• 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!

After DOMA, gay couples still would not receive many federal benefits. [W:345]

So how does gay marriage affect your life?

he doesnt have a reality based answer that matters to rights, freedoms and equality, no one ever has as far as i recall
 
I have answered this several times already, go through the thread.




I'm not looking for an answer, it's a rhetorical question, and the correct answer is that it doesn't affect you.

Why would any adult be concerned about what 2 other consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home?

That sounds kind of 'Peeping Tomish' to me.
 
Last edited:
this question was totally dodged earlier but is there anybody that is ok with this example or that thinks when these issues are pushed to the courts they will find it ok?

for example im married to my wife in PA and we are granted all the state and federal rights.

she is traveling in SC and gets in a car accident is it right for them not to notify me to make medical decisions if that state does recognize my marriage?
what if she dies? can they just not tell me since they dont see us as married?
of if i go there to i not have visitation rights since in that state we arent married?
etc etc etc

can she be forced to testify against me in that state?
can she legally cheat in that state?

Yeah, unless everybody decides to just not travel to (or through) another state ever again, this will happen. One day one of the above is going to occur and bam...lawsuit time.
 
Marriage is a concept. It is not a concrete. If you cannot interact with something, it is an abstract. This should have been a basic concept learned in school. A gas can can be touched, marriage cannot.

If you put water in a gas can it is still a gas can. A gas can that cannot be used for gas without a major overhaul, but still a gas can.

I didn't say that marriage is concrete. I said that it is a construct of black letter law. Just because "law" is abstract doesn't mean that it is whatever you want it to be. Legally, a "person" is a legal concept. So is "marriage". Both would have physical characteristics, though... for person, it would have to be human. For marriage, it would have to be a man and a woman. The legal definition may change but as long as the legal definition of person starts with "human" as it's foundation, your cocker spaniel can't be a person. And as long as marriage is defined as a man and a woman, your two best girlfriends can't be married to each other.
 
Marriage is how the laws of marriage function, not the restrictions placed on who can legally enter into marriage.

Self defense is how the laws of self defense function, too. The fact that there are certain characteristics that make it self defense doesn't equate to some unfair restriction against being able to call it self defense to shoot someone in the head because you don't like them. Marriage is defined by the law. Where it is one man and one woman (most of the world where sanity still rules), that's what it is and those physical characteristics are defining characteristics. You don't have to like reality but acknowledging it would be a healthy thing for you to do.
 
I'm not looking for an answer, it's a rhetorical question, and the correct answer is that it doesn't affect you.

Not quite sure how you can make that call from Europe and not being DT himself. Are you signalling that you want others to tell you what's important to you and what affects you now?
 
Yeah, unless everybody decides to just not travel to (or through) another state ever again, this will happen. One day one of the above is going to occur and bam...lawsuit time.

yep

heck what about this and correct me if im wrong, didnt ACA open up insurance across state lines? so will insurances in SC not be able to offer my wife insurance in PA because they dont see us as married or is that covered by the fed by default?

either way you get the example of how it could open up other ways too
 
O so we should get rid of all tax benefits for marriage then, that will reduce the cost of benefits.

Yes. There is no need for that.

The feds, and the states, if they want to promote some pairing of individuals, should replace all paired benefits with a "designated benefactor" title. Then you are free to designate anyone/anything for that benefit.

If they decide that those benefits are no longer needed, on a case by case review, then they can just drop those benefits.
 
I'm not looking for an answer, it's a rhetorical question, and the correct answer is that it doesn't affect you.

Why would any adult be concerned about what 2 other consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home?

That sounds kind of 'Peeping Tomish' to me.

touche...worth reposting...
 
Unless of course, marriage is one man and one woman. They do have equal protection under that law.

Equal protection is not being able to marry someone you love and have spent your entire life with, while other's can? O ya that's equal protection under the law. Or in the SCOTUS case where a couple married in New York and are given the same protections as married couples in the state but when the Feds look at they only see two single people? That's equal protection?

That one couple in New York has to pay one set of taxes and the other couple has to pay a different set of taxes? That's the very definition of unequal.

Admit it, this argument is about your morale opinions on the subject.
 
Equal protection is not being able to marry someone you love and have spent your entire life with, while other's can? O ya that's equal protection under the law. Or in the SCOTUS case where a couple married in New York and are given the same protections as married couples in the state but when the Feds look at they only see two single people? That's equal protection?

That one couple in New York has to pay one set of taxes and the other couple has to pay a different set of taxes? That's the very definition of unequal.

Admit it, this argument is about your morale opinions on the subject.

Why are you so adamant on redefining marriage? You can't just change word meanings at will. It doesn't work that way. I believe in the sanctitiy of marriage, yes. Gays do not fit into that mold, yes. Doesn't mean you can redefine marriage and it be ok.
 
1.)Why are you so adamant on redefining marriage?
2.) You can't just change word meanings at will. It doesn't work that way.
3.) I believe in the sanctitiy of marriage, yes.
4.) Gays do not fit into that mold, yes.
5.) Doesn't mean you can redefine marriage and it be ok.

1.) its not factually being redefined i always laugh at this failed strawman
2.) actually when it comes to a contract definition and parameters you can but the definition already exists so your point is moot.
3.) the sanctity isnt chnaging, i always laugh at this strawman too
4.) only your opinion
5.) you be ok with it is meaningless to rights and freedoms and equality
 
5 Justices on the Supreme Court say that you are wrong. Good luck tilting that balance anytime soon.




Not going to happen, no matter how much the religious right cries and screams.

They will never put the genie back in the lamp. It is out for all time.




"Man has created God in his own image: intolerant, sexist, homophobic , and violent. ~ Marie
 
1.) its not factually being redefined i always laugh at this failed strawman
2.) actually when it comes to a contract definition and parameters you can but the definition already exists so your point is moot.
3.) the sanctity isnt chnaging, i always laugh at this strawman too
4.) only your opinion
5.) you be ok with it is meaningless to rights and freedoms and equality

Your opinions.
 
I didn't say that marriage is concrete. I said that it is a construct of black letter law. Just because "law" is abstract doesn't mean that it is whatever you want it to be. Legally, a "person" is a legal concept. So is "marriage". Both would have physical characteristics, though... for person, it would have to be human. For marriage, it would have to be a man and a woman. The legal definition may change but as long as the legal definition of person starts with "human" as it's foundation, your cocker spaniel can't be a person. And as long as marriage is defined as a man and a woman, your two best girlfriends can't be married to each other.

And those laws are subject to restrictions of the US Constitution. Including restrictions placed on marriage.

But marriage is a concept. There are no actual physical characteristics of marriage itself. People enter into marriage, they are not actually part of what marriage is.

Marriage does not have to be between a man and a woman only. That is a restriction on legal marriage, not marriage itself. I can prove that with the definition of marriage.

1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Marriage - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

The legal restriction of marriage being "a man and woman only" will change because it is not involved in what marriage actually is, so therefore maintaining that restriction does not further any legitimate state interest.
 
Self defense is how the laws of self defense function, too. The fact that there are certain characteristics that make it self defense doesn't equate to some unfair restriction against being able to call it self defense to shoot someone in the head because you don't like them. Marriage is defined by the law. Where it is one man and one woman (most of the world where sanity still rules), that's what it is and those physical characteristics are defining characteristics. You don't have to like reality but acknowledging it would be a healthy thing for you to do.

Your analogies are horrible.

The laws of self defense actually involve more than you believe. You can use most "self defense" laws if you are truly defending another person from harm.

Marriage is defined by how the laws involving marriage work, not on who is allowed to enter into marriage. Again, circular logic is not logical.
 
5 Justices on the Supreme Court say that you are wrong. Good luck tilting that balance anytime soon.

The differences between Supreme Court Justices and the Ayatollahs is diminishing by the moment and may already have vanished. Have fun celebrating that.
 
Back
Top Bottom