• 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!

New York to Become the Sixth State to Legalize Gay Marriage

Can we get universal Stand Your Ground law too?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
And, as one who FAR favors federal laws trumping state laws, I would agree with you. Concealed carry permits should be universal. Just as SSM should be.
Click to expand...

You give me my gun, I give you your SSM, no strings attached for anyone.

IMO gays get the better end of that deal, because they get both the legal buffs of marriage *and* the lower crime rate from an armed populace; whereas gun owners simply get to keep on doing what we've been doing.
 
Hmmm....requiring states to recognize all other states' SSM laws....but NOT their gun-carry laws.

interesting. One could indeed argue that if the Feds can mandate national recognition of SSM, then concealed weapons laws must also be recognized nation-wide.

after all, both mandates would be based on the Bill of Rights.
 
Why do I have this insane idea that the right to SSM is more of a natural right than owning a weapon? :shrug:
 
SE102 said:
Why do I have this insane idea that the right to SSM is more of a natural right than owning a weapon? :shrug:
Click to expand...

people have a natural right to have a loving & committed relationship with anyone they like.

they do not, however, have a "right" to get married. Marriage is a purely human and cultural construct.

nor is owning a Glock...a natural right.
 
I'm 100% okay with the bill that was passed.

I don't care if religious organizations want to wear their bigotry on their sleeve, and it bother me that they're doing so while remaining tax exempt. My whole argument for the legalization of gay marriage was "It doesn't impact you unless you want one." If a pastor doesn't want to perform the ceremony or permit the church he is overseeing to be used to host the ceremony, it only impacts the gay folks who are bent on celebrating their big day in the presence of bigots.

Aside from that, I have yet to hear or read a coherent argument for why allowing gay people to get married affects anybody aside from the gay people getting married. I've heard and read silly slippery-slope arguments, I've heard and read Biblical arguments, but all that are arguments about why a gay marriage is wrong in nature -- none of the bigots have ever been able to explain how somebody else's gay marriage affects them directly.



TED,
Gonna set up with the local Siggerson distributor and sell ButtGuards.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Aside from that, I have yet to hear or read a coherent argument for why allowing gay people to get married affects anybody aside from the gay people getting married.
Click to expand...

the biggest effects will be on:

1 employers. If they provide any spousal coverage, they will be forced to offer coverage to gay spouses - even if it violates their individual views on the issue.

2 social security - the costs will certainly increase from opening up benefit sharing.

I really think #1 should be handled legislatively granting private sector employers the freedom to discriminate.
 
ARealConservative said:
2 social security - the costs will certainly increase from opening up benefit sharing.

.
Click to expand...


The CBO on the net effect disagrees with you:

The potential effects on the federal budget of recognizing same-sex marriages are numerous. Marriage can affect a person's eligibility for federal benefits such as Social Security. Married couples may incur higher or lower federal tax liabilities than they would as single individuals. In all, the General Accounting Office has counted 1,138 statutory provisions--ranging from the obvious cases just mentioned to the obscure (landowners' eligibility to negotiate a surface-mine lease with the Secretary of Labor)--in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving "benefits, rights, and privileges."(1) In some cases, recognizing same-sex marriages would increase outlays and revenues; in other cases, it would have the opposite effect. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that on net, those impacts would improve the budget's bottom line to a small extent: by less than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years (CBO's usual estimating period). That result assumes that same-sex marriages are legalized in all 50 states and recognized by the federal government.

The Potential Budgetary Impact of Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages
 
winston53660 said:
The CBO on the net effect disagrees with you:

The potential effects on the federal budget of recognizing same-sex marriages are numerous. Marriage can affect a person's eligibility for federal benefits such as Social Security. Married couples may incur higher or lower federal tax liabilities than they would as single individuals. In all, the General Accounting Office has counted 1,138 statutory provisions--ranging from the obvious cases just mentioned to the obscure (landowners' eligibility to negotiate a surface-mine lease with the Secretary of Labor)--in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving "benefits, rights, and privileges."(1) In some cases, recognizing same-sex marriages would increase outlays and revenues; in other cases, it would have the opposite effect. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that on net, those impacts would improve the budget's bottom line to a small extent: by less than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years (CBO's usual estimating period). That result assumes that same-sex marriages are legalized in all 50 states and recognized by the federal government.

The Potential Budgetary Impact of Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages
Click to expand...

a 10 year window is horribly shortsighted for a program of this nature.
 
SE102 said:
Their right to disagree with the legally established rights of others? There's alot of things wrong with what you are saying.
Click to expand...

the issue is that govenrment must recognize gay marriage. what I am discussing is a side issue it generates, which results in a loss of rights. to claim a person has a right to employer provided health care is an other issue entirely - and one I certainly disagree with. everything is wrong with what you are saying.
 
ARealConservative said:
the issue is that govenrment must recognize gay marriage. what I am discussing is a side issue it generates, which results in a loss of rights. to claim a person has a right to employer provided health care is an other issue entirely - and one I certainly disagree with. everything is wrong with what you are saying.
Click to expand...

When one persons rights come up against another we must decide who's rights should be more important. And a persons right to live without being unduly discriminated against is more important then someone's right to unduly discriminate.
 
ARealConservative said:
the issue is that govenrment must recognize gay marriage. what I am discussing is a side issue it generates, which results in a loss of rights. to claim a person has a right to employer provided health care is an other issue entirely - and one I certainly disagree with. everything is wrong with what you are saying.
Click to expand...

Companies do not have the right to discriminate against employees in a number of areas, including sex, race, age, and sexual orientation. There is no loss of a current right.
 
Redress said:
Companies do not have the right to discriminate against employees in a number of areas, including sex, race, age, and sexual orientation. There is no loss of a current right.
Click to expand...

individuals that can't discriminate based on their core beliefs is a loss of a right - merely one not currently recognized by the courts.
 
winston53660 said:
And so far researched educated projections have debunked your intuition. :yawn:
Click to expand...

riiiiight. they have shown that the marriage tax penalty will cover for the lack of additional expenses in the first 10 years.
 
ARealConservative said:
riiiiight. they have shown that the marriage tax penalty will cover for the lack of additional expenses in the first 10 years.
Click to expand...


Can you present anything that supports your initial assumption or not?
 
winston53660 said:
Can you present anything that supports your initial assumption or not?
Click to expand...

fair or not, the system benefits when people die without a spouse to draw from their benefits.

that you provide a government study speculating on the (10 year) future in a way that pleases you bores me to no end.
 
ARealConservative said:
fair or not, the system benefits when people die without a spouse to draw from their benefits.

that you provide a government study speculating on the (10 year) future in a way that pleases you bores me to no end.
Click to expand...


And your unsupported claims are just that, unsupported.:yawn:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom