• 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

also, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

your turn to state something obvious.

Since an employer is already not able to discriminate, nothing has changed, hence no rights lost.

Only libertarians would come up with something as insane as this.
 
Since an employer is already not able to discriminate, nothing has changed, hence no rights lost.

Only libertarians would come up with something as insane as this.

personal attack noted.
 
Not subjective at all, but is a matter of law. You are not allowed to deny blacks the right to vote, nor are you allowed to decide that you don't have to sell a home to a black, gay, or anybody else you don't happen to like.

I didn't know there were modern day segregationist or that some factions on the right were so opposed to progression. Stop holding us back.

regressive1.gif


The worst thing about the existence of government is people using it to protect bigots and give them more power to discriminate against minorities and further racism in society. This is just harmful to society and ignorant.
 
hence the dilemma - individual bigotry is a right.

yes, you have a right to not have black friends.

but the Supreme Court has decided that you do NOT have a right to not serve blacks at your restaurant, not allow blacks at your hotel, not hire blacks at your company, not sell blacks your merchandise, not allow blacks on your cruise ship, etc etc.

discrimination on a private level, is your right. but when it involves commerce, it is not your right.

sowwy... :(
 
yes, you have a right to not have black friends.

but the Supreme Court has decided that you do NOT have a right to not serve blacks at your restaurant, not allow blacks at your hotel, not hire blacks at your company, not sell blacks your merchandise, not allow blacks on your cruise ship, etc etc.

discrimination on a private level, is your right. but when it involves commerce, it is not your right.

sowwy... :(

Are religious ceremonies a matter of commerce?
 
yes, you have a right to not have black friends.

but the Supreme Court has decided that you do NOT have a right to not serve blacks at your restaurant, not allow blacks at your hotel, not hire blacks at your company, not sell blacks your merchandise, not allow blacks on your cruise ship, etc etc.

discrimination on a private level, is your right. but when it involves commerce, it is not your right.

sowwy... :(

it is still a right, just not a protected one (like gay marriage in 44 states)
 
That is going to change dramatically in the next few years.

good - as far as government discrimination - I am against it. social security is wrong, but it should be afforded to gay couples as well, even if it makes it even more insolvent.

but I also recognize the impact it has on individuals and think we should remedy that.
 
it is still a right, just not a protected one..

No, its not a right. Its a choice.

Rights do not exist unless society decides to recognize them.

In the jungle, by the laws of the jungle, rights do NOT exist. Even the Bible fails to list any "rights". It only says what you must do, what you cannot do, and what makes God angry.
 
No, its not a right. Its a choice.

Rights do not exist unless society decides to recognize them.

In the jungle, by the laws of the jungle, rights do NOT exist. Even the Bible fails to list any "rights". It only says what you must do, what you cannot do, and what makes God angry.

Thunder gets it.
 
No, its not a right. Its a choice.

Rights do not exist unless society decides to recognize them.

In the jungle, by the laws of the jungle, rights do NOT exist. Even the Bible fails to list any "rights". It only says what you must do, what you cannot do, and what makes God angry.

I agree but this becomes semantics. the 44 states that do not allow gay marriage is argued to be a violation of rights, which I largely agree is a loss of rights. but based on your semantic definition, it isn't.
 
I think this is a good thing. States should have the right to define marriage for themselves considering they are the ones that issue marriage licenses.

Agreed! This is why I'm not more vocal about it. The process worked. Things like this should be decided by the people through their representatives, and legislated for. If I don't like it I can move, and that is my right. I have no plans to move just yet though. We'll see!


Tim-
 
I'm pleased to see another state recognizing that homosexuals are entitled to the same marital rights as heterosexuals, along with all the perks and responsibilities that go with it. However, eventually the federal government is going to have to step in. This is a constitutional issue. States' rights stop at the point that states deliberately violate constitutional rights by "legally" discriminating against a certain group of people. SCOTUS will eventually recognize that the constitution grants homosexuals the right to not be discriminated against. It may not happen in my lifetime, but it most certainly will happen.
 
I'm pleased to see another state recognizing that homosexuals are entitled to the same marital rights as heterosexuals, along with all the perks and responsibilities that go with it. However, eventually the federal government is going to have to step in. This is a constitutional issue. States' rights stop at the point that states deliberately violate constitutional rights by "legally" discriminating against a certain group of people. SCOTUS will eventually recognize that the constitution grants homosexuals the right to not be discriminated against. It may not happen in my lifetime, but it most certainly will happen.

Unless your really old it's gonna happen in your lifetime. I'd say within this decade.
 
Excellent news, 44 more to go. For all those still on the fence; gay marriage has been legal for some time in the Bay State, and we have yet to degenerate into a Hobbesian dystopia, a la Road Warrior. You have nothing to be afraid of.
 
Why do I have this insane idea that the right to SSM is more of a natural right than owning a weapon? :shrug:

Because, as a liberal, you fear people who can do acts of violence.
 
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.

In that way, being claimed as family on an insurance policy is not a 'natural right'.
 
No, its not a right. Its a choice.

Rights do not exist unless society decides to recognize them.

Nonsense. One cannot create rights, one can merely respect rights.

In the jungle, by the laws of the jungle, rights do NOT exist. Even the Bible fails to list any "rights". It only says what you must do, what you cannot do, and what makes God angry.

The Cat in the Hat doesn't list any fundamental human rights, either. Thankfully, human rights are not dependent on either of these works of fiction.
 
Question: why should religious instititions and religious affiliatted groups and non-profits, be able to discriminate against gays, but not everybody else?

Their ability to do so is specifically protected by the Constitution.

No one els's is.

what if a regular band doesn't want to play at a gay-wedding?

The right to refuse service is based upon a prohibition against forced labor; a different topic entirely.

what if a regular wedding hall doesn't want to host a gay wedding?

Property rights secure the owner's ability to control who is allowed or banned from their land and buildings.

what if a private employer doesn't want to give pension and other beneficiary rights to gay couples?

Unlike the prohibition on forced-labor/slavery, and unlike private property rights, employment regards commerce and as such is subject to state regulation on commerce.

why should religious groups have the right to live by their moral views, but not other folks?

Their ability to do so is specifically protected by the Constitution.

No one els's is.

(devil's advocate asks: should a wedding hall be allowed to refuse to serve an inter-racial wedding? hmmmm.....this is gonna bring up some serious issues of freedom of speech and association)

Of course.

A wedding hall can even choose to only allow SSMs if they chose. Also, I'll bet we'll see a couple same-sex couples only drive through chapels spring up in Nevada.
 
Last edited:
I do predict that the religious exemption will be tested soon enough.


Tim-
 
Back
Top Bottom