• 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

winston53660 said:
And your unsupported claims are just that, unsupported.:yawn:
Click to expand...

your claims are also unsupported. it is people speculating about the future in a way they can't possible support.
 
winston53660 said:
:yawn: whatever floats your boat. plonk.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...


You made an unsubstantiated projection into the future, that's all.

And so far researched educated projections have disagreed with you.
 
Last edited:
Question: why should religious instititions and religious affiliatted groups and non-profits, be able to discriminate against gays, but not everybody else?

what if a regular band doesn't want to play at a gay-wedding?

what if a regular wedding hall doesn't want to host a gay wedding?

what if a private employer doesn't want to give pension and other beneficiary rights to gay couples?

why should religious groups have the right to live by their moral views, but not other folks?

(devil's advocate asks: should a wedding hall be allowed to refuse to serve an inter-racial wedding? hmmmm.....this is gonna bring up some serious issues of freedom of speech and association)
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
You made an unsubstantiated projection into the future, that's all.

And so far researched educated projections have disagreed with you.
Click to expand...

but it didn't disagree with me. I don't really worry about the increased cost outlays in the next 10 years. When I mentioned how this effect us, I was focused on a longer window of time then 10 years. So now that I addressed the reason that study has no bearings on my concern, we can move on.
 
Thunder said:
I now live in a state that allows gay marriage. Please, explain to me how my life will be negatively impacted by this.
Click to expand...

I already stated the two things it effects. whether it negatively impacts you, entirely depends on your core beliefs.
 
ARealConservative said:
individuals that can't discriminate based on their core beliefs is a loss of a right - merely one not currently recognized by the courts.
Click to expand...

Yes, discrimination needs to be a constitutional right. We need to lynch blacks who want to vote, restore separate but equal, force women to stay at home, barefoot and pregnant, and more importantly, not voting, throw all the mentally handicapped into institutions, like we did in the 1800's, ban marriages between different races, deport all the Jews, send all the blacks back to Africa, and execute all teenage loose women. Yes, you are right, and I see the logic of it all. :mrgreen:
 
danarhea said:
Yes, discrimination needs to be a constitutional right. We need to lynch blacks who want to vote, restore separate but equal, force women to stay at home, barefoot and pregnant, and more importantly, not voting, throw all the mentally handicapped into institutions, like we did in the 1800's, ban marriages between different races, deport all the Jews, send all the blacks back to Africa, and execute all teenage loose women. Yes, you are right, and I see the logic of it all. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

the so called ex conservative with his appeals based on emotion.

things such as who you hire, who you work for, who you buy a car from, who you have dinner with - all come with various types of discrimination.

when government forces you to stop discriminating based on your core beliefs, it is a loss of a right. this is true regardless of where you fall on the class warfare divide that you so eagerly embrace.
 
ARealConservative said:
the so called ex conservative with his appeals based on emotion.

things such as who you hire, who you work for, who you buy a car from, who you have dinner with - all come with various types of discrimination.

when government forces you to stop discriminating based on your core beliefs, it is a loss of a right. this is true regardless of where you fall on the class warfare divide that you so eagerly embrace.
Click to expand...

When government forces you to stop discriminating, blacks are able to vote, women are able to work, and the handicapped are able to live fruitful lives. What's so hard to understand about that?
 
danarhea said:
When government forces you to stop discriminating, blacks are able to vote, women are able to work, and the handicapped are able to live fruitful lives. What's so hard to understand about that?
Click to expand...

black voting is a straw man - it has no bearing on individual discrimination, it is a government function.
 
ARealConservative said:
when government forces you to stop discriminating based on your core beliefs, it is a loss of a right. this is true regardless of where you fall on the class warfare divide that you so eagerly embrace.
Click to expand...

In conservative speak wouldn't it be loss of a "privilege" since it isn't enumerated in the Constitution?
 
ARealConservative said:
black voting is a straw man - it has no bearing on individual discrimination, it is a government function.
Click to expand...

It was a government function, supported by and carried out by individuals who had a core belief.
 
CriticalThought said:
Are you suggesting that a marriage license isn't a government function?
Click to expand...

not at all. we are discussing fall out from the fact that government is involved in marriage.

the question was asked how this rule change even effects non gays. I correctly pointed out that it effect employers that provide insurance to spouses.
 
CriticalThought said:
In conservative speak wouldn't it be loss of a "privilege" since it isn't enumerated in the Constitution?
Click to expand...

no, we enumerate powers we grant to the government, not rights we leave to the individuals (or states as outlined in the last of the initial bill of rights)
 
ARealConservative said:
not at all. we are discussing fall out from the fact that government is involved in marriage.

the question was asked how this rule change even effects non gays. I correctly pointed out that it effect employers that provide insurance to spouses.
Click to expand...

True. Laws have impacts. And yet businesses in New York tended to support this law for two reasons. One, most companies were already providing insurance benefits to the partners of gay employees. Two, gay marriages provide a major source of new revenue. Just because something has an impact does not mean it is a negative impact.
 
winston53660 said:
You don't remember your history? Blacks use to not be able to sit at the lunch counter in Woolworths.
Click to expand...

yes, government even codified this, which was the aspect that needed rectified. what I still don't understand is why you felt it was useful for THIS conversation?
 
ARealConservative said:
yes, government even codified this, which was the aspect that needed rectified. what I still don't understand is why you felt it was useful for THIS conversation?
Click to expand...

Because separate but equal, although upheld by a government, was instituted by people who discriminated, based on their core beliefs.
 
danarhea said:
Because separate but equal, although upheld by a government, was instituted by people who discriminated, based on their core beliefs.
Click to expand...

but Woolworth changed their policy because the boycotts caused them to lose money. this was solved without govenrment force, as it should be.
 
ARealConservative said:
but Woolworth changed their policy because the boycotts caused them to lose money. this was solved without govenrment force, as it should be.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you disagree with that particular provision of the Civil Rights Act which deals with making it illegal for businesses to discriminate on the basis of skin color?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom