• 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
Gawain said:
Maybe you have no respect for our founding documents.
Click to expand...

One may very well think that, but they would also be missing the point entirely. Perhaps instead of thinking those documents were set in stone, without interpretation, without manipulation, without whichever, you would begin to see why such a statement is nearly irrelevant. While you pontificate about the founding documents, perhaps you could be so kind as to remind us how rights are not bestowed upon us by our government, or conversely, how they aren't taken away by the same institution, through the same means?

Perhaps I could make the argument that by understanding their fragile nature, I have shown more respect for them than you ever will.
 
Hatuey said:
Respect and dogmatic adherence are two completely different things.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even credit them with the latter, anyhow. Libertarians tend to have this strange fascination with a past and government that never was.
 
AGENT J said:
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
Click to expand...

1 Where do you come up with this crap show me where it says marriage is a right.
3 I say get government out
4 Then everything is made up
5 Progressive have destroyed marriage by making divorce easy and down playing the importance of marriage leading to all those unwed mothers.
6 No thats a fact and most agree with me
 
Fiddytree said:
One may very well think that, but they would also be missing the point entirely. Perhaps instead of thinking those documents were set in stone, without interpretation, without manipulation, without whichever, you would begin to see why such a statement is nearly irrelevant. While you pontificate about the founding documents, perhaps you could be so kind as to remind us how rights are not bestowed upon us by our government, or conversely, how they aren't taken away by the same institution, through the same means?

Perhaps I could make the argument that by understanding their fragile nature, I have shown more respect for them than you ever will.
Click to expand...

Is there part of our rights come from our creator you dont understand? The only purpose of our government and the constitution is to protect those rights. Not to bestow them.
 
Hatuey said:
Respect and dogmatic adherence are two completely different things.
Click to expand...


Maybe reading comprehension is not your strong point

Do you recognize this?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men
Click to expand...

The whole basis of the US is that our rights come from the creator. If they come from man then man can take them away.
 
Gawain said:
Is there part of our rights come from our creator you dont understand? The only purpose of our government and the constitution is to protect those rights. Not to bestow them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is metaphysical leap of faith, but it was ultimately a necessary one. If that was the only purpose, why the immense number of rights that we actually have now? Surely government did it, and its still here-thus a reality. I have a right to reasonable accommodations for my disability- I sometimes use that right in numerous areas of my life. It's codified by law, it's enforced, it....exists.
 
Gawain said:
Maybe reading comprehension is not your strong point

Do you recognize this?
Click to expand...

I'm glad you brought that specific statement up. As it shows you're unable to even comprehend what it meant to the FFs. At the same time that statement was written the US had indentured servants, slaves, women who were not legally allowed to own property, vote etc. So as the ink used to write "all men are equal" was drying, the definition of "men" that was used was one which was extremely discriminatory and would raise flags today by most Libertarian standards. Again, dogmatic adherence is extremely different from respect. Today, no Libertarian would advocate that slaves/women constitute anything less than people and yet, that's exactly the context in which "all men" was used. So how do you reconciliate the meaning behind the original text and its current usage? Do we declare women's suffrage to be moot and ignore modern laws against slavery? Or do we realize we're in the 21st century and the FFs lived under a different time?
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
I'm glad you brought that specific statement up. As it shows you're unable to even comprehend what it meant to the FFs. At the same time that statement was written the US had indentured servants, slaves, women who were not legally allowed to own property, vote etc. So even as that "all men are equal", the definition of "men" used was one which was extremely discriminatory and would raise flags today by most Libertarian standards. Again, dogmatic adherence is extremely different from respect.
Click to expand...

Yes, their interpretations for what was good or necessary governance was reflected in their legal or political work. Some folks ended up having less rights due to a change in interpretation or were given more or new rights. Government did it.
 
Hatuey said:
I'm glad you brought that specific statement up. As it shows you're unable to even comprehend what it meant to the FFs. At the same time that statement was written the US had indentured servants, slaves, women who were not legally allowed to own property, vote etc. So even as that "all men are equal", the definition of "men" used was one which was extremely discriminatory and would raise flags today by most Libertarian standards. Again, dogmatic adherence is extremely different from respect.
Click to expand...
You do realize that women did own property and so did blacks and voted in our first elections.
 
Fiddytree said:
Yeah, it is metaphysical leap of faith, but it was ultimately a necessary one. If that was the only purpose, why the immense number of rights that we actually have now? Surely government did it, and its still here-thus a reality. I have a right to reasonable accommodations for my disability- I sometimes use that right in numerous areas of my life. It's codified by law, it's enforced, it....exists.
Click to expand...

If anything we have less rights now. Government can not bestow rights but they can certainly take them away. Every time the government passes a law some one loses a right. They have a made a joke of the constitution.
 
Gawain said:
You do realize that women did own property and so did blacks and voted in our first elections.
Click to expand...

You realize that upon marriage women actually gave up their possessions and freedom of movement, right? I mean, otherwise the early women's rights movement that kicked off in the 1840s was somehow convinced in the truth of a lie.

And blacks, my goodness. It's not as if blacks had anything to worry about: being restricted or in danger of having all of their rights stripped and put into slavery, let alone worrying if they would be seen as equals.
 
Gawain said:
If anything we have less rights now. Government can not bestow rights but they can certainly take them away. Every time the government passes a law some one loses a right. They have a made a joke of the constitution.
Click to expand...

I have a lot more rights now than I would have 30 years ago, let alone 200. I don't know what planet you're living on.
 
Gawain said:
You do realize that women did own property and so did blacks and voted in our first elections.
Click to expand...

That there existed a handful does not mean the rest were legally allowed. Which is what you fail to understand. Remember that whole reading comprehension bit? It's useful now. Married women, slaves and indentured servants were considered property for the most part. Even free women who married lost control of their property after marriage. Which is why states slowly started giving them a right which the FFs would have easily opposed. That being: control of property. So, what we have now is that blacks weren't given the right to vote until the 15th amendment and women didn't have a right to own property unless they remained single most of their lives. Which of course, was pretty much mandatory given the society context of the 18th and 19th centuries:

1788 - United States of America: Female citizens may stand for election for federal offices, though they still could not vote.
1809 - USA, Connecticut: Married women are allowed to execute will
1821 - USA, Maine: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse
1835 - USA, Arkansas: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name[3]
- USA, Massachusetts: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse[3]
- USA, Tennessee: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse
1844
USA, Maine: Married women granted separate economy[3]
USA, Maine: Married women granted trade license[3]
USA, Massachusetts: Married Women granted separate economy

You REALLY should pick up a history book.
 
This is how I feel most Republicans wish Obama was acting:

3ofcba.jpg


Luckily for us.

 
Gawain said:
1 Where do you come up with this crap show me where it says marriage is a right.
3 I say get government out
4 Then everything is made up
5 Progressive have destroyed marriage by making divorce easy and down playing the importance of marriage leading to all those unwed mothers.
6 No thats a fact and most agree with me
Click to expand...

1.) LMAO gladly
like i said 14 times SCOTUS declared marriage a right
here you go
14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights
you're welcome

3.) cant
4.) yes as far as traditions go you are correct:shrug:
5.) lol ok only progressives
6.) nope its an OPINION lol you are factually 100% wrong to call it a fact
stats? links?

sorry the law and millions of people disgaree
 
Dooble said:
Dogmatic adherence IS respect.
Click to expand...

Not really, I can respect certain beliefs of people and not dogmatically adhere to them.
 
Fiddytree said:
You realize that upon marriage women actually gave up their possessions and freedom of movement, right? I mean, otherwise the early women's rights movement that kicked off in the 1840s was somehow convinced in the truth of a lie.

And blacks, my goodness. It's not as if blacks had anything to worry about: being restricted or in danger of having all of their rights stripped and put into slavery, let alone worrying if they would be seen as equals.
Click to expand...


Your just wrong. Show me anything about this in the constitution. Theres is nothing there restricting blacks or any other race nor women. Voting has always been a mater for the states. There is no right to vote either in the constitution.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) LMAO gladly
like i said 14 times SCOTUS declared marriage a right
here you go
14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights
you're welcome

3.) cant
4.) yes as far as traditions go you are correct:shrug:
5.) lol ok only progressives
6.) nope its an OPINION lol you are factually 100% wrong to call it a fact
stats? links?

sorry the law and millions of people disgaree
Click to expand...


You have the right to marry if thats how you wish to phrase it. But the marriage mentioned there is not what you are talking about. Your talking about a new definition of marriage. If it is a right you do not need the government to give it to you. Gays have always been allowed to marry.
 
Hatuey said:
That there existed a handful does not mean the rest were legally allowed. Which is what you fail to understand. Remember that whole reading comprehension bit? It's useful now. Married women, slaves and indentured servants were considered property for the most part. Even free women who married lost control of their property after marriage. Which is why states slowly started giving them a right which the FFs would have easily opposed. That being: control of property. So, what we have now is that blacks weren't given the right to vote until the 15th amendment and women didn't have a right to own property unless they remained single most of their lives. Which of course, was pretty much mandatory given the society context of the 18th and 19th centuries:

1788 - United States of America: Female citizens may stand for election for federal offices, though they still could not vote.
1809 - USA, Connecticut: Married women are allowed to execute will
1821 - USA, Maine: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse
1835 - USA, Arkansas: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name[3]
- USA, Massachusetts: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse[3]
- USA, Tennessee: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse
1844
USA, Maine: Married women granted separate economy[3]
USA, Maine: Married women granted trade license[3]
USA, Massachusetts: Married Women granted separate economy

You REALLY should pick up a history book.
Click to expand...

Again it has always been a state matter. Nothing in the constitution ever said anything about it. You should pick up a history book yourself. Or at least learn the constitution.
 
Fiddytree said:
I have a lot more rights now than I would have 30 years ago, let alone 200. I don't know what planet you're living on.
Click to expand...


You must live in a different country than me then as Ive lost quite a few. And Ive been here a lot longer than 30 years

But in the end we all still have the rights we were born with. Again the government can only protect them or take them away. It can not bestow them. Its done a very poor job lately of protecting them. The recent IRS scandal being a good example.
 
Gawain said:
1.)You have the right to marry if thats how you wish to phrase it.
2.)But the marriage mentioned there is not what you are talking about. Your talking about a new definition of marriage.
3.)If it is a right you do not need the government to give it to you.
4.)Gays have always been allowed to marry.
Click to expand...

1.) thats how SCOTUS phrases it not me ;)
2.) SSM is not a new definition by any means lol it would be a newly protected NATIONAL right and it would finally be granting equal rights
3.) if you say so :shrug:
4.) not legally in SSM
 
AGENT J said:
1.) thats how SCOTUS phrases it not me ;)
2.) SSM is not a new definition by any means lol it would be a newly protected NATIONAL right and it would finally be granting equal rights
3.) if you say so :shrug:
4.) not legally in SSM
Click to expand...

1 maybe you should read it again
2 Yes it is.
3 Your waking up
4 Depends on what you call legally. No they cant get government benefits for it if thats what you mean as in married in the eye of the state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom