Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Falcon Horus]

You don't recall a year or so back, there was big public discussion regarding marriage between the same gender? It went to the SCOTUS and they sided with the people who wanted the change.

That's been exactly a year ago.

It's marriage -- why call it gay marriage, when it's just marriage. A contract, signed by both parties to love and to hold, in sickness and in health, until death (or divorce) parts them.

Hence the question, what's the difference between a "gay marriage" and a "straight marriage", other than the parties involved?
Cause I thought it was just a marriage.

They don't really count since women also see Urologists for urinary tract infections..

Only half count then...

Marshmallows!??

But if you stand too close to the fire, they'll melt.

And before you know it, you'll look like a Dali painting...

...you also have Uniforms to worry about.

I was under the impression uniforms were the same, apart from the dress uniforms I guess. But women can still choose pants or skirt.

[Annoyed]

That's been exactly a year ago.

It's marriage -- why call it gay marriage, when it's just marriage. A contract, signed by both parties to love and to hold, in sickness and in health, until death (or divorce) parts them.

Hence the question, what's the difference between a "gay marriage" and a "straight marriage", other than the parties involved?
Cause I thought it was just a marriage.

Prior to the changes in response to the people's petitioning the govt for redress of grievances, there was a clear legal difference between the two.

[aretood2]

They don't really count since women also see Urologists for urinary tract infections..

Not exactly...

A urologist is a physician who has specialized knowledge and skill regarding problems of the male and female urinary tract and the male reproductive organs.

Aren't gynecologists usually also obstetricians? Is there any real medical reason to have a specialist for male reproductive organs vs female reproductive organs? I think this is more the realm of science than anything else. To be honest, I would slate this in the "I need more information" category.

That's news to me on those other exceptions.. However, on the 'exercising your religion'.. I am all for it, when its
A) evenly applied and
B) doesn't cause safety issues (such as beards in the way of gas masks)..

http://www.hrmorning.com/court-no-be...ious-bias-law/

According the the courts, DC failed to prove that beards do cause safety issues. This is regarding Orthodox Christian fire fighters.

I have never had issues with LEGAL immigrants. Only illegal immigrants.. Where you getting that idea from?

If this is a case of me confusing you with Annoyed, then I apologize. But one of you did state that you wanted to limit legal immigration even to the point of stopping it all together awhile back on one of these threads.

IIRC the GOP didn't exist before the civil war. That was the WIGS..

No, that's just downright wrong. It was founded in 1854. Lincoln was a Republican president and the GOP was the major party in opposition to the democrats. See for yourself, straight out of the hourse's (or elephant's?) mouth

https://www.gop.com/history/

Read through each section. It was a rather fine and amazing party back then...until the Dixiecrats moved in and ruined everything, and now their spiritual grandchild Trump is giving it it's final blows.

Oh and back to the whole transgender in the military discussion..
Besides the whole PT and berthing thing, you also have Uniforms to worry about.
Do TG's wear the uniform of the gender they identify with or the one of their main sex?
DO they get the uniform allowance for that gender or the one they ID with???

That all seems rather trivial to me.

Hey garhkal, guess what... Transgenders will be able to openly serve in the US military as of july 1st.



Tolerance to the point of ignore -- how charming.

Maybe in order to stop having a palm permanently imbedded in my face, I should perhaps consider a temporary ignore.



No. We'll have to divide fair.
Half a table, two chairs and half a telly.

How dare you use the term "Transgenders" that is offensive and insensitive!

[Falcon Horus]

Prior to the changes in response to the people's petitioning the govt for redress of grievances, there was a clear legal difference between the two.

Do you mean "civil union" and "marriage"?

Here be the difference and why you could see LGBTQ would want marriage equality:

Civil Marriage v. Civil Unions
What’s the difference?
(Updated March 2014)

First, let's be clear. This discussion is about substance—not symbols. The human stakes are enormous. This document explains why civil marriage, and not civil unions, is the only way to make sure gay and lesbian couples have all of the same legal protections as other married couples.

Second, the discussion is about ending governmental discrimination against gay and lesbian families with respect to civil marriage and its legal protections and responsibilities—not about any religious rite of marriage. Every faith is and will remain free to set it s own rules about who can marry and on what terms.

Third, marriage is many things to many people. But it is also a legal institution in which governmental discrimination has no place. Let’s compare civil marriage as a legal institution to civil unions as a legal institution.

What is marriage?

Marriage is a unique legal status conferred by and recognized by governments the world over. It brings with it a host of reciprocal obligations, rights, and protections. Yet it is more than the sum of its legal parts. It is also a cultural institution. The word itself is a fundamental protection, conveying clearly that you and your life partner love each other, are united and belong by each other’s side. It represents the ultimate expression of love and commitment between two people and everyone understands that. No other word has that power, and no other word can provide that protection.

What is a civil union?

A civil union is a legal status created by the state of Vermont in 2000 and subsequently by the states of Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Illinois, Delaware and Hawaii. It provides legal protection to couples at the state law level, but omits federal protections as well as the dignity, clarity, security and power of the word “marriage.”

What are some of the limitations of civil unions?

Civil unions are different from marriage, and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the two institutions unequal. Here is a quick look at some of the most significant differences:

Portability:

Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes, but questions remain about how civil unions will be treated in other states since very few states have civil unions.

Ending a Civil Union:

If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident, provided that state recognizes the marriages of same-sex couples. But if states continue to disrespect civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than by establishing residency in a state that respects the civil union.

Federal Benefits:

According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,138 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring few (if any) of these critical legal protections.

Taxes & Public Benefits for the Family:

Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint federal/state programs.

Filling out forms:

Every day, we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married or single. People joined in a civil union don’t fit into either category. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit, but misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and carries potential serious criminal penalties.

Separate & Unequal -- Second-Class Status:

Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the fact that a civil union remains a separate status just for gay people represents real and powerful inequality. We’ve been down this road before in this country and should not kid ourselves that a separate institution just for gay people is a just solution here either. Our constitution requires legal equality for all. Including gay and lesbian couples within existing marriage laws is the fairest and simplest thing to do.

Source: www.glad.org

[aretood2]

Personally, this is where my Libertarian sympathies come into play. The government should have never used the term "marriage" ever, anywhere at all. It should have always been "Civil Unions" for everyone.

[Annoyed]

Ok, this is getting tiring. You are usually rather sharp, I don't get why you're not seeing my point.

I did not intend to discuss the issue; it's settled law at this point. The only reason I mentioned it is that the SCOtUS decision on the matter is a recent example of the government responding to "a petition for redress of grievances" by the people in a discussion with SR, where he asserted that we didn't have that right or that the government never listened to them.

Do you mean "civil union" and "marriage"?

Here be the difference and why you could see LGBTQ would want marriage equality:

Civil Marriage v. Civil Unions
What’s the difference?
(Updated March 2014)

First, let's be clear. This discussion is about substance—not symbols. The human stakes are enormous. This document explains why civil marriage, and not civil unions, is the only way to make sure gay and lesbian couples have all of the same legal protections as other married couples.

Second, the discussion is about ending governmental discrimination against gay and lesbian families with respect to civil marriage and its legal protections and responsibilities—not about any religious rite of marriage. Every faith is and will remain free to set it s own rules about who can marry and on what terms.

Third, marriage is many things to many people. But it is also a legal institution in which governmental discrimination has no place. Let’s compare civil marriage as a legal institution to civil unions as a legal institution.

What is marriage?

Marriage is a unique legal status conferred by and recognized by governments the world over. It brings with it a host of reciprocal obligations, rights, and protections. Yet it is more than the sum of its legal parts. It is also a cultural institution. The word itself is a fundamental protection, conveying clearly that you and your life partner love each other, are united and belong by each other’s side. It represents the ultimate expression of love and commitment between two people and everyone understands that. No other word has that power, and no other word can provide that protection.

What is a civil union?

A civil union is a legal status created by the state of Vermont in 2000 and subsequently by the states of Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Illinois, Delaware and Hawaii. It provides legal protection to couples at the state law level, but omits federal protections as well as the dignity, clarity, security and power of the word “marriage.”

What are some of the limitations of civil unions?

Civil unions are different from marriage, and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the two institutions unequal. Here is a quick look at some of the most significant differences:

Portability:

Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes, but questions remain about how civil unions will be treated in other states since very few states have civil unions.

Ending a Civil Union:

If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident, provided that state recognizes the marriages of same-sex couples. But if states continue to disrespect civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than by establishing residency in a state that respects the civil union.

Federal Benefits:

According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,138 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring few (if any) of these critical legal protections.

Taxes & Public Benefits for the Family:

Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint federal/state programs.

Filling out forms:

Every day, we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married or single. People joined in a civil union don’t fit into either category. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit, but misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and carries potential serious criminal penalties.

Separate & Unequal -- Second-Class Status:

Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the fact that a civil union remains a separate status just for gay people represents real and powerful inequality. We’ve been down this road before in this country and should not kid ourselves that a separate institution just for gay people is a just solution here either. Our constitution requires legal equality for all. Including gay and lesbian couples within existing marriage laws is the fairest and simplest thing to do.

Source: www.glad.org

[Annoyed]

Aren't gynecologists usually also obstetricians? Is there any real medical reason to have a specialist for male reproductive organs vs female reproductive organs? I think this is more the realm of science than anything else. To be honest, I would slate this in the "I need more information" category.

I rather suspect that women's reproductive systems justify a specialty field that is not needed for men because their systems are far more complex than ours

If this is a case of me confusing you with Annoyed, then I apologize. But one of you did state that you wanted to limit legal immigration even to the point of stopping it all together awhile back on one of these threads.

What I did say was this:

A: We should have zero tolerance for illegal immigration in any form. Proper "immigration reform" must include rounding up every person in this country illegally and immediately deport them to their country of origin, followed by locking our borders down to prevent recurrence of the problem. We have already gone down the "Path to citizenship/Amnesty deal back in 1986. Fat lot of good it did us, the problem is worse today than it was then.

B: LEGAL immigration levels should be set based upon the needs of our own nation's citizens, not the interests of big business. I believe the specific situation I was referring to is Microsoft's pushing the government to allow more H1B visas to be issued so that Microsoft could import cheap labor rather than paying decent wages to US workers. There is no shortage of qualified US workers for these programming jobs MS is looking to fill, in fact, there is a glut of workers available. MS simply wants to import cheap labor. That should not be permitted.

[aretood2]

I rather suspect that women's reproductive systems justify a specialty field that is not needed for men because their systems are far more complex than ours

That's my thinking too.

What I did say was this:

A: We should have zero tolerance for illegal immigration in any form. Proper "immigration reform" must include rounding up every person in this country illegally and immediately deport them to their country of origin, followed by locking our borders down to prevent recurrence of the problem. We have already gone down the "Path to citizenship/Amnesty deal back in 1986. Fat lot of good it did us, the problem is worse today than it was then.

It's the "all or nothing" mentality that I take issue with.

B: LEGAL immigration levels should be set based upon the needs of our own nation's citizens, not the interests of big business. I believe the specific situation I was referring to is Microsoft's pushing the government to allow more H1B visas to be issued so that Microsoft could import cheap labor rather than paying decent wages to US workers. There is no shortage of qualified US workers for these programming jobs MS is looking to fill, in fact, there is a glut of workers available. MS simply wants to import cheap labor. That should not be permitted.

I don't think the government should be making those decisions (Once again, the Libertarian in me). It should rather be an aspect of the free market. I'll take your Microsoft example...one of the rules for H1-B Visas is that employers have to pay the market value for their immigrant workers. If the average IT wage is 60,000 then they have to pay H1-B workers that amount or they end up getting in huge trouble with the government. Companies have to report the wages that guest workers have and then they also have to deal with audits. It's a closely monitored program. Companies that import workers also tend to hire workers. It would be easier to simply increase the monitoring of what they get paid and how much native workers get paid based on overall experience. Even adding a corporate tax if needed to insure that there is no direct wage based monetary incentive for getting h1-b visa workers.

Another issue here is that...well...goes back towards American educational system issues, a lot of foreign IT workers are simply better trained. India doesn't face the same problems that we face here when high school seniors in honor classes can't locate Egypt on the world map. Sure we could simply severely limit the program, and take all of these college graduates who had their high school diplomas gifted to them by "No Child Left Behind/Race To The Top/Common Core" but that would make us noncompetitive in the world market. Most schools don't offer programing as a class. Which means that American students don't really learn about it formally until they get to college/tech schools.

[garhkal]

OK... First of all.. If you weren't so wilfully ignorant on every subject you would be able to work out the answer to this question yourself.

I am not willfully ignorant. The rules as it stands (as pointed out to me elsewhere) are wrote that till the mil finalizes what the rules are, until someone HAS transitioned, they go by birth sex for their assignment. BUT we all know that people will push to get that changed. HENCE the bloody question you dolt.

Second.. If someone who identifies as a woman, looks like a woman, uses a female name and wears female clothing wears a uniform, which one do you think they're going to want to wear?

See above. Have they transitioned or are they pre-op but on hormones? Pre hormones but dressing the part to show their desire??

Why would someone who has transitioned from male to female want to wear a male uniform? Why would they get the allowance for the gender they no longer identify as?

If they have FULLY Transitioned.. THAT's the key point..

And what is a "main sex?" Do you mean the birth gender? The one they left when they transitioned? No one has ever referred to the pre-transition gender as the "main sex" apart from the people who want to hurt trans people. The kind of person who asks what their "real name" is. Or says things like "you're really a guy, right?

Yes, main sex = Birth sex. And even WITH transitioning, your DNA still shows you as that sex.. Hormones and getting snipped doesn't change that.

Are you one of those people?

Define 'those people'?

Go to a trans forum. There are plenty of them out there. Talk to the people. Find out why your ignorance is such a huge problem. Why people like you drive other human beings trying to live their lives the best they can to suicide. Why you make them afraid to be themselves. To even go outside in some cases.

Go talk to the people you're so quick to belittle and insult. To dehumanise by calling them "IT". Learn what it means for them to be able to express the gender they feel they are. Find out about their experiences of bigotry and hatred. Maybe then you'll understand why questions like make absolutely no sense at all. And shouldn't need to be asked.

MY feelings show that i am a rich successful basketball player who should be adoored by all.. So should i be able to tell YOU, that this is how you must regard me as now??
\That is why a lot of people are resistant to all this..

But if you stand too close to the fire, they'll melt.

And before you know it, you'll look like a Dali painting...

Never really been in to art, so have no idea who Dali is..

I was under the impression uniforms were the same, apart from the dress uniforms I guess. But women can still choose pants or skirt.

Nope. For the navy at least, gals have regular clothes (inc pants) as well as alternates with skirts, different hats, as well as their dress uniform variations..

http://www.hrmorning.com/court-no-be...ious-bias-law/

According the the courts, DC failed to prove that beards do cause safety issues. This is regarding Orthodox Christian fire fighters.

That's funny. Knowing several fire fighters and cops, they DO sa there is an issue, as the seal can't be properly achieved... Plus the bigger the beard, the Easier it is for someone say in a protest march/riot, to grab it and contort your head around.. Same with long hair..

If this is a case of me confusing you with Annoyed, then I apologize. But one of you did state that you wanted to limit legal immigration even to the point of stopping it all together awhile back on one of these threads.

Limit those coming in from muslim nations till they can be vetted properly, sure.. I'd also think its a good idea to put a lessening on the # of work visas we issue, till we can get more of our OWN population to work..

No, that's just downright wrong. It was founded in 1854. Lincoln was a Republican president and the GOP was the major party in opposition to the democrats. See for yourself, straight out of the hourse's (or elephant's?) mouth

I stand corrected then..

[Annoyed]

Another issue here is that...well...goes back towards American educational system issues, a lot of foreign IT workers are simply better trained. India doesn't face the same problems that we face here when high school seniors in honor classes can't locate Egypt on the world map. Sure we could simply severely limit the program, and take all of these college graduates who had their high school diplomas gifted to them by "No Child Left Behind/Race To The Top/Common Core" but that would make us noncompetitive in the world market. Most schools don't offer programing as a class. Which means that American students don't really learn about it formally until they get to college/tech schools.

Well, considering that thanks to the power of the education unions, the Democrats have been running the schools for decades now, I think we know how to fix the schools. Stop teaching all the politically correct, pro-liberal social crap and start teaching skills and courses that will enable the students to be able to earn their way in the world.
Best way that I can see to do this is twofold; 1: Break every public employee union and break them hard, removing them from the political process and 2: Return schools to LOCAL control, not kowtowing to the demands of the federal government as they do today.

[Falcon Horus]

Ok, this is getting tiring. You are usually rather sharp, I don't get why you're not seeing my point.

I'm not entirely sure that's aimed at me, but all I'm saying is why are we still calling it gay marriage? It's just marriage. A union between two people, like so many before and so many after. Just name it, cause gay marriage is just the same as straight marriage.

I just find it weird to refer to it as gay marriage when in fact it's just marriage. Although marriage is never just marriage. It requires a lot of work and mutual respect, and love and work, and occasionally a good disagreement. And it involves couples who want to commit, and of course, let's not forget the legal stuff and the benefits.

I am not willfully ignorant.

Occasionally, you are willfully ignorant. Just saying...

Yes, main sex = Birth sex. And even WITH transitioning, your DNA still shows you as that sex.. Hormones and getting snipped doesn't change that.

Like now.

Define 'those people'?

Transphobe, bigot, racist, homophobe, willfully ignorant... take your pick.

MY feelings show that i am a rich successful basketball player who should be adoored by all.. So should i be able to tell YOU, that this is how you must regard me as now??
\That is why a lot of people are resistant to all this..

And now.

Never really been in to art, so have no idea who Dali is..

- That explains a lot.

The Persistence of Memory - Salvador Dali

Plus the bigger the beard, the Easier it is for someone say in a protest march/riot, to grab it and contort your head around.. Same with long hair..

You can call it what you want, but that hurts... like damn hard, when somebody yanks the hair (or beard).

Limit those coming in from muslim nations till they can be vetted properly, sure..

Xenophobe, islamophobe...

[Annoyed]

I'm not entirely sure that's aimed at me, but all I'm saying is why are we still calling it gay marriage? It's just marriage. A union between two people, like so many before and so many after. Just name it, cause gay marriage is just the same as straight marriage.

I just find it weird to refer to it as gay marriage when in fact it's just marriage. Although marriage is never just marriage. It requires a lot of work and mutual respect, and love and work, and occasionally a good disagreement. And it involves couples who want to commit, and of course, let's not forget the legal stuff and the benefits.

Ok, one more time.
I was having a discussion w/SR about the US citizens having the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. He maintained that it never did any good. I was using the recent expansion of the legal definition of marriage after the SCOTUS decision last year as an example of where the government did respond to people's demands.
If I written "the SCOTUS decision making marriage legal" it would have been confusing, as marriage in general had already been seen as legit. I was specifically referring to the SCOTUS changing the legal status by specifying gay marriage, because that is what was changed, legal-status wise.

[Falcon Horus]

So, from then on, or now on you shall refer to it as marriage?

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

So, from then on, or now on you shall refer to it as marriage?

He'll reset again overnight and go back to being strongly against it..

[jelgate]

We are one step closer for me marrying bacon