• 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
The government removing itself from marriage is in any case a fantasy, and not worthy of consideration.

Not at all. Private organizations can handle all parts of marriage.
 
I actually want the federal, state, and local to get out of the marriage license business so I'll say "never".

To explain, if a religion agrees with SSM let them perform the ceremony and it should be recognized legally and automatically without question, if a religion does not agree with it they shouldn't be so compelled. And here is the kicker, justice of the peace marriage must be equal opportunity and fully recognized, secular bodies have no right to distinguish under equal protections of the U.S. constitution. Easy enough, done.

Not sure i understand what you are say. This is already the case, legal marriage has nothing to do with religion what so ever its a non-factor. And you say you want fed, state and local out of it (which will never happen ever) but u mention justice of the peace, im confused what you want.

But either way Government is never getting out of marriage thats just unrealistic and the poll is about what you THINK will happen not what you want. But i am still curious about what you want since you brought it up.
 
It depends entirely on how fashionable perversion becomes.

A better question would be, "how long until normal people revolt against sanctified debauchery?"
 
1.)It depends entirely on how fashionable perversion becomes.

2.)A better question would be, "how long until normal people revolt against sanctified debauchery?"

1.) I agree in america it is very perverted to be against equality and i cant believe it was fashionable this long but thats changing as the majority realize this mistake now and want to fix it.
2.) we are doing it now, the normal people (the majority therefore normal) are revolting against inequality and bigots all over the nation.

we are living in the reality you describe and are asking about
 
Last edited:
1.) I agree in america it is very perverted to be against equality and i cant believe it was fashionable this long but thats changing as the majority realize this mistake now and want to fix it.
2.) we are doing it now, the normal people (the majority therefore normal) are revolting against inequality and bigots all over the nation.

we are living in the reality you describe and are asking about
Once again, homosexuals have equal rights, they lack equal inclination. Line up 10 unmarried adult men, 5 sexually normal men and 5 homosexuals. They are free to marry precisely the same people. Thus they have equal rights.
 
Last edited:
Once again, homosexuals have equal rights, they lack equal inclination. Line up 10 unmarried adult men, 5 sexually normal men and 5 homosexuals. They are free to marry precisely the same people. Thus they have equal rights.

Twisted logic is still twisted ya know?

They are not equally free to marry the person they love.

Would you marry somebody you're not in love with?
 
1.)Once again, homosexuals have equal rights, they lack equal inclination. Line up 10 unmarried adult men, 5 sexually normal men and 5 homosexuals. They are free to marry precisely the same people. Thus they have equal rights.

thanks for your opinion but your are wrong

in the past you could line up 10 blacks and 10 whites they could all drink out of water fountains but guess what that wasnt equal
in the past you could line up 10 black couples and 10 white couples they could all marry but guess what, that wasnt equal either

sorry your example fails
 
thanks for your opinion but your are wrong

in the past you could line up 10 blacks and 10 whites they could all drink out of water fountains but guess what that wasnt equal
in the past you could line up 10 black couples and 10 white couples they could all marry but guess what, that wasnt equal either

sorry your example fails

It weren't equal 'cause the same people couldn't a married the same people. They weren't equal. You aren't trying to create an equal right but a new one. (And reinvent civilization, religion morality and nature.) It's been tired before of course. The history books are full of references to dead civilization that tried. Typically, in short order they're supplanted by more vital ones.
 
It's been tired before of course. .

Yes, your arguments are very tired. Dogmatic, thoughtless arguments always are.

Come up with something that does not revolve around a circular argument and you might advance a bit.
 
1.)It weren't equal 'cause the same people couldn't a married the same people. They weren't equal.
2.) You aren't trying to create an equal right but a new one.
3A.)(And reinvent civilization, 3b.)religion morality and 3c.)nature.)
4.)It's been tired before of course. The history books are full of references to dead civilization that tried. Typically, in short order they're supplanted by more vital ones.

1.)I dont even know what you are saying, all whites could marry all whites, all blacks could marry all blacks, according toy YOUR EXAMPLE thats equal but history and facts disagree with you false opinion. ALso you didnt address the water fountain example? how come?
2.) false and the cases that have already gone to state supreme courts and decided also disagree with your opinion
3.) also false as gay marriage exists now legally in parts of america and gay relationships date back BC, religion is meaningless to legal marriage and homosexuality happens in nature
4.) thanks for agreeing that gay relationships through out history and gay marriage ahs been done also LOL
as far as your assessment of why those civilizations are dead or why they are supplemented please enlighten us :)

are you suggesting that all the countries and areas listed in the OP are going to die? LMAO

let me know when you have an argument that works.
 
Twisted logic is still twisted ya know?

They are not equally free to marry the person they love.

Would you marry somebody you're not in love with?

What? Almost no one is free to marry just anyone they love. What a peculiar argument. The object of one's affections may be married, may be in a foreign land, may be a fantasy, may be dead, may be unwilling or may even despise the person who seeks matrimony with them.

As for marrying someone your not in love with, what a delightful conceit from a modern Western viewpoint! In many social classes, lands and cultures and times, "being in love," would not have been much of a consideration in a marriage contract. In most of the world today, it probably still isn't, especially for women.

Reality again. Darn it.
 
are you suggesting that all the countries and areas listed in the OP are going to die? LMAO

.

Come on, man. You KNOW that if it weren't for all those gay Mayans.......
 
I don't need to\. I stand upon established norms of society -- almost every society.

I'd say that sound arguments are incumbent upon the people wanting to normalize what has always been considered a perversion.

To be brutally honest, we don't need to corrupt marriage.
 
1.)I don't need to\. I stand upon established norms of society -- almost every society.

2.)I'd say that sound arguments are incumbent upon the people wanting to normalize what has always been considered a perversion.

3.)To be brutally honest, we don't need to corrupt marriage.

1.) you mean your OPINIONS of society lol
2.) more opinion
3.) its in no FACTUAL danger of being corrupted if we are going with honesty
 
1.)I dont even know what you are saying, all whites could marry all whites, all blacks could marry all blacks, according toy YOUR EXAMPLE thats equal but history and facts disagree with you false opinion. ALso you didnt address the water fountain example? how come?
2.) false and the cases that have already gone to state supreme courts and decided also disagree with your opinion
3.) also false as gay marriage exists now legally in parts of america and gay relationships date back BC, religion is meaningless to legal marriage and homosexuality happens in nature
4.) thanks for agreeing that gay relationships through out history and gay marriage ahs been done also LOL
as far as your assessment of why those civilizations are dead or why they are supplemented please enlighten us :)

are you suggesting that all the countries and areas listed in the OP are going to die? LMAO

let me know when you have an argument that works.

Of course they're going to die. Did you think that any country last forever? The sun won't last forever.

Vibrant, vital cultures though, and this in no way means enlightened or kindly ones, ten to strictly enforce sexual roles, at least below the levels of the ruling elites.

Were I to hazard I guess, I'd say that in a few generations, this will be a largely Muslim world, as that culture is becoming ever more vital, (and virulent.) And Sharia invokes death on homosexuality, again, for the common classes. So our little deviations won't really matter.

Tell, me, do you think late generation Romans, looking about them at streets buildings and institutions had a clue that in a few decades their civilization would be gone?
 
What? Almost no one is free to marry just anyone they love. What a peculiar argument. The object of one's affections may be married, may be in a foreign land, may be a fantasy, may be dead, may be unwilling or may even despise the person who seeks matrimony with them.

As for marrying someone your not in love with, what a delightful conceit from a modern Western viewpoint! In many social classes, lands and cultures and times, "being in love," would not have been much of a consideration in a marriage contract. In most of the world today, it probably still isn't, especially for women.

Reality again. Darn it.

More twisted logic I see. How entertaining.

There's still time to jump off the "Titanic" that is opposition to gay marriage.

That ship is going down.
 
More twisted logic I see. How entertaining.

.

But it's icky because somebody else says it's icky, Dragonfly, and since people say it is icky it must be icky.

Now, don't let me ever catch you wearing your white pumps before Memorial day, either!
 
It depends entirely on how fashionable perversion becomes.

A better question would be, "how long until normal people revolt against sanctified debauchery?"

Go perversion, go!

Emotional arguments are inherently weak.
 
It weren't equal 'cause the same people couldn't a married the same people. They weren't equal. You aren't trying to create an equal right but a new one. (And reinvent civilization, religion morality and nature.) It's been tired before of course. The history books are full of references to dead civilization that tried. Typically, in short order they're supplanted by more vital ones.

Oh for god's sake...

SSM has Jack **** to do with civilization, your religion has no legal bearing on the issue, your hypocritical morality is your own problem, and homosexuality occurs in nature. Your ignorance of history however offends me.
 
1.) you mean your OPINIONS of society lol
2.) more opinion
3.) its in no FACTUAL danger of being corrupted if we are going with honesty

Of course it's being corrupted., The word "marriage," means the union of one man and one or more women. You have to force change (corrupt) it to get your way. You should be resisted.
 
1.)Of course they're going to die. Did you think that any country last forever? The sun won't last forever.

2.)Vibrant, vital cultures though, and this in no way means enlightened or kindly ones, ten to strictly enforce sexual roles, at least below the levels of the ruling elites.

3.)Were I to hazard I guess, I'd say that in a few generations, this will be a largely Muslim world, as that culture is becoming ever more vital, (and virulent.) And Sharia invokes death on homosexuality, again, for the common classes. So our little deviations won't really matter.

Tell, me, do you think late generation Romans, looking about them at streets buildings and institutions had a clue that in a few decades their civilization would be gone?

1.) dodge and deflection noted
2.) more subjective opinion and i guess you can take all the countries and areas in the OP off your subjective list of vibrant and vital.
3.) you are just full of fear tactics arent you. Weird thought just like christians etc there are muslims that totally support gays because what it vital and vibrant is equality.
4.) again your dodge i noted, werid you dont like to answer questions, use facts logic and evidence.

anyway many saw the end coming but it they werent worried about homosexuality.

would you like to address the black vs white marriage and fountain examples or are you just going to ignore them since they prove you wrong?

watching you dance and spin is fun lol
 
Of course it's being corrupted., The word "marriage," means the union of one man and one or more women. You have to force change (corrupt) it to get you way. You should be resisted.

thanks for your OPINION but facts simply disagree with you :shrug:

again there is not FACTUAL danger of marriage being corrupted.
 
I don't need to\. I stand upon established norms of society -- almost every society.

I'd say that sound arguments are incumbent upon the people wanting to normalize what has always been considered a perversion.

To be brutally honest, we don't need to corrupt marriage.

Did you know that appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy?

Straight people have corrupted marriage to such a point that gays can hardly do more. People in glass houses...
 
Go perversion, go!

Emotional arguments are inherently weak.

Then perhaps people who want to twist marriage should refrain from constantly bleating about whom they "love," and "fairness," which are after all, emotional arguments?
 
Back
Top Bottom