View Poll Results: How long till Same Sex Marriage is nationally legal in the US?

Voters
139. You may not vote on this poll
  • 0-5 years

    59 42.45%
  • 5-10 years

    38 27.34%
  • 10-15 years

    17 12.23%
  • 15-20 years

    6 4.32%
  • 20-25 years

    2 1.44%
  • 25+ years

    2 1.44%
  • Never

    15 10.79%
Page 7 of 85 FirstFirst ... 567891757 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 843

Thread: How long till Same Sex Marriage is nationally legal in the US?

  1. #61
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,990

    Re: How long till Same Sex Marriage is nationally legal in the US?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    If you see people being "discriminated" against because they're being denied the right to vote away the rights of others, then I'd say your understanding of what constitutes as discrimination is terribly flawed.
    It's a policy issue. I don't think that there is a "right" anywhere that forces a state to recognize SSM. It's a policy issue, a legal definition. Many pro-SSM groups have been successful in delusionally applying some kind of Civil Rights model to the issue with hyped up emotions, but it still remains that it's a legal definition set into place by states and it's not unlawful for a state to uphold traditional marriage. It's not a federal issue, so the feds need not get involved either. DOMA should be ruled unconstitutional for this reason because it gets in the way of states and people who chose to recognie SSM.

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    -marriage is not a state issue its a right, SCOTUS disagrees with you, rights of these nature are never states issues nor should they ever be just like interracial marriage.
    -traditional marriage is a made up thing and its in zero danger, my traditions and your traditions and your neighbor could all be different and they stay that way because those traditions belong to US, your traditions have ZERO impact on mine and vice versa. When people mention traditional marriage its a complete cop out of the issue because no one can ever factually explain how its impacted and why this ONE issue makes it different
    Marriage policy is a state issue. States define marriage and set the parameters who what is legally recognized as a marriage for their state. SSM is not equatable with interracial marriage, that is a common straw man argument.

    Traditional marriage exists as the norm for this nation. The norm has been one man one woman. Some states want to change that, let them change it. Other states do not, they are within their rights to keep the definition that has been widely legally accepted since marriage was even legally recognized.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  2. #62
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,055

    Re: How long till Same Sex Marriage is nationally legal in the US?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    It's a policy issue. I don't think that there is a "right" anywhere that forces a state to recognize SSM. It's a policy issue, a legal definition. Many pro-SSM groups have been successful in delusionally applying some kind of Civil Rights model to the issue with hyped up emotions, but it still remains that it's a legal definition set into place by states and it's not unlawful for a state to uphold traditional marriage. It's not a federal issue, so the feds need not get involved either. DOMA should be ruled unconstitutional for this reason because it gets in the way of states and people who chose to recognie SSM.



    Marriage policy is a state issue. States define marriage and set the parameters who what is legally recognized as a marriage for their state. SSM is not equatable with interracial marriage, that is a common straw man argument.

    Traditional marriage exists as the norm for this nation. The norm has been one man one woman. Some states want to change that, let them change it. Other states do not, they are within their rights to keep the definition that has been widely legally accepted since marriage was even legally recognized.
    Stating that something is "a policy issue", as well as tacking on pejoratives such as "emotions," in no way camouflages the fact that this is very much a civil rights matter.

  3. #63
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,990

    Re: How long till Same Sex Marriage is nationally legal in the US?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Stating that something is "a policy issue", as well as tacking on pejoratives such as "emotions," in no way camouflages the fact that this is very much a civil rights matter.
    But the fact remains that it's a policy issue. People can set policy on what defines a marriage within the confines of the Constitution. I do not believe it is unconstitutional to uphold the definition of traditional marriage and I hope the SCOTUS agrees.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  4. #64
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,827

    Re: How long till Same Sex Marriage is nationally legal in the US?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    1.)Marriage policy is a state issue. States define marriage and set the parameters who what is legally recognized as a marriage for their state.
    2.)SSM is not equatable with interracial marriage, that is a common straw man argument.
    3.)Traditional marriage exists as the norm for this nation. The norm has been one man one woman.
    4.)Some states want to change that, let them change it.
    5.) Other states do not, they are within their rights to keep the definition that has been widely legally accepted since marriage was even legally recognized.
    1.) again false, SCOTUS disagrees, states can make little local additions to it but its not a states issue
    2.) I dont think you know what strawman means

    strawman
    1: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted
    2: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

    please factually explain why they are different

    3.) so again just your opinion and nothing else
    4.) no they are granting equality liberty and freedom and in the few cases that went to the states supreme courts to decide that SCOTUS felt the same way."Traditional marriage" is the only factual straw man being discussed. as it isnt any danger nor is it in danger of not being upheld.
    5.) they dont, just like they didnt for interracial marriage as when the time comes
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  5. #65
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,055

    Re: How long till Same Sex Marriage is nationally legal in the US?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    But the fact remains that it's a policy issue. People can set policy on what defines a marriage within the confines of the Constitution. I do not believe it is unconstitutional to uphold the definition of traditional marriage and I hope the SCOTUS agrees.
    Interjecting "policy" into the discussion is a meaningless red herring, since essentially every single thread on Debate Politics revolves around policy to some degree. And it's a waste of time in any case because you're not changing the fact that it's still a discriminatory policy to deny homosexuals marriage.

    Near-infinite red herrings are invented daily to camouflage the fact that civil rights are at the heart of the gay marriage debate. Arguing that it's a "policy" issue is one of the more irrelevant ones.
    Last edited by Cardinal; 05-10-13 at 12:59 PM.

  6. #66
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,990

    Re: How long till Same Sex Marriage is nationally legal in the US?

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) again false, SCOTUS disagrees, states can make little local additions to it but its not a states issue
    The SCOTUS is ruling on that now. I don't see how you can factually say that's false. It is a states issue, states are the ones who issue the marriage certificates and who set policy. It's within their jurisdiction to do so.
    2.) I dont think you know what strawman means

    strawman
    1: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted
    2: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

    please factually explain why they are different

    3.) so again just your opinion and nothing else
    4.) no they are granting equality liberty and freedom and in the few cases that went to the states supreme courts to decide that SCOTUS felt the same way."Traditional marriage" is the only factual straw man being discussed. as it isnt any danger nor is it in danger of not being upheld.
    5.) they dont, just like they didnt for interracial marriage as when the time comes
    It violates definition 1. It's a weak opposition that doesn't correctly equate with SSM. Interracial marriage is unconstitutional because it discriminates based on race. A latina woman and a black man can get married, it's a violation of their rights to say "you can't marry due to being different races." Not allowing SSM is simply not altering the current legal definition of marriage in most states to recognize "marriage" as a union between people of opposite sexes and same sexes. It's not unlawful gender discrimination to say that 2 wives can't make a marriage or 2 husbands can't make a marriage. If so, should we legally and forcibly make all states recognize polygamy? Someone could claim it violates their religious freedom and that marriage is a union between any number of consenting adults. Under the Constitution should this be forced? Why or why not?

    It's not unlawful gender discrimination to adhere to the facts. It's fact that a man cannot be a "wife" or that a woman cannot be a "husband." Many states do not recognize that, and it would be dishonest to warp the literal definition of a word because people feel uncomfortable with facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Interjecting "policy" into the discussion is a meaningless red herring, since essentially every single thread on Debate Politics revolves around policy to some degree. And it's a waste of time in any case because you're not changing the fact that it's still a discriminatory policy to deny homosexuals marriage.

    Near-infinite red herrings are invented daily to camouflage the fact that the heart of gay marriage is a civil rights issue. Arguin that it's a "policy" issue is one of the more irrelevant ones.
    I never said it wasn't discriminatory, I just said it should be legal. It's discriminatory to have men and women bathrooms. It's very discriminatory to force all men of age to sign up with Selective Service and to not require women to do so. But yet, both cases are legal. It's discriminatory against someone's choice to kill another when we make murder illegal. Nearly all enforceable laws are based on some kind of discrimination, and discrimination is not inherently a bad thing. It is an issue of policy, it's how a state wants to define marriage.

    Personally, the hype typically comes from the rabidly pro-SSM side that wants to treat SSM like the Civil Rights issues in the 60's and label their opposition as the racists, bigots, and haters during that time who opposed equal rights based on race. Sure there is hype on the pro-traditional marriage side as well, typically it involves accusations that this will allow pedophilia, bestiality, and a number of other things.
    Last edited by digsbe; 05-10-13 at 01:01 PM.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  7. #67
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,827

    Re: How long till Same Sex Marriage is nationally legal in the US?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    1.)The SCOTUS is ruling on that now. I don't see how you can factually say that's false. It is a states issue, states are the ones who issue the marriage certificates and who set policy. It's within their jurisdiction to do so.


    2.)It violates definition 1. It's a weak opposition that doesn't correctly equate with SSM.
    3.) Interracial marriage is unconstitutional because it discriminates based on race. A latina woman and a black man can get married, it's a violation of their rights to say "you can't marry due to being different races.
    4.)" Not allowing SSM is simply not altering the current legal definition of marriage in most states to recognize "marriage" as a union between people of opposite sexes.
    5.)It's not unlawful gender discrimination to say that 2 wives can't make a marriage or 2 husbands can't make a marriage.
    6.) If so, should we legally and forcibly make all states recognize polygamy?
    7.)Someone could claim it violates their religious freedom and that marriage is a union between any number of consenting adults.
    8.)Under the Constitution should this be forced? Why or why not?
    9.)It's not unlawful gender discrimination to adhere to the facts.
    10.)It's fact that a man cannot be a "wife" or that a woman cannot be a "husband."
    11.) Many states do not recognize that, and it would be dishonest to warp the literal definition of a word because people feel uncomfortable with facts.
    1.) very easily cause im dealing with facts. My response was to you saying its a state issues. Its is not in general because scotus has already ruled 14 times marriage is a right so its not a state issue in general. States can set up small t when they go to far and the issues is pushed they get a smacking just like they should, thats why i say it because its factual. I didnt not claim SCOTUS ruled on SSM yet just that its not just a policy/state issue. SCOTUS, facts and history disagree.

    2.) according to what FACTS? i cant wait to read this.
    3.)the way the law was set up is whites could marry whites and blacks could marry blacks but they couldnt marry each other so thats the argument you make when you say its already equal is it not?
    what about when blacks could drink out of water fountains just like whites just not the same water fountains.
    Its completely illogical disingenuous and irrational to claim these are somehow magically different when they are not.
    4.) LOL yeah not allowing blacks to be men was simply not altering the current legal definition of a man that in most states to recognized, thats just silly. It discrimination period. This is what state supreme courts have already ruled.
    5.) glad you brought this example up because this argument is going through the courts now and is being heard because on the surface its been determined at least valid so you dont get to decide that yet. (if its not gender discrimination)
    6.) Polygamy does not fit the current mold of any discrimination going on now or is there any precedence here or in court decisions that loans itself to polygamy. Egual rights for gays =/= polygamy. If you disagree point one out.
    but on a side note i would support people fighting for a new right to polygamy.
    7.) they could but religion is meaningless to LEGAL marriage. Law isnt needed for RELIGIOUS marriage so that completely fails.
    8.) no because theres no grounds for it, see above. Religions can marry who ever they want.
    9.) you havent presented any facts that support your claim the way you frame it though
    10.) yes this is true, completely meaningless to legal marriage though lmao completely and utterly meaningless tp legal marriage a legal contract.
    11.) i agree people need to realize that their opinions are meaningless to the facts and that their own traditions are also meaningless to facts, them being uncomfortable gives them zero right to force their opinions on others.

    Dishonesty and warp thinking is that word is only for man and woman, the fact is its not, reality proves that along with dictionaries and contracts etc etc etc ONe side has facts on what that word can mean what do the others have? uncomfortable feelings.
    Last edited by AGENT J; 05-10-13 at 01:25 PM.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  8. #68
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: How long till Same Sex Marriage is nationally legal in the US?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Nah. Whatever rationale du jour is used it's fantastically transparent that those who reject gay marriage want to exist under a separate system so they can plausibly claim that gay marriages are illegitimate. Under the current system (and the one that homosexuals are fighting to be included in), no matter where I go in this country no one can tell me my marriage isn't real, despite whatever religious and arbitrary personal reasons they may hold for thinking so. Under your proposed system they can, which is of course the point. You know it, I know it, we all know it. All the winking isn't going to change it.
    You aren't understanding what I'm saying, the government has to honor all marriages performed by a church, government weddings cannot be denyed due to sexual preference under a system where the government doesn't have rights over marriage. The government already can't force a church to perform weddings legally.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  9. #69
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,055

    Re: How long till Same Sex Marriage is nationally legal in the US?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I never said it wasn't discriminatory, I just said it should be legal.
    Well thats....refreshing.

    It's discriminatory to have men and women bathrooms. It's very discriminatory to force all men of age to sign up with Selective Service and to not require women to do so. But yet, both cases are legal. It's discriminatory against someone's choice to kill another when we make murder illegal. Nearly all enforceable laws are based on some kind of discrimination, and discrimination is not inherently a bad thing.
    Interesting you bring that up. Sotomayor cut through a lot of the fog on that topic during the hearing with this enlightening exchange:

    Sotomayor: Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits? Or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other decision-making that the government could make -- denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?

    “Your Honor, I cannot,” Cooper said. “I, I do not have, uh, uh, any, uh, anything to offer you in that regard.”
    Sonia Sotomayor Question On Gay Marriage Leaves Lawyer Stumped (VIDEO)

    It is an issue of policy,
    No, it's an issue of of clothing, since what would government officials be wearing when they stamped the marriage certificates? Shall I go on or can we stop these silly red herrings now?

    it's how a state wants to define marriage.
    Translation: it's how a state wants to discriminate.

    Personally, the hype typically comes from the rabidly pro-SSM side that wants to treat SSM like the Civil Rights issues in the 60's and label their opposition as the racists, bigots, and haters during that time who opposed equal rights based on race. Sure there is hype on the pro-traditional marriage side as well, typically it involves accusations that this will allow pedophilia, bestiality, and a number of other things.
    And yet, your arguments no less distract from the arguments in favor of gay marriage than those do.

  10. #70
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,055

    Re: How long till Same Sex Marriage is nationally legal in the US?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    You aren't understanding what I'm saying, the government has to honor all marriages performed by a church, government weddings cannot be denyed due to sexual preference under a system where the government doesn't have rights over marriage. The government already can't force a church to perform weddings legally.
    If you have any desire whatsoever for me to share your enthusiasm for government removing itself from marriage, you need to answer two questions, two questions I have never been given straight answers to.

    1)What is in it for you?
    2)What is in it for me?

    I would appreciate it if we didn't pretend that this has nothing to do with gay marriage, since gay marriage is literally the ONLY topic in which government being removed from marriage is ever brought up.

Page 7 of 85 FirstFirst ... 567891757 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •