• 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 be the last state to have same sex marriage? [W: 33]

What will be the last state to have same sex marriage?

  • Total voters
    40
MarineTpartier said:
Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot who I was talking to.
Redress. Why. Do. You. Think. South. Carolina. Is. The. Most. Backwards. Messed. Up. State. In. The. Union?
Click to expand...

Because the things they do and the laws they pass.

I would assume.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
BTW... for those of you who followed the situation in NJ with the court case, I will say that I had a minor role in the case being won. I actually sent some of the information and arguments that I have presented here to a member of Garden State Equality. I believe some were used.
Click to expand...

Thats awesome!
 
Your Star said:
Because the things they do and the laws they pass.

I would assume.
Click to expand...
I was just wondering why disagreeing with one point of view that Redress supports makes an entire state backwards and messed up in his opinion. Plus, just because any gov't (no matter the level) has allowed any law to be in place that some view as backwards and messed up, doesn't mean the entire population of that state is backwards and messed up as well. For that matter, it doesn't mean the actual gov't is backwards and messed up just because they support one backward and messed up law. I just thought that was a very simplistic and narrow way to look at things and wondered what other laws led to that conclusion. It looks as though Redress doesn't want to tackle the issue. Oh well.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
BTW... for those of you who followed the situation in NJ with the court case, I will say that I had a minor role in the case being won. I actually sent some of the information and arguments that I have presented here to a member of Garden State Equality. I believe some were used.
Click to expand...
download (2).jpg
 
Personally, I think this whole issue is kept alive partially (if not mainly) by politicians who would MUCH rather argue about (and run for re-election on) such trivial matters - as opposed to addressing issues which require thought and making hard choices (ones which will NOT get them re-elected).

Yes I called Gay Marriage a trivial matter. Because face it, on a national scale, it IS.
 
The Mark said:
Personally, I think this whole issue is kept alive partially (if not mainly) by politicians who would MUCH rather argue about (and run for re-election on) such trivial matters - as opposed to addressing issues which require thought and making hard choices (ones which will NOT get them re-elected).

Yes I called Gay Marriage a trivial matter. Because face it, on a national scale, it IS.
Click to expand...

well i partially agree about politicians keeping it alive, they either want to, or they THINK arguing about social matters like this wins or loses elections, gets money etc

I do think thats true, its seems that the only logical reason a country like america is still talking about it, how could we not be leading the way instead of being behind on social issues if its not because of what you said.


as far as calling it trivial, I totally disagree, equal rights is never "trivial" and just making that "statement" is ignorant and selfish, you are better than that. Im sure it also offends many people.

ALso if your reply is going to continue the fallacy its not an equal rights issue, just save it because that fallacy has been destroyed over and over.

Now i will admit, it SHOULD be a trivial issue, because equal rights SHOULD have just been granted (maybe this is what you meant, i misunderstood and if so then you are right) . . . . . but since they haven't been granted that immediately makes it not a trivial issue.

I could list so many reasons that makes it factually not trivial but like i said thats only because its being denied.
 
The Mark said:
Personally, I think this whole issue is kept alive partially (if not mainly) by politicians who would MUCH rather argue about (and run for re-election on) such trivial matters - as opposed to addressing issues which require thought and making hard choices (ones which will NOT get them re-elected).

Yes I called Gay Marriage a trivial matter. Because face it, on a national scale, it IS.
Click to expand...

It's kept alive only because real people want to marry. The issue is dead once it's legal for them to do so, and that is not a very complicated or difficult thing to accomplish. You could make an argument only for the attention it receives, but again, 200,000 people in Chicago alone just won the right to marry. That doesn't seem trivial, especially when state legislature has no responsibility to "national scale." They are not the US senate.

If it's so important for you to blame anyone, look to the voters, since they created these laws that are being challenged now.
 
The Mark said:
Personally, I think this whole issue is kept alive partially (if not mainly) by politicians who would MUCH rather argue about (and run for re-election on) such trivial matters - as opposed to addressing issues which require thought and making hard choices (ones which will NOT get them re-elected).

Yes I called Gay Marriage a trivial matter. Because face it, on a national scale, it IS.
Click to expand...
Agree that gay marriage is a trivial matter. It isn't trivial because it doesn't matter though. And I don't believe that's what you were saying (if I'm wrong correct me). I think the reason it is trivial is because it's such an easy issue to deal with. It's black or white. Do you support it or not. That's it.

In addition, it's an easy issue because when it boils down to it the gov't does not have the right to tell people they can't get married. The gov't shouldn't be in the marriage business to begin with. It should be strictly civil unions.

It's trivial because it only directly affects about 3%-5% of the population. Sure, some on this site will say "Yes, but it affects equal rights." Sure it does. But not everyone's equal rights. That's how America views things now. If it doesn't directly affect the individual, the individual could give a crap less about it.

Now, dealing with an insolvent Social Security, a train wreck of a healthcare law, the correct strategy to correct our deficit and, in turn, our debt, etc. Those issues actually require compromise, mental agility, an understanding of economics (which most politicians don't have), etc. Our politicians are severely handicapped to deal with these issues because most of them are power hungry, selfish, and vain.
 
Honestly couldn't care less. I just hope that one stats perpetually bans it so that I can entertain myself in hyper-ideologues having their heads explode on a semi-frequent basis.

My guess, as mak suggested, is Utah. Mormons are a humorless bunch. With all the things they ban/disallow, gay marriage wouldn't be close to their radar. You'd have a better chance of getting one of them to have a beer with you.
 
i will guess Utah. How is it that many who want states to have no say in their marriage laws just love it when states trump federal law with more restrictive gun control laws and/or less restrictive immigration or recreational drug laws? IMHO, equal rights now seems to mean that states must cede their power to the federal gov't and that the federal courts can reinterpret the constitution based upon what is popular.
 
AGENT J said:
as usual on this topic


your are 100% factually false
also when this was written ill didnt have it yet lol try and keep up

thanks again for always proving how you know nothing about this topic.
Click to expand...

He's just grasping at the last vestiges of Bigotry.....his lot are dying out quickly.
 
It will be a Southern State, just like interracial wasn't legal until the Supreme Court said they couldn't ban it.
 
next progressives will be wanting to marry 12 year olds and their dogs
 
Redress said:
South Carolina. Easy the most backward messed up state in the union.
Click to expand...
Cut me a break...
SC is the state in which I was born...in the previous century.
Up to several years ago, I too, was against "gay" marriage.
Its "backward" , not "backwards" .
 
Last state? I don't think there will be a last state. I don't think every state is going to give into pop culture's favorite topic of the month.
 
I do believe that several states will have their laws struck down by a SCOTUS decision, just as interracial marriage laws were. But I think it is likely that a state like Mississippi will not actually take the law off the books for a very long time, just as we saw with several states and their interracial marriage bans or segregation laws.
 
AGENT J said:
well i partially agree about politicians keeping it alive, they either want to, or they THINK arguing about social matters like this wins or loses elections, gets money etc

I do think thats true, its seems that the only logical reason a country like america is still talking about it, how could we not be leading the way instead of being behind on social issues if its not because of what you said.


as far as calling it trivial, I totally disagree, equal rights is never "trivial" and just making that "statement" is ignorant and selfish, you are better than that. Im sure it also offends many people.

ALso if your reply is going to continue the fallacy its not an equal rights issue, just save it because that fallacy has been destroyed over and over.

Now i will admit, it SHOULD be a trivial issue, because equal rights SHOULD have just been granted (maybe this is what you meant, i misunderstood and if so then you are right) . . . . . but since they haven't been granted that immediately makes it not a trivial issue.

I could list so many reasons that makes it factually not trivial but like i said thats only because its being denied.
Click to expand...
In my mind, it is trivial when compared to issues like the economy, national security (and overreactions related), and most importantly, education.

I suppose that doesn't really make it trivial, just....less important.


Also, I agree that if you look at it from an equal rights perspective, it should be a trivial (heh) matter to come down on the side of granting equal rights.
But, again, it's easier for politicians to keep this issue alive and ignore the heavier ones I mention above.
 
chromium said:
It's kept alive only because real people want to marry. The issue is dead once it's legal for them to do so, and that is not a very complicated or difficult thing to accomplish. You could make an argument only for the attention it receives, but again, 200,000 people in Chicago alone just won the right to marry. That doesn't seem trivial, especially when state legislature has no responsibility to "national scale." They are not the US senate.

If it's so important for you to blame anyone, look to the voters, since they created these laws that are being challenged now.
Click to expand...
I mean the politicians opposed are keeping it alive by not agreeing with the obviousness of "it ain't equal rights at the moment, it needs changed".

And for that matter, I'm sure many of the supporting politicians are happy to have such a simple topic to run on - everyone can understand the basics, I think, and thus decide they like one candidate or the other.

I really think it's almost entirely political, that we still are debating this.
 
The Mark said:
I mean the politicians opposed are keeping it alive by not agreeing with the obviousness of "it ain't equal rights at the moment, it needs changed".

And for that matter, I'm sure many of the supporting politicians are happy to have such a simple topic to run on - everyone can understand the basics, I think, and thus decide they like one candidate or the other.

I really think it's almost entirely political, that we still are debating this.
Click to expand...

Why will it, after hawaii, all take place in courts then? Politicians don't want to touch it, because of the whole "let the people vote" nonsense. It's clear to me watching the hawaii debate, even the politicians who supported marriage equality were deathly afraid to call these voters and protestors out as the ignorant scum they are. There is no leadership on this from dems and never has been.
 
chromium said:
Why will it, after hawaii, all take place in courts then? Politicians don't want to touch it, because of the whole "let the people vote" nonsense. It's clear to me watching the hawaii debate, even the politicians who supported marriage equality were deathly afraid to call these voters and protestors out as the ignorant scum they are. There is no leadership on this from dems and never has been.
Click to expand...

It's unfortunate that even the political party that appears to be the most tolerant of homosexuals is so often terrified of touching the issue, and has seen fit to leave it to the courts so they don't have to sully their own hands. But if it's got to go through the courts and that's how gay marriage is going to happen, there it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom