• 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!

What will the status of Gay marriage be in the USA in 2050

What will the status of Gay marriage be in the USA in 2050?

  • Gay marriages will be treated just like Heterosexual Marriages

    Votes: 24 75.0%

  • Something in the middle like civil unions everywhere

    Votes: 4 12.5%

  • Gay marriage will be illegal

    Votes: 1 3.1%

  • Squirrel!

    Votes: 3 9.4%
  • Total voters
    32
Dooble said:
Because all gays are born gay, just like all blacks are born black.
Click to expand...

I imagine you think you're making an argument. From my perspective you're just reinforcing the obvious fact that one's sexuality is not a choice.
 
Aderleth said:
I imagine you think you're making an argument. From my perspective you're just reinforcing the obvious fact that one's sexuality is not a choice.
Click to expand...
Actually, I was pointing out the absurdity of your connection between gays and blacks, but in a sarcastic way.
 
Dooble said:
Because all gays are born gay, just like all blacks are born black.
Click to expand...

What does being born black have to do with interracial marriage? A person always makes a choice in who they want to marry, no matter what race or sex/gender they are born as.
 
roguenuke said:
What does being born black have to do with interracial marriage? A person always makes a choice in who they want to marry, no matter what race or sex/gender they are born as.
Click to expand...
Ask Aderleth. He's the one trying to link gays with blacks. I was simply pointing out the absurdity of his connection between the two.
 
On bad days, I'm not so sure there will be a USA in 2050.... or at least nothing we'd recognize as such.
 
Dooble said:
Actually, I was pointing out the absurdity of your connection between gays and blacks, but in a sarcastic way.
Click to expand...

No, the connection's pretty solid as long as you're not living in a fantasy world. Especially if you actually understand the underlying legal issues. I'm sure you believe otherwise, though, and frankly I have better things to do than to spend yet another evening explaining to people with no respect for reality how wrong their fantasies are. Ta.
 
Dooble said:
Ask Aderleth. He's the one trying to connect the two. I was simply pointing out the absurdity of his connection between the two.
Click to expand...

No, I'm asking you because you tried to connect being gay to being born black. Interracial marriage wasn't about "being born black". Interracial marriage was about a person being able to choose their spouse regardless of race. Same sex marriage is about a person being able to choose their spouse regardless of sex/gender. And both of these should be allowed because marriage is neither race nor sex/gender dependent, nor does either type of relationship harm anyone in itself.
 
roguenuke said:
No, I'm asking you because you tried to connect being gay to being born black. Interracial marriage wasn't about "being born black". Interracial marriage was about a person being able to choose their spouse regardless of race. Same sex marriage is about a person being able to choose their spouse regardless of sex/gender. And both of these should be allowed because marriage is neither race nor sex/gender dependent, nor does either type of relationship harm anyone in itself.
Click to expand...

Why does society recognize marriage, and/or why should society recognize marriage?
 
Aderleth said:
No, the connection's pretty solid as long as you're not living in a fantasy world. Especially if you actually understand the underlying legal issues. I'm sure you believe otherwise, though, and frankly I have better things to do than to spend yet another evening explaining to people with no respect for reality how wrong their fantasies are. Ta.
Click to expand...
Don't let the door hit ya on the way out. ;)
 
roguenuke said:
No, I'm asking you because you tried to connect being gay to being born black.
Click to expand...
No, you're asking Aderleth because he tried to connect being gay to being born black. But watch out, he may walk out on the discussion.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Why does society recognize marriage, and/or why should society recognize marriage?
Click to expand...

Because people want to be protected in those relationships and "spouse" is a legally recognized family member. Society benefits from marriages because of stability of relationships, which has been shown to provide many benefits to society, and having an adult who has agreed (via marriage license) to take on a certain amount of responsibility, including financial responsibility for this other adult should they not be able to. Plus, for those couples, same sex or opposite sex, that do want to raise children, marriage is the most stable and beneficial relationship to raise children in, no matter who the biological parents of those children are.
 
roguenuke said:
Interracial marriage wasn't about "being born black". Interracial marriage was about a person being able to choose their spouse regardless of race. Same sex marriage is about a person being able to choose their spouse regardless of sex/gender. And both of these should be allowed because marriage is neither race nor sex/gender dependent, nor does either type of relationship harm anyone in itself.
Click to expand...
No, Interracial marriage was about blacks being black. They had no control over their skin tone, yet they were still discriminated against. Not all gays are born gay, hence, one of the reasons it took so much longer for the SC to make a ruling. What's sad is that they caved in to a bunch of perverts.
 
Dooble said:
No, you're asking Aderleth because he tried to connect being gay to being born black. But watch out, he may walk out on the discussion.
Click to expand...

No, you tried to connect the two. He connected wanting to be in a same sex relationship with wanting to be in an interracial relationship, which is a valid connection, particularly considering how our marriage laws function.
 
Dooble said:
No, Interracial marriage was about blacks being black. They had no control over their skin tone, yet they were still discriminated against. Not all gays are born gay, hence, one of the reasons it took so much longer for the SC to make a ruling.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. It was about a black person wanting to be married to a white person and that white person also wanting to be married to that black person and people in society feeling that such relationships were "immoral" and wrong and harmed children.

And those who wish to be in a same sex relationship have no control over their sex/gender, yet they are being discriminated against.
 
roguenuke said:
No, you tried to connect the two. He connected wanting to be in a same sex relationship with wanting to be in an interracial relationship, which is a valid connection, particularly considering how our marriage laws function.
Click to expand...
No, he connected the two because he actually used them both in his example. There is zero valid connection, and I'm surprised, yet again, that a so-called Conservative is defending gay marriage.
 
roguenuke said:
Because people want to be protected in those relationships and "spouse" is a legally recognized family member. Society benefits from marriages because of stability of relationships, which has been shown to provide many benefits to society, and having an adult who has agreed (via marriage license) to take on a certain amount of responsibility, including financial responsibility for this other adult should they not be able to. Plus, for those couples, same sex or opposite sex, that do want to raise children, marriage is the most stable and beneficial relationship to raise children in, no matter who the biological parents of those children are.
Click to expand...

I'll agree that society benefits from stability of relationships. Given that agreement, why do you think we have made the exit from marriage so easy?
 
roguenuke said:
No it wasn't. It was about a black person wanting to be married to a white person and that white person also wanting to be married to that black person and people in society feeling that such relationships were "immoral" and wrong and harmed children.

And those who wish to be in a same sex relationship have no control over their sex/gender, yet they are being discriminated against.
Click to expand...
No, the law was established long before that case. The problem existed LOOOOONG before that case. The bottom line is, that people with the wrong skin tone were denied this right based on something ALL of them had ZERO control over. Homosexuals can't make that same argument.
 
Dooble said:
No, he connected the two because he actually used them both in his example. There is zero valid connection, and I'm surprised, yet again, that a so-called Conservative is defending gay marriage.
Click to expand...

No he said "interracial marriage" not being black. People are not born into interracial marriages/relationships, just as they are not born into same race relationships, or opposite sex relationships or same sex relationships.

There is a connection having a right to choose who a person has a relationship with.
 
roguenuke said:
No he said "interracial marriage" not being black. People are not born into interracial marriages/relationships, just as they are not born into same race relationships, or opposite sex relationships or same sex relationships.

There is a connection having a right to choose who a person has a relationship with.
Click to expand...
No, he used blacks as an example to illustrate how he thinks gay marriage will be in 2050.

Honestly, are you even paying attention to this debate, or are you so drunk with rage that you can't think straight?
 
Dooble said:
No, the law was established long before that case. The problem existed LOOOOONG before that case. The bottom line is, that people with the wrong skin tone were denied this right based on something ALL of them had ZERO control over. Homosexuals can't make that same argument.
Click to expand...

And many of the laws were based on a belief that interracial relationships were immoral.

Actually whites were the ones being denied the most rights when it came to interracial marriage. Because in some states interracial marriage bans actually stated that whites could not marry outside their race, but other races were not given such restrictions. It all depended on the actual law.

But it all comes down to the fact that the laws were still struck down on the basis that people should be allowed to choose their own spouse, without interference from the government, unless the state is able to show a legitimate state interest is furthered by the restriction. The state cannot show a legitimate state interest is furthered in a sex/gender restriction on marriage because marriage is gender neutral in how it functions.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
I'll agree that society benefits from stability of relationships. Given that agreement, why do you think we have made the exit from marriage so easy?
Click to expand...

Because people get to also choose when they want to leave a marriage/relationship that no longer works for them. Humans are human and make mistakes. I have no issue with pushing for a higher age to actually enter into marriage and/or marriage counseling before being allowed a divorce, particularly if the couple has children. But I don't think that any couple when they actually decide they want a divorce should be prevented permanently from getting a divorce.
 
roguenuke said:
Because people get to also choose when they want to leave a marriage/relationship that no longer works for them. Humans are human and make mistakes. I have no issue with pushing for a higher age to actually enter into marriage and/or marriage counseling before being allowed a divorce, particularly if the couple has children. But I don't think that any couple when they actually decide they want a divorce should be prevented permanently from getting a divorce.
Click to expand...

Maybe we should also include premarital counseling before a State would issue a license, and insist on counseling before a divorce being granted unless some form of abuse could be proven?
 
Dooble said:
No, he used blacks as an example to illustrate how he thinks gay marriage will be in 2050.

Honestly, are you even paying attention to this debate, or are you so drunk with rage that you can't think straight?
Click to expand...

This is what Aderleth posted:

The poll's broken, but my answer is that it'll be universally available and generally uncontroversial, much like interracial marriage is now.
Click to expand...

And that is what you quoted him as posting and to which I first responded.

That specifically mentions "interracial marriage", not "blacks". It doesn't mention race. It mentions a relationship where race is a factor. Just as in same sex relationships, sex/gender is a factor.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Maybe we should also include premarital counseling before a State would issue a license, and insist on counseling before a divorce being granted unless some form of abuse could be proven?
Click to expand...

I don't agree. This would be pushing it. Some people are perfectly capable of working things through/discussing problems on their own without outside help.

I would agree to a waiting period for a marriage license though. This way we wouldn't have so many "quicky Vegas weddings".

And no couple should have to prove abuse just to get a divorce, especially if there are no children involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom