• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Special Rights for Homosexuals?

flip2 said:
I would leave the issue up to a referendum vote in each state regarding the issue of gay marriage. I think the idea of civil unions is feasible, but again, allow the people of each state to determine that. Adoption to same-sex couples, same-sex benefits, conservatorship of property to a same-sex partner, etc...let a vote happen.

I agree with you on this flip2. Unfortunatly the folks that see this as a 'rights' issue are scared to use democracy.
 
vauge said:
flip2 said:
I would leave the issue up to a referendum vote in each state regarding the issue of gay marriage. I think the idea of civil unions is feasible, but again, allow the people of each state to determine that. Adoption to same-sex couples, same-sex benefits, conservatorship of property to a same-sex partner, etc...let a vote happen.



I agree with you on this flip2. Unfortunatly the folks that see this as a 'rights' issue are scared to use democracy.


Gee guys what a novel idea, I wonder why that wasn't done with Womens' sufferage and interracial marriage?

We should have just left it up to the states to decide our fates.
Bet you GUYS would have prefered that anyway.

It's not a matter of being "affraid" of democracy. Your party wouldn't know what that means. It's the GOP that has single handedly DESTROYED any remenant of democracy in this country. THankfully we still have a SCOTUS which hasn't been as tainted by that yet. It's the only stop-gap left in Government.
 
JustineCredible said:
It's not a matter of being "affraid" of democracy. Your party wouldn't know what that means. It's the GOP that has single handedly DESTROYED any remenant of democracy in this country. THankfully we still have a SCOTUS which hasn't been as tainted by that yet. It's the only stop-gap left in Government.

Interesting. This is a completely different level, yet somehow you are able to put them on the same level. There is a vast difference between women voting and women in the workplace than homosexual marriage.

This has nothing to do with "rights" - it's not a "rights" issue. This should be completely up to the states. Again, you are UNWILLING to let democracy take hold. Perhaps it is folks like you that are destroying democracy because you will not let the masses have a voice if they do not see eye to eye with your opinion.
 
vauge said:
Interesting. This is a completely different level, yet somehow you are able to put them on the same level. There is a vast difference between women voting and women in the workplace than homosexual marriage.

This has nothing to do with "rights" - it's not a "rights" issue.


How do you figure? Sorry, but the fact that my partner and I who have built a life together, raised a family, pay taxes are still being denied our rights to protections and benefits afforded other couples who are allowed to legally marry is indeed ALL ABOUT RIGHTS!


vauge said:
This should be completely up to the states. Again, you are UNWILLING to let democracy take hold. Perhaps it is folks like you that are destroying democracy because you will not let the masses have a voice if they do not see eye to eye with your opinion.

Hey, we tried that with both the 2000 and 2004 elections. We can see how far that got.
Democracy is only as good as it's administrators.
At the moment we have a new culture of "the best democracy money can buy"...which by the way...isn't Democracy at all...it's OLIGARCHY!
 
JustineCredible said:
How do you figure? Sorry, but the fact that my partner and I who have built a life together, raised a family, pay taxes are still being denied our rights to protections and benefits afforded other couples who are allowed to legally marry is indeed ALL ABOUT RIGHTS!

Marriage requires a license by the state - not the Federal gov. Since it is a license there are requirements. Since folks may or may not meet those requirements - they are allowed to refuse them to the people. Since they are allowed to refuse them - it is not a right.
 
The way I see it, men and women entered into a same-sex relationship are equal to those who are in a "common-law" marriage; that is to say, it is not really a marriage, rather a long-lasting relationship without license and recognition by the states. Heterosexual couples in such "common law" marriages are trying to raise the same issue for themselves. Common Law Marriages are not legal and should not have attainable rights and privileges as those recognized by the state as a Marriage.

On a lighter note, you are in a marriage. a Common Law Marriage. :cool:

I'm guessing you won't take that as a tease.
 
flip2 said:
The way I see it, men and women entered into a same-sex relationship are equal to those who are in a "common-law" marriage; that is to say, it is not really a marriage, rather a long-lasting relationship without license and recognition by the states. Heterosexual couples in such "common law" marriages are trying to raise the same issue for themselves. Common Law Marriages are not legal and should not have attainable rights and privileges as those recognized by the state as a Marriage.

On a lighter note, you are in a marriage. a Common Law Marriage. :cool:

I'm guessing you won't take that as a tease.


Ok, that did it for me. That's just crass.

Why is MY relationship any different than a legally recognized marriage?
Common Law relationships are that way out of either Laziness or fear of commitment. My relationship is NEITHER!

We've made conscious commitment, raised a family, work hard to pay our taxes...there's no lack of commitment or being lazy about it.
I find your definition insulting!
 
flip2 said:
The way I see it, men and women entered into a same-sex relationship are equal to those who are in a "common-law" marriage; that is to say, it is not really a marriage, rather a long-lasting relationship without license and recognition by the states. Heterosexual couples in such "common law" marriages are trying to raise the same issue for themselves. Common Law Marriages are not legal and should not have attainable rights and privileges as those recognized by the state as a Marriage.

On a lighter note, you are in a marriage. a Common Law Marriage. :cool:

I'm guessing you won't take that as a tease.

BUT, heterosexual people in common law marriages have the option of getting married.

In the UK, as from December 21st this year, I will be able to enter into a civil partnership with my partner which will give exactly the same benefits as marriage. It won't be called marriage, and we won't have the right to a religious ceremony. But I'm an atheist, so who cares?

Having the same benefits and protections as a hetrerosexual couple IS a rights issue. I don't care if you call it a marriage or not.

And Flip, and Vauge et. al.. you can dress it up any way you like, but bigotry is bigotry is bigotry.

Hope I didn't inadvertantly offend any innocent young ladies with my post. :2razz:
 
Naughty Nurse said:
BUT, heterosexual people in common law marriages have the option of getting married.

In the UK, as from December 21st this year, I will be able to enter into a civil partnership with my partner which will give exactly the same benefits as marriage. It won't be called marriage, and we won't have the right to a religious ceremony. But I'm an atheist, so who cares?

Having the same benefits and protections as a hetrerosexual couple IS a rights issue. I don't care if you call it a marriage or not.

And Flip, and Vauge et. al.. you can dress it up any way you like, but bigotry is bigotry is bigotry.

Hope I didn't inadvertantly offend any innocent young ladies with my post. :2razz:


No offence taken...as a matter of fact flip's responce was offencive as it comes.

Here in the US we have seperation of church and state so we don't need permission from the "state" to get religious recognition...just an open minded church.

What really got under my skin was flip's definition of my relationship (well not mine specifically..I understand) are in anyway similar to "Common Law" relationships. Here in the US Common Law is a form of marriage which not all states recognize. It kind of kicks in after a couple has been together for a number of years, about seven to ten usually. That couple then must register as a couple with the state to be afforded tax benefits and whatnot.

Gay couples don't even that that option. We cannot get Federal recognition in any way, shape or form. We cannot file joint taxes, cannot any form of spousal benefits such as veteran's benefits or survivor benefits should anything happen to one or the other. Nothing. None, Zip, Zero and Zilch!
But Common Law couples who register can! They are afforded EVERY benefit, protection and liberty afforded any other legally married couple!
 
JustineCredible said:
No offence taken...!

<sighs with relief>

It does make you sick, doesn't it? We pay more taxes than "married" couples and get none of the advantages that they do. At least it is changing here - hope it will there too, someday (but don't hold your breath!)
 
Naughty Nurse said:
<sighs with relief>

It does make you sick, doesn't it? We pay more taxes than "married" couples and get none of the advantages that they do. At least it is changing here - hope it will there too, someday (but don't hold your breath!)


Lucky for you all! Really, I'm very happy that at least there's been some forward movement there in the UK.
What we need to do first off here in the US is to cure the illness the GOP seems to have contracted. You know, the one where lies are truth and truth is a lie? It's catching and everyone associated with or a fan of the GOP are infected.
 
I love it how you always say the GOP is like that. Let me remind you the Democrat party has also overwhelmingly voted for DOMA and against gay marriage, and that democrats also voted in those 11 states in 2004 to define marriage as one man and one woman. Clearly, this is not just a "GOP illness." I guess a convenient oversight.

Nevertheless, that's how I see relationships not granted a license by the state--common law.

Again, I repeat, organize and create an explosive movement across America that will persuade a majority of Americans and politicians to allow gay marriage, civil unions, etc., and you will see democracy in action.
 
flip2 said:
I love it how you always say the GOP is like that. Let me remind you the Democrat party has also overwhelmingly voted for DOMA and against gay marriage, and that democrats also voted in those 11 states in 2004 to define marriage as one man and one woman. Clearly, this is not just a "GOP illness." I guess a convenient oversight.

Nevertheless, that's how I see relationships not granted a license by the state--common law.

Again, I repeat, organize and create an explosive movement across America that will persuade a majority of Americans and politicians to allow gay marriage, civil unions, etc., and you will see democracy in action.

Treating your fellow humans as equals should be a matter for a vote? What a strange idea!
 
Naughty Nurse said:
Treating your fellow humans as equals should be a matter for a vote? What a strange idea!


Welcome to the state of mind of the American form of government. Ugly, isn't it? It's the exact same mentality that was at work when women had to fight to get the vote, when blacks had to fight for an equal education and when one interracial couple had to flee for their lives from their home to another state just so they could be married.
 
flip2 said:
Or that Massachusetts, Vermont, and Connecticut are found in violation of DOMA for allowing and recognizing same-sex marriage/civil unions.

Ah yes, the "Full Faith and Credit" Clause. Forcing the other states to recognize a same-sex spousal relationship that is not recognized by the non-participatory states to begin with--strengthened by DOMA--is, in the words of Johnnie Cochran, "an outrage." Because of DOMA, the 47 other states are federally protected and in good standing with the FF&C Clause.

"This ain't just a one-way street, and you ain't the only driver."
--Unknown

Our Constitution trumps any federal law, including DOMA.
 
alex said:
Our Constitution trumps any federal law, including DOMA.

Just a genuine inquiry, but has DOMA been ruled unconstitutional by any federl courts, including SCOTUS?
 
flip2 said:
Just a genuine inquiry, but has DOMA been ruled unconstitutional by any federl courts, including SCOTUS?
No, it hasn't made it up there yet. If Massachusetts Supreme Court would have ruled against the case that elucidated their laws, then maybe it would have gone to SCOTUS.
 
JustineCredible said:
You missunderstood, my intention was that the "BAN" on interracial marriage was struck down by "Loving vs. Virginia."
My error for leaving out that one word. You're the first to have not understood my intent.

I'm sorry! My mistake. Thanks for correcting me!
 
flip2 said:
Mean and nasty. Mean and nasty..

I love it when you talk dirty


flip2 said:
I would leave the issue up to a referendum vote in each state regarding the issue of gay marriage. I think the idea of civil unions is feasible, but again, allow the people of each state to determine that. Adoption to same-sex couples, same-sex benefits, conservatorship of property to a same-sex partner, etc...let a vote happen.

.

Then you'd still have slavery, as a majority in some states would have voted to keep it. You're saying that it's right for the northern Nigerian states to stone to death girls who've been raped, because the majority would vote yes to it in a referendum?
 
Urethra Franklin said:
I love it when you talk dirty
You want me to call you Miss Franklin from now on? :twisted:




Uretha Franklin said:
Then you'd still have slavery, as a majority in some states would have voted to keep it. You're saying that it's right for the northern Nigerian states to stone to death girls who've been raped, because the majority would vote yes to it in a referendum?
That's in Nigeria, not the United States. I would submit to you the people of the United States are a little bit more "modern" in approach to civilization. Place a vote of slavery to us Americans, and I'd say slavery would be voted down. As would the denial of interracial marriage, poll taxes, denial of women voting, etc. Miss Franklin (if you're nasty).
 
flip2 said:
You want me to call you Miss Franklin from now on? :twisted:

Careful, flip. I think the lovely Miss Franklin will chew you up and spit you out!


flip2 said:
That's in Nigeria, not the United States. I would submit to you the people of the United States are a little bit more "modern" in approach to civilization. Place a vote of slavery to us Americans, and I'd say slavery would be voted down. As would the denial of interracial marriage, poll taxes, denial of women voting, etc. Miss Franklin (if you're nasty).

It doesn't matter that your country MIGHT vote for the things you are comfortable with. Some things, such as marriage, should be available to all consenting adults, and not just the chosen ones.
 
Naughty Nurse said:
Careful, flip. I think the lovely Miss Franklin will chew you up and spit you out!
Oh really? :lol:




It doesn't matter that your country MIGHT vote for the things you are comfortable with. Some things, such as marriage, should be available to all consenting adults, and not just the chosen ones.

I think our country is evolving for the better, maturing, becoming more tolerant and accepting. I think we are at a point where this matter should be put to a vote.
 
flip2 said:
Oh really? :lol:






I think our country is evolving for the better, maturing, becoming more tolerant and accepting. I think we are at a point where this matter should be put to a vote.

It should not be put to a vote. Just give people equality. End of story.
 
Back
Top Bottom