• 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

ARealConservative said:
you would be incorrect. I was stating factually what would change without giving an opinion.
Click to expand...

It would not change. It would simply be available to more people. Which would be the same case if we actually saw a rise in opposite sex marriages.

Besides that, I don't see anyone ever complaining about children receiving SS benefits when we talk about spousal SS benefits. How many people complained when they developed a way for women past menopause to have children that this would increase SS benefits needing to be paid out, since those children are being raised by a person over 62, most likely, at some point while they are under 18? Or how many complain that older couples (>50) are allowed to adopt children, who would also be eligible (possibly) for those benefits? Or complain about an older person (>55/60) getting married to a person younger than 62 who is raising children and how that would affect SS benefits?

Retirement Benefits

Bringing up spouse SS benefits and how those would be affected by same sex marriage being legal is a red herring. Especially since it is quite likely that, due to the specific limitations in place for SS benefits, that at least some of those people will be costing the government less money by receiving SS due to their marriage, rather than being single and eligible for some welfare benefits.
 
roguenuke said:
It would not change. It would simply be available to more people. Which would be the same case if we actually saw a rise in opposite sex marriages.
Click to expand...

Being available to more people is a change. You are agreeing with me, and using the things we agree with to argue why I am wrong.

Besides that, I don't see anyone ever complaining about children receiving SS benefits when we talk about spousal SS benefits.
Click to expand...

I am not complaining about gay spouses getting the benefits either – it asked what changes non gay people can expect to see and I answered the question.
 
Navy Pride said:
I would not worry about this to much......There are 41 states that have amendments defining marriage as being between a man and a women....Iowas legislators voted for same sex marriage and the people that did it were all voted out in 2010....The same thing will happen in NY.
Click to expand...

I was waiting for you to post in this thread. What honestly makes you think that New York will do that as well? People tend to progress, not revert.
 
Navy Pride said:
I would not worry about this to much......There are 41 states that have amendments defining marriage as being between a man and a women....Iowas legislators voted for same sex marriage and the people that did it were all voted out in 2010....The same thing will happen in NY.
Click to expand...

Speaking as a New Yorker, I think you're wrong.

The legislature has an extremely high (90%+) re-election rate, and it's got a lot more to do with how the political engine works in this state than anything else.

Not only that, but there was a lot of support for this bill. The legislature was not flouting the will of a vast majority of the people of New York, they were actually acting according to the will of the electorate.

For a change. :lol:
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Speaking as a New Yorker, I think you're wrong.

The legislature has an extremely high (90%+) re-election rate, and it's got a lot more to do with how the political engine works in this state than anything else.

Not only that, but there was a lot of support for this bill. The legislature was not flouting the will of a vast majority of the people of New York, they were actually acting according to the will of the electorate.

For a change. :lol:
Click to expand...

I gotta agree here. Born and bred in the Empire State as well. A whole lot of New York was really pissed the last time SSM was up and got shot down by the legislature. New York has been very much in favor of SSM for several years. It's not going anywhere.
 
Hooray for NY. Very proud.
 
Pat Robertson isn't to happy:



Oh well.....
 
winston53660 said:
Could you imagine him as President *shudders*
Click to expand...

this will get my internet traffic monitored and phone tapped for a year but if he (pat Robertson) was president id gladly assassinate him for the better of or country. Id bet any amount of money that if he was tested he would passes as legally retarded.
 
Councilman said:
What is next, a new twist on puppy love? Oh wait there was the guy in Washington State who was caught doing a horse little more than a year ago.

Is that coming to a court near you?

We do have NABLA out there wanting to have sex with kids.

The Governor said he'll sign it now so that's a done deal.
Click to expand...

A vicious and ignorant homophobic rant.
 
Its to bad the people of NY did not have a vote on this issue...I am confident that this issue will end up in the SCOTUS and all these phony marriages will be voided.........
 
Navy Pride said:
Its to bad the people of NY did not have a vote on this issue...I am confident that this issue will end up in the SCOTUS and all these phony marriages will be voided.........
Click to expand...

It will reach the SCOTUS all right, but the ruling won't be what you expect.
 
Your Star said:
It will reach the SCOTUS all right, but the ruling won't be what you expect.
Click to expand...

We shall see...Thanks to President Bush there are 5 Conservatives judges on the Court now................That would mean a 5-4 vote to throw out Gay Marriage.............
 
Navy Pride said:
We shall see...Thanks to President Bush there are 5 Conservatives judges on the Court now................That would mean a 5-4 vote to throw out Gay Marriage.............
Click to expand...

It's sad that partisan agendas might very well prevail over the clear legal argument.
 
Paschendale said:
It's sad that partisan agendas might very well prevail over the clear legal argument.
Click to expand...

You call it that my far left wing friend..........I don't hear you complaining about a bunch of far left SCOTUS judges in 1972 authorizing butchery in the womb though...Why am I not surprised?
 
Navy Pride said:
We shall see...Thanks to President Bush there are 5 Conservatives judges on the Court now................That would mean a 5-4 vote to throw out Gay Marriage.............
Click to expand...

I'm not a proponent of gay marriage, but I am a proponent of what is constitutional. I hope the wisdom is strong with them on that day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom