• 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
I'm split on this one, one part of me says it'll happen when Obama is in office and only if he's in office but the other is saying it may never get legalized nationally in the US because i have a gut feeling that in 2016 RP's might get in and will do everything to make sure they get in.

The only thing that could prevent it is a Constitutional Amendment, and there is absolutely not the support for this now. Even in 2006, when Bush tried, twice, there wasn't enough support for it. It actually got voted on (in the Senate I believe) and they didn't get the required supermajority to send it further. The support for same sex marriage is much higher now, and isn't likely to drop just because a Republican ends up in office.
 
It's already a secular contract as is. There is nothing religious about the civil marriage contract.

Try telling that to the anti-gay marriage crowd.

I totally agree that marriage is a 3 way contract that involves no religion whatsoever. Granted, there are exceptions to this for Rabbinical Court, but their finds cannot contradict existing US law. For the sake of the argument, I'm going to pretend Rabbinical Court does not exist.

Even those clergy that perform the wedding must sign the marriage license, the contract. And they have to be registered with the state to show they actually can sign the contract legally.

When you can get your dirty drunk Uncle Sal to marry you, religion really has nothing to do with this.

Religion does not own the word marriage.

Perhaps, but marriage has always been a religious term. Now, how different religions treat marriage greatly differs, but it's still a religious term.

IMO, the best solution is Federal and State civil unions with people defining marriage however they want. Want to get "married" on the beach to your same sex partner? Sure! Want an uber-religious marriage ceremony in a huge church? Sure! People should be free to have whatever ceremony they want.
 
Perhaps, but marriage has always been a religious term. Now, how different religions treat marriage greatly differs, but it's still a religious term.

IMO, the best solution is Federal and State civil unions with people defining marriage however they want. Want to get "married" on the beach to your same sex partner? Sure! Want an uber-religious marriage ceremony in a huge church? Sure! People should be free to have whatever ceremony they want.

Marriage hasn't always been a "religious" term. Several religions stay out of marriage completely. And there have been many people who married without any religion. Pretty sure we have had secular people available to marry people since the beginning of this country. The word "marriage" comes from a french word meaning simply "to take a husband or wife". It happened to evolve during a time when the government of most English speaking areas were controlled by religions, but that doesn't mean that religions own the word marriage. It would have come about without religions being in charge, because the concept of marriage existed for a long time without religion.

I consider it a huge waste of money to change the name of the civil contract just because religion wrongly believes they own a term/word, because they don't own it.
 
Marriage hasn't always been a "religious" term. Several religions stay out of marriage completely.

While some religions do stay out, marriage has historically been a religious term. The pagan hand "marriages" (which FYI were open to same sex too!) were in the context of their religious beliefs. Marriage today is a secular contract, but the term itself has been religious.

And there have been many people who married without any religion. Pretty sure we have had secular people available to marry people since the beginning of this country. The word "marriage" comes from a french word meaning simply "to take a husband or wife". It happened to evolve during a time when the government of most English speaking areas were controlled by religions, but that doesn't mean that religions own the word marriage. It would have come about without religions being in charge, because the concept of marriage existed for a long time without religion.

I actually was going back well before established governments.

I consider it a huge waste of money to change the name of the civil contract just because religion wrongly believes they own a term/word, because they don't own it.

Do you consider it a waste of money to get a compromise that reduces the level of government in our lives and gets people equal rights?
 
While some religions do stay out, marriage has historically been a religious term. The pagan hand "marriages" (which FYI were open to same sex too!) were in the context of their religious beliefs. Marriage today is a secular contract, but the term itself has been religious.

This simply isn't true. Even the Christian religion didn't care that much for who got married nor were they really involved up until around the 10th Century. Clergy may have blessed weddings or marriages of people, but they really weren't religious in nature. The community simply held a celebration or even just recognized the couple as "married". In many places in the past, marriage only required a couple to live as and/or state they were married. It didn't require a ceremony or religious approval (although family approval was usually required).


I actually was going back well before established governments.

And it didn't involve religion in many places in the past. Most civilizations just required the family to approve and the couple to live as a married couple.

Do you consider it a waste of money to get a compromise that reduces the level of government in our lives and gets people equal rights?

Yes, because we will allow same sex couples to marry long before we change the word marriage to something else. And it is not worth the money because it opens up for any group (particularly religious groups) to claim they own some word or term or phrase because it was used by religions or controlled by religions in the past and they don't want the meaning to change. It is stupid. We can all share the term. It really isn't that big of a deal.
 
This simply isn't true. Even the Christian religion didn't care that much for who got married nor were they really involved up until around the 10th Century. Clergy may have blessed weddings or marriages of people, but they really weren't religious in nature. The community simply held a celebration or even just recognized the couple as "married". In many places in the past, marriage only required a couple to live as and/or state they were married. It didn't require a ceremony or religious approval (although family approval was usually required).

Why you mixing up relatively recent common law marriages with ancient practices?

I'm not arguing that marriage today is NOT a secular contract. It is. I'm just saying that marriage has been a religious concept for a long time. Sure there are plenty of instances where it may have not always been, but for the last 1,000 years, marriage has been a religious term.

And it didn't involve religion in many places in the past. Most civilizations just required the family to approve and the couple to live as a married couple.

But the rituals practiced were often religious in context. The first well documented "marriages" of pagan handfasting were in the context of their spiritual beliefs.

Yes, because we will allow same sex couples to marry long before we change the word marriage to something else. And it is not worth the money because it opens up for any group (particularly religious groups) to claim they own some word or term or phrase because it was used by religions or controlled by religions in the past and they don't want the meaning to change. It is stupid. We can all share the term. It really isn't that big of a deal.

Alright, between an ugly culture war and my way, which would you rather have?
 
Why you mixing up relatively recent common law marriages with ancient practices?

I'm not arguing that marriage today is NOT a secular contract. It is. I'm just saying that marriage has been a religious concept for a long time. Sure there are plenty of instances where it may have not always been, but for the last 1,000 years, marriage has been a religious term.

I'm not mixing up anything. Marriage in the past was secular in many places. So what if for 1000 years, in Europe, Christianity had basically control over the government and much of what the people did so they had control over marriage as well? They didn't invent the concept itself, which was secular for much of the time before they gained that power. It was not a religious term. Holy matrimony can be said to be a religious term, but not marriage.

But the rituals practiced were often religious in context. The first well documented "marriages" of pagan handfasting were in the context of their spiritual beliefs.

There were many places where there were no marriage rituals at all. The couple simply told the community they wanted to be married. The community would have a celebration of this and/or they would get a blessing for their union. They could still be considered "married" without any ceremony, as long as they lived together as a married couple and in certain places had the blessing of the families.

Alright, between an ugly culture war and my way, which would you rather have?

The ugly culture war that really won't be that ugly at all in all reality. Big deal if some are upset by the change. They will get over it quickly and soon realize that it really wasn't a big deal.
 
The ugly culture war that really won't be that ugly at all in all reality. Big deal if some are upset by the change. They will get over it quickly and soon realize that it really wasn't a big deal.

Something tells me that won't be the case. At least in parts of this country. There are still places in America that give people huge amounts of crap for interracial dating. Liberty Universe banned it for a while.

I think this is going to be way more dicey then you think.
 
Something tells me that won't be the case. At least in parts of this country. There are still places in America that give people huge amounts of crap for interracial dating. Liberty Universe banned it for a while.

I think this is going to be way more dicey then you think.

And what happened despite all the protests and debating on interracial marriage after the Loving decision in 1967? We didn't see a large breakdown of society. Those who didn't like the decision grumbled and went back to teaching their children about how wrong it was but they couldn't do anything about it. They continued their lives.

Public places can't ban any type of relationships that are legal. Private schools can and will ban any relationships they don't like. Changing the name of marriage to something else won't prevent any private school from banning same sex relationships. Nor will it prevent those places that don't approve of same sex relationships in large numbers from giving same sex couples huge amounts of crap.
 
And what happened despite all the protests and debating on interracial marriage after the Loving decision in 1967? We didn't see a large breakdown of society. Those who didn't like the decision grumbled and went back to teaching their children about how wrong it was but they couldn't do anything about it. They continued their lives.

Public places can't ban any type of relationships that are legal. Private schools can and will ban any relationships they don't like. Changing the name of marriage to something else won't prevent any private school from banning same sex relationships. Nor will it prevent those places that don't approve of same sex relationships in large numbers from giving same sex couples huge amounts of crap.


I have to agree who cares about a "culture war" **** em'
its about equal rights and if they dont like it tough.

there are people that still arent happy with minorities being equal, woman being equal, interracial marriage etc etc. We didnt give in to bigoted and/or selfish hypocritical crybabies then so why do it now.

If people cant be civil and give way to equal rights they are in the wrong country.

We didnt decided to call minorities something different or interracial marriage something different or even better yet the millions of marriages that involve ZERO religion something different so why on earth would we do it now, that would be a slap in the face to equal rights.

Whats funny is all the crying for the millions of nonreligious marriages? how come the loud cries are only against them "faggots and dykes"? its BS and honest people dont buy it.
 
The full faith and credit clause will be extended to same sex marriages. As far as the states removing the ban once full faith and credit goes through the bans will be toothless
 
It'll never happen. The minute the SC declares same sex marriage constitutional, it'll open the floodgates for every conceivable form of marriage under the sun. Even some of the Democrats will be shocked over the pandemonium this will cause.
 
It'll never happen. The minute the SC declares same sex marriage constitutional, it'll open the floodgates for every conceivable form of marriage under the sun. Even some of the Democrats will be shocked over the pandemonium this will cause.

yeah just like equal rights for minorities lead to equal rights for horses and voting rights for woman lead to voting rights for dogs
these types of illogical inane strawman failed years ago and they fail today too.
 
yeah just like equal rights for minorities lead to equal rights for horses and voting rights for woman lead to voting rights for dogs
these types of illogical inane strawman failed years ago and they fail today too.
Apples & Oranges. Show me where science proves that EVERY homosexual on this planet was born gay. Blacks and Women had a legit argument. Homosexuals, don't.
 
It'll never happen. The minute the SC declares same sex marriage constitutional, it'll open the floodgates for every conceivable form of marriage under the sun. Even some of the Democrats will be shocked over the pandemonium this will cause.

Same-sex marriage has been legal here and in many countries for almost a decade now and nothing has happened except gays can marry.
 
That would be awesome!
Its a shame, sad and IMO pathetic that AMERICA inst leading the way on a equality/rights issue like this.

Well, your fine country has led the way on a lot of great and principled ideas. So you get a pass for this one. :)
 
Apples & Oranges. Show me where science proves that EVERY homosexual on this planet was born gay. Blacks and Women had a legit argument. Homosexuals, don't.

unless one is trying to be ignorant, biased and dishonest its not apples and oranges.
Its about your fellow americans and their equality, rights freedoms and liberties. Most people just simply support that stuff even they agree with it or not.

Your argument is in fact a failed strawman and always has been.

Your OPINION saying they dont have a legit arument is meaningless. Nor is "science" needed, thats just silly. This is another strawman.
 
Same-sex marriage has been legal here and in many countries for almost a decade now and nothing has happened except gays can marry.

shhhhhhh dont go using facts
 
Well, your fine country has led the way on a lot of great and principled ideas. So you get a pass for this one. :)



indeed this certainly doesnt take away all of the great accomplishments and freedoms we have I just find it surprising that this is one of the things we are behind on. Just shocking we werent among the first.

and on a funny side note but also kind of serious why are we still fighting the metric system lol
 
Same-sex marriage has been legal here and in many countries for almost a decade now and nothing has happened except gays can marry.
Same-couples have been getting married despite the law, as well as DOMA. The thing that has happened is disregard for the law. I guess that's business as usual for Democrats. It certainly explains your sympathizing for criminals & terrorists.
 
indeed this certainly doesnt take away all of the great accomplishments and freedoms we have I just find it surprising that this is one of the things we are behind on. Just shocking we werent among the first.

and on a funny side note but also kind of serious why are we still fighting the metric system lol

Up here, it's finally taken hold, after decades....but old habits die hard; they say that Canada is the only country in the world in which we say a river is a mile wide and ten metres deep. :)
 
Same-couples have been getting married despite the law, as well as DOMA. The thing that has happened is disregard for the law. I guess that's business as usual for Democrats. It certainly explains your sympathizing for criminals & terrorists.

The entire purpose of a democracy is being bale to create, change, and repeal laws and policy based on a society's forever changing values. If we are not allowed to change the law blacks would still be enslaved, women wouldn't be bale to vote, etc.
 
Last edited:
Especially when there aren't any facts!

really?
actually it is
want to point out where gay equal rights was granted for gays and it lead opening the floodgates for every conceivable form of marriage under the sun.

Please show us proof of this strawman, we'd love to see it.
 
Up here, it's finally taken hold, after decades....but old habits die hard; they say that Canada is the only country in the world in which we say a river is a mile wide and ten metres deep. :)

yeah i get the part about habits, its seems only the medical community has embraced it down here.

Im an engineer and we use both and I think its so dumb especially when metrics are based off of tens, the much more logical system.

I honestly believe its a jobs / union thing lol
 
Back
Top Bottom