Re: SCOTUS strikes down DOMA

by Idéfix Fri Jun 28, 2013 2:04 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:

That is because you have a rather Utopian view of society. I am sure you would accept there was a huge incidence of fraud of among the H1B visa applications for a while and they were particularly concentrated from one section of applicants.

By one section, you mean Indians, to be specific Telugus! Yes, when demand was high. there were no takers when demand diminished i.e. past few years. But I fail to see the correlation with the topic at hand. Why would there be an abnormal surge of illegal marriages of bi-national same sex couple, even if we assume that there will be initially, will flatten out in a few years i.e. to the same proportions of illegal bi-national heterosexual marriages.

The difference is that there are no quotas for marriage based immigration.

And that is what makes the comparison to H1B visas nonsensical.

by Hellsangel Fri Jun 28, 2013 2:06 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:

That is because you have a rather Utopian view of society. I am sure you would accept there was a huge incidence of fraud of among the H1B visa applications for a while and they were particularly concentrated from one section of applicants.

By one section, you mean Indians, to be specific Telugus! Yes, when demand was high. there were no takers when demand diminished i.e. past few years. But I fail to see the correlation with the topic at hand. Why would there be an abnormal surge of illegal marriages of bi-national same sex couple, even if we assume that there will be initially, will flatten out in a few years i.e. to the same proportions of illegal bi-national heterosexual marriages.

The difference is that there are no quotas for marriage based immigration.
And that is what makes the comparison to H1B visas nonsensical.

Read carefully above - I said for a while (that was when the quota numbers were increased). It is easier to verify the validity of an employer than the bedroom habits of a couple. The quota numbers in case of marriage based immigration are unbounded.

by Hellsangel Fri Jun 28, 2013 2:19 pm

On a different note CD, why are you coming to grips with it instead of embracing it like other Liberals?

by Propagandhi711 Fri Jun 28, 2013 2:28 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:You can live in that Liberal Utopian cocoon, but this will be a natural fallout if they start accepting these applications. And you will see a disproportionately high incidence of fraud from 'gay' couples.
You are the one who is living in a world of weird, unfounded fears that even the defenders of DOMA did not bring up in court! We will see in a couple of years if the percentage of same-sex couples among applicants for immigration benefits is much higher than the percentage of all marriages in the US that are between same-sex partners.

Oh yes! Time will tell. And I was talking about fraud, not necessarily the percentage of gay couples applying for immigration benefits among all bi-national couples.

hey brazil, thailand, cuba etc, give us your trannies, ladyboys etc...they'll make some gay fellows in bay area, socal, connecticut, mass etc very happy and fulfilled

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Jun 28, 2013 2:48 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:You can live in that Liberal Utopian cocoon, but this will be a natural fallout if they start accepting these applications. And you will see a disproportionately high incidence of fraud from 'gay' couples.
You are the one who is living in a world of weird, unfounded fears that even the defenders of DOMA did not bring up in court! We will see in a couple of years if the percentage of same-sex couples among applicants for immigration benefits is much higher than the percentage of all marriages in the US that are between same-sex partners.

Oh yes! Time will tell. And I was talking about fraud, not necessarily the percentage of gay couples applying for immigration benefits among all bi-national couples.

hey brazil, thailand, cuba etc, give us your trannies, ladyboys etc...they'll make some gay fellows in bay area, socal, connecticut, mass etc very happy and fulfilled

what about the gay boyz in colorado, idaho, and florida?

i'd love to hear their opinions on the striking down of the DOMA. have they said anything?

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Jun 28, 2013 2:54 pm

apparently colorado boy has said something:

http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=13327&MediaType=1&Category=26

by Idéfix Fri Jun 28, 2013 2:57 pm

Ted Haggard used to say loudly and often that he was normal and that gay behavior was not normal.

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:06 pm

Idéfix wrote:Ted Haggard used to say loudly and often that he was normal and that gay behavior was not normal.

that's why when i hear the word "normal", it makes me want to chuckle. because he's not just normal, but "needless to say" normal; a platinum standard of normal.

ted haggard was the chairman of the national association of evangelicals and used to talk to the president every week.

by Hellsangel Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:12 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Idéfix wrote:Ted Haggard used to say loudly and often that he was normal and that gay behavior was not normal.

that's why when i hear the word "normal", it makes me want to chuckle. because he's not just normal, but "needless to say" normal; a platinum standard of normal.

ted haggard was the chairman of the national association of evangelicals and used to talk to the president every week.

I remember a certain Democratic Governor in the North East who called himself a 'Gay American' and then stepped down. This happened in a very Democratic state. I think the daughter of a certain Democratic politician from California did her best to rehabilitate him thru a biopic.

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:14 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Idéfix wrote:Ted Haggard used to say loudly and often that he was normal and that gay behavior was not normal.

that's why when i hear the word "normal", it makes me want to chuckle. because he's not just normal, but "needless to say" normal; a platinum standard of normal.

ted haggard was the chairman of the national association of evangelicals and used to talk to the president every week.

I remember a certain Governor in the North East who called himself a 'Gay American' and then stepped down. This happened in a very Democratic state.

sure but i doubt he ranted on about gay people and how it wasn't normal to be gay. in fact i just looked him up on wikipedia to see what he has been up to since his resignation. he is divorced from his wife who was denied alimony, has joint custody of their child and lives openly as a gay man with his partner. no hypocrisy there since the coming out. glad you reminded me of him.

by Hellsangel Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:23 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Idéfix wrote:Ted Haggard used to say loudly and often that he was normal and that gay behavior was not normal.

that's why when i hear the word "normal", it makes me want to chuckle. because he's not just normal, but "needless to say" normal; a platinum standard of normal.

ted haggard was the chairman of the national association of evangelicals and used to talk to the president every week.

I remember a certain Governor in the North East who called himself a 'Gay American' and then stepped down. This happened in a very Democratic state.

sure but i doubt he ranted on about gay people and how it wasn't normal to be gay. in fact i just looked him up on wikipedia to see what he has been up to since his resignation. he is divorced from his wife who was denied alimony, has joint custody of their child and lives openly as a gay man with his partner. no hypocrisy there since the coming out. glad you reminded me of him.

You mean there was hypocrisy before the coming out?

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:25 pm

Hellsangel wrote:

You mean there was hypocrisy before the coming out?

yes, but no more than a person who is having a heterosexual extramarital affair.

another point -- i think a comparison between ted haggard and the governor is ill-conceived. the governor is a democratic politician who was supportive of gay people to begin with. his story is a personal failing in a marriage. the homosexuality is incidental. ted haggard was a pastor of a major evengelical church, a national leader of evagelicals and politically connected within the republican party. people looked up to him as their moral compass and he preached to them that homosexuality was a sin. who is the greater hypocrite?

by Hellsangel Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:45 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:

You mean there was hypocrisy before the coming out?

yes, but no more than a person who is having a heterosexual extramarital affair.

another point -- i think a comparison between ted haggard and the governor is ill-conceived. the governor is a democratic politician who was supportive of gay people to begin with. his story is a personal failing in a marriage. the homosexuality is incidental. ted haggard was a pastor of a major evengelical church, a national leader of evagelicals and politically connected within the republican party. people looked up to him as their moral compass and he preached to them that homosexuality was a sin. who is the greater hypocrite?

I guess you have completed your additions and editions. Very nice to see your spirited defense when it comes to a Democratic politician. But then hypocrisy exists just as much if not more on the Democrats's side. We all have our Partisan preferences.

by MaxEntropy_Man Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:04 pm

Hellsangel wrote:But then hypocrisy exists just as much if not more on the Democrats's side. We all have our Partisan preferences.

let's see. you brought up jim mcgreevy. i just made some clarifications for you.

by Hellsangel Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:50 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:But then hypocrisy exists just as much if not more on the Democrats's side. We all have our Partisan preferences.

let's see. you brought up jim mcgreevy. i just made some clarifications for you.

Whatever!

by truthbetold Sat Jun 29, 2013 8:00 am

Gay marriage should be called civil union or any other fad name they ch
oose.
They should get.their civil rights.
But please do not call it marriage.
Marriage is an important social function of family. It gives the societal recognition of a new unit joining the community. Family is the most efficient way for human society to organize itself.

by Hellsangel Sat Jun 29, 2013 9:48 am

Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:But then hypocrisy exists just as much if not more on the Democrats's side. We all have our Partisan preferences.

let's see. you brought up jim mcgreevy. i just made some clarifications for you.

Whatever!

Just to elaborate, Il Professore, you seem to have quickly forgotten how you were jumping up and down that Mark Sanford was reelected. But that doesn't suit your narrative because he is a Republican.

by Idéfix Wed Jul 03, 2013 7:22 pm

Hellsangel wrote:Actually I am curious to see if they will even start accepting these applications.

Here is some good news for you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/us/gay-married-man-in-florida-is-approved-for-green-card.html

by Hellsangel Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:24 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Hellsangel wrote:Actually I am curious to see if they will even start accepting these applications.
Here is some good news for you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/us/gay-married-man-in-florida-is-approved-for-green-card.html

That news is a couple of days old now. Now let us see if there is a flood of these.

by Sponsored content