• 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

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...

been done 100s of times and marriage is in fact a right, nob matter home many times you post that lie or ignorance of the truth

facts win again
 
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

With a single designation, there is no extra paper work. Its a simple add/drop benefactor, eliminating any forms related to marriage, etc. No additional "contracts" as they are all one in the same, and would be treated the same. Giving the individual that power is a great balance between bureaucratic red tape and a laissez faire system.
 
opendebate said:
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...."
Click to expand...

No you are 100% wrong, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties are one in the same in theory, it's just lawyers who love to create precedence and destroy the constitution that makes the difference, hence definitions get reinvented.

Also NO ****ING PROGRESSIVE HAS GIVEN ME AN EXAMPLE OF HOW GAYS DONT HAVE CIVIL RIGHTS OR CIVIL LIBERTIES.

Gays have nothing to cry about - this whole "gays are second class citizens" was manifested by a bunch of communist think tank clowns who want nothing more than to divide the public for their own agenda - that way these tyrant ****heads can split us all into groups and pander to groups that will vote them into political office where they can push their anti-American - pro communist agenda...

If it mattered and if I was an evil authoritarian aristocratic punk like these progressives and RINO's I would use the same damn tactic they're using today to divide us all. I'd pander to certain groups and punish my dissenters just like Obama has done and the progressives in congress are doing today - not because I agree with them or not but because if you can segregate individuals into collectivist groups - you can without question grab 6 of the 10 groups and win an election - which puts you in power hence gives you an opportunity to make your agenda LAW...

You don't see that tho.
 
Cardinal said:
You're spending so much time with your thesaurus that you're forgetting what you wrote four posts ago. Here, I'll help you.

So again, please enlighten us. What are some of these impacts? Ditch the thesaurus -- it's not adding content to your argument.
Click to expand...

I really think you might want to reread the thread.
 
Mr.Nick said:
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.
Click to expand...


That's not true. Just a couple of quick examples:

1. There is no "Civil Contract" that allows for a couple to file a single tax return claiming one income for both and then using two deductions.

2. There is no "Civil Contract" that allows for the tax free transfer of property the same that currently exists between spouses.

3. There are no "Civil Contracts" that allow for the seamless inheritance of property tax free on the death of a spouse. True, there are Wills, but a will does not make it tax free.

4. There is no "Civil Contract" that allows for a spouse to sell their home and claim the $500,000 (Married) exemption vice the $250,000 (Single) exemption upon the death of the other spouse. This tax exemption is ONLY available to the widow(er) of a Civilly Married couple.​




>>>>
 
Mr.Nick said:
1.)IMO, I don't even believe our government(s) should be involved in marriage in the first place....
2.)A marriage is nothing more than a civil contract anyways...
3.)But since marriage is not a civil rights issue
4.) but rather a 10th amendment issue - it is up to the states to allow gays to marry.
5.)I mean if homosexuals want the right to marry then amend the ****ing Constitution and define marriage.....
6.)There is no definition of marriage in the Constitution.
7.)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...

1.) you are free to have thos opinion
2.) correct and the governments job is to protect it
3.) false
4.) false
5.) not needed
6.) doesnt have to be
7.) because facts and rights make it that way
 
Mr.Nick said:
No you are 100% wrong, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties are one in the same in theory, it's just lawyers who love to create precedence and destroy the constitution that makes the difference, hence definitions get reinvented.

Also NO ****ING PROGRESSIVE HAS GIVEN ME AN EXAMPLE OF HOW GAYS DONT HAVE CIVIL RIGHTS OR CIVIL LIBERTIES.

Gays have nothing to cry about - this whole "gays are second class citizens" was manifested by a bunch of communist think tank clowns who want nothing more than to divide the public for their own agenda - that way these tyrant ****heads can split us all into groups and pander to groups that will vote them into political office where they can push their anti-American - pro communist agenda...

If it mattered and if I was an evil authoritarian aristocratic punk like these progressives and RINO's I would use the same damn tactic they're using today to divide us all. I'd pander to certain groups and punish my dissenters just like Obama has done and the progressives in congress are doing today - not because I agree with them or not but because if you can segregate individuals into collectivist groups - you can without question grab 6 of the 10 groups and win an election - which puts you in power hence gives you an opportunity to make your agenda LAW...

You don't see that tho.
Click to expand...

i love the fantasy and lies you post, simply back any of that up with facts
 
Mr.Nick said:
Because progressives and our progressives in government positions PROMOTE homosexuality - which is unprecedented (at least in government).
Click to expand...

It's promoting marriage, which is a stabilizing factor and in the state's interest.

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?
Click to expand...

Because it's a big deal to those opposing it. If it's not a big deal, then just let them have their marriage.
 
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...

Actually Loving versus Virginia established that marriage is a fundamental right when it abolished interracial marriage bans in over a dozen states. It sounds to me like you reject all court precedent and seek a perception of the Constitution where every single right has to be enumerated by an amendment to the Constitution.
 
Chocolate said:
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
Click to expand...

I agree but, homosexuality is not "normal" by any definition of the word - at least not generally. I'm sure there are plenty of cities in the US with a gay district where in that instance being gay would be "normal" but generally it's not.

Sure you can sign civil contracts and file joint taxes - hell my dad has to do it with my brothers ever since my grandmother passed and left all the assets to my dad and uncles.

If gays went about it the right way they could file joint taxes. It be a pain in the ass with a lot of paperwork and such but...

IMO, I don't hate gays either. I just wish they stop shoving their sexuality down peoples throats..... As far as I'm concerned (given my religion as a Catholic) gays making out in public and such is the equivalant of Islamophobes throwing bacon at Muslims just minding their own business. It's very offensive to some, but at the same time I have been in situations where I saw that happening and you know what I did? I got up and left.... Unlike a progressive who would have gone to the manager if they saw or heard something they disagree with....

You see that is real tolerance.
 
Whether this has good, ill, or no effect, it's not the Attorney General's call to make, nor is it the POTUS who makes this call. Congress makes this call, or doesn't.
 
Samhain said:
With a single designation, there is no extra paper work. Its a simple add/drop benefactor, eliminating any forms related to marriage, etc. No additional "contracts" as they are all one in the same, and would be treated the same. Giving the individual that power is a great balance between bureaucratic red tape and a laissez faire system.
Click to expand...

It works fine with the way we have it, marriage licenses that become basically contracts the moment they are filed. The only change needed is to remove limitations that restrict people based on sex/gender (and I would personally include removing limitations based on being cousins as well, but that is a different fight).
 
Mr.Nick said:
1.)I agree but, homosexuality is not "normal" by any definition of the word - at least not generally. I'm sure there are plenty of cities in the US with a gay district where in that instance being gay would be "normal" but generally it's not.
2.)Sure you can sign civil contracts and file joint taxes - hell my dad has to do it with my brothers ever since my grandmother passed and left all the assets to my dad and uncles.
3.)If gays went about it the right way they could file joint taxes. It be a pain in the ass with a lot of paperwork and such but...
4.)IMO, I don't hate gays either. I just wish they stop shoving their sexuality down peoples throats.....
5.)As far as I'm concerned (given my religion as a Catholic) gays making out in public and such is the equivalant of Islamophobes throwing bacon at Muslims just minding their own business. It's very offensive to some, but at the same time I have been in situations where I saw that happening and you know what I did? I got up and left.... Unlike a progressive who would have gone to the manager if they saw or heard something they disagree with....
6.)You see that is real tolerance.
Click to expand...

1.) factually false and more importantly meaningless
2.) there is no way to duplicated marriage licences
3.) see #2
4.) they arent they are fighting for equal rights, sorry that strawman always fails
5.) and you subjective opinion is meaningless, do you feel the same way about non married couples? if not your views are a hypocritical
6.) your posts prove you dont have any
 
CriticalThought said:
Actually Loving versus Virginia established that marriage is a fundamental right when it abolished interracial marriage bans in over a dozen states. It sounds to me like you reject all court precedent and seek a perception of the Constitution where every single right has to be enumerated by an amendment to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

That's because it violated the 14th amendment.....

I have news for you blacks/ethnic minorities are not the same a gays. Also, if it even matters - blacks can change the color of their skin but gays can choose not to be gay - regardless - sex is a choice. Gays don't have to have sex or get married.

But I digress....

Like I said in a previous post - I don't believe government should be involved in marriage period!
 
clownboy said:
Whether this has good, ill, or no effect, it's not the Attorney General's call to make, nor is it the POTUS who makes this call. Congress makes this call, or doesn't.
Click to expand...


Actually SCOTUS made the call when they found Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional last June. That simply returned the Federal government back to the previous status, recognizing legal Civil Marriages entered into under State law.



>>>>
 
Cardinal said:
It's promoting marriage, which is a stabilizing factor and in the state's interest.



Because it's a big deal to those opposing it. If it's not a big deal, then just let them have their marriage.
Click to expand...

First - no it's not a "stabilizing factor" in society...... I know plenty of couples who have families and they're not married and don't intend to.....

Second, I don't give a **** what gays do - if they want to have a civil union then fine - but I don't want them shoving their gay **** down my throat like the pro-gay marriage supporters continually do and even worse many gays themselves.
 
Mr.Nick said:
IMO, I don't hate gays either. I just wish they stop shoving their sexuality down peoples throats..... As far as I'm concerned (given my religion as a Catholic) gays making out in public and such is the equivalant of Islamophobes throwing bacon at Muslims just minding their own business. It's very offensive to some, but at the same time I have been in situations where I saw that happening and you know what I did? I got up and left.... Unlike a progressive who would have gone to the manager if they saw or heard something they disagree with....

You see that is real tolerance.
Click to expand...

Um...how many gay people have come to your house and had sex in front of you? Other than doing that I am not sure how gays are forcing their sexuality on you. It sounds like you are trying to paint yourself as some kind of victim just because gays are not hiding that they exist.
 
Mr.Nick said:
First - no it's not a "stabilizing factor" in society...... I know plenty of couples who have families and they're not married and don't intend to.....

Second, I don't give a **** what gays do - if they want to have a civil union then fine - but I don't want them shoving their gay **** down my throat like the pro-gay marriage supporters continually do and even worse many gays themselves.
Click to expand...

No-one's shoving anything down your throat, relax. Are you angry because of the gay people already married? If so, it's completely nuts to let people who are doing things you can't even tangibly experience right now get to you this badly.

And yes, marriage does contribute to more stable households.
 
Mr.Nick said:
That's because it violated the 14th amendment.....

I have news for you blacks/ethnic minorities are not the same a gays. Also, if it even matters - blacks can change the color of their skin but gays can choose not to be gay - regardless - sex is a choice. Gays don't have to have sex or get married.

But I digress....

Like I said in a previous post - I don't believe government should be involved in marriage period!
Click to expand...

You can choose to marry someone of your own race rather than someone of a different race. But let us assume that people can choose to be gay. Why should same sex couples be denied equal protection under the law for their unions?
 
WorldWatcher said:
That's not true. Just a couple of quick examples:

1. There is no "Civil Contract" that allows for a couple to file a single tax return claiming one income for both and then using two deductions.

2. There is no "Civil Contract" that allows for the tax free transfer of property the same that currently exists between spouses.

3. There are no "Civil Contracts" that allow for the seamless inheritance of property tax free on the death of a spouse. True, there are Wills, but a will does not make it tax free.

4. There is no "Civil Contract" that allows for a spouse to sell their home and claim the $500,000 (Married) exemption vice the $250,000 (Single) exemption upon the death of the other spouse. This tax exemption is ONLY available to the widow(er) of a Civilly Married couple.​




>>>>
Click to expand...

1. yes you can How to File Taxes When Your Spouse is Your Business Partner | Fox Small Business Center

2. yes there is - you can transfer anything you want to anyone you want just as long as it's free/gift. You don't even need a contract for that.

3. A will? how about try power of attorney?? (besides that **** is moot anyways with Obamas "death tax" in place now where they will rape everyones inheritance.

4. You're right there (sort of) see #1
 
CriticalThought said:
You can choose to marry someone of your own race rather than someone of a different race. But let us assume that people can choose to be gay. Why should same sex couples be denied equal protection under the law for their unions?
Click to expand...

In many states they're NOT.

Like I said this is a Tenth Amendment issue here because there is no amendment that even touches on gay marriage.
 
Mr.Nick said:
1. yes you can How to File Taxes When Your Spouse is Your Business Partner | Fox Small Business Center
Click to expand...

You realize that link is about SPOUSES right, you know legally married people.

Of course most Civilly Married people do not own their own business.

If you and your spouse own a business together, you are supposed to file a partnership tax return with the IRS. There is no tax due at the partnership level, the profit or loss flows out on a Schedule K-1 to your individual income tax return where it is combined with other sources of taxable income and deductions then ultimately taxed.​

Mr.Nick said:
2. yes there is - you can transfer anything you want to anyone you want just as long as it's free/gift. You don't even need a contract for that.
Click to expand...

No you can't. There is a limit on the value of gifts and then taxes due. Something that doesn't occur with a spouse.

Mr.Nick said:
3. A will? how about try power of attorney?? (besides that **** is moot anyways with Obamas "death tax" in place now where they will rape everyones inheritance.
Click to expand...

A power of attorney does nothing toward exemption from estate taxes.

Mr.Nick said:
4. You're right there (sort of) see #1
Click to expand...

#1 referred to businesses run by husband and wives, you know Civilly Married couples.



>>>>
 
Mr.Nick said:
That's because it violated the 14th amendment.....

I have news for you blacks/ethnic minorities are not the same a gays. Also, if it even matters - blacks can change the color of their skin but gays can choose not to be gay - regardless - sex is a choice. Gays don't have to have sex or get married.

But I digress....

Like I said in a previous post - I don't believe government should be involved in marriage period!
Click to expand...

how does one choose not to have thier sexual orientation lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom