• 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!

New York to Become the Sixth State to Legalize Gay Marriage

Dr_Patrick said:
It's funny how some people are gung ho about state's rights until one of them goes a way that they don't agree with and then they are all about trampling on that state's rights.
Click to expand...

"I believe in State's rights, but if six states legalize gay-marriage, we must pass a Constitutional Amendment banning gay-marriage!!!!"


;)
 
Thunder said:
many companies in NY used to have a "no-Jew" policy.

do you think that is just, right, and fair?
Click to expand...

It's not fair, it should be legal.
 
ARealConservative said:
nonsense. rights that everyone agrees with doesn't need protection. The ones most in need of our protection are the controversial ones. This is a distinctly American concept.
Click to expand...

to bad the history of our whole country, amendments, rights and freedoms disagree with you LMAO
so you would be 100% wrong.
 
ARealConservative said:
the biggest effects will be on:

1 employers. If they provide any spousal coverage, they will be forced to offer coverage to gay spouses - even if it violates their individual views on the issue.

[snip, since someone addressed #2]

I really think #1 should be handled legislatively granting private sector employers the freedom to discriminate.
Click to expand...

Are you arguing this on the basis of morality, or cost increase, or both?
 
Centrist77 said:
to bad the history of our whole country, amendments, rights and freedoms disagree with you LMAO
so you would be 100% wrong.
Click to expand...

by history of this country - you mean everything after 1964. lmao
 
CriticalThought said:
Oh my God! That is one of the most hilarious things I have ever seen!

Is Christwire like Colbert or are they serious?
Click to expand...

They are definitely a joke site. I can't remember who it was, possibly MSNBC, but they ran a Christwire story and then later had to retract and got criticized for it because they didn't realize it was satire.
 
You know, there is a huge irony with this issue. Republicans are pushing the Defense of Marriage Act, which if passed, would deny the states the right to determine marriage for themselves. But I thought Republicans were in favor of states rights. But now comes the real irony. Liberals are pissed at Obama, who came out with a statement that marriage belongs to the states.



So, on the issue of states rights, at least where it comes to gay marriage, The Republican Party is way to the left of Obama, and Obama is actually more conservative than they are. Who would have thunk it? :rofl
 
danarhea said:
So, on the issue of states rights, at least where it comes to gay marriage, The Republican Party is way to the left of Obama, and Obama is actually more conservative than they are. Who would have thunk it? :rofl
Click to expand...

Honestly, when it comes to issues of civil rights, Federal law must trump State law.

However, I am not sure if marriage is a civil right.
 
Thunder said:
Honestly, when it comes to issues of civil rights, Federal law must trump State law.

However, I am not sure if marriage is a civil right.
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS ruled that it was.
 
ARealConservative said:
their rights deserve protection as well.
Click to expand...

What about the rights of employers when interracial marriage is against their beliefs? Don't their rights deserve the same protections? Or wouldn't we say that civil rights are more important than a person's right to discriminate?
 
ARealConservative said:
back at you.

the question was how this effects non homosexuals. I explained how it does.

a study about what happens in the next 10 years doesn't effect me however, so at least from my own perspective, your supporting evidence is a straw man.
Click to expand...

Then you must concede that every marriage affects this, not just same sex marriages. You cannot say that every married couple should be entitled to joint ownership of all money made within the marriage, which is why spouses have rights to SS claims upon their spouse's SS, and then make an exception of same sex couples just because they are the lastest types of couples to be allowed to enter into marriage contracts.
 
roguenuke said:
Then you must concede that every marriage affects this, not just same sex marriages. You cannot say that every married couple should be entitled to joint ownership of all money made within the marriage, which is why spouses have rights to SS claims upon their spouse's SS, and then make an exception of same sex couples just because they are the lastest types of couples to be allowed to enter into marriage contracts.
Click to expand...

Could you rephrase this? I was a little confused by your choice of wording.
 
DiAnna said:
lol, two things: First, I am really old. :mrgreen: Second, it won't happen as long as there is a 5-4 conservative majority on SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

Are you including Kennedy as a conservative? It is generally believed that Kennedy is a swing vote, known to take either side and has, in the past, generally voted for gay rights.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Could you rephrase this? I was a little confused by your choice of wording.
Click to expand...

Social Security is based upon a person paying so much to the government for their future retirement. SS privilege to spouses would be based on the fact that during a legal marriage, the money paid into SS is legally considered both spouses' money, not just the one who actually earned the money. This is why SS benefits are given to a spouse who did not earn the money that their SS is being based on, such as my grandmother. This is why it ticks me off when someone tries to say that spouses should not have a right to their spouse's SS benefits, despite the fact that the money that was paid into SS was legally considered theirs too at the time that it was paid in.
 
roguenuke said:
Social Security is based upon a person paying so much to the government for their future retirement. SS privilege to spouses would be based on the fact that during a legal marriage, the money paid into SS is legally considered both spouses' money, not just the one who actually earned the money. This is why SS benefits are given to a spouse who did not earn the money that their SS is being based on, such as my grandmother. This is why it ticks me off when someone tries to say that spouses should not have a right to their spouse's SS benefits, despite the fact that the money that was paid into SS was legally considered theirs too at the time that it was paid in.
Click to expand...

Okay, that makes sense. Totally behind you there.

It sounded like you were talking about making an exception for gay couples, since they only recently started getting the right to get married legally. That idea sounds silly to me, unless you generally pro-rate the ability of a spouse to get SS benefits based on the length of the marriage for all married couples.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Okay, that makes sense. Totally behind you there.

It sounded like you were talking about making an exception for gay couples, since they only recently started getting the right to get married legally. That idea sounds silly to me, unless you generally pro-rate the ability of a spouse to get SS benefits based on the length of the marriage for all married couples.
Click to expand...

Sorry, no. It sounded to me like the person who mentioned SS benefits and how same sex couples getting married would increase how much the government was paying out due to that increase in people who are eligible to claim SS spousal benefits was saying that same sex couples should not be allowed that privilege as well. At the very least, I believe he was saying that no spouse should be allowed such privilege. I have put this a couple of times in other threads showing exactly what the reasoning is for why we have spousal privilege concerning SS to begin with.
 
roguenuke said:
Sorry, no. It sounded to me like the person who mentioned SS benefits and how same sex couples getting married would increase how much the government was paying out due to that increase in people who are eligible to claim SS spousal benefits was saying that same sex couples should not be allowed that privilege as well. At the very least, I believe he was saying that no spouse should be allowed such privilege. I have put this a couple of times in other threads showing exactly what the reasoning is for why we have spousal privilege concerning SS to begin with.
Click to expand...

you would be incorrect. I was stating factually what would change without giving an opinion.
 
Councilman said:
What is next, a new twist on puppy love? Oh wait there was the guy in Washington State who was caught doing a horse little more than a year ago.

Is that coming to a court near you?

We do have NABLA out there wanting to have sex with kids.



The Governor said he'll sign it now so that's a done deal.
Click to expand...


I would not worry about this to much......There are 41 states that have amendments defining marriage as being between a man and a women....Iowas legislators voted for same sex marriage and the people that did it were all voted out in 2010....The same thing will happen in NY.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom