Who Determines if Gays Can Marry?

Clarence Thomas:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-get-to-determine-whether-gay-people-can-marry,30684/

In a normal time this following article would be harder to believe than the first but these are not normal times. Queers will receive "back" pay from the military:

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/275971-service-members-discharged-under-dont-ask-dont-tell-to-receive-full-back-pay

By golly I do think nature in its doings made a mistake with the species of man.

For many hundreds of years the prevailing thought and practice was for people to seek a mate for companionship and procreation from the opposite gender (woman seek man/man seek woman).

That premise is under attack by those who seek their mates from among their own gender; IE: women seeking another woman and a man seeking another man. These people maintain it is natural or as nature intended.

There just may something to this claim. The current species of man has ancestors such as Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis, Homo Neanderthalis, and Homo Sapien.

Considering the long history of Homo’s perhaps nature did intend for the species to procreate and prosper with the mating of two males and/or two females.

Perhaps it may be time to change the name of the species from HUMAN to HOMAN!

Darth Cheney wrote:Clarence Thomas:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-get-to-determine-whether-gay-people-can-marry,30684/

In a normal time this following article would be harder to believe than the first but these are not normal times. Queers will receive "back" pay from the military:

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/275971-service-members-discharged-under-dont-ask-dont-tell-to-receive-full-back-pay

You do know what "The Onion" is, don't you?
It appears that the States are the ones deciding now, anyway. Minnesota the latest.

The headline in your 2nd part is very misleading. It refers to separation pay only (from your link):
"Federal law entitles service members to separation pay if they have been involuntarily and honorably discharged after completing at least six years of service, the ACLU said."

Did you disapprove of DADT?

I love it when people post "The Onion" without actually knowing.

Twinkies wrote:I love it when people post "The Onion" without actually knowing.

Liberals really are idiots aren't they? I am well aware of the Onion but posted their satire followed by real legislation passed...get it genius?

Twinkies wrote:I love it when people post "The Onion" without actually knowing.

I love it when libs come on this site and don't contribute anything.

BladeRunner wrote:

Twinkies wrote:I love it when people post "The Onion" without actually knowing.

I love it when libs come on this site and don't contribute anything.

I love it when Cons come on a site and troll the shit out of everyone, even people that agree with them.

Twinkies wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Twinkies wrote:I love it when people post "The Onion" without actually knowing.

I love it when libs come on this site and don't contribute anything.

I love it when Cons come on a site and troll the shit out of everyone, even people that agree with them.

I love it when liberal moderators of another site go to a different site to troll the people they banned of previous site. Then cry because they have no control of these people on new site.

Now, there's a real contribution to the topic, Blade.
Do you think those service men/women (at least 6 years) should have received their separation pay? Was it wrong to follow federal law in granting it?
IMO - the correct decision was made. Do you dispute that - or agree?

How about you, Darth. You started the topic. Any opinion on it?

Get over yourselves.

DADT was a load of shit because it was poorly construed policy and impossible to enforce. Thank you Bill Clinton (D).

That said it was the law and discharged gays under that law should not receive separation pay because they fraudulently signed enlistment papers stating they weren't homosexual.

In previous court cases where DADT was disallowed, the individual was allowed to re-enlist and finish serving. This should have been the proper and fair remedy.

However in the Parallel Universe, evidently the Rule of Law is just a bunch of high minded words tossed about for entertainment.

BladeRunner wrote:

Twinkies wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Twinkies wrote:I love it when people post "The Onion" without actually knowing.

I love it when libs come on this site and don't contribute anything.

I love it when Cons come on a site and troll the shit out of everyone, even people that agree with them.

I love it when liberal moderators of another site go to a different site to troll the people they banned of previous site. Then cry because they have no control of these people on new site.

Skeptical wrote:By golly I do think nature in its doings made a mistake with the species of man.

For many hundreds of years the prevailing thought and practice was for people to seek a mate for companionship and procreation from the opposite gender (woman seek man/man seek woman).

That premise is under attack by those who seek their mates from among their own gender; IE: women seeking another woman and a man seeking another man. These people maintain it is natural or as nature intended.

There just may something to this claim. The current species of man has ancestors such as Homo Erectus, Homo Habilis, Homo Neanderthalis, and Homo Sapien.

Considering the long history of Homo’s perhaps nature did intend for the species to procreate and prosper with the mating of two males and/or two females.

Perhaps it may be time to change the name of the species from HUMAN to HOMAN!

Your entire post post classified as sarcasm, then I guess we can agree that nothing is under attack.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:DADT was a load of shit because it was poorly construed policy and impossible to enforce. Thank you Bill Clinton (D).

That said it was the law and discharged gays under that law should not receive separation pay because they fraudulently signed enlistment papers stating they weren't homosexual.

In previous court cases where DADT was disallowed, the individual was allowed to re-enlist and finish serving. This should have been the proper and fair remedy.

However in the Parallel Universe, evidently the Rule of Law is just a bunch of high minded words tossed about for entertainment.

Bill Clinton even says it was a mistake and a poor policy. Good to see you agree that Obama did the right thing there. Should have been done years earlier.

According to the article in the opening post, they were given half the allotted separation pay. "a little bit pregnant" on the pentagon's part?

Your entire post post classified as sarcasm, then I guess we can agree that nothing is under attack..

You are wrong in your "guess".

The sarcasm applies only to

Perhaps it may be time to change the name of the species from HUMAN to HOMAN!

And that should have been "HOMOMAN" not "HOMAN"

Do you think those service men/women (at least 6 years) should have received their separation pay? Was it wrong to follow federal law in granting it?
IMO - the correct decision was made. Do you dispute that - or agree?

How about you, Darth. You started the topic. Any opinion on it?

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Do you think those service men/women (at least 6 years) should have received their separation pay? Was it wrong to follow federal law in granting it?
IMO - the correct decision was made. Do you dispute that - or agree?

How about you, Darth. You started the topic. Any opinion on it?

I am still trying to figure out why you find monkeys having sex offensive.

Darth Cheney wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Do you think those service men/women (at least 6 years) should have received their separation pay? Was it wrong to follow federal law in granting it?
IMO - the correct decision was made. Do you dispute that - or agree?

How about you, Darth. You started the topic. Any opinion on it?

I am still trying to figure out why you find monkeys having sex offensive.

You must have me confused with someone else on the off-topic monkey deal. I never commented on that at all.

Now, back to the question above. Do you agree with the decision? You did start the topic.

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:Do you think those service men/women (at least 6 years) should have received their separation pay? Was it wrong to follow federal law in granting it?
IMO - the correct decision was made. Do you dispute that - or agree?

How about you, Darth. You started the topic. Any opinion on it?

I am still trying to figure out why you find monkeys having sex offensive.

You must have me confused with someone else on the off-topic monkey deal. I never commented on that at all.

Now, back to the question above. Do you agree with the decision? You did start the topic.

Nope, they didn't deserve a single cent. They joined the military knowing full well the DADT policy that was in place. If they couldn't live by these vague restrictions and keep their "strangeness" out of them performing their duties, tough. Military is about following orders and not pushing perverted lifestyles. I hope this clears everything up for you.