• 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
That is such a cop out answer.
In oriental cultures,what you just did is refered to as "saving face".
It is an aspect of vanity.

Please provide evidence that there will in fact be a "Judgement Day".

In oriental

I don't care about "oriental"
 
I believe that God created the Universe, man sinned, man is in need of a Savior, God sent Christ, his son, to earth to die for our sin if we accept Him.

Good for you.That is your right to believe.No one is trying to take that right away from you.
 
I don't care about "oriental"

Nor do I care what your Bible has to say.

In my opinion you still are committing the sin of vanity.
But that's just my beliefs.I don't insist that is actually true.
 
Not a sin, but whatever.

Can you clarify this state statement a bit just so there is no misunderstanding?
Are you stating that not caring what ancient writers in not a sin,or that vanity is not a sin.
 
It is a symbol of what Christ did for us. A reminder of the ultimate passover.

That is a quaint why to put ritualized cannibalizm. After all it is the blood of Christ
 
No, I can't make them. However, if they are wrong, they have grave consequences, if I am wrong, then I look like a fool. However, I'm not wrong.

Depends on what really does happen when we die. You could easily face punishment for you condemning same sex couples in the name of God just because you believe the Bible/a certain religion says so. That would be consequences for you if you are wrong. And you can't prove that you aren't wrong.
 
Christianity has never been proven wrong, other religions have.

The Bible has been proven wrong in the same way that other religious texts have. No beliefs though can be proven wrong until we die and then you can't really "prove" anything to those who are still alive because you are dead.
 
Christianity has never been proven wrong, other religions have.

That's seems to be a matter of opinion.

Here is something that is not.
Throughout it's existence,the three Abrahamic Monotheistic Religions)has had many,many followers who have bullied other religions into getting their own way,at one time or another,and at one form or another
It started with Judaism during the early part of it's religion,that seemed to die down after the Babylon.Then for quite awhile it was Christianity's turn.That continued until sometime in mid 20th century.Now Islam seems to have a a growing number of followers begin to resume it's bullying.
 
How's the ideological discussion between gay marriage advocates and strict interpretators of the Bible turning out?

You do realize, depending on your ideology, you're crushing your foe. And facts really don't play a role in the debate.
 
How's the ideological discussion between gay marriage advocates and strict interpretators of the Bible turning out?

You do realize, depending on your ideology, you're crushing your foe. And facts really don't play a role in the debate.

If facts don't play a role in the debate, you're doing it wrong.
 
No DOMA means that the federal government will recognize marriages of same sex couples in those 12 states that have legalized it already and it means that there is another way to contest state laws, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the 14th.

Why are you arguing about states that already have gay marriage? I'm assming the 'Jster' was implying federal gay marriage.

How is the 14th amendment being broken? It's that word - marriage - again, isn't it.

Let me bring this analogy out of the mothballs - wait, let me use another analogy - let's demand that everyone, men and women, use the ladies public restroom. The ladies public restroom is (so I've been told) so much cleaner. Men must demand equal protection under the law for clean public restrooms.

If I've offended anyone with this analogy, I could come up with at least a dozen different short 'parables' to illustrate my point.
 
Last edited:
If facts don't play a role in the debate, you're doing it wrong.

I'll clarify my point. Lately, since it's one ideologue shouting at another ideologue, facts aren't successful in proving or disproving a point between the combatants. It's ideology, for crying out loud. Minds have already been made up and won't be unmade.
 
I'll clarify my point. Lately, since it's one ideologue shouting at another ideologue, facts aren't successful in proving or disproving a point between the combatants. It's ideology, for crying out loud. Minds have already been made up and won't be unmade.

Anyone who's been around any debate forum long enough has become fully aware that changing another person's mind is so unlikely as it should not be considered the primary goal. Rather, it should be to test the strength of your arguments.
 
Anyone who's been around any debate forum long enough has become fully aware that changing another person's mind is so unlikely as it should not be considered the primary goal. Rather, it should be to test the strength of your arguments.

And what, your arguments are that some, IMO, ideological judges decided gays being prevented from using the word marriage in their 'union' was unconstitutional?
 
And what, your arguments are that some, IMO, ideological judges decided gays being prevented from using the word marriage in their 'union' was unconstitutional?

There is so much that's bizarre about the above that it's difficult to know where to start. Such as assuming what my argument is; assuming that the judges are ideological and did not make their decision on the merits of the case; or putting union in air quotes like that.

I suggest you remove the assumptions from your post and start over.
 
Why are you arguing about states that already have gay marriage? I'm assming the 'Jster' was implying federal gay marriage.

How is the 14th amendment being broken? It's that word - marriage - again, isn't it.

Let me bring this analogy out of the mothballs - wait, let me use another analogy - let's demand that everyone, men and women, use the ladies public restroom. The ladies public restroom is (so I've been told) so much cleaner. Men must demand equal protection under the law for clean public restrooms.

If I've offended anyone with this analogy, I could come up with at least a dozen different short 'parables' to illustrate my point.

First of all, you brought up DOMA, saying something about without it, there would be no "federal right" to same sex marriage. This is wrong. Without DOMA, the federal government would have to recognize all legal marriages from any state, as they currently do, including same sex marriages. But along with this, it would open up the case that the Full Faith and Credit Clause must apply to same sex marriages even in states that do not allow same sex marriage, because marriage is a contract and the states would have to show why there is a legitimate state interest being served in not allowing/recognizing same sex couples in a marriage/their marriage contracts, when they recognize other marriage contracts from out of state.

Your ladies' restroom comparison is not in any way valid. For one thing, no one is required to designate men and women on restrooms at all, as long as they have locks on the doors of individual restrooms. But beyond this, there is a huge difference between bathrooms that are separated and marriages being restricted on the basis of gender. One can be shown to at least have a small reason that it furthers a state interest, the other cannot be shown to legitimately further any state interest.
 
Why are you arguing about states that already have gay marriage? I'm assming the 'Jster' was implying federal gay marriage.

How is the 14th amendment being broken? It's that word - marriage - again, isn't it.

Let me bring this analogy out of the mothballs - wait, let me use another analogy - let's demand that everyone, men and women, use the ladies public restroom. The ladies public restroom is (so I've been told) so much cleaner. Men must demand equal protection under the law for clean public restrooms.

If I've offended anyone with this analogy, I could come up with at least a dozen different short 'parables' to illustrate my point.

all your anologies fail :shrug: everyone you bring up is a non parallel and gets destroyed.
 
all your anologies fail :shrug: everyone you bring up is a non parallel and gets destroyed.

IMO, my analogies show similar 'systems of inexactness' like gay marriage - of potential failures to adhere to the 14th amendment. Why is gay marriage special when compared to these other inexact institutions I used in analogies? Why do my analogies fail?

I could use roguenuke's logic and place a lock on the marriage door and refuse marriage to everyone, civilly. I could point out, as I've done many times on this thread, that gays get all the rights and responsibiltites of marriage with unions.

That only leaves us with the philosophy of ideological judges who think marriage should be a right for all. Do any of you gay marriage advocates know why the first plurality of judges made that decree and set the precedent?
 
Last edited:
First of all, you brought up DOMA, saying something about without it, there would be no "federal right" to same sex marriage. This is wrong. Without DOMA, the federal government would have to recognize all legal marriages from any state, as they currently do, including same sex marriages. But along with this, it would open up the case that the Full Faith and Credit Clause must apply to same sex marriages even in states that do not allow same sex marriage, because marriage is a contract and the states would have to show why there is a legitimate state interest being served in not allowing/recognizing same sex couples in a marriage/their marriage contracts, when they recognize other marriage contracts from out of state...
As far as DOMA is concerned, the federal gov't recognizes gay marriage in those states that recognize gay marriage and doesn't recognize gay marriage in those states that don't reconize gay marriage. So, you see, the state is the driver for gay marriage rights not the gov't.

If Alaska gives a stipend to every member of its state from gas profits, why shouldn't every citizen of every state expect a stipend from their respective states? Roguenuke?
 
Last edited:
1.)IMO, my analogies show similar 'systems of inexactness' like gay marriage - of failures to adhere to the 14th amendment.
2.) Why is gay marriage special when compared to these other inexact institutions I used in analogies?
3.)Why do my analogies fail?

4.)I could use roguenuke's logic and place a lock on the marriage door and refuse marriage to everyone civilly.
5.) I could point out, as I've done many times on this thread, that gays get all the rights and responsibiltites of marriage with unions.

6.)That only leaves us with the philosophy of ideological judges who think marriage should be a right for all.
7.)Do any of you gay marriage advocates know why the first judge made that decree and set the precedent?

1.) yes in your OPINION im sure they do in reality they are not parallels.
2.) its not special because your are comparing apples and oranges.
3.) see answer 1 and 2
4.) your opinion of what you think he does
5.) factually false
6.)your opinion
7.) please share your OPINION on why you think he did

its an equality, equal rights, unequal/unfair discrimination issue

none of your analogies meet this criteria.
 
As far as DOMA is concerned, the federal gov't recognizes gay marriage in those states that recognize gay marriage and doesn't recognize gay marriage in those states that don't reconize gay marriage. So, you see, the state is the driver for gay marriage rights not the gov't.

If Alaska gives a stipend to every member of its state from gas profits, why shouldn't every citizen of every state expect a stipend from their respective states? Roguenuke?

No they don't, not with DOMA in place. You really need to go read up on some information about this subject because you don't seem to know a lot. DOMA says that the federal government will not recognize same sex marriages at all (although there is an exception that no one talks about because the federal government doesn't want to provide another front for DOMA to be attacked, and that is couples who were married as a man and a woman and one of them got a legal sex change, which if legal in the state they live in, the federal government recognizes as legal to them, so they recognize legal same sex marriages in that case).

Not all state laws must apply equally to those who are not citizens of certain states. This is why people living in different states, pay different taxes. That isn't how laws and equality work.
 
Back
Top Bottom