• 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
obvious Child said:
Perhaps if you had any knowledge of tax shelters, you wouldn't be making asinine statements like that? You argue from positions of ignorance all the time. This is one of them.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it's just your phrasing. A more appropriate response would have been "if consenting adults understand the legal implications and don't break our laws.." rather than "if consenting adults understand the situation and we rewrite the tax law to prevent hiding taxes.." it would sound more responsible and shows that you care about your country. But you didn't say that. Your response simply flaunts your liberalism. In essence, you're saying "Will enough taxes be taken from this household? Does the IRS have all the information it needs on this household? Is there anything I can do to ensure that these people are paying their fair share? Will the doctrines of Socialism have a secure enough foothold on this place?".

obvious Child said:
11-12 year olds are not mature enough for sex. But that doesn't mean they don't do it. That alone is not proof of maturity for consent.
Click to expand...
Government subsidized condoms is proof.

What Works - Condom availability programs
 
Dooble said:
Rather, keep marriage as it is and give civil unions to the unbelievers: same rights, same privileges, and zero offense to the sanctity of marriage.
Click to expand...

I'm glad beliefs like this are waning.

In all my years in the culinary business,I've discovered that there are plenty of people out there willing to shell out thousands of dollars catering a wedding.
Nobody is willing to spend that amount to cater a "civil union ceremony".

If you don't like gays getting married,that's fine by me.
But I don't see any problem with making an honest dollar off gays getting married by catering their wedding and getting them to use my banquet halls to do so..
If you don't make money off gay weddings,that's not my problem.
 
Verthaine said:
I'm glad beliefs like this are waning.

In all my years in the culinary business,I've discovered that there are plenty of people out there willing to shell out thousands of dollars catering a wedding.
Nobody is willing to spend that amount to cater a "civil union ceremony".

.
Click to expand...

I have a gay friend (shocking huh?;) ) and he so happens to be a minister at one of the biggest gay churches in the country, they do gay weddings. So the others poster comment about "unbelievers" is nothing more than hogwash.
 
Verthaine said:
I'm glad beliefs like this are waning.

In all my years in the culinary business,I've discovered that there are plenty of people out there willing to shell out thousands of dollars catering a wedding.
Nobody is willing to spend that amount to cater a "civil union ceremony".

If you don't like gays getting married,that's fine by me.
But I don't see any problem with making an honest dollar off gays getting married by catering their wedding and getting them to use my banquet halls to do so..
If you don't make money off gay weddings,that's not my problem.
Click to expand...
Why not advertise your catering business to the civilly united, too? heck, Verthaine, you may have an untapped source for your business! ;)
 
winston53660 said:
I have a gay friend (shocking huh?;) ) and he so happens to be a minister at one of the biggest gay churches in the country, they do gay weddings. So the others poster comment about "unbelievers" is nothing more than hogwash.
Click to expand...

No self respecting hog would want to be washed with the toxins he's spraying.
 
Dooble said:
Why not advertise your catering business to the civilly united, too? heck, Verthaine, you may have an untapped source for your business! ;)
Click to expand...

Because SSM nationwide is inevitable.
Because weddings make more money than "civil unions".
Especially in states that allow for them like my neighboring states of New Jersey and Connecticut which I also do business in.

Why chase after pennies when I can make dollars.
Doesn't make good business sense.
 
Probably ten to fifteen years, the population needs to age some as there is still a huge old people voting block hanging on to outdated ideas
 
roguenuke said:
So no real argument? Got it.

I will ask you again though, since it is based off of what you wrote. What legal union in the US gives every single right, benefit, and responsibility of marriage? You said



If you think this is true, then prove it.
Click to expand...

There are 5 states with union legislation that have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage.
California, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and just recently, Colorado. I invite you to look this data up.
Probably why California hasn't voted for gay marriage.

What are those rights and responsibilities equal to marriage?
(1) the ability of unions to adopt
(2) union partners sharing each other's assets (not sure this is a good thing, epcecially if there are debts).


IMO, the one right/responsibility not equal to marriage for unions are federal and state tax advantages.
A federal/state legislator can include unions in the tax advantages, make it just unions since marriages are a subset of unions, or just eliminate the union/marriage deduction altogether.

All these rights can be bestowed upon unions without the decree of gay marriage from state supreme courts.
All these rights can be bestowed upon unions without state legislators voting for gay marriage.
All these rights can be bestowed upon unions without destroying the meaning of marriage.

If there are other rights/responsibilties not listed here for unions, make legislation for unions that include those rights.

Unions already have these rights in these 5 states. This is the Occam's Razor kinda answer to this quandary. Can you figure it out?
 
Last edited:
Dooble said:
Rather, keep marriage as it is and give civil unions to the unbelievers: same rights, same privileges, and zero offense to the sanctity of marriage.
Click to expand...

"Give civil unions to the unbelievers"? Odd. Thomas Jefferson was married in a Church dedicated to the weakling Christ. Under your rubric, would he, too, have been limited to a civil union?
 
Strucker said:
The slippery slope fears can perhaps best be navigated by looking at the countries that have had same sex marriage for ten years or more.

In Canada, it's no longer an issue...although the debates beforehand were quite similar to these ones. Everything's fine. Life goes on. Pedophilia remains illegal. Dogs and cats are in most cases safe from sexual interference. And the Conservative Party (the lone opposition at the time) is still doing quite well.

In other words, it's the status quo...with one obvious improvement.

So what's the problem?
Click to expand...

Ah, the problem is: the definition of marriage will be forever changed because of politics

It's politics because gays (and judges) want to bestow the rights and responsibilties of marriage to everyone, (that's socialism, by the way) but not marriage.. How do I know gays want the rights of, but not marriage? All the badmouthing you guys give marriage. How so many end up in divorce, how many kids are affected by bad marriages, etc.

Finally, since when has anything Canada done ever been a shining example to the rest of the world?
 
Last edited:
cabse5 said:
Ah, the problem is: the definition of marriage will be forever changed because of politics.
It's politics because gays (and judges) want to bestow the rights and responsibitlities of marriage to everyone, but not marriage.. How do I know this to be true? All the badmouthing you guys give marriage. How so many end up in divorce, how many kids are affected by bad marriages, etc.

Finally, since when has anything Canada done ever been a shining example to the rest of the world?
Click to expand...

It's fascinating to watch worms squirm when the rain falls upon them.
 
winston53660 said:
I have a gay friend (shocking huh?;) ) and he so happens to be a minister at one of the biggest gay churches in the country, they do gay weddings. So the others poster comment about "unbelievers" is nothing more than hogwash.
Click to expand...

I know of a man who is Presbyterian. The national Presbyterian council decreed that gay marriages would be performed in Presbyerian churches.

Now the man belongs to a new Presbyterian synod. A synod that doesn't perform gay marriages in their Presbyterian churches.
A breakoff of the Presbyterian Church has specifically occured because of gay marriages.
 
Dooble said:
Rather, keep marriage as it is and give civil unions to the unbelievers: same rights, same privileges, and zero offense to the sanctity of marriage.
Click to expand...

And yet you don't seem upset by the offense given to us by excluding us. Only your religious offense is worth catering to. I hope you can see the problem there.
 
cabse5 said:
Ah, the problem is: the definition of marriage will be forever changed because of politics

It's politics because gays (and judges) want to bestow the rights and responsibilties of marriage to everyone, (that's socialism, by the way) but not marriage.. How do I know gays want the rights of, but not marriage? All the badmouthing you guys give marriage. How so many end up in divorce, how many kids are affected by bad marriages, etc.

Finally, since when has anything Canada done ever been a shining example to the rest of the world?
Click to expand...

I don't bad mouth marriage. Quite the opposite. I do bad mouth those in our society who give it away for a television show, but otherwise, no. Gay marriage is the moral thing to do as well as the practical thing to do. It's rather sad that many social conservatives cannot see that they are refusing to uphold the goodness of marriage by denying more two-parent households. If you want to encourage a stronger family unit (quite the goal of conservatives and neoconservatives of the past many decades): promote gay marriage.
 
AGENT J said:
fact 1: seperate but equal is not separate
fact 2: equal rights for gays has ZERO effect to the sanctity of marriage
Click to expand...

Why do you keep harping on this incorrect notion of separate but equal institutions is unconstitutional when I've already shown a multitude of separate but equal institutions ALLOWED by law? I can name at least 50 off the top of my head.

Equal rights for gays can be achieved without gay marriage.
 
Last edited:
Dooble said:
Rather, keep marriage as it is and give civil unions to the unbelievers: same rights, same privileges, and zero offense to the sanctity of marriage.
Click to expand...

Why should the state and its people be crippled by the religious institutions? If anything, it is the state that should be benevolently using the religious.

And on these matters I spoke at Nantes with Rouen, when Valentino, as Cesare Borgia, the son of Pope Alexander, was usually called, occupied the Romagna, and on Cardinal Rouen observing to me that the Italians did not understand war, I replied to him that the French did not understand statecraft, meaning that otherwise they would not have allowed the Church to reach such greatness. And in fact is has been seen that the greatness of the Church and of Spain in Italy has been caused by France, and her ruin may be attributed to them. From this a general rule is drawn which never or rarely fails: that he who is the cause of another becoming powerful is ruined; because that predominancy has been brought about either by astuteness or else by force, and both are distrusted by him who has been raised to power.-Niccolo Machiavelli
Click to expand...
 
Einzige said:
It's fascinating to watch worms squirm when the rain falls upon them.
Click to expand...

Explain. Ok, I'll explain. I'm for equal rights, but not special rights like gay marriage.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
I don't bad mouth marriage. Quite the opposite. I do bad mouth those in our society who give it away for a television show, but otherwise, no. Gay marriage is the moral thing to do as well as the practical thing to do. It's rather sad that many social conservatives cannot see that they are refusing to uphold the goodness of marriage by denying more two-parent households. If you want to encourage a stronger family unit (quite the goal of conservatives and neoconservatives of the past many decades): promote gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Do you want to go around more about the Emancipation Proclamation? Do you still believe that in the north there weren't some abolitionists? That was, by the way, exactly what I'd previously said when I mentioned the majority of the north was abolitionist.
Not sure why you argued, there.

BTW, Lee launched his offensive against Pennsylvania (Gettysburg) partly to show England the north didn't have any fighting prowess and for England to reconsider its neutrality in the Civil War. Again, politics.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
I don't bad mouth marriage. Quite the opposite. I do bad mouth those in our society who give it away for a television show, but otherwise, no. Gay marriage is the moral thing to do as well as the practical thing to do. It's rather sad that many social conservatives cannot see that they are refusing to uphold the goodness of marriage by denying more two-parent households. If you want to encourage a stronger family unit (quite the goal of conservatives and neoconservatives of the past many decades): promote gay marriage.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you can vouch for everyone else.
 
cabse5 said:
Unions already have these rights in these 5 states. This is the Occam's Razor kinda answer to this quandary. Can you figure it out?
Click to expand...

There's no quandary. There's people who believe that the concept of "property" follows logically so that heterosexual couples "own" the word.

Since they're mistaken, the only "quandary" is bigotry and ignorance.

I see no reason to compromise with silliness that's going to organically evaporate over the next generation anyway.
 
cabse5 said:
Do you want to go around more about the Emancipation Proclamation? Do you still believe that in the north there weren't some abolitionists? That was, by the way, exactly what I'd previously said when I mentioned the majority of the north was abolitionist.
Not sure why you argued, there.

BTW, Lee launched his offensive against Pennsylvania (Gettysburg) partly to show England the north didn't have any fighting prowess and for England to reconsider its neutrality in the Civil War. Again, politics.
Click to expand...

I'd rather not. I have a long drive ahead of me. I didn't say there were not any abolitionists in the north. Why would I mention Garrisonians if I was going to argue there were no abolitionists in the north? Your problem was that you wanted to tell me that it was the bedrock for the Republican Party, when it wasn't.

I thank you for providing some nearly useless information at the end there, but that was hardly necessary at all.
 
cabse5 said:
Ah, the problem is: the definition of marriage will be forever changed because of politics
Click to expand...

So?Is it going to stop you from getting married?


cabse5 said:
A
It's politics because gays (and judges) want to bestow the rights and responsibilties of marriage to everyone, (that's socialism, by the way) but not marriage.. How do I know gays want the rights of, but not marriage? All the badmouthing you guys give marriage. How so many end up in divorce, how many kids are affected by bad marriages, etc.
Click to expand...

Who are "you guys"?
I'm straight,I'm married,I am a Republican,I raised three daughters who have successful careers,daughter who been to or going to college,one daughter already married hereself and raising my grandchildren.
I support SSM,and I already done the "till death do us part" with my late first wife.

As an owner of a catering company in a state that allows for SSM,I make a lot of money off gay weddings.
That doesn't sound like socialism to me,that sounds like good old fashioned American capitalism.

cabse5 said:
Finally, since when has anything Canada done ever been a shining example to the rest of the world?
Click to expand...

What have you ever done that has been a shining example to the rest of the world?
 
Last edited:
Strucker said:
There's no quandary. There's people who believe that the concept of "property" follows logically so that heterosexual couples "own" the word.

Since they're mistaken, the only "quandary" is bigotry and ignorance.

I see no reason to compromise with silliness that's going to organically evaporate over the next generation anyway.
Click to expand...

I might as well use the word ideology since bigotry seems to rile some of you guys. It means the same thing. A majority of ideological Maryland judges voted for gay marriage. Now, look ideological up.
 
Fiddytree said:
I'd rather not. I have a long drive ahead of me. I didn't say there were not any abolitionists in the north. Why would I mention Garrisonians if I was going to argue there were no abolitionists in the north? Your problem was that you wanted to tell me that it was the bedrock for the Republican Party, when it wasn't.

I thank you for providing some nearly useless information at the end there, but that was hardly necessary at all.
Click to expand...

When you get a handle on Civil War history let me know. Reread my post (and yours).
You said not all northerners were abolitionist. I said a majority of northerners were abolitionist. Same difference.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom