Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
i hope this doesn't cause every teen to turn into a douchebag stonerJust like alcohol being legal has turned everyone in to drunkards, and smoking being legal has given everyone lung cancer.
pls ;-;
How many hours from now? :oCurrently it is 9:15 here in the Windy City. You're looking at another fourteen hours and fourty-five minutes.
Make it easy on mah tired mind.
hurrHere, just search for the Katakana symbols and then copy-paste them into the captcha.
did sega change the sign up process thinking “these damn gaijin need to get off our gaems” because i don't recall having any issues with it but suddenly everyone else isDoubtful, it was pretty damn easy.
but that doesnt even matter on the internetMaybe not, but we were dating. So it was very bad. We got together after he dealt with some stuff of his own but it didn't work out because of how badly I was hurt. He is nice, don't get me wrong - remember it was a big bomb to drop. He thought I was biologically female up until that point. We're friends now and I don't blame him for what happened.
why was that thread even made againWay back when ARES was the source of stuffposting (as if such a thing was to be extremely ashamed of) Comr4de and I disagreed about how it should be handled or something. I guess when he rebooted ARES he kicked me from the clan as our relationship was bad even prior to that, and we just started hating each other. So he made that topic and it backfired because people like me or something I guess.
Sue is dusty12? I'm so confused. I thought Sue was comr4des wife in rl...oh my god this topic is gold you guys should go back and read it for nostalgia
All because it was done without religious ceremony doesn't mean it's not religiously endorsed.Yeah, it does. No deity or religion is mentioned when they perform the ceremony. It's entirely irreligious.
How are they entitled to those benefits? The government pays couples to have children, since governments love population growth. Why should they have to pay gay couples to have children when they biologically cannot give the government what they're paying for?At this point I'm convinced you're either a moron or are just like what my friends said - an attention whore who keeps repeating the same illogical stuff so people will focus on her.
Right to benefits while married:All of these are about procreation, obviously.
employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)
sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits
Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:
veteran's disability
Supplemental Security Income
disability payments for federal employees
Medicaid
property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
wages of an employee working for one's spouse are exempt from federal unemployment tax[3]
Joint and family-related rights:
joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
domestic violence intervention
access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
Court notice of probate proceedings
Domestic violence protection orders
Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
Funeral and bereavement leave
Joint adoption and foster care
Joint tax filing
Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
Legal status with stepchildren
Making spousal medical decisions
Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
Right of survivorship of custodial trust
Right to change surname upon marriage
Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
Right to inheritance of property
Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
For those divorced or widowed, the right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:
Social Security pension
veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
survivor benefits for federal employees
survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
$100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse
continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances
payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts
That's what I've been saying. Christian principles are ingrained in our culture and inevitably affect the course of government. We are not fundamentalist, but to deny the Christian presence in our government is nothing but willing ignorance.I've never denied it, but it shouldn't be there. Lawmakers should be impartial and not think from a perspective of religion but what about what embodies America's ideals: liberty, freedom, and justice.
They HAVE all the same rights. Both a straight man and a gay man can marry a woman. Neither a straight nor a gay man can marry another man.Yeah, I'm convinced now. Great, you got me to argue...? You win...?
That's a marriage certificate issued by the state government, what does that have to do with with federal marriage?Did you miss the entire part of 'they were legally wed by a judge and thus there was no religious influence'? No pastor, no minister, no church, it was all performed by the state and state-appointed officials. This means the state performed the marriage. This means it is independent of religion. A 'civil marriage'.
If we changed nothing but calling civil unions "Marriages," it would change nothing at all.If we called civil unions what they are, it would change little. Radical religious people would still be pissed because homoloveual relations get any form of recognition whatsoever, and gay people wouldn't be labelled as 'offensive' or anything of the sort. The entire notion that you have to call something completely different because the thought of two people who love each other affirming that idea (along with getting the benefits they're due - in this case nothing to do with procreation) because it offends you is disgusting in of itself. Like you don't want them to be associated with the 'normal', 'non-deviant' people who get heteroloveual marriages.
Rescinding Christianity was a move to prevent conflict with the Ottoman empire. To assert that western government has no basis in Christianity is beyond foolish.I never claimed we don't have roots with Christianity - I claim that Christianity itself has no place and should not have a place in our government. Laws should not be made or shot down depending on how God would feel about them, or if they're blasphemous to any sort of religion. We are not a Christian nation, and like I said, the laws of religion do not matter and should not matter when it comes to government laws. We may have been founded with Christian principles but we were not founded on the Christian religion itself.
Federal marriage is simply the federal government's recognition and encouragement of a religious institution. A civil union is a strictly legal, secular affair that doesn't offer incentives to promote childbearing, since yknow, gay couples can't reproduce naturally.I have here, in my hand, a marriage certificate regarding the union of my parents in 1995. My mother and my father went down to the Cook County courthouse and were married there. There was no pastor, no religious ceremony, nothing of the sort. It was a government-performed and government-recognized union.
You can straw man my argument all you like, but the fact remains that there is a separate term for it because marriage is a religious institution. If you really want to posit a legitimate rebuttal, try coming up with reasons as to why gays require financial encouragement on behalf of the federal government to produce offspring, when homoloveual couples are biologically incapable of producing children on their own.See previous: it's not a religious institution if a non-religious organization and non-ordained 'minister' validates it in the eyes of the state. Marriage embodies far more than benefits and rights, it's also a very big social step. While I can understand removing benefits that are there solely for the encouragement of procreation, there's no need for a separate term for it.
The purpose of marriage has been to construct family units, since it's inception. In the Bible and the Quran, the whole reason for the unity between a man and a woman is to produce and raise offspring. Gay couples can't do that. There is no reason for gay couples to need marriage anyways, it's an indulgence of hedonistic behavior that wants legal recognition and recently, pines for free money from the federal reserve that they aren't entitled. It's disgusting that opposition to the degradation of an ancient and sacred tradition is equated to keeping blacks in chains or cooking hebrews in ovens. There is perfectly legitimate reason to distinguish between a sanctified, child-bearing union of two biologically capable individuals, and the partnership between two forgetbuddies with feelings for each other.This doesn't even deserve a response.
Do you even read what you post before you start screaming off in the name of justice? The Treaty of Tripoli is an agreement that neither states could go to war for religious reasons, and purported the government as non-fundamentalist. "Secular" isn't atheist. Secularism is being concerned with matters of the material before the immaterial, which nearly every post-renaissance government in the west has been.Yeah, I do - do you? 'As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion' is the thing of interest there. I agree I picked the wrong word there, and secular was what I was really aiming for. Sure, there are Christian principles, but this still isn't a Christian nation. The laws of Christianity do not apply to the federal government. No religious laws apply to the government, nor should they influence it. That's the point I was trying to make.
The fact that the President has to swear on a bible as part of the Oath to Office, and the fact that we've been observing the "National Day of Prayer" every year since 1798, is a testament to Christian principles ingrained in our society.
