• 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!

Gay marriage wins in Indiana and Utah

Calling it a sick lifestyle is just a matter of opinion. Don't like it? Oh well. That is not disparaging, its called an opinion. The rest you would have to have some real thin skin to get to the level of even alittle insulted about.

Not only is it an insult...calling people 'sick,' you have yet to tell us how their lifestyle is any different from anyone else's, besides being in a same gender relationship....lifestyles by definition encompass many factors....you've shown none.
 
And I find the gay life style of little value. But I am not disparaging any particular individual. Like I said, if you are looking to get offended. Good job, you did it.

Maybe we'd understand it better if you explained the 'gay lifestyle' for us. You know....how it's different from 'straight lifestyles.' Certainly it's not sex, since straight people do all the same acts and of course, people and their entire lifestyles are not defined by sex. Most married couples wouldnt exist anymore if they were defined by 'sex' after awhile, lol.
 
Maybe we'd understand it better if you explained the 'gay lifestyle' for us. You know....how it's different from 'straight lifestyles.' Certainly it's not sex, since straight people do all the same acts and of course, people and their entire lifestyles are not defined by sex. Most married couples wouldnt exist anymore if they were defined by 'sex' after awhile, lol.
Well for one, pushing for marriage. That is part of the agenda that contributes to the "lifestyle". I didn't know I had to explain that. It seems pretty self explanatory.
 
Why does anyone get married?
 
Calling it a sick lifestyle is just a matter of opinion. Don't like it? Oh well. That is not disparaging, its called an opinion. The rest you would have to have some real thin skin to get to the level of even alittle insulted about.

My opinion is that Christians are delusional. They believe an invisible sky wizard impregnated a woman with himself without having sex with her. (Because that would be weird)

That's not disparaging. That's an opinion. You can't be upset no matter what I say because it's my opinion.

I think the anti-equality people are bigots. It's my opinion, not disparaging.
 
And I find the gay life style of little value. But I am not disparaging any particular individual. Like I said, if you are looking to get offended. Good job, you did it.

I haven't disparaged any individual. I just think Christians against equality are delusional bigots.
 
No, really: why does anyone get married?
 
Well this circle is complete now.

The burden is on the person wishing to restrict individual liberty. People don't have to explain why they want a right.
 
No, really: why does anyone get married?

There are legal benefits. Outside of that it's a sentimental and grand expression of love.

Currently Homosexuals not offered equal rights in regards to marriage are barred from these rights -

Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.
Debts: Unmarried partners do not generally have responsibility for each other's debt.
Divorce: Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts, structure, or guidelines in times of break-up, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids.
Family leave: Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids.
Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can't cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.
Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.
Immigration: U.S. residency and family unification are not available to an unmarried partner from another country.
Inheritance: Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or bypassing the hassles and expenses of probate court.
Insurance: Unmarried partners can't always sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers don't cover domestic partners or their biological or non-biological children in their health insurance plans.
Portability: Unlike marriages, which are honored in all states and countries, domestic partnerships and other alternative mechanisms only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any legal acknowledgment in most, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will be.
Parenting: Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.
Privilege: Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings, and are also usually denied the coverage in crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded married couples.
Property: Unmarried couples are excluded from special rules that permit married couples to buy and own property together under favorable terms, rules that protect married couples in their shared homes and rules regarding the distribution of the property in the event of death or divorce.
Retirement: In addition to being denied access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs, unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA's and other retirement plans.
Taxes: Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage. In addition, they are denied the right to transfer property to one another and pool the family's resources without adverse tax consequences.

US Military Same-Sex Couples Denied Benefits As Pentagon Yet To Reach Deals With Overseas Host Countries

Many of these rights seem obvious and rational conclusion in regards to a dynamic between two people who have dedicated themselves to each other. So many heterosexuals don't think twice about how easy it is to see they injured husband or wife while they are in a hospital. They don't understand that under a different circumstance they would not be given those privileges that seem so obviously their right to have. therefore a lot arguments offered by heterosexuals against ssm is steeped in ignorance of the disparity of legal privileges. Many straight people honestly believe that there are no rights that homosexuals are being barred from.
 
Last edited:
There are legal benefits. Outside of that it's a sentimental and grand expression of love.

Currently Homosexuals not offered equal rights in regards to marriage are barred from these rights -

Death: If a couple is not married and one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items in the absence of a will.
Debts: Unmarried partners do not generally have responsibility for each other's debt.
Divorce: Unmarried couples do not have access to the courts, structure, or guidelines in times of break-up, including rules for how to handle shared property, child support, and alimony, or protecting the weaker party and kids.
Family leave: Unmarried couples are often not covered by laws and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick spouse or for the kids.
Health: Unlike spouses, unmarried partners are usually not considered next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. In addition, they can't cover their families on their health plans without paying taxes on the coverage, nor are they eligible for Medicare and Medicaid coverage.
Housing: Denied marriage, couples of lesser means are not recognized and thus can be denied or disfavored in their applications for public housing.
Immigration: U.S. residency and family unification are not available to an unmarried partner from another country.
Inheritance: Unmarried surviving partners do not automatically inherit property should their loved one die without a will, nor do they get legal protection for inheritance rights such as elective share or bypassing the hassles and expenses of probate court.
Insurance: Unmarried partners can't always sign up for joint home and auto insurance. In addition, many employers don't cover domestic partners or their biological or non-biological children in their health insurance plans.
Portability: Unlike marriages, which are honored in all states and countries, domestic partnerships and other alternative mechanisms only exist in a few states and countries, are not given any legal acknowledgment in most, and leave families without the clarity and security of knowing what their legal status and rights will be.
Parenting: Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.
Privilege: Unmarried couples are not protected against having to testify against each other in judicial proceedings, and are also usually denied the coverage in crime victims counseling and protection programs afforded married couples.
Property: Unmarried couples are excluded from special rules that permit married couples to buy and own property together under favorable terms, rules that protect married couples in their shared homes and rules regarding the distribution of the property in the event of death or divorce.
Retirement: In addition to being denied access to shared or spousal benefits through Social Security as well as coverage under Medicare and other programs, unmarried couples are denied withdrawal rights and protective tax treatment given to spouses with regard to IRA's and other retirement plans.
Taxes: Unmarried couples cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and claims specific to marriage. In addition, they are denied the right to transfer property to one another and pool the family's resources without adverse tax consequences.

US Military Same-Sex Couples Denied Benefits As Pentagon Yet To Reach Deals With Overseas Host Countries

Many of these rights seem obvious and rational conclusion in regards to a dynamic between two people who have dedicated themselves to each other. So many heterosexuals don't think twice about how easy it is to see they injured husband or wife while they are in a hospital. They don't understand that under a different circumstance they would not be given those privileges that seem so obviously their right to have. therefore a lot arguments offered by heterosexuals against ssm is steeped in ignorance of the disparity of legal privileges. Many straight people honestly believe that there are no rights that homosexuals are being barred from.

So gay people would get married for the reason straight people do? Oh the horror!
 
The burden is on the person wishing to restrict individual liberty. People don't have to explain why they want a right.
Wanting a right and having a right are two different things. No "right to marry" ever was to include men marrying men. Or women marrying women.
 
Wanting a right and having a right are two different things. No "right to marry" ever was to include men marrying men. Or women marrying women.
Looks like that done changed.
 
Wanting a right and having a right are two different things. No "right to marry" ever was to include men marrying men. Or women marrying women.

Interracial marriage wasn't a right until it was. Women voting wasn't a right until it was. Poor people voting wasn't a right until it was. "It wasn't a right before" isn't an argument against making it a right. This is why your side is losing every court case. Your arguments are weak.

But now it is a right. In, what, 20 states and quite a few other nations? So that's it then. This objection is over now, right?
 
Not everywhere. And I am sure you will say "yet". So you don't have to, I am sure the continued circling of the drain for America is for us to be come the next Sodom and Gomorrah.

Then we should already be there since the problems of Sodom and Gomorrah had absolutely nothing to do with same sex relationships or same sex marriage. In fact, I'm pretty sure you can't find any proof that Sodom or Gomorrah allowed same sex marriages or treated such relationships as "equal" to opposite sex marriages/relationships. There is certainly evidence however that there was a lot of inhospitality going on in Sodom including attempting to show power and control over guests in the city, particularly male guests, by raping them (since any educated person knows that rape is about power, not attractions or relationships) and they were being unkind to guests, plus there was a lot of adultery going on according to the stories within Judaism. Nothing however mentioned about homosexuality running rampant, same sex marriages being the "norm", nor that there was any real problems at all with sexual immorality besides the adultery and the possible practice of temple sex worshiping.
 
Never said they said it should be "illegal". I said they don't support it. I don't agree with gay marriage. And they come out of the wood work and justify their attempts at ridicule.
So clearly they have a problem with what I say and what I believe.

Yes, because you have an issue with equality within our laws, same sex couples being allowed to marry legally, because of your belief that marriage should be only a man and a woman. That is nothing but your belief, and while you are welcome to it, that does not mean that you are immune from criticism of that belief, nor do you have any right to have that belief trump the US Constitution and the guarantee of equal treatment under the law for all in the 14th Amendment.
 
Well for one, pushing for marriage. That is part of the agenda that contributes to the "lifestyle". I didn't know I had to explain that. It seems pretty self explanatory.

That isn't leading a "gay lifestyle". I push for marriage for same sex couples (as I think it is also good to encourage marriages for opposite sex couples), but I'm not gay.

And the only "agenda" is to get equal rights under the law. That agenda is a completely worthy one to pursue as has been done in the past by many people, especially in this country.
 
So it don't exist. So why get married?

Because marriage provides the only legal recognition of a kinship known as "spouse", and by extension "inlaws". That is the only way to set up those kinships legally, through marriage. There is no legitimate interest for the state not to allow same sex couples to get married and establish those relationships.
 
Wanting a right and having a right are two different things. No "right to marry" ever was to include men marrying men. Or women marrying women.

There is a right to marriage, and a right to be treated equally under the law. The SCOTUS has said several different times that there is a right to marriage. The 14th Amendment sets up a right to equal protection under the law which legal precedent has established means that in order for a state to show that unequal treatment under the law is justified they must show that, at the bare minimum, a legitimate state interest is being furthered by that unequal treatment. And there is unequal treatment of the law here because a woman cannot marry a woman, but a man can and a man cannot marry a man, but a woman can. That is unequal treatment of the law based on sex/gender. It would be no different than if some state made two new laws that said that only men could be lawyers legally and only women could be doctors legally. This would be unequal treatment of men and women under the law, even if both are allowed to do something the other cannot do. It is because they cannot do something the other sex/gender can do that makes it unequal treatment under the law.
 
This is terrible.

Name one specific, tangible impact on your life.

I'm keeping count of how many times I ask that question and get a bull**** non-answer.
 
Back
Top Bottom