• 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
1 maybe you should read it again
2 Yes it is.
3 Your waking up
4 Depends on what you call legally. No they cant get government benefits for it if thats what you mean as in married in the eye of the state.

1.) no need thats how they phrase :shrug:
2.) you are factually wrong SSM as exist before either of us was born, it hasnt been a protected national right in this country though but SSM is nothign new
3.) no i just understand you are free to your opinion
4.) theres only one definition of legally LMAO you are legally married or you are not. Gays have not always been able to have a legal marriage. But now they can in 12 states and DC. More are on the way.
 
Again it has always been a state matter. Nothing in the constitution ever said anything about it. You should pick up a history book yourself. Or at least learn the constitution.

Lol, you're in way over your head now. Your original statement implied that we must dogmatically adhere to the constitution. You even quoted the bit about "inalienable rights" even though states themselves have been alienating and creating rights from the moment they began to interpret the definition of what constituted "men" as they saw fit. This is supported by states allowing some women, blacks etc the right to own property, which they previously did not have. So which is it? Either we interpret it dogmatically or we allow states to interpret the constitution it as they see fit. You can't have it both ways.
 
Last edited:
And it's your belief that "marriage" will become "extinct" if the dirty stinking filthy immoral homo's are allowed to use the same word you use and reap the same benefits you reap?
The words you seek are 'forever changed', not extinct.. Forever change marriage so unions can have the same rights and responsibiltites of marriage. FYI, the same rights and responsibiltites as marriage for a union are being achieved without gay marriage.
 
Last edited:
sorry the fact remains it is about equality and NO what you talk about above is simply not true because those things have been proven to be less legally binding than marriage and history also proves separate but equal is not equal.

SO for people to buy your post when have to ignore facts, sorry

also as soon as one talks about "integrity of marriage" everybody else who is honest knows you are dishonest.
THe integrity of marriage is factually not in danger.

WTF, where's you data? I'm talking about equality, not special treatment, which gay marriage is.
 
Marriage is not a right its a privilege just like a drivers license. It is none of the governments business what your sexual persuasion is. Get the government out of the marriage business.

Progressives have destroyed traditional marriage and now want to finish the job.

I agree with getting the gov't out of the marriage business. I'm not Libertarian. That doesn't mean I think everyone should be able to be married anymore than I think everyone should be considered a disabled vet.
 
1.)sorry SCOTUS disagrees with you and they have said so in 14 different cases. Marriage is a right....
.

Some SCOTUS are bigots, the rest just follow precedent.
 
You realize that upon marriage women actually gave up their possessions and freedom of movement, right? I mean, otherwise the early women's rights movement that kicked off in the 1840s was somehow convinced in the truth of a lie.

And blacks, my goodness. It's not as if blacks had anything to worry about: being restricted or in danger of having all of their rights stripped and put into slavery, let alone worrying if they would be seen as equals.

This and my response is a thread hijack, but if you're referring to the Emancipation Proclamation, do you realize the Proclamation only outlawed slavery in states that seceded from the union? After Emancipation, slavery was legal in union border states, Washington, DC., any union province that desired slavery.
 
Last edited:
This and my response is a thread hijack, but if you're referring to the Emancipation Proclamation, do you realize the Proclamation only outlawed slavery in states that seceded from the union? After Emancipation, slavery was legal in union border states, Washington, DC., any union province that desired slavery.

I wasn't referring to the emancipation proclamation. However, you are correct. Nevertheless, the move itself, I argue, was still radical, despite not freeing a single slave that day.
 
WTF, where's you data? I'm talking about equality, not special treatment, which gay marriage is.

lol theres is no "special treatment" LMAO
gay marriage is about equal rights, sorry. Your opinion is meaningless. Want data, not sure what states eactly but a couple of the states that SSM made it all the way to the states supreme court check it out, they ruled that banning SSM was against equality, liberty rights and freedoms. SO when the issue was pushed far enough (only twice of the 12 states i believe) the supreme court disagrees with your opinion
 
That would be awesome!

Its a shame, sad and IMO pathetic that AMERICA inst leading the way on a equality/rights issue like this.
America lagged behind in womens suffrage too. I don't think it's historically accurate that the country leads in granting new rights and freedom to citizens.
 
I wasn't referring to the emancipation proclamation. However, you are correct. Nevertheless, the move itself, I argue, was still radical, despite not freeing a single slave that day.

Are you kidding? It was solely political.
 
America lagged behind in womens suffrage too. I don't think it's historically accurate that the country leads in granting new rights and freedom to citizens.

this may be very true but its still a shame, sad and IMO pathetic that we are not :(
 
lol theres is no "special treatment" LMAO
gay marriage is about equal rights, sorry. Your opinion is meaningless. Want data, not sure what states eactly but a couple of the states that SSM made it all the way to the states supreme court check it out, they ruled that banning SSM was against equality, liberty rights and freedoms. SO when the issue was pushed far enough (only twice of the 12 states i believe) the supreme court disagrees with your opinion

The word marriage is the thing. The only thing. To extrapolate, it would be a breach of civil rights (according to you, and some bigoted judges) if a Washington Redkskins fan couldn't be considered a Cowboys fan, even though both fan bases enjoy football and can pay to watch their favorite team play, etc.

Sidenote: to compare not being able to be gay married to slavery is ludicrious. I see some rights that were actually being denied slaves. I see the word marriage being denied gays. Big difference. Highly political.
 
1.)The word marriage is the thing. The only thing. To extrapolate, it would be a breach of civil rights (according to you, and some bigoted judges)
2.) if a Washington Redkskins fan couldn't be considered a Cowboys fan, even though both fan bases enjoy football and can pay to watch their favorite team play, etc.
3.) Sidenote: to compare not being able to be gay married to slavery is ludicrious.
4.)I see some rights that were actually being denied slaves.
5.)I see the word marriage being denied gays.
6.) Big difference. Highly political.

1.) Yes its about equal rights
2.) your example is meaningless and has no local impact
3.) weird i dont recall making that "exact" compassion "no SSM = Slavery" could you quote me saying that?
4.) some rights? wow seems you dont know history either
5.) a right is being denied
6.) yes what slaves were denied overall is a huge difference between being denied marriage
7.) Im sure some do use it for politics, just like some did for slavery and womans rights and everything. How does that change that equal rights for gays is also about equality. It doesnt.
 
Wow. Your mind is really made up, isn't it. Are you obsessive/compulsive as well as highly political?

Are you just looking for retribution? How about forcing everyone to look at gays the same as everyone else? If you are, that is most definitely political.

You sure you're independent, J?
 
Last edited:
Wow. Your mind is really made up, isn't it. Are you obsessive/compulsive as well as highly political?

2.)Are you just looking for retribution?
3.) How about forcing everyone to look at gays the same as everyone else? If you are, that is most definitely political.

You sure you're independent, J?

1.) nope just honest and educated on the facts of this topic
2.) i have nothing to seek retribution for.
3.) i would never support that and its impossible
4.) again many people use things politically. Regardless this is still about equality
5.) positive

let me know when you have something relevant to the discussion.
 
You haven't proven to anyone you're even willing to discuss gay marriage.
 
You haven't proven to anyone you're even willing to discuss gay marriage.

there has to be a honest discussion first, you were arguing against facts and posting things that were simply not true and lost.

Let me know when this changes
 
there has to be a honest discussion first, you were arguing against facts and posting things that were simply not true and lost.

Let me know when this changes

Do you know what a strawman argument is in logic? You just used one there. As far a facts are concerned, I've used nothing but facts. You're the one using rhetoric.

Rhetoric: in other words, you say gays deserve marriage because gays deserve marriage.
Do Redskins fans also deserve to be Cowboy fans?
 
Last edited:
Do you know what a strawman argument is in logic? You just used one there. As far a facts are concerned, I've used nothing but facts. You're the one using rhetoric.

no i did not LMAO

if you disagree by all means FACTUAL prove otherwise, your "facts" have already been factually proven wrong

again let me know when this fact changes, sorr that us sticking to facts over your biased opinion bothers you and destroys your arguments.

Pick new ones, ones that dont go against facts and maybe there could be an actual discussion.
 
This argument has become repetitive hasn't it. And boring.
 
This argument has become repetitive hasn't it. And boring.

again, there hasnt been an argument, just us pointing out where you were factually wrong

but please feel free to make a new point, maybe this time it will be something that can spark an actually discussion.
 
And rhetorical.
 
Back
Top Bottom