Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-23-2015, 08:36 AM
 
14,292 posts, read 9,683,781 times
Reputation: 4254

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesjuke View Post
Soundd like it was inequitable to begin with inequitable to begin with.

Why would unmarried homo sexual partners that are not married be getting benefits well heterosexual couples we're not?
We are dealing with liberals progressives. If our laws do not reflect their ideology, their desires, and the people refuse to enact those laws, then the libs just make it legal anyway.

Our legal process and rule of law do not matter to the left. Just look to Obama, he invalidates, alters or ignores the laws he does not like, and implements orders to create permissions for unlawful acts that he wishes were legal, and to hell with our Constitutional and legal process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-23-2015, 08:40 AM
 
17,273 posts, read 9,567,335 times
Reputation: 16468
Quote:
Originally Posted by CR_2 View Post
I'm sure those losing their benefits disagree with you.
Then they can get married.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2015, 08:49 AM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,217,920 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesjuke View Post
Soundd like it was inequitable to begin with inequitable to begin with.

Why would unmarried homo sexual partners that are not married be getting benefits well heterosexual couples we're not?
Because unmarried homosexual couples did not have the option of getting married before while heterosexual couples did have that option.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2015, 08:51 AM
 
17,273 posts, read 9,567,335 times
Reputation: 16468
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
The thing is, they were not offering these benefits to the couples of men and women back then, so it was wrong then, just as much as it's wrong today.

So what's next, offering the same benefits to plural couples, because we are not enlightened enough as a society to legalize plural marriages?
Uh, you don't understand why? Gay marriage was illegal. Gays could not get married. So, because of that, unmarried couples were allowed benefits. Heteros could get married. Therefore, unmarried heteros were not allowed the benefits. Now, marriage is legal for gays as well. Therefore, there is no need to allow benefits for unmarried couples since they now can marry. It's not hard to understand, in the least.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2015, 08:53 AM
 
Location: Stasis
15,823 posts, read 12,471,721 times
Reputation: 8599
In my experience most/many companies give domestic partners benefits, married or not, straight or gay. El Paso had this until a Christian coalition got a ballot measure passed limiting benefits to legally married spouses - but this was overturned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2015, 09:03 AM
 
3,493 posts, read 3,206,432 times
Reputation: 6523
So, what I get to, is now everybody has to get married? Or potentially lose benefit money because that is only reserved for married people? That benefit pot is not bottomless. The amount available for benefits is not limitless. And exactly why the benefits anyway? Just for starters, the little lady has been out of the kitchen and laundry for like what now? 40 years?

I propose a benefit for singles be made law of the land as well. Just to make sure things are fair and even.

Obviously these courts and their decisions are driven by divorce lawyers - who essentially operate as "lobbyists" and are interested in boosting their business. And the sucker, so-called "fair" judges just go along. What utter silliness!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2015, 09:06 AM
 
14,292 posts, read 9,683,781 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
Because unmarried homosexual couples did not have the option of getting married before while heterosexual couples did have that option.
So what? Plural couples should get benefits because there are no laws allowing plural marriages?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2015, 09:11 AM
 
14,292 posts, read 9,683,781 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefragile View Post
Uh, you don't understand why? Gay marriage was illegal. Gays could not get married. So, because of that, unmarried couples were allowed benefits. Heteros could get married. Therefore, unmarried heteros were not allowed the benefits. Now, marriage is legal for gays as well. Therefore, there is no need to allow benefits for unmarried couples since they now can marry. It's not hard to understand, in the least.
Yes, gay marriage was illegal, so a state giving gay couples benefits just because you wish gay marriage was legalized is wrong. Who is to say all gay couples would marry even if it were legal?

By your logic, we should hand out benefits to plural couples, because plural marriage is not legal yet, and some people in government wish it were.

Two siblings living together should get benefits, because if it were legal they would marry too?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2015, 09:43 AM
 
Location: Texas
44,259 posts, read 64,391,094 times
Reputation: 73937
Quote:
Originally Posted by CR_2 View Post
I'm sure those losing their benefits disagree with you.
Nope.
Not married, no benefits.
It was OK before bc gays weren't allowed to marry even if they wanted to.
Now that they can, no more bennies.

I am gay and support this move.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2015, 09:46 AM
 
Location: Texas
44,259 posts, read 64,391,094 times
Reputation: 73937
Quote:
Originally Posted by luv my dayton View Post
Totally agree with this decision. And gays thought it was fair to exclude heterosexual unmarried partners. Hows it feel to be found equal now. Your hardly being discriminated against and dont have a leg to stand on. Just get married!
Zero gay couples are outraged by this, so you can simmer down with your self-righteous nonsense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:29 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top