• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

People who talk about family values should start valuing families

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
This is the type of thing that just burns me up when I read about it. This woman put her life on the line just like anyone else and she deserves to have her death benefits extended to the partner of her choice. Story below...

http://365gay.com/Newscon05/11/112305njDemo.htm

Why shouldnt she and her partner have the same rights to inheritance that hetero couples enjoy. We need civil unions badly.
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That is a real shame, the system can really be cruel sometimes, to everyone.:(
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
jallman said:
This is the type of thing that just burns me up when I read about it. This woman put her life on the line just like anyone else and she deserves to have her death benefits extended to the partner of her choice. Story below...

http://365gay.com/Newscon05/11/112305njDemo.htm

Why shouldnt she and her partner have the same rights to inheritance that hetero couples enjoy. We need civil unions badly.
If she purchased a house with another person they should have taken out a life insurance policy on each other.

It is a fact and it is a reality that society encourages heterosexual marriage. It is a fact and it is a reality that soceity does not encourage homosexual marriage, union, cohabitation or whatever you want to call it. A cheap little insurance policy, just as I would take out on a business partner, or anyone else I make a high financial commitment with, male or female, is all they needed.

So if I move into a house with another guy and we live together should he get benefits from my employer?
 

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Stinger said:
If she purchased a house with another person they should have taken out a life insurance policy on each other.

It is a fact and it is a reality that society encourages heterosexual marriage. It is a fact and it is a reality that soceity does not encourage homosexual marriage, union, cohabitation or whatever you want to call it. A cheap little insurance policy, just as I would take out on a business partner, or anyone else I make a high financial commitment with, male or female, is all they needed.

So if I move into a house with another guy and we live together should he get benefits from my employer?
Depends...were you cohabitants who were intimately involved? Did your state of residence pass legislation which allowed your employer to extend those benefits? Was it your request that such benefits be extended to a life-long partner whom you had made an obvious commitment to? If the answer to all of these questions is yes, the by all means, he should get the benefits just like any hetero partner would. Now, on to your other unfortunate assertions...

It is a fact and it is a reality that social encouragement (mostly conservative christian encouragement, but we can hit that later) does not trump Constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is a fact and it is a reality that social discouragement is not grounds for legislation that creates bias and discrimination.

It is also a fact and it is also a reality that not everyone agrees with your assertions and that a growing number of Americans completely disagree with them. This woman should not be forced to buy an added insurance policy, hours in legal fees drawing up durable powers of attorney, wills, living wills and the like just to create a chance that her partner will recieve benefits that her job, which she served in a life threatening capacity for 23 years, may or may not extend to her. Its simply not fair and more importantly, its not Constitutional.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
jallman said:
Why shouldnt she and her partner have the same rights to inheritance that hetero couples enjoy. We need civil unions badly.
I agree totally. A civil union would allow for same sex partners to share in the same benefits as traditional couples - without insulting the religious sanctity of marriage.
 

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
KCConservative said:
I agree totally. A civil union would allow for same sex partners to share in the same benefits as traditional couples - without insulting the religious sanctity of marriage.
Exactly. You get to keep the integrity of separation of church and state without insulting the religious institutions. In fact, I would take it a step farther and allow for religious ceremonies along with that civil union if the religion allows for it. Let the denominations fight the religious aspect out among themselves and let the government define the legality and benefits of the union.
 

McWilliamson

New member
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Laws need to be updated. In the past, married women stayed home to take care of the children while married men went out to be a part of the work force in some way.

Now, women are going out to be a part of the work force as well. They have better opportunities than in the past to make a living on their own, without the husband.

In the past, if the husband died, the woman was supported by the laws because she could not make money for herself.

Now she can.

The laws regarding benefits to married couples need to be stricken from whatever books they reside in. Neither gay couples nor straight couples should have married-person's benefits (as in this case here).

And I love the picture from Baldur's Gate, jallman.
 

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
McWilliamson said:
Laws need to be updated. In the past, married women stayed home to take care of the children while married men went out to be a part of the work force in some way.

Now, women are going out to be a part of the work force as well. They have better opportunities than in the past to make a living on their own, without the husband.

In the past, if the husband died, the woman was supported by the laws because she could not make money for herself.

Now she can.

The laws regarding benefits to married couples need to be stricken from whatever books they reside in. Neither gay couples nor straight couples should have married-person's benefits (as in this case here).

And I love the picture from Baldur's Gate, jallman.
Thanks, I actually picked it from this forums avatar choices.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Me>> So if I move into a house with another guy and we live together should he get benefits from my employer?

jallman said:
Depends...were you cohabitants who were intimately involved?
Why does it depend on that, are we going to require employers to pay for my sex partners. it that the criteria, I'm having sex with them?

All you need to know is that I move into a house with another guy and we live together, what goes on in my bedroom is none of yours or the employers business (I would assume since that is a common mantra of the left), should he get beneifts from my employer?

Did your state of residence pass legislation which allowed your employer to extend those benefits?
Where do you get the idea it takes a state law to allow an employer to do so? Any employer who wants to is pefectly free to do so right now.

Was it your request that such benefits be extended to a life-long partner
I have no reason to believe all gay unions are life long and they are generally less so that traditional marriages. And how at twenty years of age do I prove to my employer this guy and I are moving in together for life anyway?

whom you had made an obvious commitment to?
yeah we committed to live together and pay our bills.

If the answer to all of these questions is yes, the by all means, he should get the benefits just like any hetero partner would.
So if I move in with a girl she should get the benifits too or do we have to be having sex too?



It is a fact and it is a reality that social encouragement (mostly conservative christian encouragement, but we can hit that later)
I'm not a Christian and I certainly encourage heterosexual marriage so it's sprecious to try and bring that line in with me.

does not trump Constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Nothing in the consitution about marriage, it's a state and a religious issue.

It is a fact and it is a reality that social discouragement is not grounds for legislation that creates bias and discrimination.
Sure it is. Although it's not an act of discrimination. We are all free to apply for marriage with the opposite of our sex. We are all free to marry someone of the opposite sex.

It is also a fact and it is also a reality that not everyone agrees with your assertions
OK, I doubt the everyone, every single person, in the whole wide world agrees with most things i believe.

and that a growing number of Americans completely disagree with them.
:rofl and that's why same sex marriage is losing so badly at the polls?

This woman should not be forced to buy an added insurance policy,
No one is forcing her to do so, it's just a good idea to do so. No one forces me to do so with business partners, but it is a good idea. No one forced me to do so with my wife, who has children from another marriage, but we do so because it is a good idea.

hours in legal fees drawing up durable powers of attorney, wills, living wills and the like just to create a chance that her partner will recieve benefits that her job,
It doesn't take hours to do so but so what. Everyone is advised to get their particular legal issues in order, whatever they are. And everyones is different.

which she served in a life threatening capacity for 23 years, may or may not extend to her. Its simply not fair and more importantly, its not Constitutional.
It is most certainly constitutional and they are responsible for their own circumstances. If you are telling me that they lived together for 23 years and never drew up a POA or proper wills then they don't get much sympathy from me.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
jallman said:
In fact, I would take it a step farther and allow for religious ceremonies along with that civil union if the religion allows for it. Let the denominations fight the religious aspect out among themselves and let the government define the legality and benefits of the union.
:rofl are you actually trying to say that states prohibt religious marriage between homosexual couples? Where did you get that idea? Any religion can hold a marriage ceremony between anyone they want. The only thing that is prohibited by LAW is the civil sanction that the is the marriage license. As I said before, society encourages men and women to join together as a couple for a lifetime to form a family and procreate and insure the survial of the species. We as a society do so because it is in the best interest of society and the species. Homosexual marriage is not in the best interest of society as society has said for thousands of years and continues to do so at the ballot box. BUT we don't prevent such behavior, certainly much less so than at any time in history. That's the bottom line. that's where myself and others who mostly believe as I do come from. It's just a matter of what is best for society in the long run. If people of the same sex want to live together for whatever reason then go ahead but they should make their own arraignments to care of their legal matters, that is just prudent living.
 

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Stinger said:
Me>>So if I move into a house with another guy and we live together should he get benefits from my employer?



Why does it depend on that, are we going to require employers to pay for my sex partners. it that the criteria, I'm having sex with them?
No, but we are going to require them to pay benefits equally to all life partners. The criteria is the relationship, not the sex.

All you need to know is that I move into a house with another guy and we live together, what goes on in my bedroom is none of yours or the employers business (I would assume since that is a common mantra of the left), should he get beneifts from my employer?
No what goes on in your bedroom is not any of my business. However, the relationship should be recognized and given the same benefit as any heterosexual relationship of the same nature. He should get the benefits if he is your partner in the romantic sense.


Where do you get the idea it takes a state law to allow an employer to do so? Any employer who wants to is pefectly free to do so right now.
If that is the case, then why was it written into law specifically?

I have no reason to believe all gay unions are life long and they are generally less so that traditional marriages. And how at twenty years of age do I prove to my employer this guy and I are moving in together for life anyway?
There is proof that not all heterosexual unions are life long and you will need to provide proof of your other assertion concerning the failure rate of homosexual UNIONS. And at twenty years of age, how is a straight couple supposed to know that they are together for life. Your deflection is an irrelevant smoke screen. The topic is concerning the equality of proven life partners and how they are treated.



yeah we committed to live together and pay our bills.
Good for you. Now what does that have to do with life partnerships and bonded pairs?


So if I move in with a girl she should get the benifits too or do we have to be having sex too?
You and a girl have the opportunity to form a legally bonded contract that makes her inheritor of your benefits. Homosexual couples do not have that avenue yet. Your point was?



I'm not a Christian and I certainly encourage heterosexual marriage so it's sprecious to try and bring that line in with me.
I never said you personally. I said the majority of the opposition bases its belief on religion. Again, what point were you making?

Nothing in the consitution about marriage, it's a state and a religious issue.
And I said nothing of the Constitutional involvement with marriage. I only mentioned the Constitutional guarantee to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If a group are being denied these rights, perhaps the constitution should address it specifically as it did in the 14th amendment.

Sure it is. Although it's not an act of discrimination. We are all free to apply for marriage with the opposite of our sex. We are all free to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Thats discrimination if a portion of the population is disenfranchised from benefits based on whom they feel attracted to. It was denied to interracial marriage based on the same fallacious argument.

OK, I doubt the everyone, every single person, in the whole wide world agrees with most things i believe.



:rofl and that's why same sex marriage is losing so badly at the polls?
The last pew research poll had them pretty close to an even split, at least in the area of civil union. In the area of marriage,it wasnt a landslide either. Take a look:

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm


No one is forcing her to do so, it's just a good idea to do so. No one forces me to do so with business partners, but it is a good idea. No one forced me to do so with my wife, who has children from another marriage, but we do so because it is a good idea.
And your contracts with your wife are very difficult to argue against. A contract as binding as a will is arguable when it involves a non relative, which currently life partners are considered as such under the law. Comparing your legal needs with a business partner and your established legal benefits with your wife against the lack of protection for homosexual couples is not only irrelevant, but it is also quite the insult.

It doesn't take hours to do so but so what. Everyone is advised to get their particular legal issues in order, whatever they are. And everyones is different.
To complete a living will, a power of attorney, an executive will, and healthcare requests certainly does involve hours worth of attorney fees. For the heterosexual couples, it is assumed and granted to spouses just because of their relationship. The same should be granted to all unions.

It is most certainly constitutional and they are responsible for their own circumstances. If you are telling me that they lived together for 23 years and never drew up a POA or proper wills then they don't get much sympathy from me.
When your sympathies are required for enforcement of Constitutional rights, I will be sure to send you the memo first. However, again you make an irrelevant point due to the fact that no matter what wills or POA's are drawn up, the employer is withholding the benefits based on moral disapproval of their relationship. That is unconstitutional especially because the employer is a state run institution. Reading the article...try it some time.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom