• 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?


  • Total voters
    32
So, IYV, the promises made with marriage vows can be readily extinguished with little consequence when one simply gets tired of his/her/whatever partner?




I thought about this for a few minutes and I wonder why, if two people are so much in love that they want to get married, with the idea of spending the rest of their life together, they wouldn't want to spend at least a little time trying to save that marriage.
 
In 15 years we are going to look back on the same sex marriage movement and think about how foolish it was, just like most rational people and how they feel towards the ciil rights movement and the woman's rights movement.




I have always supported equal rights for all and I will never see supporting equal rights as a foolish thing.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
4. They'll have found a cure for homosexuality.

What would they be curing, exactly?

"Cure" implies some kind of disease or disorder that is harmful to someone's well-being.

As far as I can tell, the only harm that comes of being gay is discrimination and violence from a bigoted society.

Perhaps they'll find a cure for bigotry.
 
I have always supported equal rights for all and I will never see supporting equal rights as a foolish thing.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

So because you cannot relate to it it is foolish?
 
Considering Hispanics are against gay marriage and they are rising, I don't think gay marriage actually will have a long future in the US. It will go through phases of white liberalized legalization then will likely be repealed and overturned by future Hispanic majorities.




People forget that the entire 'Gay' movement is highly reliant in every way on white political culture. Once that starts to decline, so will gay marriage legalization.
 
Considering Hispanics are against gay marriage and they are rising, I don't think gay marriage actually will have a long future in the US. It will go through phases of white liberalized legalization then will likely be repealed and overturned by future Hispanic majorities.

People forget that the entire 'Gay' movement is highly reliant in every way on white political culture. Once that starts to decline, so will gay marriage legalization.


I doubt it. It's kind of hard to build up a head of steam over an issue that doesn't negatively impact anyone. Once it's legal in all 50 states it'll be completely under the radar within five years.
 
Despite the fact that the "pendulum swings" women are still allowed to vote 93 years after the passing of the 19th amendment. The general trend within this country is that once a specific demographic gains a right they don't just lose it again.

The problem with that is one was an amendment to the constitution (as it should be done, the decision of the people) and the other is a reinterpretation of the constitution (the decision of the Ayatollahs alone).
 
The problem with that is one was an amendment to the constitution (as it should be done, the decision of the people) and the other is a reinterpretation of the constitution (the decision of the Ayatollahs alone).

There's nothing inherently wrong with "interpreting the constitution." The Supreme Court is a legitimate branch of the government and does what it was intended to do.
 
I doubt it. It's kind of hard to build up a head of steam over an issue that doesn't negatively impact anyone. Once it's legal in all 50 states it'll be completely under the radar within five years.


I don't agree.


I think maybe short term, yes, perhaps gay marriage will become legal in some liberal states. That said I think that in 50-100 years the country will have changed so dramatically in terms of racial politics that Hispanics will overturn many of the pro gay laws.


It's generally a rule that where white liberalism declines, the reforms are rolled back. Frankly though I don't think it will even matter. In 50-100 years the gay movement will have collapsed due to a collapse in white liberalism. So it's a mute point.



For example. In 50 years, what will it matter if gay marriage is legal if gays are openly shot in the street in broad daylight? How many gay marriages do you think will really occur in those times?
 
It's generally a rule that where white liberalism declines, the reforms are rolled back.

It is? I've never heard of this rule. When has this happened?
 
Go to a majority Mexican region.

No thanks, it's a work day for me, actually. Can you point to an example where "white liberalism" fled, and Hispanics revokes rights for people?
 
And many of the laws were based on a belief that interracial relationships were immoral.
Citation needed.

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.
Citation needed.

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.
Citation needed.

You've got your work cut out for ya. ;)
 
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.
Wrong. I used 'blacks' as example, and you know it. I used the one race that people most readily identify with, and you know it. Now that we both know your deceptiveness is deliberate, we just need to identify the motivation. Is it because you're a stealth liberal cloaked in 'slightly conservative' clothing and you argue like this all the time, or is it that you have someone close to you who is gay?

Aderleth was linking gay behavior to skin tone when he made that comment, and anyone who isn't a liar will openly agree, or at least admit it.
 
Citation needed.

Citation needed.

Citation needed.

You've got your work cut out for ya. ;)

Not too hard to do.

On Interracial Marriage: The Moral Status of Miscegenation at | Faith and Heritage

Notice the citation in here about Muhammed Ali condemning interracial relationships? It isn't exactly a rare belief.

From the trial judge, Leon M. Bazile, of the Loving case:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

A connection is made legally between interracial relationships/marriages and their "morality".

Mormons (among other religions, but still the most prominent) "discouraged" such relationships for quite some time, and even seem to do so today in the guise of "ensuring few marital troubles". Many states didn't put interracial marriage bans in place until after the Civil War (although most of those did not have their bans struck down by Loving).

Justices Upset All Bans On Interracial Marriage 9-0 Decision Rules

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that states cannot outlaw marriages between whites and nonwhites.

Notice how this is worded. "between whites and nonwhites".

Information on the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 that defined people in two groups, white and colored (colored being anyone who was not white, including Native Americans). Black people could marry outside their race, as long as they weren't white.

Racial Integrity Act of 1924 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for the last part, it is a part of the Loving decision among other decisions. You need to show how marriage laws in their function are sex/gender dependent if you want to prove me wrong. I will not quote every single marriage law in the US.
 
Wrong. I used 'blacks' as example, and you know it. I used the one race that people most readily identify with, and you know it. Now that we both know your deceptiveness is deliberate, we just need to identify the motivation. Is it because you're a stealth liberal cloaked in 'slightly conservative' clothing and you argue like this all the time, or is it that you have someone close to you who is gay?

Aderleth was linking gay behavior to skin tone when he made that comment, and anyone who isn't a liar will openly agree, or at least admit it.

And he didn't. He was linking relationships to each other. Either that link was based on unchangeable traits involved in the bans, race and sex/gender. Or that link is based on the choice a person should have to enter into a marriage with someone regardless of their race or their sex/gender.

You are the one who fails to understand or either you simply want to lie about it, that the link is valid because the link is not sexuality to race, but rather race to sex/gender or choices in relationships that others consider "wrong".
 
How on Earth do I know?
 
Holy S***! Liberals still don't know the difference between skin tone and behavior!

Sorry, 50 years of STD's and bong resin have caused them permanent brain damage!

Holy ****! You still don't know that the common denominator is discrimination and thus the comparison to racism!
 
Holy ****! You still don't know that the common denominator is discrimination and thus the comparison to racism!
Goodness G*******! You still don't know that there's no such thing as discrimination against wrong behaviors! You're whole argument is built on a lie!
 
Goodness G*******! You still don't know that there's no such thing as discrimination against wrong behaviors! You're whole argument is built on a lie!

Oh my tap dancing God and Jesus wept! You still don't know that homosexuality is an orientation, not a behavior!! Lawdy! Lawdy! La-- okay that's enough.
 
  • 2Something in the middle like civil unions everywhere
  • 3. Gay marriage will be illegal

[*]1. Gay marriages will be treated just like Heterosexual Marriages
[/LIST]

In my opinion, as long as you have people of faith (Christians, Jews, etc.) that hold to some objective moral standard (the Bible), you will never have everyone believing that homosexual marriage is the equivalent of heterosexual marriage...which it is not.

This is not to say that gay folks should be treated poorly or be discriminated against. It is to say that some of us will never recognize homosexual marriage.

For the record, now that DOMA has been struck down all 50 states will be required to recognize homosexual marriage. The argument will be that marriages recognized in New York must also be recognized in Texas just as any other marriage would be.

Of course, that's just my humble opinion.
 
Back
Top Bottom