• 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
And rhetorical.

and you still have no facts to support you previous posts, still have been factually proven wrong and still will not start an honest discussion to be further discussed. lol :shrug:

we'll keep waiting, maybe next post youll do it
 
Are you kidding? It was solely political.

No decision is solely political, especially that one. Besides, that wasn't my point. A political decision can still have radical implications. In a relatively short time, Lincoln had moved to abolish slavery. He also promised no compensation to slaveholders for it nor colonization, which went against the traditional conceptions of anti-slavery rhetoric of the recent past. Plus the military was enforcing it. Still very much a radical decision.
 
Last edited:
No decision is solely political, especially that one. Besides, that wasn't my point. A political decision can still have radical implications. In a relatively short time, Lincoln had moved to abolish slavery. He also promised no compensation to slaveholders for it nor colonization, which went against the traditional conceptions of anti-slavery rhetoric of the recent past. Plus the military was enforcing it. Still very much a radical decision.

Ah, most Abolitionists in the US wanted slavery abolished in every country. England wanted slavery abolished in every country. The thought of abolishing slavery in the union wasn't radical. It was expected.

The Emancipation Proclamation did at least 2 things:

(1) made the the confederacy fearful of slave uprisings (death of masters).

(2) maintained the neutrality of important countries like England by appearing to free slaves.

If England recognized the confederacy, the union's blockade of confederate ports would have been crushed by English ships.

England was already thinking of wavering in its neutral stance on the Civil War because King Cotton was being choked out of England, and
consequently numerous manufacturing jobs in England were lost, and English workers were getting riled up.

Lincoln was most definitely not an Abolitionist. His main goal was to keep the union together at any costs.

So, the Emancipation Proclamation was undoubtably, and solely political.
 
Last edited:
Ah, most Abolitionists in the US wanted slavery abolished everywhere. England wanted slavery abolished everywhere. The thought of abolishing slavery in the union wasn't radical. It was normal.

The Emancipation Proclamation did at least 2 things:

(1) made the the confederacy fearful of slave uprisings (death of masters).

(2) maintained the neutrality of important countries like England by appearing to free slaves.

If England recognized the confederacy, the union's blockade of confederate ports would have been crushed by English ships.

England was already thinking of wavering in its neutral stance on the Civil War because King Cotton was being choked out of England, and
consequently numerous manufacturing jobs in England were lost, and English workers were getting riled up.

Lincoln was most definitely not an Abolitionist. His main goal was to keep the union together at any costs.

So, the Emancipation Proclamation was undoubtably, and solely political.

Ah, no. Abolitionists were a minority of the anti-slavery population, who in turn were a minority for much of American history up to that point. The default northern position, before a north position could be found, was that of a gentleman's agreement not to disturb or discuss. Those that wanted the end of slavery discussed gradual emancipation with compensation to slaveholders. Connected with that assumption was colonization through the American Colonization Society. The Garrisonians were an extremely small segment of the population. The emancipation proclamation, through hard war strategy, goes very much beyond expectations.

Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist, and yes, his goal was keeping the union together. Yes, it was political, but it was also a moral position for him, as he was still anti-slavery, no matter how measured his stances continued to be. It was also a fantastic rhetorical blow to the South's economy. The emancipation proclamation was still radical in many ways.
 
Last edited:
So J, since giving gays the use of the one word, marriage, is most paramount to you and other gay marriage advocates, tell me why this is different from giving all students the use of the one grade A? Of all states being given the use of the name Alaska? (Lots of oil stipends are given to residents of Alaska, ya know). Of all Washington Redskins fans being given the use of Cowboy Stadium for Washington home games?
 
Ah, no. Abolitionists were a minority of the anti-slavery population, who in turn were a minority for much of American history up to that point...
Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist, and yes, his goal was keeping the union together. Yes, it was political, but it was also a moral position for him, as he was still anti-slavery, no matter how measured his stances continued to be. It was also a fantastic rhetorical blow to the South's economy. The emancipation proclamation was still radical in many ways.

Ah, the Republican Party, a party that was based in abolitionist ideals, was elected for 2 terms during this time. How do ya figure that happened if abolitionists weren't a majority of the union? Hum? IMO, you incorrectly think the movie, "Lincoln" is actual history.
 
Ah, the Republican Party, a party that was based in abolitionist ideals, was elected for 2 terms during this time. How do ya figure that happened if abolitionists weren't a majority of the union? Hum? IMO, you incorrectly think the movie, "Lincoln" is actual history.

The Republican Party, like any party, has factions. The immediate abolitionists were a minority, even during war time. Your base knowledge on the abolitionist movement precludes your understanding of the topic. No, I have spent years being instructed by one of the foremost authorities on colonization. The movie was just a happy coincidence that finally saw a good historically-based film.
 
So J, since giving gays the use of the one word, marriage, is most paramount to you and other gay marriage advocates, tell me why this is different from giving all students the use of the one grade A? Of all states being given the use of the name Alaska? (Lots of oil stipends are given to residents of Alaska, ya know). Of all Washington Redskins fans being given the use of Cowboy Stadium for Washington home games?

This is classic false equivalence. All students have the *potential* to earn an A, whereas marriage equality is currently *impossible* for gay couples. One is earned and the other is a basic human right. Is that so hard to comprehend? There might be certain benefits to living in Alaska, but hardly anyone wants to live there, and Texans can always get a 3rd-4th fast food job to make up the difference. If Washington fans can't use the Dallas stadium, boohoo. It's not of any real consequence, and they can just start rooting for Dallas. Not like they're sober to know the difference anyway.

It's not just the word either, as civil unions will never be equal to marriage. This is the same reason a lot of straight couples do not wish to marry but do so anyway: the actual rights that are exclusive to marriage.
 
Why don't they just do away with legal marriages altogether for both gays and straights?

Let marriage be a religious ceremony but not legally binding.
 
1.) So J, since giving gays the use of the one word, marriage, is most paramount to you and other gay marriage advocates
2.) tell me why this is different from giving all students the use of the one grade A?
3.) Of all states being given the use of the name Alaska? (Lots of oil stipends are given to residents of Alaska, ya know).
4.) Of all Washington Redskins fans being given the use of Cowboy Stadium for Washington home games?

1.) easy its about equal rights, without the name its not equal
2.) wow this is a stupid failed analogy grades are earned and not rights.
3.) again not a right
4.) again not right

how old are? do you realize there wasnt one intelligent, logical, analogy you gave? they were all meaningless and non parallel. Wow you must be very young.
 
Why don't they just do away with legal marriages altogether for both gays and straights?

Let marriage be a religious ceremony but not legally binding.

no thanks i like the approx 1200 rights and protections it gives me.
 
no thanks i like the approx 1200 rights and protections it gives me.

That's fine for you that you live in a state that allows gay marriage. You and your husband can live happily ever after there. Rather than trying to force your morals on the rest of America, though, why not live and let live.
 
That's fine for you that you live in a state that allows gay marriage. You and your husband can live happily ever after there. Rather than trying to force your morals on the rest of America, though, why not live and let live.

my state doesnt allow gay marriage, nor am i gay LMAO

and gay marriage doesnt force morals on anybod,y thats just a lie that nobody honest will ever buy lol

why dont you live and let live and dont worry about OTHERS marriages
 
my state doesnt allow gay marriage, nor am i gay LMAO

and gay marriage doesnt force morals on anybod,y thats just a lie that nobody honest will ever buy lol

why dont you live and let live and dont worry about OTHERS marriages

I thought you were gay.
 
That's fine for you that you live in a state that allows gay marriage. You and your husband can live happily ever after there. Rather than trying to force your morals on the rest of America, though, why not live and let live.

You're happy with forcing your idea of homosexuality as an "abomination" on everyone....................Sounds like "Do as I say, not as I do".............
 
You're happy with forcing your idea of homosexuality as an "abomination" on everyone....................Sounds like "Do as I say, not as I do".............

How am I doing that?

My proposal is to do away with marriage entirely as a legal concept. Get rid of joint filing for taxes, get rid of taking the same last name, all that nonsense.

Look at what they do in Scandinavia. Hardly anyone over there gets married anymore. What's the point? If you love someone, you can live with them.

Marriage is ceremonial. That's all it ever should be. Marriage and government should get a divorce. :cool:

Let people have their weddings in churches or whatever they want to do... gay, straight, whatever, but keep it out of the realm of government.
 
How am I doing that?

My proposal is to do away with marriage entirely as a legal concept. Get rid of joint filing for taxes, get rid of taking the same last name, all that nonsense.

Look at what they do in Scandinavia. Hardly anyone over there gets married anymore. What's the point? If you love someone, you can live with them.

Marriage is ceremonial. That's all it ever should be. Marriage and government should get a divorce. :cool:

Let people have their weddings in churches or whatever they want to do... gay, straight, whatever, but keep it out of the realm of government.

Your arguement would make sense, except Christianity long ago wed itself to the government to insure it's continued existence----------If it hadn't, it would have disappeared centuries ago.......................
 
Your arguement would make sense, except Christianity long ago wed itself to the government to insure it's continued existence----------If it hadn't, it would have disappeared centuries ago.......................

Religion and government have gone hand in hand throughout human history, that is in no way unique to Christianity. It's only in the past couple hundred years that secularism has become a reality for some governments around the world.

While I find that topic interesting, I'm missing the relevance to our discussion on marriage.
 
Religion and government have gone hand in hand throughout human history, that is in no way unique to Christianity. It's only in the past couple hundred years that secularism has become a reality for some governments around the world.

While I find that topic interesting, I'm missing the relevance to our discussion on marriage.

Christianity won in our civilization because Christianity wrested the power of the Roman government from the Pagans. Period. And it's been all about staying in power since. Period..........................
 
Christianity won in our civilization because Christianity wrested the power of the Roman government from the Pagans. Period. And it's been all about staying in power since. Period..........................

I'm a Christian, and nobody's holding a gun to my head.... comma.
 
I'm a Christian, and nobody's holding a gun to my head.... comma.

Lol..................And Christianity and it's Jesus and it's "God" aren't holding one to my head, got it ?....................
 
Lol..................And Christianity and it's Jesus and it's "God" aren't holding one to my head, got it ?....................

You have trouble staying on track, don't you?

Sorry, I fail to see the relevance of your comment to the greater discussion we're having here.
 
You have trouble staying on track, don't you?

Sorry, I fail to see the relevance of your comment to the greater discussion we're having here.



No. I'm keeping up just fine with your deflection and your ducking, et al......................
 
No. I'm keeping up just fine with your deflection and your ducking, et al......................

Deflection and ducking of what? This has gone from interesting to frustrating and now into the realm of funny in a very short span. Kudos.
 
Deflection and ducking of what? This has gone from interesting to frustrating and now into the realm of funny in a very short span. Kudos.

Trust me, you'll have to burn me at the stake before I buy I millimeter of your BS..............just saying.................
 
Back
Top Bottom