• 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!

Obama Extends Fed Benefits to Unmarried Partners, Including Same Sex Partners

Jerry said:
...and all that jazz.


I know you've read them.
Click to expand...

Yeah. And nothing in those cases indicate that child rearing is the interest of the state when it comes to marriage.
 
jallman said:
Yeah. And nothing in those cases indicate that child rearing is the interest of the state when it comes to marriage.
Click to expand...

Oh, I thought you read them, my mistake.
 
Jerry said:
I've been posting the same links and making the same argument for years:

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
Click to expand...

Got a hady quote? searching for "children" and "child" give none found in that document.

Also nothing for "offspring", "daughter", and "son" gives way too many matches of wrong words.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Got a hady quote? searching for "children" and "child" give none found in that document.
Click to expand...

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.
Click to expand...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=316&invol=535#541
But the instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause, though we give Oklahoma that large deference which the rule of the foregoing cases requires. We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.
Click to expand...

This is why NJ didn't even approve of gay marriage:
N.J. rules neither for, against gay marriage - Life- msnbc.com
 
jallman said:
So how does that make child rearing the state's interest in marriage. The closest I see is an "and" statement linking marriage and procreation, but nothing making them necessarily inclusive of one another.
Click to expand...

I would be careful of the word "link". Jerry will jump all over that to try and make(or distract from) his point. The word and is to show that they are both "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race", not that they are interrelated.
 
Redress said:
I would be careful of the word "link". Jerry will jump all over that to try and make(or distract from) his point. The word and is to show that they are both "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race", not that they are interrelated.
Click to expand...

Well that was where I intended to dispute the fact that it was not an and/or statement...
 
Jerry said:
Same with heteros. If the state decides to come in and say "ok,, we'll marry you, but your marriage is void if you don't have children in, say, 5 years"...I'm not going to stand in the state's way.
Click to expand...

This has the makings of interesting SciFi Channel Movie of The Week.

A poor man's Brave New World.

State of Jerry
 
Until I see proof that Fred who lives with Ted but isn't a homosexual gets the same exact benefits then this is unconstitutional.
..and no citing some line of text in the bill that broadly says unmarried couples or some crap like that is not proof of the ACT of the law in reality.


Obvious this is only an Obama kiss butt political game..given how arrogant he's been on things like GITMO, spending, etc this is probably flawed...but he don't care.
Whats equality if he can't take advantage of it?...the lack of a race speech.... No Historic!
Obama like most leftists likes to have people defined by groups....makes it easier to use one against the other while aggrandizing himself.
 
Triad said:
Obama like most leftists likes to have people defined by groups..
Click to expand...

This coming from the guy who labels liberals as socialists :rofl

Pot meet kettle.
 
AM I the Fuhrer of the USA ..do I run the government.

No.



In the USA we are all equal under the law.
Not this special interest gets benefits but not this one.
 
Triad said:
AM I the Fuhrer of the USA ..do I run the government.

No.



In the USA we are all equal under the law.
Not this special interest gets benefits but not this one.
Click to expand...

Exactly, now you're catching on. Equality.
 
Yes I believe in equality.


Not one lifestyle, race, religion, creed, etc being special.
That is not equality. That is inequality.
 
Triad said:
Yes I believe in equality.


Not one lifestyle, race, religion, creed, etc being special.
That is not equality. That is inequality.
Click to expand...

So you're accepting of all lifestyles then? -- not just one.

Good to hear you're finally coming around.
 
You lost the argument.
 
Simple instead of dealing with what I say your trying to distort it.

That= You lost the argument. You threw it all away for cheapness.
 
Last edited:
There is a pressure to marry from a moral standpoint and we naturally get married in a church. "Now it's ok for you two to have sex."

What does the government have to do with this? It's none of their business.

The only thing the government might get involved in is helping any citizen responsible for raising a child by handing out tax breaks.
 
Triad said:
In the USA we are all equal under the law.
Not this special interest gets benefits but not this one.
Click to expand...

Gay Marriage is not special interest. You as a heterosexual will be free to marry the man (if you are male) or female (if you are female) you want just like a gay person can.

See, EQUALITY. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Triad said:
Simple instead of dealing with what I say your trying to distort it.

That= You lost the argument. You threw it all away for cheapness.
Click to expand...

So, instead of trying to correct me by being more artilulate and giving a more detailed and intelligence answer in support of your views, you duck out of a discussion by declaring yourself the 'winner'.

First, I didn't realize it was a contest with rules and a scorecard.

Second, get over the sting of having your own words used against you. You didn't really know what you were talking about, you stepped in it, so live with it and move on.

It's not the end of the world, son.:2wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom