Just heard...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Steinhauer said:
H.R. 3313 is exactly what I was referencing (I noticed you said "except DOMA").

DOMA is what I was referencing.

CURRENTLY, the legal definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. Just because the definition is being challenged, it does not change the current definition.
Click to expand...

Wrong. There are several states that now recognize marraige between same sex couples. Again with the homopobic semantics. They have a license, they have rights of survivorship, they have rights to be included in insurance coverage, they are raising children together, they are buying homes together, they are filing taxes jointly...look out! There might be a couple next door!
 
jillio said:
Nope. It has not been completely revoked, and should that happen, I have virtually no doubt that it will be passed eventually...just as don't ask, don't tell was repealed, and DOMA will no doubt be repealed in the very near future. The time for treating others who may be different from ourselves as second class citizens is long overdue to be abolished across the board.
Click to expand...


Oh really? What part WASNT revoked?
 
jillio said:
Wrong. There are several states that now recognize marraige between same sex couples. Again with the homopobic semantics. They have a license, they have rights of survivorship, they have rights to be included in insurance coverage, they are raising children together, they are buying homes together, they are filing taxes jointly...look out! There might be a couple next door!
Click to expand...

It is currently illegal according to DOMA.
 
TXgolfer said:
Oh really? What part WASNT revoked?
Click to expand...

Uh, all of it. They are attempting to revoke. But the fact of the matter is, if the religion of the chaplain allows for marraige ceremonies of same sex couples, the mitlitary cannot ban them from performing such at this point in time. And, you might be surprised at how many of those chaplains are actually far more humanitarian and loving than some of the parishioners I'm seeing.
 
Steinhauer said:
H.R. 3313 is exactly what I was referencing (I noticed you said "except DOMA").

DOMA is what I was referencing.

CURRENTLY, the legal definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. Just because the definition is being challenged, it does not change the current definition.
Click to expand...

No, H.R. 3313 never goes to senate and it was failed.
H.R. 3313 [108th]: Marriage Protection Act of 2004 (GovTrack.us)

DOMA won't be here for long time because I know that US Supreme Court will kill it.
 
jillio said:
DOMA's ass. That is in the process of being repealedl, as well. Like I said, nothing more than a bunch of homophobic semantics.
Click to expand...

So it hasn't been repealed yet? Hmmm ... then that must mean same sex marriages are currently illegal. :hmm:

Are you advocating criminal actions?
 
Gay marriage is legal in STATE level (only if state allows it) but not at FEDERAL level because of DOMA.

Currently, gay couples cannot file jointly with IRS but they can do it with state revenue department.
 
jillio said:
Uh, all of it. They are attempting to revoke. But the fact of the matter is, if the religion of the chaplain allows for marraige ceremonies of same sex couples, the mitlitary cannot ban them from performing such at this point in time.
Click to expand...
Yes, they can, and they did.

And, you might be surprised at how many of those chaplains are actually far more humanitarian and loving than some of the parishioners I'm seeing.
Click to expand...
You've seen the chaplains' parishioners? Which ones?
 
Steinhauer said:
So it hasn't been repealed yet? Hmmm ... then that must mean same sex marriages are currently illegal. :hmm:

Are you advocating criminal actions?
Click to expand...
Try to stay with the thread, Steinie. Again you are confused.

And, yes, same sex marraige is not illegal in all of the U.S.
 
Reba said:
Yes, they can, and they did.


You've seen the chaplains' parishioners? Which ones?
Click to expand...

Not these chaplain's parishoners. Just the parishoners I have recently observed.:cool2: That is why I said "the" and not "their". Try not to twist my words.
 
Just boggles my mind how someone can be so against two people who love each other, support each other, raise children together, and live their lives without harming another single soul legitimizing their relationship. Especially when it has virtually no effect on the ones objecting.

And this is love and tolerance?
 
jillio said:
And you are free to apply that to yourself, and yourself only. If anyone else feels the need to be saved from the eternal consequences of their behavior, they know where to seek it out. Otherwise, it is not for you nor any doctrine you can cite. That isn't your job.
Click to expand...
Not my job? Does something have to be one's job in order to post an opinion?

Their behavior may not be as damning as you seem to think it is when the final tally comes down. It may be those that attempted to present themselves as holier than thou that get the harshest judgement.
Click to expand...
All sin is damning without a Savior, and all sin can be forgiven with Him.

No one on earth is holy.
 
Reba said:
Not my job? Does something have to be one's job in order to post an opinion?


All sin is damning without a Savior, and all sin can be forgiven with Him.

No one on earth is holy.
Click to expand...

Again, Reba, according to you and whatever man in a pulpit you choose to listen to.

Now, leave your religion out of my thread.
 
jillio said:
Not these chaplain's parishoners. Just the parishoners I have recently observed.:cool2: That is why I said "the" and not "their". Try not to twist my words.
Click to expand...
You mentioned them in the same sentence, so I don't know what other parish would be referenced.

OK, not the chaplains' parishioners. My mistake.
 
Reba said:
You mentioned them in the same sentence, so I don't know what other parish would be referenced.

OK, not the chaplains' parishioners. My mistake.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was. But its okay.
 
jillio said:
Yeah, try to get a couple of gay guys arrested in a state where it is legal for them to be married.:laugh2:
Click to expand...

Why would I be trying to get anyone arrested? Or, is that your implication?

DOMA very clearly defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

I don't think anyone is claiming they are against two consenting adults being in a "union" if it is same sex. The definition of the word "marriage" is what is being contested.

Just boggles my mind how someone can be so against two people who love each other, support each other, raise children together, and live their lives without harming another single soul legitimizing their relationship. Especially when it has virtually no effect on the ones objecting.

And this is love and tolerance?
Click to expand...

So you would support allowing incestuous marriages as well?
 
jillio said:
Just boggles my mind how someone can be so against two people who love each other, support each other, raise children together, and live their lives without harming another single soul legitimizing their relationship. Especially when it has virtually no effect on the ones objecting.

And this is love and tolerance?
Click to expand...

It is so sad. I am not pointing fingers, and I understand both sides of the argument, but I have observed that religion divides people while spirituality doesn't. I just wish there is a meeting place where we can all just get along and love each other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top