is in on-topic debate section. There is reason that why I rather to put in GLBT Lounge because I don't want turn my thread into vs. over homosexuality and the debate about homosexuality has served on purpose. If you don't like to discuss or not want to hear so you don't have go in this section, and this section is discuss about everything related to GLBT. You are expected to respect them instead of make negative or critical views on homosexuality. There is some exception, especially TXGolfer said it is bad policy because it will hurt homosexual couples - that's completely understandable and I didn't understand at first beginning about policy change was bad.

If you want make negative views on homosexuality so go to religious section or on-topic debate section, whichever you prefer, but it is strongly discouraged in GLBT Lounge.
 
Foxrac said:
Excuse me, my thread is already messed up because you and other members are too stubborn or refuse to respect my wish.

No doubt about my thread will get locked up soon and I have to answer the Reba's question.

Also, FYI, this thread is in GLBT Lounge, that's not subjecting to debate or criticize of homosexuality, however it will be different and less restrictive, if it is in on-topic debate section. Any negative or critical views on homosexuality in GLBT Lounge is strongly discouraged, also see LinuxGold's statement that sticky in section.
Click to expand...

Ok. One last try. Let's see if my guess of the topic is right.

From the article;

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Pelosi in a letter that she had ordered U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to notify its field offices "that the interpretation of the phrase 'family relationships' includes long-term, same-sex partners."


Can you elaborate on where specifically the phrase "family relationships" is used in policies that may be affected?

Note: My opinions are not stated herein.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top