• 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!

More Federal Privileges to Extend to Same-Sex Couples

opendebate said:
Say you and a friend are climbing a hill, it's hot and dusty and you're both exhausted. He has a 100lb back pack and you don't. If you split the contents of his back pack, which is carrying supplies for both of you, is he getting special privileges? Or are you just choosing NOT to be a dick?
Click to expand...

So you don't have an answer or any examples or citations - just a half-assed analogy that makes no sense.
 
opendebate said:
From the article:

The government estimates that more than 1,100 federal regulations, rights and laws touch on, or are affected by, marital status. With a memo on Monday, Mr. Holder plans to make several of those provisions apply equally to gay and straight couples.

The federal government will soon treat married same-sex couples the same as heterosexual couples when they file for bankruptcy, testify in court or visit family in prison.

Eric Holder “In every courthouse, in every proceeding and in every place where a member of the Department of Justice stands on behalf of the United States, they will strive to ensure that same-sex marriages receive the same privileges, protections and rights as opposite-sex marriages,”

“As all-important as the fight against racial discrimination was then, and remains today, know this: My commitment to confronting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity runs just as deep,” his speech said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/u...end-to-same-sex-couples.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=1


Happy to say we are getting closer and closer to equality even though it has been relentlessly challenged by the close minded and the fearful every step of the way. We evolve despite them.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Why are there special benefits based on a relationship status?
 
Mr.Nick said:
Gays have the same CIVIL RIGHTS THAT I HAVE - THAT WE ALL HAVE....

And yes, government and the progressive establishment is encouraging homosexuality - when you're "gay" you get special treatment, when you're a minority you get special treatment, because progressives want diversity and handout cookies to anyone who claims they're gay or are a minority of some sort.....
Click to expand...

I, as a straight woman, personally want more rights, more choices. I want the ability to be able to choose whoever the hell I want to make my legal spouse despite their sex/gender because their sex/gender has absolutely no bearing on their ability to act as a spouse to me. There's no special treatment there since everyone would be able to choose a person of the same sex or the opposite sex to be their spouse. That simple.
 
Samhain said:
Interesting. Why are there special benefits based on a relationship status?
Click to expand...

Because there are special benefits recognized for other types of relationships. It's called "legal kinship" and that is what marriage does for every single couple, provides a legal path to legal kinship for someone not already a legal kin or close enough kin. We recognize children and parents, even siblings and extended family as legal kin, having some legal relationship to others. No reason to not also do so for spouses, and by extension, families of spouses, aka inlaws.
 
roguenuke said:
I, as a straight woman, personally want more rights, more choices. I want the ability to be able to choose whoever the hell I want to make my legal spouse despite their sex/gender because their sex/gender has absolutely no bearing on their ability to act as a spouse to me. There's no special treatment there since everyone would be able to choose a person of the same sex or the opposite sex to be their spouse. That simple.
Click to expand...

Another great reason why the government shouldn't have a say in whom you want to call your spouse. It has nothing to do with them.

roguenuke said:
Because there are special benefits recognized for other types of relationships. It's called "legal kinship" and that is what marriage does for every single couple, provides a legal path to legal kinship for someone not already a legal kin or close enough kin. We recognize children and parents, even siblings and extended family as legal kin, having some legal relationship to others. No reason to not also do so for spouses, and by extension, families of spouses, aka inlaws.
Click to expand...

Which means if everyone had a list of people they wanted to get special treatment, call them benefactors, then the government wouldn't have to have special definitions for this that or the other. They don't need to be involved in an individual's choosing, regardless the reason or nature.
 
Mr.Nick said:
I would LOVE for a progressive to show some examples of how "gays" are being denied their civil rights....

Don't even bother with marriage because marriage is NOT a civil right - if our US constitution forbid homosexual marriage our constitution would have been amended LONG ago considering many states recognize gay marriage...

So give me some other examples of homosexuals being denied civil liberties??????
Click to expand...

Where are you getting the idea that marriage isn't a right?
 
roguenuke said:
I, as a straight woman, personally want more rights, more choices. I want the ability to be able to choose whoever the hell I want to make my legal spouse despite their sex/gender because their sex/gender has absolutely no bearing on their ability to act as a spouse to me. There's no special treatment there since everyone would be able to choose a person of the same sex or the opposite sex to be their spouse. That simple.
Click to expand...

IMO, I don't even believe our government(s) should be involved in marriage in the first place....

A marriage is nothing more than a civil contract anyways...

But since marriage is not a civil rights issue, but rather a 10th amendment issue - it is up to the states to allow gays to marry.

I mean if homosexuals want the right to marry then amend the ****ing Constitution and define marriage..... There is no definition of marriage in the Constitution.

So I don't know how gays civil rights are being violated when there is nothing that outlines gays or straights in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, hence there is no "civil right" to be violated.
 
Samhain said:
Another great reason why the government shouldn't have a say in whom you want to call your spouse. It has nothing to do with them.

Which means if everyone had a list of people they wanted to get special treatment, call them benefactors, then the government wouldn't have to have special definitions for this that or the other. They don't need to be involved in an individual's choosing, regardless the reason or nature.
Click to expand...

But the government needs to know who a person wants to have as that specific legal kin. And there has to be a limit for the legal recognition for pure logistics purposes.

And people want the government to automatically recognize certain people as legal kin. The vast majority does anyways because the vast majority recognize that we, as humans, at least during this stage of our development/evolution, see blood relations and those whom we see as "family" as being the most deserving of recognition by the government. And the easiest way to gain that recognition for the most people is to simply make it that way through generally speaking legal records such as birth certificates, adoption papers, birth records (where birth certificates aren't available), marriage records, and, now DNA tests showing links. That is how we establish family ties and the vast majority is okay with this.
 
Mr.Nick said:
IMO, I don't even believe our government(s) should be involved in marriage in the first place....

A marriage is nothing more than a civil contract anyways...

But since marriage is not a civil rights issue, but rather a 10th amendment issue - it is up to the states to allow gays to marry.

I mean if homosexuals want the right to marry then amend the ****ing Constitution and define marriage..... There is no definition of marriage in the Constitution.

So I don't know how gays civil rights are being violated when there is nothing that outlines gays or straights in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, hence there is no "civil right" to be violated.
Click to expand...

I am gay, and I sort of agree with you but I think it is a federal thing, and the government is involved because of the federal tax thing soooo yes it is kind of a civil rights thing.... I mean if we could just marry and get the little tax change thingy I think then our civil rights were not being violated

.-. I don't know it's so tricky, american gays tend to annoy me, where there disgusting parades and perverse attitude sometimes, that I can see why you're just tired of it.... if that is the case :/
 
Cardinal said:
Not pictured above: an example of the "severe impacts" of female inequality. You made the claim, now substantiate it.
Click to expand...

Actually I did not use the inequality of females as an example but the opposite. Also I gave you a pointer of an impact from legal, social etc equalization of women in the demographic development. I know it is/was a rather complex development from the first steps towards equality to the our present problem. But it is in general terms relatively simple.
 
opendebate said:
Think about it.
Click to expand...

Oh I read it and it's bull**** that makes absolutely ZERO sense and hardly touches on the subject at hand.

And honestly, if my friend brought a bunch of unnecessary crap while we went hiking I would NOT carry his bag because that extra crap would be his responsibility - furthermore I have never been in that situation because when I go hiking or camping we always carry our own **** because we BOTH have 50 pound bags...... What the hell you thought? you just go hiking and everyone else carries your ****?

I understand your ignorant analogy but it makes zero sense.

You think about that!
 
Mr.Nick said:
IMO, I don't even believe our government(s) should be involved in marriage in the first place....

A marriage is nothing more than a civil contract anyways...

But since marriage is not a civil rights issue, but rather a 10th amendment issue - it is up to the states to allow gays to marry.

I mean if homosexuals want the right to marry then amend the ****ing Constitution and define marriage..... There is no definition of marriage in the Constitution.

So I don't know how gays civil rights are being violated when there is nothing that outlines gays or straights in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, hence there is no "civil right" to be violated.
Click to expand...

Everyone's civil rights are being violated because sex/gender is being used as a criteria to whether or not people can form a legal contract establishing kinship where sex/gender has no actual bearing on the ability of the legal terms of that contract to be fulfilled. Just as was true when it was race being used as the criteria to prevent people from entering into that contract.
 
Mr.Nick said:
So you don't have an answer or any examples or citations - just a half-assed analogy that makes no sense.
Click to expand...

The legal area known as "civil rights" has traditionally revolved around the basic right to be free from unequal treatment based on certain protected characteristics (race, gender, disability, etc.) - See more at: "Civil Rights" vs. "Civil Liberties" - FindLaw


https://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politic...ow-a-Protected-Class-of-People-under-New-Law/

....President Barack Obama has signed legislation that elevates homosexuals to the class of citizens that enjoy special protections under the law...."
 
roguenuke said:
But the government needs to know who a person wants to have as that specific legal kin. And there has to be a limit for the legal recognition for pure logistics purposes.

And people want the government to automatically recognize certain people as legal kin. The vast majority does anyways because the vast majority recognize that we, as humans, at least during this stage of our development/evolution, see blood relations and those whom we see as "family" as being the most deserving of recognition by the government. And the easiest way to gain that recognition for the most people is to simply make it that way through generally speaking legal records such as birth certificates, adoption papers, birth records (where birth certificates aren't available), marriage records, and, now DNA tests showing links. That is how we establish family ties and the vast majority is okay with this.
Click to expand...

People also want to limit who "family" is, even when they are blood related, under certain circumstances. Being able to designate individuals as benefactors, regardless of blood relation, physical/emotional relation, or any relation at all, frees a person into defining what system works best for them. There would be a default at birth, obviously, but would be customization available for those that wish it(e.g. marriage, friendship, black-sheep )

With that in place, the government( at all levels ) can have simple recognition of an individuals wishes, and grant whatever different rules/regulations reflecting this designation. This puts control back in the individual's hands, where I feel it belonged in the first place.
 
Chocolate said:
I am gay, and I sort of agree with you but I think it is a federal thing, and the government is involved because of the federal tax thing soooo yes it is kind of a civil rights thing.... I mean if we could just marry and get the little tax change thingy I think then our civil rights were not being violated

.-. I don't know it's so tricky, american gays tend to annoy me, where there disgusting parades and perverse attitude sometimes, that I can see why you're just tired of it.... if that is the case :/
Click to expand...

I cant believe I agree with a gay communist - that is a first.

The tax thing isn't a problem at all because you can sign civil contracts (and even business contracts) that makes paying taxes in "joint" rather easy.

It just so happens in many states marriage just makes that process de facto the second you say "I do".

IMO, what I believe is that gays (not saying you) actually believe that "government recognition of marriage" is some sort of a statement of acceptance - as if the government were to endorse gay marriage that means all 300,000,000 would be forced to accept gay marriage - as if we're all drones who get our morals and ethics via government or something.
 
joG said:
Actually I did not use the inequality of females as an example but the opposite. Also I gave you a pointer of an impact from legal, social etc equalization of women in the demographic development. I know it is/was a rather complex development from the first steps towards equality to the our present problem. But it is in general terms relatively simple.
Click to expand...

You're spending so much time with your thesaurus that you're forgetting what you wrote four posts ago. Here, I'll help you.

joG said:
You think so? Some of the more severe impacts of female equality are just now starting to affect us.
Click to expand...

So again, please enlighten us. What are some of these impacts? Ditch the thesaurus -- it's not adding content to your argument.
 
Samhain said:
People also want to limit who "family" is, even when they are blood related, under certain circumstances. Being able to designate individuals as benefactors, regardless of blood relation, physical/emotional relation, or any relation at all, frees a person into defining what system works best for them. There would be a default at birth, obviously, but would be customization available for those that wish it.

With that in place, the government( at all levels ) can have simple recognition of an individuals wishes, and grant whatever different rules/regulations reflecting this designation. This puts control back in the individual's hands, where I feel it belonged in the first place.
Click to expand...

Some people want to make such limitations, and then in a way that violates already established rules on how they can limit such things.

In general, it comes down to which gives the most freedom without violating other people's rights. Cost/benefit analysis easily show that having the government recognize legal relationships without extra paperwork or contracts makes things more efficient, this includes spouses via marriage. However, restricting recognition of relationships based purely on traits such as race, sex/gender, religion, the relative traits of these to each person attempting to enter into the relationship, or even things such as height, weight, or hair/eye color does nothing to increase freedom, nor does it serve/further any legitimate state interest at all, in any way.
 
Mr.Nick said:
IMO, I don't even believe our government(s) should be involved in marriage in the first place....

A marriage is nothing more than a civil contract anyways...

But since marriage is not a civil rights issue, but rather a 10th amendment issue - it is up to the states to allow gays to marry.

I mean if homosexuals want the right to marry then amend the ****ing Constitution and define marriage..... There is no definition of marriage in the Constitution.

So I don't know how gays civil rights are being violated when there is nothing that outlines gays or straights in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, hence there is no "civil right" to be violated.
Click to expand...

Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. As you said, it is a civil contract so the 14th would likely apply.
 
Mr.Nick said:
I cant believe I agree with a gay communist - that is a first.

The tax thing isn't a problem at all because you can sign civil contracts (and even business contracts) that makes paying taxes in "joint" rather easy.

It just so happens in many states marriage just makes that process de facto the second you say "I do".

IMO, what I believe is that gays (not saying you) actually believe that "government recognition of marriage" is some sort of a statement of acceptance - as if the government were to endorse gay marriage that means all 300,000,000 would be forced to accept gay marriage - as if we're all drones who get our morals and ethics via government or something.
Click to expand...

Well I was told and this may be wrong that a civil contract does not give you a slight tax break like a marriage does? and I think thats the reason for concern in my mind.... but yeah I suppose it makes alot of sense for gays to want to be recognized as normal, and accepted by the government.. but I think it would be more benificial for them to not fling around massive dildos, assless chaps, and have sex in alley ways, during there parades forcing there orientation on others. if they could manage that I think it would be much more helpful in intergrating them as normal, and acceptable in our society :/ buuut I digress
 
Mr.Nick said:
Because progressives and our progressives in government positions PROMOTE homosexuality - which is unprecedented (at least in government).

If homosexuality is not such a "big deal" to progressives then why the **** do you promote it so much and make an issue out of it?

You see progressives always need a social war to rely on - that way they can talk **** about imaginary "injustices" while acting like a bunch of activists instead of doing their jobs (which they have absolutely ZERO idea how to do)....
Click to expand...

do you ever make a post you can back up with facts?
government is not promoting homosexuality lol
 
Mr.Nick said:
1.)Gays have the same CIVIL RIGHTS THAT I HAVE - THAT WE ALL HAVE....

2.)And yes, government and the progressive establishment is encouraging homosexuality - when you're "gay" you get special treatment, when you're a minority you get special treatment, because progressives want diversity and handout cookies to anyone who claims they're gay or are a minority of some sort.....
Click to expand...

1.) false as proven many times by many posters
2.) also factually false its equal not special and there is no encouraging lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom