• 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!

Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

No, those companies would be picking and choosing which couples they wanted to recognize as married, leaving others to fend for themselves, treating them unfairly just because they felt it was okay to do so. Legal marriage provides a set standard that they must follow. If they offer benefits to married people, then it must be to all married people, not just those they like or agree with.

There are many reasons for the marriage licenses to exist. That is just one of them.

That's the exact opposite of why a government marriage license exists. Remarkable.

With government sanctioned marriages and licenses, companies are free to ignore or delay providing services or accommodation to anyone who doesn't have the license. It's why gay couples want the government sanction. But if nobody had the government sanction, everyone would be able to enter into their own contracts and have those contracts honoured and if they're not honoured then the institution or business that doesn't honour them is subject to the civil courts for remediation and punitive damages.

You support government sanctioned discrimination while I don't.
 
Why should a company have to recegnise any relationship? What contract does your spouse sign with your employer which then obligates the employer? What service does your non-employee spouce provide to the buisness which then entitles your spouse to compinsation?

Personally, I support a UHC, which would make such things pretty much go away. But there are other things that employees consider when it comes to legal spouses, which are actually negative in general, for those legal spouses. However, there is one that applies for legal spouses as their benefit, that being FMLA.

The current laws though do mandate that certain employees be offered medical/dental insurance through their place of employment, and that include spouse and children. Whether you agree with that or not, it still only applies to legal spouses. This is a benefit for society. But even if it was just an incentive, not mandated, the employer still should not be able to decide which spouses they would offer it to or not, rather than either offering it for all spouses or none (for that specific job position).
 
Wait - are you calling churches "retards"? Don't you think that's a little much?

I have no use for religion, but millions of people do, and lots of people on this board do.

Only the one's that are retards by sabotaging their tax exempt status. Is that better?
 
That's the exact opposite of why a government marriage license exists. Remarkable.

With government sanctioned marriages and licenses, companies are free to ignore or delay providing services or accommodation to anyone who doesn't have the license. It's why gay couples want the government sanction. But if nobody had the government sanction, everyone would be able to enter into their own contracts and have those contracts honoured and if they're not honoured then the institution or business that doesn't honour them is subject to the civil courts for remediation and punitive damages.

You support government sanctioned discrimination while I don't.

No. I support protections for people to not be discriminated against by their jobs based on who they are married to. Employees should be able to offer medical insurance or not to their employees based on job positions, but not based on who you are in a relationship with as to whether that includes spouses. If it is offered to spouses for people in one job position, then everyone in that job position should have it offered to their legal spouses. But the employee should have to show that they have agreed to be with that person legally, to avoid fraud and because being legally married (not just cohabiting) has been shown so far to being a benefit for employers.
 
Really? You figured that out all on your own? They give power to the federal government, that is no where in the Constitution, so they make it up, they are idiots. If they make the right decision, I salute them. Hmm... that's brilliant, give yourself a gold star!


I'd rather have you send me cash.

Thank you.
 
Personally, I support a UHC, which would make such things pretty much go away. But there are other things that employees consider when it comes to legal spouses, which are actually negative in general, for those legal spouses. However, there is one that applies for legal spouses as their benefit, that being FMLA.

The current laws though do mandate that certain employees be offered medical/dental insurance through their place of employment, and that include spouse and children. Whether you agree with that or not, it still only applies to legal spouses. This is a benefit for society. But even if it was just an incentive, not mandated, the employer still should not be able to decide which spouses they would offer it to or not, rather than either offering it for all spouses or none (for that specific job position).
You didn't answer the question.
 
No. I support protections for people to not be discriminated against by their jobs based on who they are married to. Employees should be able to offer medical insurance or not to their employees based on job positions, but not based on who you are in a relationship with as to whether that includes spouses. If it is offered to spouses for people in one job position, then everyone in that job position should have it offered to their legal spouses. But the employee should have to show that they have agreed to be with that person legally, to avoid fraud and because being legally married (not just cohabiting) has been shown so far to being a benefit for employers.

So then the argument that gay marriage would effect no one is a lie since it affects business in commerce and in benefit decisions. It should be noted that each transaction has no connection to each other and thus there is no reason to force employers to treat them equally.
 
So then the argument that gay marriage would effect no one is a lie since it affects business in commerce and in benefit decisions. It should be noted that each transaction has no connection to each other and thus there is no reason to force employers to treat them equally.

Many things affect businesses. But same sex marriage being legal has no more effect on businesses than any other types of marriages being legal.
 
You didn't ask any question.
I, too, have a medication which impairs reading comprehension.

Here is that post again....


Why should a company have to recegnise any relationship? What contract does your spouse sign with your employer which then obligates the employer? What service does your non-employee spouce provide to the buisness which then entitles your spouse to compinsation?
 
No, those companies would be picking and choosing which couples they wanted to recognize as married, leaving others to fend for themselves, treating them unfairly just because they felt it was okay to do so. Legal marriage provides a set standard that they must follow. If they offer benefits to married people, then it must be to all married people, not just those they like or agree with.

There are many reasons for the marriage licenses to exist. That is just one of them.

And why should employers be held to the same standard as government? When you buy things from two different stores is there a connection between the transactions? When I hire two people is there any connection between those individual hirings? If not, why does what I offer person A have to be the same as person B?
 
Many things affect businesses. But same sex marriage being legal has no more effect on businesses than any other types of marriages being legal.

Yes, and yet when your side said repeatedly over the years that gay marriage would affect no one you were lying.
 
So then the argument that gay marriage would effect no one is a lie since it affects business in commerce and in benefit decisions. It should be noted that each transaction has no connection to each other and thus there is no reason to force employers to treat them equally.

No reason? It is bad for business to discriminate. That seems like a pretty good reason.
 
I, too, have a medication which impairs reading comprehension.

Here is that post again....

I apologize. I looked at the wrong response to you.

I did give my answer though. Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean it doesn't answer what I feel should be answered. With a UHC, no company would be forced to offer any type of insurance to their employees or their spouses. But they currently do have to do so for certain employees because society sees this as beneficial to society as a whole. (I don't necessarily agree with this.) But when they do offer such things to one employee, for a given position, it should be offered the same to all for that position.

The rest of the questions are pointless given that answer.
 
I, too, have a medication which impairs reading comprehension.

Here is that post again....

Because apparently having a contract with the government puts obligations on parties besides the government. You know, because that is totally how contracts work.

Government: Oh well, he has a contract with me, so you have to do stuff for him.
Business:But I didn't sign anything.
Government: Yeah, but we are the government and decree you have to do stuff anyway.
 
Yes, and yet when your side said repeatedly over the years that gay marriage would affect no one you were lying.

How about you argue from what I've said, including context, rather than "my side". I'll take responsibility for what I said, not what others have said who you believe speak for me. If I've mispoken, then I will clarify, as I have.
 
And why should employers be held to the same standard as government? When you buy things from two different stores is there a connection between the transactions? When I hire two people is there any connection between those individual hirings? If not, why does what I offer person A have to be the same as person B?

Because you live in a society that views fairness in transactions, business relations, and employment as important.
 
No reason? It is bad for business to discriminate. That seems like a pretty good reason.

Why should businesses have to pay men and women the same, or in this case offer everyone the same benefits? Well, because apparently it's unfair if they don't, ignoring that there is literally no other reason to do it. It's not like the employer will lose business because they don't and it's not like there is any connection between hirings, but well, it's unfair, so yeah. It's entertaining how it's fair to force yourself on people though.
 
How about you argue from what I've said, including context, rather than "my side". I'll take responsibility for what I said, not what others have said who you believe speak for me. If I've mispoken, then I will clarify, as I have.

How about I post in the way I want and you stop telling me what I should do.
 
How about I post in the way I want and you stop telling me what I should do.

Not if you are going to try to hold me responsible for a whole other group of people and what they say or have said, especially without even providing context for what was said. I am then going to respond to your posts in my way.
 
And why should employers be held to the same standard as government? When you buy things from two different stores is there a connection between the transactions? When I hire two people is there any connection between those individual hirings? If not, why does what I offer person A have to be the same as person B?

An employer can do any damn thing he wants with benefits. It can be negotiated separately as part of every job. What he can't do, if he discriminates against gays or blacks or just employees he doesn't like is have those benefits qualify for tax free treatment by the employee.

Bottom line is IRS subsidizes health benefits by allowing employees to receive unlimited amounts of them tax free. It's income but not taxable as wages. And the price for that is the plan has to be a qualified plan and offered equally to all employees in that firm (simplified version). If you as employer want to exclude gays, and cover the straight employees and their spouses, that's fine, but those straight employees then have to pick up the full cost of the insurance policy and pay income and payroll taxes on that income.
 
Sorry, but yes you did. I never suggested Gays are trying to radically change the social/culture of America. Same sex marriage is something a very small percentage of the population will ever benefit from, and the percentage of Gays in the population is what 5%? How could they possibly change the entirety of society?

No, the point your animosity for others has blinded you from is that this specific issue is just a carrier for a much larger objective. That, in my opinion, is the reason for the opposition, not the actual principle behind same sex marriage.

And who pray tell in your mind is the carries for a much larger objective?
 
"Become" indicates that you are comparing marriage to some time in the past. Yet that is an arbitrary point in the past. Why is it a problem that it has become "passe"? In reality, it is just that people are changing their priorities, putting marriage at least, and even in many cases children (which is good) after establishing a career, some financial security.

It doesn't matter if only a small percent of that small percent of same sex couples want to get married. They should still have the right to do so, just as opposite sex couples do.

Yes, I am comparing, as I wrote, to marriage a generation or so ago. Within, perhaps, your lifetime. Certainly there was a time in human history when such an official concept wasn't even in the thought process. It's rather ridiculous in the context of 2015 to go back that far.

I agree same sex couples, in the eyes of the federal government, should be treated the same as heterosexual couples.

However, the fact that it's an institution liberal/progressives increasingly don't care about shines a light on the bigger picture and objective. That is what I am suggesting is the greatest cause of the push back.
 
Back
Top Bottom