• 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!

Obama Extends Fed Benefits to Unmarried Partners, Including Same Sex Partners

Jerry said:
Just another chip taken off of marriage.

Boy/girlfriends, room mates, etc, are being legitimized as though they are valid, stable unions for raising children, when clearly the evidence shows the contrary.
Click to expand...

It's none of your business how others choose to form partnerships or how they wish to raise their families. They're deserving of tax supported benefits just as much as married couples are.
 
hazlnut said:
Again, the article doesn't give any specific parameters.

If you have information the rest of us don't , please share it.
Click to expand...

No specific parameters....exactly...what's there to point out?

If you give it to unmarried same-sex couples then you have to give to unmarried opposite-sex couples, and I would hazard the guess that there are far more of those than gay couples.

If you're not married, **** you, you don't get the buffs.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
It's none of your business how others choose to form partnerships or how they wish to raise their families. They're deserving of tax supported benefits just as much as married couples are.
Click to expand...

By you own logic, rather they are or not is non of your business :2wave:
 
Jerry said:
Just another chip taken off of marriage.

Boy/girlfriends, room mates, etc, are being legitimized as though they are valid, stable unions for raising children, when clearly the evidence shows the contrary.
Click to expand...

What evidence is this you speak of?
 
Truth Detector said:
More of that slippery slope as we march to the beat of rationalization.
Click to expand...

You may want to check falicyfiles.com for proper instruction on exposing a slippery-slope. One of the first things the site will tell you is that simply declaring a fallacy does nothing. Come back when you have something :2wave:
 
Jerry said:
No specific parameters....exactly...what's there to point out?

If you give it to unmarried same-sex couples then you have to give to unmarried opposite-sex couples, and I would hazard the guess that there are far more of those than gay couples.
Click to expand...

This is what you said:

Jerry said:
Boy/girlfriends, room mates, etc, are being legitimized as though they are valid, stable unions for raising children, when clearly the evidence shows the contrary.
Click to expand...

Since the parameters were not defined in the article, I'm just wondering where you're getting your info.

In other words -- How does a couple qualify for these benefits?
 
Sadly, this extension DID NOT apply to the partners of military service personnel, did it?
 
Jerry said:
No specific parameters....exactly...what's there to point out?

If you give it to unmarried same-sex couples then you have to give to unmarried opposite-sex couples, and I would hazard the guess that there are far more of those than gay couples.

If you're not married, **** you, you don't get the buffs.
Click to expand...

I am all for destroying marriage if gays cannot be allowed to marry.
 
hazlnut said:
This is what you said:

Since the parameters were not defined in the article, I'm just wondering where you're getting your info.

In other words -- How does a couple qualify for these benefits?
Click to expand...

Am I reading to much into the article when it says:

President Obama will announce tomorrow that he is extending federal benefits to include unmarried domestic partners of federal workers, including same-sex partners, White House officials said tonight.
Click to expand...

They say the extension applies to unmarried domestic partners, and also same-sex partners. Logically, if domestic partners were only gay-partners, then they wouldn't need to point out that the extension also includes gays.

As I read it, "unmarried domestic partners" are mainly heteros, and the article wanted to be clear that this would also include those few gay partners as well.

***
I really don't know how a federal employee applies for these benefits as I've never been one to know the system. Were you looking for samples of the paperwork?
 
Jerry said:
If you give it to unmarried same-sex couples then you have to give to unmarried opposite-sex couples, and I would hazard the guess that there are far more of those than gay couples.
Click to expand...

..and that's a good thing.

The best way out of this is to strip these benefits from married couples. No one should be allowed to get free tax money because of a particular relationship they happen to be in.
 
Redress said:
Don't ask, don't tell would pretty much insure that.
Click to expand...

CrusaderRabbit08 said:
..and that's a good thing.

The best way out of this is to strip these benefits from married couples. No one should be allowed to get free tax money because of a particular relationship they happen to be in.
Click to expand...

Well there ya go, pro-gm: I oppose gay-marriage because it will destroy the institution and my own personal marriage along with it.
 
Redress said:
Don't ask, don't tell would pretty much insure that.
Click to expand...

So true.

Sgt John Smith: "Sir, I'd like to apply for domestic partnership benefits for my male friend".

Bye, bye Sgt :mrgreen:
 
"President Barack Obama, whose gay and lesbian supporters have grown frustrated with his slow movement on their priorities, is extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees but stopping short of a guarantee of full health insurance, a White House official said."

AP source: Benefits for govt workers' gay partners - Yahoo! News

I have also heard that the plan does not include pension benefits. It does come with group hugs though.

Side note: I wonder if there is any legislation that allows for Obama to do this. I am sure the legislation passed by Congress specified benefits for people legally married, and that excludes all gays because of the Defense of Marriage Act.

I think Obama knows this will never actually happen, the benefits will not be valid because gays are not legally married under federal law, or the courts will strike it down because it needs to go through the legislative process.

I am not falling for it until I see some real results. Obama may be a brilliant person when it come to political maneuvering, but that does not mean anything actually happens.
 
Oh boy. Jesus will not be happy about this.
 
Jerry said:
Well there ya go, pro-gm: I oppose gay-marriage because it will destroy the institution and my own personal marriage along with it.
Click to expand...


YAY! I am destroying peoples marriage!
 
Alex said:
"President Barack Obama, whose gay and lesbian supporters have grown frustrated with his slow movement on their priorities, is extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees but stopping short of a guarantee of full health insurance, a White House official said."

AP source: Benefits for govt workers' gay partners - Yahoo! News

I have also heard that the plan does not include pension benefits. It does come with group hugs though.

Side note: I wonder if there is any legislation that allows for Obama to do this. I am sure the legislation passed by Congress specified benefits for people legally married, and that excludes all gays because of the Defense of Marriage Act.

I think Obama knows this will never actually happen, the benefits will not be valid because gays are not legally married under federal law, or the courts will strike it down because it needs to go through the legislative process.

I am not falling for it until I see some real results. Obama may be a brilliant person when it come to political maneuvering, but that does not mean anything actually happens.
Click to expand...

This might surprise people, but I have been pretty disappointed with President Obama so far, and this makes me downright pissed. Certain things should be done, just because it is the right thing to do, and playing politics with what is right is incredibly lame.
 
Jerry said:
You're welcome to join the discussion :2wave:
Click to expand...

Your last link claimed that 40% of people that cohabitate break up in the light of a 50% divorce rate what was your point?
 
Jerry said:
Was that a statement or a question?
Click to expand...

Oh I'm just wondering what meteric you use to define a stable relationship. 40% of cohabitors break up yet there is a 50% divorce rate. Seems like cohabitation is the way to go.
 
Nearly everyone who dates breaks up. I guess we should ban dating.
 
Redress said:
YAY! I am destroying peoples marriage!
Click to expand...

Gosh. And here I thought that most people handled that pretty well on their own.

I'll have to call my ex-husband and let him know that the REAL reason our marriage failed was "teh gayz."
 
Redress said:
This might surprise people, but I have been pretty disappointed with President Obama so far, and this makes me downright pissed. Certain things should be done, just because it is the right thing to do, and playing politics with what is right is incredibly lame.
Click to expand...

I AGREE.

It's bull**** that he's pushing this when the rights are not equivalent and he's done nothing for military service personnel to overturn don't ask, don't tell, in spite of HIS CAMPAIGN PROMISES.

Apparently, gays/lesbians are the ones on the plantation now, and Pres Obama can dole out special "house nigga" privileges without giving them any real EQUALITY.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom