Discharged for being gay, veterans face problems in re-enlisting
-
Con_Alma
I can assure that a bulletin board will not ever dictate my actions. You are pleased to ask of me anything and you are free to act do as you please. As am I.isadore;1033099 wrote:People like David Duke pour verbal poison into our political discourse with untold effect. Your arguments undermine the efforts for desireable goal of government sanctioned gay marriage. If I asked to Mr. Duke to desist, he would dismiss my efforts because he is a hard core racist bigot. If I asked you to desist there maybe a chance of success because you have claimed sympathy with gay rights agenda. Now we can find out what does lurk in your heart.
Just as my positions are not expected to change your opinions nor "lurkers" I can assure you your requests will have no impact on mine.
What lurks in my heart is the opposition to States sanctioning marriage from anyone. -
isadore"Things such as siblings and polygamy are societal cultural issues that the people decide through a variety of means.." People decide through a variety of means?
-
Con_AlmaBy repeating in the form of a question are you suggestion that people don't make these decisions through a variety of means?
-
isadore
well so much for an appeal to "the angels of your better nature." Those angels don't exist.Con_Alma;1033106 wrote:I can assure that a bulletin board will not ever dictate my actions. You are pleased to ask of me anything and you are free to act do as you please. As am I.
Just as my positions are not expected to change your opinions nor "lurkers" I can assure you your requests will have no impact on mine.
What lurks in my heart is the opposition to States sanctioning marriage from anyone. -
Con_Alma
Now that's an interesting comment to me. My angelic appeal is such that the it's efforts are focused on what I believe to be true and right with regards to the presence of States on this issue.isadore;1033123 wrote:well so much for an appeal to "the angels of your better nature." Those angels don't exist. -
isadore
We have a legal means on the books to restrict these actions. You wish to eliminate them which will of course allow them.Con_Alma;1033122 wrote:By repeating in the form of a question are you suggestion that people don't make these decisions through a variety of means? -
isadore“In 2009, the GAO prepared a new list which totaled about 1,100 federal benefits.
On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
and more....
Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well. “
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm -
isadore
When someone is shown the destructive effects of their actions or comments and they chose to continue them, they can not be described as having an angelic nature.Con_Alma;1033126 wrote:Now that's an interesting comment to me. My angelic appeal is such that the it's efforts are focused on what I believe to be true and right with regards to the presence of States on this issue. -
Con_Alma
Well, that didn't answer my question but I appreciate your willingness to continue to engage.isadore;1033128 wrote:We have a legal means on the books to restrict these actions. You wish to eliminate them which will of course allow them.
Allowing any action that would harm someone not able to protect themselves does not have be permitted by the elimination of the State from sanction marriage. It's not that difficult to understand...if you want to of course. -
Con_Alma
These concerns can easily be solved by the State not sanction marriage.isadore;1033132 wrote:...
Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well. “
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm -
Con_Alma
Oh, they can...if you also take into consideration the benefits of such actions and they are such that they show concern and sympathy for the plight of those not afford such benefits.isadore;1033135 wrote:When someone is shown the destructive effects of their actions or comments and they chose to continue them, they can not be described as having an angelic nature. -
isadore
According to you and a small coterie of extremist versus the mass of American people and both the intellectual and legal forces fighting over the issue of government sanctioned gay marriage.Con_Alma;1033137 wrote:These concerns can easily be solved by the State not sanction marriage. -
Con_Alma
Of course it's according to me. It's the only person I speak for.isadore;1033146 wrote:According to you ....
Benefits can be made to whomever we choose that we want them to in our society. A State sanctioning a marriage isn't required to do so. -
isadore
"afforded"? The only benefits are to the opponents of gay marriage. It is a quixotic effort and will only do evil to an admirable movement to extend basic right to gay couples.Con_Alma;1033138 wrote:Oh, they can...if you also take into consideration the benefits of such actions and they are such that they show concern and sympathy for the plight of those not afford such benefits. -
Con_Alma
Not true. There would definitely benefits to all people should the State no longer sanction marriages. Those benefits would no longer "only" be to certain people.isadore;1033155 wrote:"afforded"? The only benefits are to the opponents of gay marriage. It is a quixotic effort and will only do evil to an admirable movement to extend basic right to gay couples. -
isadore
I am sure for much of what you say there is only your opinion and not much real support. Benefits and coverage will not be so easily granted. We have a system, it is widely accepted. The major complaint is the denial of the basic right to gays. Which millions are fighting for and you are trying to subvert.Con_Alma;1033150 wrote:Of course it's according to me. It's the only person I speak for.
Benefits can be made to whomever we choose that we want them to in our society. A State sanctioning a marriage isn't required to do so. -
Con_Almaisadore;1033164 wrote:I am sure for much of what you say there is only your opinion and not much real support. Benefits and coverage will not be so easily granted. We have a system, it is widely accepted. The major complaint is the denial of the basic right to gays. Which millions are fighting for and you are trying to subvert.
I couldn't for the life of me determine what you were refering to with regards to eas of benefits. Maybe this is it. I'll expandforclarifiction.Con_Alma wrote:...
Ease with regards to benefits being granted has nothing to do with right and wrong in my mind. It's been my experience that the right thing to do is often the difficult thing. ...
My views were not matured based on ease of obtaining but rather what I believeto be right and wrong. That doesn't necessarily eqaute to methinking that ease of aquiring benefits wouldn't take place for all people should State sanctioningbe eliminated. I think it can be.
My appologies if that wasn't more clear at the original timeI offered it. -
isadore
The mass of people in our country want government sanctioned marriage. They do not see getting a license as a denial of their right, any more than they see registering as a denial of right to vote. And rightfully they see that its abolition will end up denying them many benefits no matter with good reason. You say those benefits will be easily transferred YOU SEE THAT, better informed others do not.Con_Alma;1033159 wrote:Not true. There would definitely benefits to all people should the State no longer sanction marriages. Those benefits would no longer "only" be to certain people. -
Con_AlmaI have never said State sanction marriage is a denial of our rights. Where do you come up with such a thing from?
It is not necessary.
Providing benefits can be accomplished the same way without State sanction as with. The difference is that instead of a license a signed, notarized statement is created.
What the masses want I encourage them to seek. God bless their efforts. Those efforts are not mine for there is no reason for the State to sanction such efforts.
Volume of peoples opinions does not always determine proper. Surely you can see that. We have a governmental system based on the fact that just because the majority deem something doesn't make it the right thing to do. -
isadore
How disingenuous, you bring your argument to this thread and inject it in a discussion of gay marriage.Con_Alma;1033167 wrote:I have not and am not seeking support for my opinions so there not being support doesn't surprise me at all.
Ease with regards to benefits being granted has nothing to do with right and wrong in my mind. It's been my experience that the right thing to do is often the difficult thing.
The equality of rights is provided to all by the elimination of State sanctioned marriage. That view doesn't come from what the major complaint is by others nor by the volume of people fighting for or against it.
I am oposed to State sanctioning for all people equally.
You do it here in order to win support for your point of view while diminishing support for gay marriage. If you want to advance your view start a thread here or on the serious business site advocating that position but do not diminish the effort for gay marriage.
A true advocate would let viewpoint stand on its own.
Oh and now it may be difficult to win benefits if government sanction was taken away, really.
Before it was
“These concerns can easily be solved by the State not sanction marriage. “ -
Con_AlmaAdvance my view? Lol. Nope. I am not an advocate. I contribute to many threads and sometimes those my contributions expand on the original topic or point.
I do NOT believe it will be difficult to "win" benefits. I believe it can be exactly the same as now with regards to making benefits available.
Yes, really.
This statement I have not changed my views on.
"These concerns can easily be solved by the State not sanction"ing" marriage." -
isadore
Permission from the State in the form of a license is nothing more than government control/intervention along with small revenue generation.”Con_Alma;1033173 wrote:I have never said State sanction marriage is a denial of our rights. Where do you come up with such a thing from?
It is not necessary.
Providing benefits can be accomplished the same way without State sanction as with. The difference is that instead of a license a signed, notarized statement is created.
What the masses want I encourage them to seek. God bless their efforts. Those efforts are not mine for there is no reason for the State to sanction such efforts.
Volume of peoples opinions does not always determine proper. Surely you can see that. We have a governmental system based on the fact that just because the majority deem something doesn't make it the right thing to do.
That would seem to be from your view a limit on a right.
As to the benefits accruing to couples in state sanctioned marriage, many will be much more difficult to acquire. Nowhere near as easy as you stated earlier, much nearer “It's been my experience that the right thing (in your opinion) to do is often the difficult thing.”
You see a struggle for basic rights by millions and you dismiss its goal as insignificant.
If you been around in 1860 I can hear you, the fight to end slavery is unimportant as long as any of us have to work -
Con_Alma"...Permission from the State in the form of a license is nothing more than government control/intervention along with small revenue generation.”
That would seem to be from your view a limit on a right...."
I did not include the invasion of personal rights at all with this sentiment. It does, however, has every thing to do with controlling and intervening. I don't know how to make it more clear.
"...As to the benefits accruing to couples in state sanctioned marriage, many will be much more difficult to acquire. Nowhere near as easy as you stated earlier,..."
It doesn't have to be. It canbe exactly the same as today. "X" benefits made availableto those who have signed an affidavte of marriage.
"...It's been my experience that the right thing (in your opinion) to do is often the difficult thing.”
You see a struggle for basic rights by millions and you dismiss its goal as insignificant. ..."
Insignificant? Not at all but rather sad we feel the need for States to sanction our actions in this manner.
"If you been around in 1860 I can hear you, the fight to end slavery is unimportant as long as any of us have to work."
Unimportant? That's just silly. ...more like those things that are worthwhile are often very difficult to attain. -
isadore
I believe the benefits will be there for all contracted groups, I believe everyone will be happier. A nice stated basis for your attempt to undermine an institution that provides greater benefit of our society.Con_Alma;1033181 wrote:Advance my view? Lol. Nope. I am not an advocate. I contribute to many threads and sometimes those my contributions expand on the original topic or point.
I do NOT believe it will be difficult to "win" benefits. I believe it can be exactly the same as now with regards to making benefits available.
Yes, really.
This statement I have not changed my views on.
"These concerns can easily be solved by the State not sanction"ing" marriage."
. In this case your efforts do not on a topic, they dilute it.
“I am not an advocate.” LOL Well I am an advocate of government sanctioned marriage and I want to see the extension of that basic right to gay couples despite your efforts to undermine it -
Con_Alma"...I believe the benefits will be there for all contracted groups, I believe everyone will be happier. A nice stated basis for your attempt to undermine an institution that provides greater benefit of our society. ..."
Nice isn't my motivation. That which I believe is right, however, is.
". In this case your efforts do not on a topic, they dilute it...."
That maybe so but still worthy in my view to add at the time I added it.
"...“I am not an advocate.” LOL Well I am an advocate of government sanctioned marriage and I want to see the extension of that basic right to gay couples despite your efforts to undermine it ..."
I expected nothing less than your claim of advocacy. Why you felt the need to label me as such I don't know but it is interesting to me that you like to make such leaps. Fight on for your wishes. I will continue to add opinionated beliefs to a message board when I view an opportunity and have an interest in doing so.
I suspect you will as well but I don't know that to be true.