• 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!

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

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


  • Total voters
    105
Great. Then get the laws changed without breaking them first. Sometimes I get the feeling that Democrats esteem themselves above everyone, and everything, else.

That's what they are doing, changing the law to allows gays to marry through a democratic process.
 
1.) translation you have ZERO proof to back up your strawman and its a failed argument.
You look like someone who has to be told at least twice:

Somehow, your nonsense slipped through the cracks, and that's not going to happen again. We'll start right here, at the beginning:

First off, I said that legalizing gay marriage WILL open the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. I did not say gay marriage has been ruled constitutional by the SC, therefore it HAS opened the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. Apparently you thought I said the latter, for this what you posted:

You see, AJ, this post of yours is what is called a disconnect. It means that your comment has nothing to do with what I posted, nor has it anything to do with reality. In your post, you are barking for facts when there aren't any available. You can't provide facts for something that hasn't happened yet. It's virtually impossible. The Supreme Court has not made its ruling on gay marriage, therefore, the legal definition of marriage remains as between a man and a woman. There are no facts available based on your query.

Now, I can understand that you might have made a mistake. You're human. God knows you want to be heard, so it's understandable that you jumped the gun after failing to absorb my message properly. On the other hand, there is also the chance that you knew exactly what I was saying, but you decided to try and distort my message because you didn't like what you were reading. I like to think that you are more like the former, but honestly, I just don't know.

My statement was a prediction; not a statement of fact. It is impossible to make a statement of fact on something that doesn't exist. Based on my PREDICTIONS, making gay marriage constitutional will open the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. THIS is logic, not fact, because why? That's right; because the Supreme Court has not made its ruling yet.

Now, this debate went as long as it did only because I was exhausted. If you would like to retract your question and come back with a fresh, intelligent, response, please feel free to do so.
 
10-15 years. I think the older voters will have to pass on before it happens.
 
You look like someone who has to be told at least twice:

Somehow, your nonsense slipped through the cracks, and that's not going to happen again. We'll start right here, at the beginning:

First off, I said that legalizing gay marriage WILL open the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. I did not say gay marriage has been ruled constitutional by the SC, therefore it HAS opened the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. Apparently you thought I said the latter, for this what you posted:

You see, AJ, this post of yours is what is called a disconnect. It means that your comment has nothing to do with what I posted, nor has it anything to do with reality. In your post, you are barking for facts when there aren't any available. You can't provide facts for something that hasn't happened yet. It's virtually impossible. The Supreme Court has not made its ruling on gay marriage, therefore, the legal definition of marriage remains as between a man and a woman. There are no facts available based on your query.

Now, I can understand that you might have made a mistake. You're human. God knows you want to be heard, so it's understandable that you jumped the gun after failing to absorb my message properly. On the other hand, there is also the chance that you knew exactly what I was saying, but you decided to try and distort my message because you didn't like what you were reading. I like to think that you are more like the former, but honestly, I just don't know.

My statement was a prediction; not a statement of fact. It is impossible to make a statement of fact on something that doesn't exist. Based on my PREDICTIONS, making gay marriage constitutional will open the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. THIS is logic, not fact, because why? That's right; because the Supreme Court has not made its ruling yet.

Now, this debate went as long as it did only because I was exhausted. If you would like to retract your question and come back with a fresh, intelligent, response, please feel free to do so.

thanks for repeating youself

guess what reality and facts haven't changed, your statement was wrong and your guess is unsupportable. You have no facts or logic to support it, its a failed strawman

let us know when that changes.

Theres nothing to retract i stated facts and pointed out the weakness and fallacies of your strawman argument you now have no logical, honest or objective path to take to support your false claim so you are left with what you are doing now. Desperately trying to spin and deflect to save face. Well its not working :shrug:

nice try you fail, lets us know when you have something factual and logical to support your "guess"

Thanks for playing.
 
It really depends. If the Supreme Court kicked it down the road, it could be a while. If they threw out the existing bans and protected SSM with strict scrutiny, then it's already over. But if they didn't, then there's no controlling precedent and we'll still be doing it one state at a time. Some of the more backwards states could take a while. The most persuasive precedent would be the ruling on Prop 8 from the California Supreme Court, but when was the last time an Alabama judge cited a California case?

It's probably going to have to end up being decided by the Supreme Court eventually. I hope they didn't rule narrowly on the present case and dealt with the problem, rather than just setting the stage for addressing it later. So I think it will either be now, or in another 10 or 20 years. If there's no ruling now, then most of the non-Confederate states will shift within the next decade, but it will come back to the courts either way.
 
thanks for repeating youself
Don't mention it. Problem is, it looks like you might need to be told a third time. Would you like to answer the questions, or shall I repost again?
 
It really depends. If the Supreme Court kicked it down the road, it could be a while. If they threw out the existing bans and protected SSM with strict scrutiny, then it's already over. But if they didn't, then there's no controlling precedent and we'll still be doing it one state at a time. Some of the more backwards states could take a while. The most persuasive precedent would be the ruling on Prop 8 from the California Supreme Court, but when was the last time an Alabama judge cited a California case?

It's probably going to have to end up being decided by the Supreme Court eventually. I hope they didn't rule narrowly on the present case and dealt with the problem, rather than just setting the stage for addressing it later. So I think it will either be now, or in another 10 or 20 years. If there's no ruling now, then most of the non-Confederate states will shift within the next decade, but it will come back to the courts either way.

If the USSC kicks it down the road then the conservative states will keep gay marriage illegal for the next few generations. I've heard of states like Vermont and California referred to as "refugee" states, which should tell you something about who's left in the bible belt fighting for gay rights.
 
Don't mention it. Problem is, it looks like you might need to be told a third time. Would you like to answer the questions, or shall I repost again?

please repost your failed strawman again we enjoy the entertainment

maybe to morrow youll have some facts to support your failed arguments, not as funny but it be nice
 
If the USSC kicks it down the road then the conservative states will keep gay marriage illegal for the next few generations. I've heard of states like Vermont and California referred to as "refugee" states, which should tell you something about who's left in the bible belt fighting for gay rights.

It won't last generations. It will last another decade or two at most. Public opinion is WAY turning and there will continue to be suits and cases in states that ban SSM until it gets back up to the supreme court. Either it will be decided by the court now, states will just give in soon, or it will be decided by the court in a little while. It's a contentious constitutional issue that has the interest of the whole nation. It's not going to sit for generations without a national resolution.
 
As someone else on this forum has already noted, "state rights" has, sadly, devolved into code for "the right to discriminate against its citizens without Federal meddling."

That's kind of what it was from the beginning. The whole civil war thing proved that. States that seceded and issued declarations of secession proclaimed they had a right to allow slavery. "States rights" has and always will be invoked whenever people want to discriminate against others.
 
please repost your failed strawman
You mean "Please repost your original statement, as I am having trouble internalizing its proper meaning".

Sure thing, Agent J. I'll be more than happy to:

Somehow, your nonsense slipped through the cracks, and that's not going to happen again. We'll start right here, at the beginning:

First off, I said that legalizing gay marriage WILL open the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. I did not say gay marriage has been ruled constitutional by the SC, therefore it HAS opened the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. Apparently you thought I said the latter, for this what you posted:

You see, AJ, this post of yours is what is called a disconnect. It means that your comment has nothing to do with what I posted, nor has it anything to do with reality. In your post, you are barking for facts when there aren't any available. You can't provide facts for something that hasn't happened yet. It's virtually impossible. The Supreme Court has not made its ruling on gay marriage, therefore, the legal definition of marriage remains as between a man and a woman. There are no facts available based on your query.

Now, I can understand that you might have made a mistake. You're human. God knows you want to be heard, so it's understandable that you jumped the gun after failing to absorb my message properly. On the other hand, there is also the chance that you knew exactly what I was saying, but you decided to try and distort my message because you didn't like what you were reading. I like to think that you are more like the former, but honestly, I just don't know.

My statement was a prediction; not a statement of fact. It is impossible to make a statement of fact on something that doesn't exist. Based on my PREDICTIONS, making gay marriage constitutional will open the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. THIS is logic, not fact, because why? That's right; because the Supreme Court has not made its ruling yet.

Now, this debate went as long as it did only because I was exhausted. If you would like to retract your question and come back with a fresh, intelligent, response, please feel free to do so.
 
Gay marriage won't open up any floodgates to all kinds of marriage anymore than Alabama allowing you to marry your cousin will make child molestation a problem.
 
It won't last generations. It will last another decade or two at most. Public opinion is WAY turning and there will continue to be suits and cases in states that ban SSM until it gets back up to the supreme court. Either it will be decided by the court now, states will just give in soon, or it will be decided by the court in a little while. It's a contentious constitutional issue that has the interest of the whole nation. It's not going to sit for generations without a national resolution.

I was speaking off the cuff. I agree with this.
 
You mean "Please repost your original statement, as I am having trouble internalizing its proper meaning".

Sure thing, Agent J. I'll be more than happy to:

Somehow, your nonsense slipped through the cracks, and that's not going to happen again. We'll start right here, at the beginning:

First off, I said that legalizing gay marriage WILL open the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. I did not say gay marriage has been ruled constitutional by the SC, therefore it HAS opened the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. Apparently you thought I said the latter, for this what you posted:

You see, AJ, this post of yours is what is called a disconnect. It means that your comment has nothing to do with what I posted, nor has it anything to do with reality. In your post, you are barking for facts when there aren't any available. You can't provide facts for something that hasn't happened yet. It's virtually impossible. The Supreme Court has not made its ruling on gay marriage, therefore, the legal definition of marriage remains as between a man and a woman. There are no facts available based on your query.

Now, I can understand that you might have made a mistake. You're human. God knows you want to be heard, so it's understandable that you jumped the gun after failing to absorb my message properly. On the other hand, there is also the chance that you knew exactly what I was saying, but you decided to try and distort my message because you didn't like what you were reading. I like to think that you are more like the former, but honestly, I just don't know.

My statement was a prediction; not a statement of fact. It is impossible to make a statement of fact on something that doesn't exist. Based on my PREDICTIONS, making gay marriage constitutional will open the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. THIS is logic, not fact, because why? That's right; because the Supreme Court has not made its ruling yet.

Now, this debate went as long as it did only because I was exhausted. If you would like to retract your question and come back with a fresh, intelligent, response, please feel free to do so.

AWESOME, thanks for making us laugh again. It still a failed stawrman :shrug:

as i said before:

guess what reality and facts haven't changed, your statement was wrong and your guess is unsupportable. You have no facts or logic to support it, its a failed strawman

let us know when that changes.

Theres nothing to retract i stated facts and pointed out the weakness and fallacies of your strawman argument you now have no logical, honest or objective path to take to support your false claim so you are left with what you are doing now. Desperately trying to spin and deflect to save face. Well its not working

nice try you fail, lets us know when you have something factual and logical to support your "guess"

Thanks for playing.
 
AWESOME, thanks for making us laugh again.
Happy to do so. I'm always willing to point out your incoherencies. You seem to enjoy it. ;)
 
Happy to do so. I'm always willing to point out your incoherencies. You seem to enjoy it. ;)

yet you havent one time
all that has happened is me and other pointing out your failed argument, then you getting uncivil about it because you have no ration and logical path to take so you try failed insults :shrug:

lets us know when you can support your illogical failed strawman "prediction" of "it'll open the floodgates for every conceivable form of marriage under the sun."

its complete crap lol
 
yet you havent one time
Sure I have. I've done so multiple times. Here, let's try again. Perhaps this time you'll get it:

Somehow, your nonsense slipped through the cracks, and that's not going to happen again. We'll start right here, at the beginning:

First off, I said that legalizing gay marriage WILL open the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. I did not say gay marriage has been ruled constitutional by the SC, therefore it HAS opened the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. Apparently you thought I said the latter, for this what you posted:

You see, AJ, this post of yours is what is called a disconnect. It means that your comment has nothing to do with what I posted, nor has it anything to do with reality. In your post, you are barking for facts when there aren't any available. You can't provide facts for something that hasn't happened yet. It's virtually impossible. The Supreme Court has not made its ruling on gay marriage, therefore, the legal definition of marriage remains as between a man and a woman. There are no facts available based on your query.

Now, I can understand that you might have made a mistake. You're human. God knows you want to be heard, so it's understandable that you jumped the gun after failing to absorb my message properly. On the other hand, there is also the chance that you knew exactly what I was saying, but you decided to try and distort my message because you didn't like what you were reading. I like to think that you are more like the former, but honestly, I just don't know.

My statement was a prediction; not a statement of fact. It is impossible to make a statement of fact on something that doesn't exist. Based on my PREDICTIONS, making gay marriage constitutional will open the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. THIS is logic, not fact, because why? That's right; because the Supreme Court has not made its ruling yet.

Now, this debate went as long as it did only because I was exhausted. If you would like to retract your question and come back with a fresh, intelligent, response, please feel free to do so.
 
Sure I have. I've done so multiple times. Here, let's try again. Perhaps this time you'll get it:

Somehow, your nonsense slipped through the cracks, and that's not going to happen again. We'll start right here, at the beginning:

First off, I said that legalizing gay marriage WILL open the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. I did not say gay marriage has been ruled constitutional by the SC, therefore it HAS opened the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. Apparently you thought I said the latter, for this what you posted:

You see, AJ, this post of yours is what is called a disconnect. It means that your comment has nothing to do with what I posted, nor has it anything to do with reality. In your post, you are barking for facts when there aren't any available. You can't provide facts for something that hasn't happened yet. It's virtually impossible. The Supreme Court has not made its ruling on gay marriage, therefore, the legal definition of marriage remains as between a man and a woman. There are no facts available based on your query.

Now, I can understand that you might have made a mistake. You're human. God knows you want to be heard, so it's understandable that you jumped the gun after failing to absorb my message properly. On the other hand, there is also the chance that you knew exactly what I was saying, but you decided to try and distort my message because you didn't like what you were reading. I like to think that you are more like the former, but honestly, I just don't know.

My statement was a prediction; not a statement of fact. It is impossible to make a statement of fact on something that doesn't exist. Based on my PREDICTIONS, making gay marriage constitutional will open the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. THIS is logic, not fact, because why? That's right; because the Supreme Court has not made its ruling yet.

Now, this debate went as long as it did only because I was exhausted. If you would like to retract your question and come back with a fresh, intelligent, response, please feel free to do so.

weird still no FACTUAL and LOGICAL support, maybe you dont understand those words lol

lets us know when you can support your illogical failed strawman "prediction" of "it'll open the floodgates for every conceivable form of marriage under the sun."
 
First off, I said that legalizing gay marriage WILL open the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. I did not say gay marriage has been ruled constitutional by the SC, therefore it HAS opened the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun.

So?

What goes on between consenting adults is really none of our business if it doesn't affect children. I'm against incestous marriages as genetic consolidation of genes creates problems. There are a few dozen people in West Virgina with all sorts of issues because of inbreeding. But polygamy? Meh.
 
weird still no FACTUAL and LOGICAL support,
What's weird, is your inability to follow directions. I've already explained the disconnect, AGENT J, but you don't seem to be getting the nuances. I can't force you to get over yourself, so where does that leave us? I'll tell you where it leaves us. Right back where we started:

Somehow, your nonsense slipped through the cracks, and that's not going to happen again. We'll start right here, at the beginning:

First off, I said that legalizing gay marriage WILL open the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. I did not say gay marriage has been ruled constitutional by the SC, therefore it HAS opened the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. Apparently you thought I said the latter, for this what you posted:

You see, AJ, this post of yours is what is called a disconnect. It means that your comment has nothing to do with what I posted, nor has it anything to do with reality. In your post, you are barking for facts when there aren't any available. You can't provide facts for something that hasn't happened yet. It's virtually impossible. The Supreme Court has not made its ruling on gay marriage, therefore, the legal definition of marriage remains as between a man and a woman. There are no facts available based on your query.

Now, I can understand that you might have made a mistake. You're human. God knows you want to be heard, so it's understandable that you jumped the gun after failing to absorb my message properly. On the other hand, there is also the chance that you knew exactly what I was saying, but you decided to try and distort my message because you didn't like what you were reading. I like to think that you are more like the former, but honestly, I just don't know.

My statement was a prediction; not a statement of fact. It is impossible to make a statement of fact on something that doesn't exist. Based on my PREDICTIONS, making gay marriage constitutional will open the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. THIS is logic, not fact, because why? That's right; because the Supreme Court has not made its ruling yet.

Now, this debate went as long as it did only because I was exhausted. If you would like to retract your question and come back with a fresh, intelligent, response, please feel free to do so.
 
What's weird, is your inability to follow directions. I've already explained the disconnect, AGENT J, but you don't seem to be getting the nuances. I can't force you to get over yourself, so where does that leave us? I'll tell you where it leaves us. Right back where we started:

Somehow, your nonsense slipped through the cracks, and that's not going to happen again. We'll start right here, at the beginning:

First off, I said that legalizing gay marriage WILL open the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. I did not say gay marriage has been ruled constitutional by the SC, therefore it HAS opened the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. Apparently you thought I said the latter, for this what you posted:

You see, AJ, this post of yours is what is called a disconnect. It means that your comment has nothing to do with what I posted, nor has it anything to do with reality. In your post, you are barking for facts when there aren't any available. You can't provide facts for something that hasn't happened yet. It's virtually impossible. The Supreme Court has not made its ruling on gay marriage, therefore, the legal definition of marriage remains as between a man and a woman. There are no facts available based on your query.

Now, I can understand that you might have made a mistake. You're human. God knows you want to be heard, so it's understandable that you jumped the gun after failing to absorb my message properly. On the other hand, there is also the chance that you knew exactly what I was saying, but you decided to try and distort my message because you didn't like what you were reading. I like to think that you are more like the former, but honestly, I just don't know.

My statement was a prediction; not a statement of fact. It is impossible to make a statement of fact on something that doesn't exist. Based on my PREDICTIONS, making gay marriage constitutional will open the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun. THIS is logic, not fact, because why? That's right; because the Supreme Court has not made its ruling yet.

Now, this debate went as long as it did only because I was exhausted. If you would like to retract your question and come back with a fresh, intelligent, response, please feel free to do so.

dodge number 10:
still no FACTUAL and LOGICAL support of your failed BS statment

lets us know when you can support your illogical failed strawman "prediction" of "it'll open the floodgates for every conceivable form of marriage under the sun."
we will keep waiting
 
What goes on between consenting adults is really none of our business.
And what goes on between homosexuals is none of marriage's business. It's a two way street. ;)
 
You mean AGENT J's disconnect #10. Get your facts straight, please.

dodge number 11


lets us know when you have FACTS and LOGIC to support your failed strawman "prediction" of "it'll open the floodgates for every conceivable form of marriage under the sun."
we will keep waiting
 
Back
Top Bottom