• 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!

They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex marria

Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

I have already explained why.

If we privative marriage, then no one can stop two adult males from marrying, or two adult females from marrying. Without government enforcement, no one can mandate or control the use of the terms "marriage" or "civil union." This amounts to the legalization of same-sex marriage, which is explicitly what the anti-SSM folks are fighting.

Thus... it's not neutral. It's a victory for SSM.



yes, but now you have 14th amendment protection, explicitly. third parties objecting to contracts based on who people are? won't fly. they have no say.

at the same time. a church or whoever who is against it can claim victory as they can say "We don't recognize any gay marriage", and no one would be the worse off for it.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

What makes anyone who gets "special recognition" by the tax authorities different than everyone else? Their choices to do something that is viewed as beneficial to society in some way.

Well, I can see how taking care of dependants can be viewed as beneficial to society; it would cost the state far more in caring for the young, elderly or inform than the cost of tax credits to those who assume that responsibility. In what way does being married benefit the wider society?
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

yes, but now you have 14th amendment protection....
First, it is arguable that SSM is already protected by the 14th Amendment. Lower courts have already overturned anti-SSM laws on that basis, and some court observers expect the SCOTUS to do so as well.

Second, you're assuming that this change will somehow magically pass without anyone saying "Boo." My point is that will never happen, because the anti-SSM activists will fight against legislation they perceive as legalizing SSM.

Third, most government management of marriage happens on the state level, not the federal level. Getting government "out of the marriage business" would require extended political battles in most or all 50 states -- and, we should note, would replace civil marriage with a complex and dizzying array of contracts. We should also note that this could result in making divorces even messier, more complex, more expensive and more emotionally fraught than it is already, since an embittered spouse could fight over a half-dozen contracts.


at the same time. a church or whoever who is against it can claim victory as they can say "We don't recognize any gay marriage", and no one would be the worse off for it.
It won't be a victory for any anti-SSM advocates, because SSM would be legal.

US governments do not, and cannot, require religious organizations to recognize SSM, admit homosexuals, perform funerals for homosexuals, or even recognize a same-sex union in a funeral ceremony. The government cannot force the RCC to overturn an excommunication on the basis of sexual preference.

In addition, even federal legalization of SSM has no effect on discrimination laws. Federal law does not currently provide protection on the basis of sexual orientation, and that would require an act of Congress. The dust-ups over discrimination suits and public accommodation laws are in states that explicitly passed laws outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Thus, your solution is not neutral. It is a decisive loss for the anti-SSM community.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Well, I can see how taking care of dependants can be viewed as beneficial to society; it would cost the state far more in caring for the young, elderly or inform than the cost of tax credits to those who assume that responsibility. In what way does being married benefit the wider society?

Because there are adults who lose their job, for one, or become sick. If they are married, the spouse has basically voluntarily said they should have the first responsibility for that person. This is why your legal spouse's income is taken into account when asking for assistance from the government.

I know someone who married a person who was quadriplegic. It happened as a young adult and was an accident from doing something immature. Although he got SS, if she had not married him, the government would have been paying more money for him to live in assisted living. (It wasn't a marriage of convenience though, they did love each other. He passed away last year.) my husband and I have both been out of work during our marriage but didn't really need help from the government because of the support of the other spouse.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Because there are adults who lose their job, for one, or become sick. If they are married, the spouse has basically voluntarily said they should have the first responsibility for that person. This is why your legal spouse's income is taken into account when asking for assistance from the government.

I know someone who married a person who was quadriplegic. It happened as a young adult and was an accident from doing something immature. Although he got SS, if she had not married him, the government would have been paying more money for him to live in assisted living. (It wasn't a marriage of convenience though, they did love each other. He passed away last year.) my husband and I have both been out of work during our marriage but didn't really need help from the government because of the support of the other spouse.


When my husband became disabled, it took several years to get him onto social security disability. If he hadn't had me to take care of him and the bills, no idea what he would have done. General assistance? food stamps? subsidized housing?

I also paid some expenses for his kids (who lived with their mom).

So I agree, marriage does help remove costs from society.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

When my husband became disabled, it took several years to get him onto social security disability. If he hadn't had me to take care of him and the bills, no idea what he would have done. General assistance? food stamps? subsidized housing?

I also paid some expenses for his kids (who lived with their mom).

So I agree, marriage does help remove costs from society.

Spouse is the only legal relationship that I absolutely know of where two people agree to voluntarily be each other's legal relative and take on certain mutual responsibilities for each other (although there are some rare cases of an adult being adopted, but it is very rare and a different type of relationship). All other legal kin have one person at least in the relationship that did not actually choose the legal bond (even if most would if they could have).
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Because there are adults who lose their job, for one, or become sick. If they are married, the spouse has basically voluntarily said they should have the first responsibility for that person. This is why your legal spouse's income is taken into account when asking for assistance from the government.

I know someone who married a person who was quadriplegic. It happened as a young adult and was an accident from doing something immature. Although he got SS, if she had not married him, the government would have been paying more money for him to live in assisted living. (It wasn't a marriage of convenience though, they did love each other. He passed away last year.) my husband and I have both been out of work during our marriage but didn't really need help from the government because of the support of the other spouse.

When my husband became disabled, it took several years to get him onto social security disability. If he hadn't had me to take care of him and the bills, no idea what he would have done. General assistance? food stamps? subsidized housing?

I also paid some expenses for his kids (who lived with their mom).

So I agree, marriage does help remove costs from society.

Doesn't the same apply to co-habitees? It certainly does here. Anyone applying for means-tested benefits is assessed on household income i.e whoever lives under the same roof. If you have a working-age son or daughter living with you, their income gets assessed too.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Doesn't the same apply to co-habitees? It certainly does here. Anyone applying for means-tested benefits is assessed on household income i.e whoever lives under the same roof. If you have a working-age son or daughter living with you, their income gets assessed too.

There still is not the same responsibility to take care of that person. And it depends on the type of relationship claimed by the people.

Take the case from Washington. The man claimed the woman was simply a rentee, so the government was paying her rent, which went to him, until they found out they were legally married.

Welfare fraud investigators raid $1.2 million Lake Washington home - seattlepi.com

They could have actually gotten away with this had they not gotten married, at least for longer.

Plus, spouses do not have to share the residence to be means tested together. Your legal spouse is responsible to take care of you even if they don't live with you before the government steps in. Example when it comes to means testing for bankruptcy:

“Current Monthly Income” for the Bankruptcy Means Test | Nolo.com
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Doesn't the same apply to co-habitees? It certainly does here. Anyone applying for means-tested benefits is assessed on household income i.e whoever lives under the same roof. If you have a working-age son or daughter living with you, their income gets assessed too.

There still is not the same responsibility to take care of that person. And it depends on the type of relationship claimed by the people.

Take the case from Washington. The man claimed the woman was simply a rentee, so the government was paying her rent, which went to him, until they found out they were legally married.

Welfare fraud investigators raid $1.2 million Lake Washington home - seattlepi.com

They could have actually gotten away with this had they not gotten married, at least for longer.

Plus, spouses do not have to share the residence to be means tested together. Your legal spouse is responsible to take care of you even if they don't live with you before the government steps in. Example when it comes to means testing for bankruptcy:

“Current Monthly Income� for the Bankruptcy Means Test | Nolo.com


I hadn't ever thought about people who co-habitted. Interesting question, interesting info. thanks.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

I hadn't ever thought about people who co-habitted. Interesting question, interesting info. thanks.

I think everyone just assumes that all married people live together, in the same home. This isn't true for a small number of people for various reasons.

But there's more to it too. Take for instance when someone dies. If I am that persons legal spouse, it will be my responsibility to take care of my spouses remains barring any other legal documentation to the contrary. However a girlfriend or boyfriend or cohabitee doesn't have that same responsibility. That falls to the legal family.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

You just made it about me, I simply corrected you.






nonsense, 14th amendment for one. adults can engage in almost any contract as long as there is a "meeting of the minds". they can bitch all they want, it will be pointless.

If we do not limit those contracts, then government is out of the picture. In turn, this will legalize gay marriage -- and polygamy as well. Social conservatives will not accept this, because yet again... they are fighting against the normalization of homosexuality. They will thus fight against unrestricted marriage contracts.

Yet again, the problem is not that "government is involved in marriage." The legislatures and courts merely happen to be the playing field. The issue is the normalization and acceptance of homosexuality.

It was normalized and accepted before the courts ever stepped in. The only notable exception was the iowa supreme court, which led to most of them not being re-elected. Practically every court since then has waited until public opinion was on their side.

Funny how it's so much easier to conjure some 'activist judges' than to blame the majority
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

It was normalized and accepted before the courts ever stepped in. The only notable exception was the iowa supreme court, which led to most of them not being re-elected. Practically every court since then has waited until public opinion was on their side.

Funny how it's so much easier to conjure some 'activist judges' than to blame the majority



I think you quoted the wrong person or messed up the quotes/
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

how would gays that love each other pervert marriage more than straight married people that cheat on their spouses, committing adultery? Or those that beat their spouses?

How is 2 people of any combination more perverted, more damaging to the institution, than those things?

Er....are you sure you're clear on what the marriage commitment means? Not the word 'marriage,' what it actually means to the 2 people involved.

fyi...
the pair, who founded dolce & gabbana, were a couple for 23 years, before breaking-up in 2005.
Despite their sexuality, they have have previously spoken out against same-sex marriage.

But he said he did not want his child to have two gay parents, adding: "i am opposed to the idea of a child growing up with two gay parents.
"a child needs a mother and a father. I could not imagine my childhood without my mother. I also believe that it is cruel to take a baby away from its mother."

sir elton john boycotts dolce & gabbana after row over same-sex families - telegraph
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

The pair, who founded Dolce & Gabbana, were a couple for 23 years, before breaking-up in 2005.
Despite their sexuality, they have have previously spoken out against same-sex marriage.

But he said he did not want his child to have two gay parents, adding: "I am opposed to the idea of a child growing up with two gay parents.
"A child needs a mother and a father. I could not imagine my childhood without my mother. I also believe that it is cruel to take a baby away from its mother."

Sir Elton John boycotts Dolce & Gabbana after row over same-sex families - Telegraph

So? Lots of couples decide not to have kids for personal reasons.

We did. Does that invalidate all the straight couples that DO choose to have kids? :doh

Connecting the dots...seems it's not all that natural for everyone. Hope I clarified it for you. :cool:
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

So? Lots of couples decide not to have kids for personal reasons.

We did. Does that invalidate all the straight couples that DO choose to have kids? :doh

Connecting the dots...seems it's not all that natural for everyone. Hope I clarified it for you. :cool:

I'm trying to figure out what relevance zimmer's posting had in response to yours....
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

I'm trying to figure out what relevance zimmer's posting had in response to yours....

It's the "my black friend says" argument only with gay people. With blacks, it's find a black person who agrees with you, and use them to hide your own opinion. Then you can ignore the millions of black people saying something differently and just say they live on the plantation. It's a debate tactic used by old white guys. Now, if you use that with gays, it's find a gay person who isn't into gay marriage, and use them to argue against gay marriage. It's dishonest debating at its finest. Since your opinions don't hold any water, you find somebody to help you dismiss what the majority of other people in that group are asking for.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

ROTFLOL... how long until this "right" is bestowed on US citizens?

Oughta be a field day for divorce lawyers.

Will it be limited to only homosexuals? LOL...

Ethnocentric much?
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Ethnocentric much?

I think he once posted an article on Europe/US becoming browner. It's the type of article posted by certain stormfront trolls every couple of months until they're eventually banned. You can draw your own conclusions from that. However, I just group his posts with all the other ethnocentric fears that certain conservative white people have. So yeah, he's pretty "ethnocentric".
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

So? Lots of couples decide not to have kids for personal reasons.

We did. Does that invalidate all the straight couples that DO choose to have kids? :doh

Connecting the dots...seems it's not all that natural for everyone. Hope I clarified it for you. :cool:
Just because couples decide not to have kids is no reason for homosexuals to adopt them.

Happy to educate you about some loose thinking on your part.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

I think he once posted an article on Europe/US becoming browner.
Good try... not me.

It's the type of article posted by certain stormfront trolls every couple of months until they're eventually banned. You can draw your own conclusions from that. However, I just group his posts with all the other ethnocentric fears that certain conservative white people have. So yeah, he's pretty "ethnocentric".
Odd, as I've dated girls of other races... and as recent as a couple weeks ago. Go figure.

Nice try with the race card.

Fail.
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Good try... not me.


Odd, as I've dated girls of other races... and as recent as a couple weeks ago. Go figure.

Nice try with the race card.

Fail.

If it wasn't you, then I apologize. I get my extremist conservatives mixed up from time to time. :lol:
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

If it wasn't you, then I apologize. I get my extremist conservatives mixed up from time to time. :lol:
Cheers.

Your next correction: Conservatism isn't extreme.

What is extreme about Liberty, limited government, low taxation, secure borders, a strong military... separation of powers?
 
Re: They look like a new boy band... but it's the world's first THREE-WAY same-sex ma

Cheers.

Your next correction: Conservatism isn't extreme.

What is extreme about Liberty, limited government, low taxation, secure borders, a strong military... separation of powers?

I didn't say conservatism was extreme. I said you're an extremist conservative. No need to correct anything. Rosy picture. Did you forgot: no separation of church and state, religious based foreign policy, and really terrible policies when it comes to science. Don't shy away from it. Own it. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom