• 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
Disconnect #14,553. And something tells me that it goes way beyond your DP Post count, too. ;)

dodge number 12

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

if you disagree and would like to be civil and stay on topic by all means simply prove me wrong and show your factual and logic support for your statement above, come on teach me a lesson.
 
come on teach me a lesson.
No can do, friend. You've run out of time. You can lead an AGENT J to water, but you can't force him to drink. I've already given you more time than you deserve, so this is where we part ways.

Good luck to you.
 
Based on my PREDICTIONS, making gay marriage constitutional will open the floodgates to every form of marriage under the sun.

Can you list off a few "forms" of marriage that you think will become "open" once SSM becomes legal?

Give me 3 to 5 if you please.
 
Can you list off a few "forms" of marriage that you think will become "open" once SSM becomes legal?

Give me 3 to 5 if you please.
Polygamy among heterosexuals will probably be next. Then as morals continue to loosen, we'll see bigamy, polyandry, and polygamy among homosexuals entering the scene. Beyond that I see younger folks getting more comfortable wearing government issue condoms, so look for pedophilia rates to drop steadily as the age of consent dips into the lower teens and eventually down to ages 11 or 12, or possibly even younger. And after that? Sky's the limit, really. We'll just have to wait and see where America's Enlightened guide us next.
 
Last edited:
Polygamy among heterosexuals will probably be next. Then as morals continue to loosen, we'll see bigamy, polyandry, and polygamy among homosexuals entering the scene. Beyond that I see younger folks getting more comfortable wearing government issue condoms, so look for pedophilia rates to drop steadily as the age of consent dips into the lower teens and eventually down to ages 11 or 12, or possibly even younger. And after that? Sky's the limit, really. We'll just have to wait and see where America's Enlightened guide us next.

What's wrong with more than two consenting adults getting married to each other?


Are you trying to associate pedophilia with gay marriage?


So far I'm not to worried about any of your concerns.

I think your "fear" of pedophilia being accepted and normalized within society is ridiculous and knee-jerk.

Everything else you listed, so far, isn't any of my concern.

Dozens of people can unite and form a corporation. If three or five people want to unite in marriage I see no valid reason why they shouldn't. I wouldn't want that, but I don't care if others do.
 
Gay marriage has been and always been about one word: marriage. This is most definitely NOT a rights issue (unless you think, like those dopey judges ((notice I didn't say bigoted))in Maryland who started this whole thing, that the word marriage is the only way to give the same rights and responsibilities as marriage).

Gay couples can have all the same rights and responsibilties of marriage without being married. I know of 5 US states that have passed union legislation (created by legislators) that has all the same rights and responsiblitlies of marriage. California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and just recently, Colorado. Can you dig it? These states have granted unions the same rights and responsibilties of marriage without the 'hassle' of gay marriage legislation, or by gay marriage decrees from state supreme courts.

Those 'equality' rights are the ability of a union couple to adopt. The ability of the union couple to share each other's assets. The only thing not equal, in my opinion, are the lack of tax advantages for a union couple. This can also be done with legislation - federal legislation. Instead of giving tax advantages to marriages, give them to unions, period.

So, let me ask this question: if gay communities want marriage so badly, why do they denigrate marriage so badly? Do they solely want to be married? The clear answer is no. They want, as do judges, to give everyone the same rights and responsibilities under unions as under marriages. They don't care if, in the process, the integrity of marriage is forever destroyed.

Gay marriage is not about rights, it's about politics. And socialism (exactness).
 
Last edited:
Please define this "integrity of marriage". Please.

And who wrote that definition?

The definition is obviously, a union between a man and woman. That definition was written by people who cared about the existence of marriage.
 
Last edited:
What's wrong with more than two consenting adults getting married to each other?
Nothing, if you're anti-Christian.

Are you trying to associate pedophilia with gay marriage?
I'm associating pedophilia with loose morals.

So far I'm not to worried about any of your concerns.

I think your "fear" of pedophilia being accepted and normalized within society is ridiculous and knee-jerk.

Everything else you listed, so far, isn't any of my concern.

Dozens of people can unite and form a corporation. If three or five people want to unite in marriage I see no valid reason why they shouldn't. I wouldn't want that, but I don't care if others do.
I understand that you are not too worried. Many people aren't. But your lack of concern doesn't make all these things any less wrong. As homosexuals succeed in changing the definition of marriage, plan on lots of confusion and serious moral decline in this country.
 
Nothing, if you're anti-Christian.

I'm associating pedophilia with loose morals.

I understand that you are not too worried. Many people aren't. But your lack of concern doesn't make all these things any less wrong. As homosexuals succeed in changing the definition of marriage, plan on lots of confusion and serious moral decline in this country.

You have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Homosexuality isn't about "loose morals" or a decline of morals.

To suggest otherwise is simply ignorance, or fear based on ignorance.

As far as your "chrisitanity" goes.... why would that change?
Nobody is forcing you to do anything or change anything.

There is far more to our society than christianity....so restricting all things to "christian principles" is completely Un-American and wrong.
 
The definition is obviously, a union between a man and woman. That definition was written by people who cared about the existence of marriage.

And it's your belief that "marriage" will become "extinct" if the dirty stinking filthy immoral homo's are allowed to use the same word you use and reap the same benefits you reap?
 
You have nothing to fear but fear itself.
And I'm sure that's exactly what Sarah Shourd and her liberal pals were thinking while they blithely strolled along the Iranian border. Liberals are fearless, I'll give you that, but more often than not, they are fearless to the point of stupidity.

Homosexuality isn't about "loose morals" or a decline of morals.

To suggest otherwise is simply ignorance, or fear based on ignorance.
Thus sayeth the Left. We're on opposite sides of the fence, my friend, and one side can't exist without offending the other.

As far as your "chrisitanity" goes.... why would that change?
Nobody is forcing you to do anything or change anything.
You're just trying to change the definition of marriage, that's all. A valued tradition that has held its ground for over 200 years. Your take on marriage demeans its entire purpose.

There is far more to our society than christianity....so restricting all things to "christian principles" is completely Un-American and wrong.
And expanding all things to Leftist principles is correct? There has to be a standard of living, Dragonfly, and like it or not, America runs on Christian values. It always has, and must continue to do so now. This country is headed toward destruction, and its not because of Jesus Christ and His Church.
 
No can do, friend. You've run out of time. You can lead an AGENT J to water, but you can't force him to drink. I've already given you more time than you deserve, so this is where we part ways.

Good luck to you.

dodge number 13
THATS WHAT I THOUGHT lol

we knew you couldnt and I accept you conceding

but if anything changes 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
 
Polygamy among heterosexuals will probably be next. Then as morals continue to loosen, we'll see bigamy, polyandry, and polygamy among homosexuals entering the scene. Beyond that I see younger folks getting more comfortable wearing government issue condoms, so look for pedophilia rates to drop steadily as the age of consent dips into the lower teens and eventually down to ages 11 or 12, or possibly even younger. And after that? Sky's the limit, really. We'll just have to wait and see where America's Enlightened guide us next.

LMAO

as soon as you associate equal rights for gays with child rape you lose again, wow, beyond the fact you cant back up your claims this is why nobody is taking your posts serious

also new flash.
If polygamy gets rights it wont be able to use the precedence of equal rights for gays but i would support it and if polygamy is legal that automatically makes polyandry.

so lets reflect of your lack of support for "open the floodgates for every conceivable form of marriage under the sun"

polygamy/polyandry which is possible but will have NOTHING to do with equal rights for gays since they are already fighting for NEW rights now
pedophilia which is child rape

nothing else huh?

so one type of marriage that is ALREADY being fought for and child rape which will NEVER happen

yep thats brilliant.

Think you can list anymore of these "every conceivable form of marriage under the sun"

and this time explain how SSM will lead to it, use logical precedence and facts, cant wait to read this.
 
Gay marriage has been and always been about one word: marriage. This is most definitely NOT a rights issue (unless you think, like those dopey judges ((notice I didn't say bigoted))in Maryland who started this whole thing, that the word marriage is the only way to give the same rights and responsibilities as marriage).

Gay couples can have all the same rights and responsibilties of marriage without being married. I know of 5 US states that have passed union legislation (created by legislators) that has all the same rights and responsiblitlies of marriage. California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and just recently, Colorado. Can you dig it? These states have granted unions the same rights and responsibilties of marriage without the 'hassle' of gay marriage legislation, or by gay marriage decrees from state supreme courts.

Those 'equality' rights are the ability of a union couple to adopt. The ability of the union couple to share each other's assets. The only thing not equal, in my opinion, are the lack of tax advantages for a union couple. This can also be done with legislation - federal legislation. Instead of giving tax advantages to marriages, give them to unions, period.

So, let me ask this question: if gay communities want marriage so badly, why do they denigrate marriage so badly? Do they solely want to be married? The clear answer is no. They want, as do judges, to give everyone the same rights and responsibilities under unions as under marriages. They don't care if, in the process, the integrity of marriage is forever destroyed.

Gay marriage is not about rights, it's about politics. And socialism (exactness).

sorry the fact remains it is about equality and NO what you talk about above is simply not true because those things have been proven to be less legally binding than marriage and history also proves separate but equal is not equal.

SO for people to buy your post when have to ignore facts, sorry

also as soon as one talks about "integrity of marriage" everybody else who is honest knows you are dishonest.
THe integrity of marriage is factually not in danger.
 
sorry the fact remains it is about equality and NO what you talk about above is simply not true because those things have been proven to be less legally binding than marriage and history also proves separate but equal is not equal.

SO for people to buy your post when have to ignore facts, sorry

also as soon as one talks about "integrity of marriage" everybody else who is honest knows you are dishonest.
THe integrity of marriage is factually not in danger.

Marriage is not a right its a privilege just like a drivers license. It is none of the governments business what your sexual persuasion is. Get the government out of the marriage business.

Progressives have destroyed traditional marriage and now want to finish the job.
 
1.)Marriage is not a right its a privilege just like a drivers license.
2.) It is none of the governments business what your sexual persuasion is.
3.)Get the government out of the marriage business.
4.) Progressives have destroyed traditional marriage and now want to finish the job.

1.)sorry SCOTUS disagrees with you and they have said so in 14 different cases. Marriage is a right.
2.) i agree
3.)government needs to be involved since its a legal contract that involves federal protections and rights
4.) blaming "progressives" is nonsensical hyperbole
4a.) "traditional marriage" is a made up term that is 100% subjective. its a failed strawman argument
4b.) what ever an individual view of traditional marriage is, it is FACTUALLY in zero danger of being destroyed.
 
1.)sorry SCOTUS disagrees with you and they have said so in 14 different cases. Marriage is a right.
2.) i agree
3.)government needs to be involved since its a legal contract that involves federal protections and rights
4.) blaming "progressives" is nonsensical hyperbole
4a.) "traditional marriage" is a made up term that is 100% subjective. its a failed strawman argument
4b.) what ever an individual view of traditional marriage is, it is FACTUALLY in zero danger of being destroyed.


1 maybe you missed it but the government can not bestow rights
2 good
3 Its true
4 its not made up
5 Have you checked the divorce rate lately or the number of children born out of wedlock?

The real purpose of marriage is in case there are children. To determine who is responsible for them and who gets to inherit what. It has nothing to do with love.
 
15-20 is rather generous, unless we are to expect rapid changes within those states which had explicitly banned gay marriage in their constitutions-via the courts, or somewhere else.
 
1 maybe you missed it but the government can not bestow rights

It more or less does on a regular basis. Perhaps your obstinate view of governance has ignored reality.
 
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.

While there are numerous instances where state's rights is simply state's rights, there is a significant portion of it that was used in such a way. State's rights was code for plantation interests in one regard, and then conveniently ignored in order to call in the national government to ensure their interests for another matter.
 
1 maybe you missed it but the government can not bestow rights
2 good
3 Its true
4 its not made up
5 Have you checked the divorce rate lately or the number of children born out of wedlock?

6.)The real purpose of marriage is in case there are children. To determine who is responsible for them and who gets to inherit what. It has nothing to do with love.

1.) thanks for your opinion but like i said SCOTUS disagrees with you and legal marriage is a right :shrug: this fact wont change based on your opinion
3.) glad you agree government needs involved
4.) yes it is made up LMAO this as been proven many times, its made subjective BS. Your tradition are not mine and so on and so on
5.) what this have to do with anything you said? nothing
6.) this is nothing more than your OPINION that you are welcome to but the law and millions of other people simply disagree with you
 
It more or less does on a regular basis. Perhaps your obstinate view of governance has ignored reality.

Maybe you have no respect for our founding documents.
 
Maybe you have no respect for our founding documents.

Respect and dogmatic adherence are two completely different things.
 
Back
Top Bottom