• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pentagon moves to extend benefits to gay spouses

What the hell are you talking about?

Kids can pray all they want in schools. What schools cannot do is have authority led prayer or allow disruptive action by students.

You keep running from more and more of my points.

The fact that you are literally making up your own version of what amendments actually say suggests just how strong of a debater you are.

No, you just fail to read and comprehend what I am saying. That's fine. And I'm still not a homophobe.
 
Teacher led prayer in public school is unconstitutional. You do respect the constitution, don't you?

It is not unconstitutional by the actual language of the constitution. No more than apparently funding gays is.
 
Waste of tax dollars.

Wrong. The alternative being considered was to grant these benefits to service members' gay partners that were not even spouses since they were then legally barred from marriage. That would have been far more expensive.
 
It is not unconstitutional by the actual language of the constitution. No more than apparently funding gays is.

So you are ignorant of constitutional law. Got it.
 
No, you just fail to read and comprehend what I am saying. That's fine. And I'm still not a homophobe.

Translation: I have no response. So I'm going to blame it on you that I don't have the capacity to produce an argument.

You made up your own definition of the 1st amendment that results in religions that are entirely self centered to be able to argue that any taxes not spent on them is a violation of their civil rights. That is stupid.
You repetitively ignored how offering same sex benefits helped private companies hire and retain talent.
You argued that funding something some religions dislike is a violation of the 1st amendment and then proceeded to drop that entire argument when I pointed out how things you like do the same thing to other religions.

Dude, just leave the thread. This is already going down the toilet for you.
 
Wrong. The alternative being considered was to grant these benefits to service member's gay partners that were not even spouses since they were thhen legally barred from marriage. That would have been far more expensive.

Both are a waste of tax dollars.
 
Translation: I have no response. So I'm going to blame it on you that I don't have the capacity to produce an argument.

You made up your own definition of the 1st amendment that results in religions that are entirely self centered to be able to argue that any taxes not spent on them is a violation of their civil rights. That is stupid.
You repetitively ignored how offering same sex benefits helped private companies hire and retain talent.
You argued that funding something some religions dislike is a violation of the 1st amendment and then proceeded to drop that entire argument when I pointed out how things you like do the same thing to other religions.

Dude, just leave the thread. This is already going down the toilet for you.

Compared, not argued. Perhaps you should read it again.
 
Once again, I do not have homophobia.

Second, it is still a waste of tax dollars, and, one could argue, that it defies freedom of religion to force people to fund something they don't believe is moral according to their religion. It is offensive to certain religions to fund homosexuality, therefore the Government shouldn't be involved. Otherwise Religions shouldn't have restirctions on when they should speak.

To hell with those religions. The act of ensuring capital punishment is an immorality to the Catholics, but I wouldn't dream of them giving up that sovereignty to satisfy the religious.
 
It is not unconstitutional by the actual language of the constitution. No more than apparently funding gays is.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Public schools are an extension of the government. Having a government representative at an extension of the government lead a specific religious prayer is an establishment of religion by the state.

Just out of curiosity, do you think that teachers in Dearborn Michigan should be allowed to lead their classes in Muslim only prayers? Or that schools with heavily Indian immigrant students should have teachers leading them in Hindu prayers? Let's see just how deep your raging hypocrisy goes.
 
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Public schools are an extension of the government. Having a government representative at an extension of the government lead a specific religious prayer is an establishment of religion by the state.

Just out of curiosity, do you think that teachers in Dearborn Michigan should be allowed to lead their classes in Muslim only prayers? Or that schools with heavily Indian immigrant students should have teachers leading them in Hindu prayers? Let's see just how deep your raging hypocrisy goes.

Yes, I think they should be allowed to do that. And it says Congress shall make now law. I'm sorry but a teacher is neither congress, nor a law.
 
Compared, not argued. Perhaps you should read it again.

You still ran from it. As you ran from the rest of my arguments.

Do you always run from everything you cannot muster the maturity to admit you were wrong on?

You were wrong on the same sex benefits.
You are wrong on what the 1st amendment actually says and does.
 
You still ran from it. As you ran from the rest of my arguments.

Do you always run from everything you cannot muster the maturity to admit you were wrong on?

You were wrong on the same sex benefits.
You are wrong on what the 1st amendment actually says and does.

Actually you have yet to prove me wrong.
 
Yes, I think they should be allowed to do that. And it says Congress shall make now law. I'm sorry but a teacher is neither congress, nor a law.

O'rly?

You believe that a state teacher should be allowed to lead their classes in Muslim and Muslim only prayers during school hours at at school events? Excuse me if I don't believe you for a second.

I never said that a teacher is Congress or the law. I said that a teacher is a government representative. And thus, a government representative leading a prayer as a government Representative at a government event violates the 1st amendment of establishment of religion.
 
O'rly?

You believe that a state teacher should be allowed to lead their classes in Muslim and Muslim only prayers during school hours at at school events? Excuse me if I don't believe you for a second.

I never said that a teacher is Congress or the law. I said that a teacher is a government representative. And thus, a government representative leading a prayer as a government Representative at a government event violates the 1st amendment of establishment of religion.

It doesn't. It says we can't make a law to establish religion. Never says religion can't be practiced.
 
Actually you have yet to prove me wrong.

David, you're wrong.

Did that convince you?

Why do you think it will work on anyone else here?

The fact that you are constantly running away from arguments I make says way more than you simply declaring you're not wrong.
 
David, you're wrong.

Did that convince you?

Why do you think it will work on anyone else here?

The fact that you are constantly running away from arguments I make says way more than you simply declaring you're not wrong.

I haven't run away from anything. You compared private companies to a tax funded military. Apples and Oranges.
 
I haven't run away from anything.

O'rly?

Where is your rebuttal on the asinine logic I pointed out in your view of the 1st amendment where funding anything a religion doesn't like is an infringement?

It doesn't exist because you ran away

Where is your rebuttal on why offering same sex benefits to those in the military is bad?

It doesn't exist because you ran away

Where is your rebuttal on why we shouldn't remove all of the lists of items I gave that infringe upon religion?

It doesn't exist because you ran away

You compared private companies to a tax funded military. Apples and Oranges.

Calling it Apples to Oranges doesn't mean it's Apples to Oranges merely because you are entirely incapable of providing a rebuttal.
 
Wrong. The alternative being considered was to grant these benefits to service members' gay partners that were not even spouses since they were then legally barred from marriage. That would have been far more expensive.

But that itself doesn't make it a waster of tax dollars.

As AT&T and IBM showed (and as davidtaylorjr is desperately trying to avoid discussing) is that such benefits provided serious recruitment and retainment tools. Keeping the best and the brightest in the military is a clear benefit to the country. With many other competing jobs out there offering same sex benefits, the military should offer these to stay competitive.
 
Back
Top Bottom