Previous 21 - 30 Next
WHAT? Abortion was not even an option in the 1700's. Infant mortality was so high and the lack of children growing into adulthood was low that is part of why they had so many children. The Right to Life identified in the founding documents was not an anti-abortion stance. You have to be thick to think that.
They also ban atheists. For all the good BSA does, their closed minded stance is horrible.
In response to:

Conservatives and Gays

NewAgeOfReason Wrote: May 10, 2012 2:38 AM
if the rights and liberties are denied to one US Citizen then that is a travesty.
In response to:

Conservatives and Gays

NewAgeOfReason Wrote: May 10, 2012 2:36 AM
a married gay couple cannot file joint property in federal tax returns a married gay couple cannot claim federal spousal benefits if one, or both, are employed by the federal government a married gay couple cannot file their taxes as a married couple and take advantage of lower tax rates a married gay couple cannot provide spousal health insurance if employed by the government a married gay couple cannot provide health coverage for any children that are in the family if they are not blood relative. These are things that are automatically covered for a hetero married couple. Even if the gay couple were married in a state that recognizes same sex unions, they will not get the benefits listed above and thousands others, from a GAO report.
seeing how Camber is running away, I will go to bed as well.
didn't you not agree that the reason for change is that not all citizens are covered equally under law? That is THE reason for change as the law must apply equally to all citizens
aww I answered your challenge, when will you send me the car or where should I pick it up?
cute, trying to twist statements again. I said that federal law does not treat all citizens equally. Oh, and I live in Texas, where state law does not protect against employee discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity and that it schools can still legally teach "that homosexual conduct is not an acceptable lifestyle and is a criminal offense under §21.06 of the Penal Code" When can I pick up my car?
but you have agreed to that in the past, are you denying what you have already said. And please explain how the simple plan listed above would strip anyone of marriage? It covers all grounds between two legal consenting adults.
Camber, did you not notice that I said FEDERAL? I love your Texas Sharpshooting. It is the federal law that doesn't recognize a same sex union. Go look up 1 USC § 7 - DEFINITION OF “MARRIAGE” AND “SPOUSE” If a same sex couple is legally married in a state that allows same sex unions, the federal government doesn't. When should I expect to see you protesting in DC?
peaceman, I think you are letting Cambermeister get you all worked up for no reason. He has stated many times before that he would support the following: 1) going forward all the government does is acknowledge the contract of union between to legal, consenting adults 2) religious or secular organizations would handle the marriage part 3) all current legal marriages would be recognized under the new policy I think Camber likes to twist people's words, and try to get people all worked up.
Previous 21 - 30 Next