• 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.

The radical rightwing's real reason for opposing gay marriage

vergiss said:
I think the right's real reason for opposing gay marriage is because they're afraid it'll be compulsory.

Exactly!

They think if gay marriage is recognized they'll have to face their own repressed feelings and marry somebody of the same gender.
 
KCConservative said:
I don't know of a single gay or lesbian, and I know hundreds, that care about gay marriage. They care about their rights as partners. All of these rights can and should be granted to them, without ever having to discuss marriage.

KCC:
I have to give you a little kudos here. As conservative as you are, I am surprised that you are as tolerant here in your post. I appreciate seeing that in conservatives and I do recognize that the left is often not all that tolerant of the right. Although I disagree with the seperate but equal idea, I do appreciate your post.

But.....one criticism if I might. I really don't like your new signature (and I know that you probably don't care what I like).....but come on. The guys been out of office for 6 years. Why are you guys on the right still so obsessed with his sexual escapades? He's not going to be re-elected.
 
zymurgy said:
yes costs.

What happens to something like social security when two people of the same sex can share benefits?

I hate social security as it stands now.

Well, I don't know about the USA, but here in the UK now that we have civil partnerships it appears that society might actually save money on social security. Here's why:

Before civil partnerships, a married or non-married hetero couple cohabiting would be assessed jointly for any benefits claim, and if one was working and earning above a certain level the claim would be unseccessful. If both claimed they would not receive double a single persons claim.

Before civil partnerships a gay couple living together would not have joint assessment, so one could claim irrespective of the other's earnings, and if both claimed they would receive more money than a hetero couple.

Now, a gay couple will be treated exactly the same way as a hetero couple. As an example, last year my partner had a brief period of unemployment and was able to get benefit. Now he wouldn't even bother to fill in the forms as my income is way above the level at which benefits stop.

zymurgy said:
What happens when employers are told they have to insure that guy's "really good friend" too. You think the employer is going to just pay for that out of his pocket? Heck no.

Solution - institute a proper health care system. ;)
 
disneydude said:
Which is why the pledge of allegiance should be changed to state:

"with Liberty and Justice for some".


You mean like my signature line?
 
zymurgy said:
You need a valid legal contract (marriage certificate) for implied power of attorney. That can be accomplished with a different valid legal contract as well.

Yeah, one that costs a lawyer's hourly wage and an air tight will vs a signed 15 dollar marriage certificate and a blood test. How is that fair?
 
disneydude said:
KCC:
I have to give you a little kudos here. As conservative as you are, I am surprised that you are as tolerant here in your post. I appreciate seeing that in conservatives and I do recognize that the left is often not all that tolerant of the right. Although I disagree with the seperate but equal idea, I do appreciate your post.

I have to agree 100 percent. On this issue, KC, you are a stand-up guy. :2wave:
 
jallman said:
Yeah, one that costs a lawyer's hourly wage and an air tight will vs a signed 15 dollar marriage certificate and a blood test. How is that fair?

You can get a free will, living will, or power of attorney using ordinary software found on the internet.
 
Naughty Nurse said:
Well, I don't know about the USA, but here in the UK now that we have civil partnerships it appears that society might actually save money on social security. Here's why:

Before civil partnerships, a married or non-married hetero couple cohabiting would be assessed jointly for any benefits claim, and if one was working and earning above a certain level the claim would be unseccessful. If both claimed they would not receive double a single persons claim.

Before civil partnerships a gay couple living together would not have joint assessment, so one could claim irrespective of the other's earnings, and if both claimed they would receive more money than a hetero couple.

Now, a gay couple will be treated exactly the same way as a hetero couple. As an example, last year my partner had a brief period of unemployment and was able to get benefit. Now he wouldn't even bother to fill in the forms as my income is way above the level at which benefits stop.



Solution - institute a proper health care system. ;)

I immediately reject the UK version of a proper anything. Your socialized systems are turning your entire continent into irrelevency.

Europe is where we look to see how not to do things. Sorry.
 
zymurgy said:
I immediately reject the UK version of a proper anything. Your socialized systems are turning your entire continent into irrelevency.

Europe is where we look to see how not to do things. Sorry.

Your funeral.
 
zymurgy said:
You can get a free will, living will, or power of attorney using ordinary software found on the internet.

Please, then, point me to one "free" document which carries the weight of an officer of the court's composition when binding irrational and grief stricken parties in the event of tragedy.
 
jallman said:
Please, then, point me to one "free" document which carries the weight of an officer of the court's composition when binding irrational and grief stricken parties in the event of tragedy.

google it yourself jallman.

Irrational grief stricken parties will challenge anything regardless of the chance of success. That's why they are labelled irrational.

It applies to marriage situations as well. You familiar with Anna Nicole Smith?
 
zymurgy said:
google it yourself jallman.

Irrational grief stricken parties will challenge anything regardless of the chance of success. That's why they are labelled irrational.

It applies to marriage situations as well. You familiar with Anna Nicole Smith?

A google search does not bring to bear any encompassing legal contracts that are binding in every state. Marriage, and the contracts and assumptions it creates, must be recognized federally...meaning across state lines.

And I agree...the grief stricken and irrational are just that, irrational. I am familiar with the outcome of Anna Nicole Smith's legal battle and that was certain parties involved were trying to maliciously and illegally tie up inherited resources as a means to enforce legal leverage to make her settle. In the end, the implied inheritance rights, coupled with the signed will of her late husband, won out over the petty rivalry of contestants to the will...referencing an NPR Talk of the Nation program. If anything changed since that verdict, I would be happy to hear it.

Now, as a matter of security for my partner, I included a clause in my own will stating that any contestants of the will who tried his inheritance were subject to the penalty of having their share divided among the rest of the inheritors. I have a good and decent lawyer, so it is legal and binding...but why did I need that when the government provides a deliverable contract for doing the same...only the language needs to be altered to eliminate gender/sexual orientation roles to make it so?
 
jallman said:
A google search does not bring to bear any encompassing legal contracts that are binding in every state. Marriage, and the contracts and assumptions it creates, must be recognized federally...meaning across state lines.

Even if your google search led right to a site that would send a lawyer to your door, for free, to give you all the benefits a straight couple would have for free, it does not matter.

Same But different is not equal.

Equality has to be the foundation if a society that wishes to call itself free.

As long as one group of society does not enjoy all the rights of every other group than they are oppressed. If they are oppressed, they are not free. If they are not free, it is not a free society.

Either we are free or we are not, and if we are not equal we are not free.
 
millsy said:
Even if your google search led right to a site that would send a lawyer to your door, for free, to give you all the benefits a straight couple would have for free, it does not matter.

Same But different is not equal.

Equality has to be the foundation if a society that wishes to call itself free.

As long as one group of society does not enjoy all the rights of every other group than they are oppressed. If they are oppressed, they are not free. If they are not free, it is not a free society.

Either we are free or we are not, and if we are not equal we are not free.

Again, you confuse rights with benefits.

We don't give equal benefits in this country. As a majority we vote and say that based on certain economic factors you are benefited certain things. We also vote to say that a marriage between a man and a women have benefits to the society and get different benefits in regards to social security and health care benefits.
 
zymurgy said:
Again, you confuse rights with benefits.

We don't give equal benefits in this country. As a majority we vote and say that based on certain economic factors you are benefited certain things. We also vote to say that a marriage between a man and a women have benefits to the society and get different benefits in regards to social security and health care benefits.


But here is the catch to your argument...when those benefits come as an implied right of the state, those benefits become open rights for all to take part in, regardless of acceptance or moral approval of the assertion of those rights. When a population (state constituency) denies right to benefit based on the moral disapproval (most often of a religious foundation) of the individual choice in question, then the SCOTUS must step in and make a decision as to the legality of that denial. Benefit to society has never been a concern of our legislation, else wise we never would have fought an civil war to free a ready labor pool and drive the deep south into financial ruin...and all over an ethical disagreement with their philosophy of commerce. Come on now...think about this a little deeper.
 
jallman said:
But here is the catch to your argument...when those benefits come as an implied right of the state, those benefits become open rights for all to take part in, regardless of acceptance or moral approval of the assertion of those rights. When a population (state constituency) denies right to benefit based on the moral disapproval (most often of a religious foundation) of the individual choice in question, then the SCOTUS must step in and make a decision as to the legality of that denial. Benefit to society has never been a concern of our legislation, else wise we never would have fought an civil war to free a ready labor pool and drive the deep south into financial ruin...and all over an ethical disagreement with their philosophy of commerce. Come on now...think about this a little deeper.

This is ridiculous. First of all, benefits approved by the majority shouldn't ever be considered an applied right. The nature of our government requires that the application of laws must be based on the understanding of those that votes for those laws. It is sinister to turn something like social security into something that was not approved by those that fund it through judicial fiat.

Furthermore, We deny the greatest of all rights based on the moral disapproval of the masses. Your liberty and even life is at risk everytime you violate certain moral provisions.

You are asking a libertarian, who by nature thinks it is in the rights of a private employer to discriminate based on religion, race, sex, etc, to protect the sexual choices of a specific group. In your zeal to protect the rights of one minority group, you violate the biggest minorty of all, the individual. It is the individual who loses his freedom to attempt to form a representative goverment that fits his ideals and to operate business that best represents his idea of morality.
 
zymurgy said:
This is ridiculous. First of all, benefits approved by the majority shouldn't ever be considered an applied right.

I dont disagree with you on this point...but currently they are. And if you are going to give benefit to one by right, then you must also give benefit to the other by the same application of law and state endorsement.

The nature of our government requires that the application of laws must be based on the understanding of those that votes for those laws.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the nature of our legal system is to ensure that the majority does not enforce its standards upon the minority. This is basic legal philosophy in the US government system.

It is sinister to turn something like social security into something that was not approved by those that fund it through judicial fiat.

Please forgive me if I fail to see how social security reform is relevant to the administration of equitable rights to all tax paying and productive citizens.

Furthermore, We deny the greatest of all rights based on the moral disapproval of the masses.

Would you care to reference this "greatest of all rights" which is denied "based on the moral disapproval of the masses?" :confused:

Your liberty and even life is at risk everytime you violate certain moral provisions.

Well, yes, like taking the life of another valuable citizen. I fail to see how making a personal choice of life partner even compares.

You are asking a libertarian, who by nature thinks it is in the rights of a private employer to discriminate based on religion, race, sex, etc, to protect the sexual choices of a specific group.

Employment rights are the least of my concern as I have never experienced discrimination in that arena.

In your zeal to protect the rights of one minority group, you violate the biggest minorty of all, the individual. It is the individual who loses his freedom to attempt to form a representative goverment that fits his ideals and to operate business that best represents his idea of morality.

Again, it is not about protecting rights; it is about equal application of rights/benefits under the law. Operate your business how you like...it is my choice not to work for you. Just allow me to operate my home under the auspices of my own moral directive. Give my choice of life partner the same rights to preside over our mutual affairs that any heterosexual couple is afforded. Lets just start there and work our way up. :cool:
 
jallman said:
Again, it is not about protecting rights; it is about equal application of rights/benefits under the law. Operate your business how you like...it is my choice not to work for you. Just allow me to operate my home under the auspices of my own moral directive. Give my choice of life partner the same rights to preside over our mutual affairs that any heterosexual couple is afforded. Lets just start there and work our way up. :cool:

This is where it all boils down. You as the individual already have the same rights to preside over mutual affairs as a heterosexual couple.
 
Rights exist only to the extent conferred by law; and when it comes to marital rights, they are defined by state (and not federal) law.
 
zymurgy said:
This is where it all boils down. You as the individual already have the same rights to preside over mutual affairs as a heterosexual couple.

Based on what? Moral approval of my choice of mate or equal application of the law?
 
Ausonius said:
Rights exist only to the extent conferred by law; and when it comes to marital rights, they are defined by state (and not federal) law.

Except when those definitions are in direct opposition to the 14th amendment :doh
 
jallman said:
Based on what? Moral approval of my choice of mate or equal application of the law?

Based on legal contracts available to you.

I would never want lifestyle choices to be a protected class in this country. I'm sorry that society has decided to make heterosexual marriage a protected class, It wasn't my decision, and it isnt one I necessarily agree with.
 
zymurgy said:
Based on legal contracts available to you.

I would never want lifestyle choices to be a protected class in this country. I'm sorry that society has decided to make heterosexual marriage a protected class, It wasn't my decision, and it isnt one I necessarily agree with.

And dont get me wrong, I dont hold you accountable for that. But, to say that it cant be changed or amended to allow me in is basically spiteful. Its like saying..."I already have it the way I want it, so why should I let you have it too."

That just simply doesnt have a legal foundation...especially since we have already changed it once to allow blacks and whites to marry.
 
No. The right once conferred (viz., the freedom to marry, or not to marry) cannot be "infringed by the State" under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967).
 
Back
Top Bottom