• 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
wolfie said:
This would probably work in a perfect world of course...

Unfortunately not in ours!!
Click to expand...

While our world may not be perfect,the scenarios that roguenuke describes works way more times than it doesn't.
 
wolfie said:
so..if I beat up a woman..it is an assault..

If I beat up a lesbian it is a gay attack?

As often happens here..black guys beat up a white person..it is an assault..

White guys beat up a black guy...it is a racially motivated crime..

Sheesh...
Click to expand...

It can be argued that designating certain crimes as "hate crimes" is more convoluted than it needs to be, but there is one simple truth that stands out: don't commit assault, don't threaten assault, and you won't be arrested, whatever the designation of that assault may be.
 
wolfie said:
so..if I beat up a woman..it is an assault..

If I beat up a lesbian it is a gay attack?

As often happens here..black guys beat up a white person..it is an assault..

White guys beat up a black guy...it is a racially motivated crime..

Sheesh...
Click to expand...

Proving a hate crime is a rather difficult thing to do. You have to prove that the crime was primarily motivated by race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

A white guy getting into a random fight with a black guy = not a hate crime.

A group of white supremacists assaulting a black person, tying him to the back of a truck, and then driving for a couple miles, eventually killing him (such as what happened in Jasper, Texas) = hate crime.

See the difference?
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
It can be argued that designating certain crimes as "hate crimes" is more convoluted than it needs to be, but there is one simple truth that stands out: don't commit assault, don't threaten assault, and you won't be arrested, whatever the designation of that assault may be.
Click to expand...

I think it is important that we deal with organized terrorism as a higher crime than random violence, as it does more damage to society.
 
wolfie said:
This would probably work in a perfect world of course...

Unfortunately not in ours!!
Click to expand...

Then fight it if it happens to you. But stop complaining about it as if it has some significance in this thread or even anything else you posted in this thread, because it doesn't. We were not talking about punishment (which is what hate crime laws deal with) in dealing with those already charged with a crime and the motivation for those crimes. We were talking about actually charging people with a "hate crime" with no other crime involved.
 
ecofarm said:
I think it is important that we deal with organized terrorism as a higher crime than random violence, as it does more damage to society.
Click to expand...

That may be so, but it is a distinction that is far above the comprehension of someone who can't tell the difference between assault, threats of assault, freedom of speech, bad behavior on the job, being fired for that bad behavior...they're all mushed together in her brain somehow. I was just trying to simplify the concepts as much as humanly possible for her.
 
Verthaine said:
Your words,not mine.
Doesn't matter to me what terminology people want to use,assaulting people is still wrong and should be punished to the full extent of the law.
Threatening to commit violence against someone for whatever reason is still wrong and should be punished to the full extent of the law.
You don't have a problem with that,do you?
Click to expand...

Saying we should not distinguish between different circumstances of assault or murder is rather naive, in my opinion. After all, if we should not distinguish different circumstances of murder then there should be no difference between premeditated murder and murder "in the heat of the moment".
 
zstep18 said:
Saying we should not distinguish between different circumstances of assault or murder is rather naive, in my opinion. After all, if we should not distinguish different circumstances of murder then there should be no difference between premeditated murder and murder "in the heat of the moment".
Click to expand...

Fully agree,but right now I am not on jury duty.That is the job of the legal system to sort it all out.
 
Paschendale said:
So the wine really turns into blood?.../QUOTE]


Wine is a symbol of Christ's blood in communion. According to the Bible, water was turned into wine.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Gay marriage advocates claim gay marriage should be available to anyone in any state, because a plurality of ideological judges in the originating state decreed marriage a right for all, and preventing gay marriage is discrimination. Any other explanations from gay marriage advocates for gay marriage (which are used quite frequently) is obfuscation. Gay marriage advocates are not fazed with other infactions of the 14th amendment, just the gay marriage infraction of the 14th amendment (or any other amendment).

Gay marriage is certainly not fairness - one state's supreme court decided marriage should be for everyone in the whole union. It's socialism. It's exactness
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
Gay marriage advocates claim gay marriage should be available to anyone in any state, because a plurality of ideological judges in the originating state decreed marriage a right for all, and preventing gay marriage is discrimination. Any other explanations from gay marriage advocates for gay marriage (which are used quite frequently) is obfuscation. Gay marriage advocates are not fazed with other infactions of the 14th amendment, just the gay marriage infraction of the 14th amendment (or any other amendment).

Gay marriage is certainly not fairness - one state's supreme court decided marriage should be for everyone in the whole union. It's socialism. It's exactness
Click to expand...

Does this post make sense to anyone out there?
 
Quag said:
Does this post make sense to anyone out there?
Click to expand...

I believe it's the same guy who kept going on about how judges who rule in favor of SSM are 'bigots.' Don't expect much sense.
 
chromium said:
I believe it's the same guy who kept going on about how judges who rule in favor of SSM are 'bigots.' Don't expect much sense.
Click to expand...

Yeah that would be rather strange but at least you would understand what hes saying, he'd still be wrong but as a post it wouldn't be unintelligible, unlike this last one. I mean I get he's anti-SSM but that is all I understood from the post.
 
cabse5 said:
Gay marriage advocates claim gay marriage should be available to anyone in any state, because a plurality of ideological judges in the originating state decreed marriage a right for all, and preventing gay marriage is discrimination. Any other explanations from gay marriage advocates for gay marriage (which are used quite frequently) is obfuscation. Gay marriage advocates are not fazed with other infactions of the 14th amendment, just the gay marriage infraction of the 14th amendment (or any other amendment).

Gay marriage is certainly not fairness - one state's supreme court decided marriage should be for everyone in the whole union. It's socialism. It's exactness
Click to expand...

Socialism is an economic system. It has nothing to do with marriage.

Quag said:
Does this post make sense to anyone out there?
Click to expand...

I think it's the old "you can't support SSM unless you're also okay with polygamy, child marriage, marrying objects, and all other possible forms of marriage." It's a nonsensical argument, because one issue is not another issue. It would be like arguing that because it's legal to own a house cat, it must be legal to own a Bengal tiger. Different things are different. Polygamy and SSM are not the same thing, nor governed by the same factual or legal theories.
 
Paschendale said:
Socialism is an economic system. It has nothing to do with marriage.



I think it's the old "you can't support SSM unless you're also okay with polygamy, child marriage, marrying objects, and all other possible forms of marriage." It's a nonsensical argument, because one issue is not another issue. It would be like arguing that because it's legal to own a house cat, it must be legal to own a Bengal tiger. Different things are different. Polygamy and SSM are not the same thing, nor governed by the same factual or legal theories.
Click to expand...

Well if that what you think he said personally I couldn't understand any of it
 
Quag said:
Does this post make sense to anyone out there?
Click to expand...

Here let me put it in my patented babbling looney bin translator:

*bzzzzzt, click, click, bzzzt, whirrrrr, DING*

*Results are inconclusive!
 
You say christians don't have the 'copyright' of marriage. Does that one plurality of state judges who decreed marriage for all have a 'copyright' of discrimination? If yes, why? If no, why?
 
cabse5 said:
You say christians don't have the 'copyright' of marriage. Does that one plurality of state judges who decreed marriage for all have a 'copyright' of discrimination? If yes, why? If no, why?
Click to expand...

Again I have no idea what this post is asking. Can anyone translate?
 
Quag said:
Again I have no idea what this post is asking. Can anyone translate?
Click to expand...

Honestly, I wouldn't expect a pro gay marriage ideologue to respond any other way. I don't believe that you don't understand such a straightforward question. It's obfuscation.
 
cabse5 said:
Honestly, I wouldn't expect a pro gay marriage ideologue to respond any other way. I don't believe that you don't understand such a straightforward question. It's obfuscation.
Click to expand...

No I honestly cannot understand what your post is saying. It just seems to be random words strung together.
 
Quag said:
No I honestly cannot understand what your post is saying. It just seems to be random words strung together.
Click to expand...

Sorry. It must be tough for you.
 
cabse5 said:
Sorry. It must be tough for you.
Click to expand...

I was actually trying to get you or someone else to rephrase the post in a manner that is comprehensible. I assume you have no interest in that.
 
Quag said:
No I honestly cannot understand what your post is saying. It just seems to be random words strung together.
Click to expand...

you nailed it!
 
For those who send 0-5 years, do you believe in the next 5 years the Supreme Court will legalize same-sex marriage in all of the states and overturn their constitutional bans on it? Because changing state constitutions will take more than 5 years, especially in the deep south.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom