• 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!

What will the status of Gay marriage be in the USA in 2050

What will the status of Gay marriage be in the USA in 2050?

  • Gay marriages will be treated just like Heterosexual Marriages

    Votes: 24 75.0%

  • Something in the middle like civil unions everywhere

    Votes: 4 12.5%

  • Gay marriage will be illegal

    Votes: 1 3.1%

  • Squirrel!

    Votes: 3 9.4%
  • Total voters
    32
roguenuke said:
I don't agree. This would be pushing it. Some people are perfectly capable of working things through/discussing problems on their own without outside help.

I would agree to a waiting period for a marriage license though. This way we wouldn't have so many "quicky Vegas weddings".

And no couple should have to prove abuse just to get a divorce, especially if there are no children involved.
Click to expand...

So, IYV, the promises made with marriage vows can be readily extinguished with little consequence when one simply gets tired of his/her/whatever partner?
 
AlabamaPaul said:
So, IYV, the promises made with marriage vows can be readily extinguished with little consequence when one simply gets tired of his/her/whatever partner?
Click to expand...
Not according to many religious marriages, such as Catholicism for example. But we are talking about marriage licenses, the civil aspect, so I don't see why not.
 
Lakryte said:
Not according to many religious marriages, such as Catholicism for example. But we are talking about marriage licenses, the civil aspect, so I don't see why not.
Click to expand...

Then why bother with marriage in the first place?
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Then why bother with marriage in the first place?
Click to expand...
For all the reasons people want to get married. Its not like people plan on getting a divorce and hating the person they are about to marry. Why prevent an unhappy marriage from ending?
 
Lakryte said:
For all the reasons people want to get married. Its not like people plan on getting a divorce and hating the person they are about to marry. Why prevent an unhappy marriage from ending?
Click to expand...

Why get married in the first place if one can simply walk away from the "commitment" at anytime? Is it just for some pseudo acceptance of the relationship within society?
 
AlabamaPaul said:
So, IYV, the promises made with marriage vows can be readily extinguished with little consequence when one simply gets tired of his/her/whatever partner?
Click to expand...

There are no legal promises that must be made in marriage. There are no required marriage vows that a person must agree to. They already are whatever a single couple wants their marriage to be.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Why get married in the first place if one can simply walk away from the "commitment" at anytime? Is it just for some pseudo acceptance of the relationship within society?
Click to expand...

Because people make mistakes. People change. Life happens in a way that people didn't expect.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Why get married in the first place if one can simply walk away from the "commitment" at anytime? Is it just for some pseudo acceptance of the relationship within society?
Click to expand...
I already answered the question. For all the reasons people want to get married. Its not like people plan on getting a divorce and hating the person they are about to marry. Why prevent an unhappy marriage from ending?

Restating your question in different words is not answering mine.
 
roguenuke said:
There are no legal promises that must be made in marriage. There are no required marriage vows that a person must agree to. They already are whatever a single couple wants their marriage to be.
Click to expand...

Then why is government sanction so important?
 
Lakryte said:
For all the reasons people want to get married. Its not like people plan on getting a divorce and hating the person they are about to marry. Why prevent an unhappy marriage from ending?
Click to expand...

What are those reasons if it can be ended so easily on a whim? You see, we seem to think marriage is nothing more than individuals deciding to shack up until one get tired of the other...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Then why is government sanction so important?
Click to expand...

For the legal protections of marriage while a couple is married. A person's spouse is their closest relative legally. That in itself comes with protections against another family member being able to place claims on property (such as a house owned jointly by spouses), especially in the event of no will. It also protects each spouse from the other to a point. Obviously this isn't completely true, and can be dependent on time in the marriage, but if one spouse works during the early years of a marriage, while the other goes to college and then the spouse who was working becomes a stay at home parent, while the other spouse lands a really good job and ends up making massive money to take care of the family, but then decides after years of marriage that they no longer want to be in the marriage, then laws of marriage protect the non-wage earning spouse from being left without anything to show for the work they put into the household that was built from the marriage. Even if there are no kids involved, the spouse at home still could have been doing things that helped to make the wage-earner a better earner. People in relationships don't tend to pay each other for their work at home because that could get quite ridiculous not to mention make people feel cheap in their marriage. Most people believe that they will be married til at least one of them dies. This just isn't how reality always works.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
What are those reasons if it can be ended so easily on a whim? You see, we seem to think marriage is nothing more than individuals deciding to shack up until one get tired of the other...
Click to expand...

Except that isn't how most divorces happen. Most divorces are not planned in the beginning. Most people go into marriage believing that they will be together until one of them dies. There certainly are exceptions to this, but they are few. Then life happens, and they realize that they were wrong or they simply believe they were wrong and that they shouldn't be married to that person anymore or their spouse doesn't want to be married to them anymore.
 
roguenuke said:
For the legal protections of marriage while a couple is married. A person's spouse is their closest relative legally. That in itself comes with protections against another family member being able to place claims on property (such as a house owned jointly by spouses), especially in the event of no will. It also protects each spouse from the other to a point. Obviously this isn't completely true, and can be dependent on time in the marriage, but if one spouse works during the early years of a marriage, while the other goes to college and then the spouse who was working becomes a stay at home parent, while the other spouse lands a really good job and ends up making massive money to take care of the family, but then decides after years of marriage that they no longer want to be in the marriage, then laws of marriage protect the non-wage earning spouse from being left without anything to show for the work they put into the household that was built from the marriage. Even if there are no kids involved, the spouse at home still could have been doing things that helped to make the wage-earner a better earner. People in relationships don't tend to pay each other for their work at home because that could get quite ridiculous not to mention make people feel cheap in their marriage. Most people believe that they will be married til at least one of them dies. This just isn't how reality always works.
Click to expand...

All these legal protections are available without marriage with the exception of some SS benefits, and even those are somewhat protected after ten years of marriage...
 
roguenuke said:
Except that isn't how most divorces happen. Most divorces are not planned in the beginning. Most people go into marriage believing that they will be together until one of them dies. There certainly are exceptions to this, but they are few. Then life happens, and they realize that they were wrong or they simply believe they were wrong and that they shouldn't be married to that person anymore or their spouse doesn't want to be married to them anymore.
Click to expand...

You're not making a compelling case for the State to bestow benefits for marriage or even recognize it for that matter...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
All these legal protections are available without marriage with the exception of some SS benefits, and even those are somewhat protected after ten years of marriage...
Click to expand...

No they aren't. A non-spouse can leave their interest in a house to any person they want. But there is a privilege available through marriage alone that makes a house owned by two spouses the sole property of those spouses and unable to be willed to anyone else. Plus, there are many places where a legal arrangement other than marriage can be successfully challenged by family members to gain property/assets of the other spouse. There are also things such as military dependent status that are only available through marriage. Plus, there are many more things that are only granted through marriage, by being considered a person's legal "spouse", which is a relationship status only legally granted through marriage.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
You're not making a compelling case for the State to bestow benefits for marriage or even recognize it for that matter...
Click to expand...

That is how it is now for opposite sex couples, so as long as that is how it is for opposite sex couples, then there is no reason to hold same sex couples at a higher standard.

And for marriage in general, well people are not perfect. Life happens and people change.
 
roguenuke said:
No they aren't. A non-spouse can leave their interest in a house to any person they want. But there is a privilege available through marriage alone that makes a house owned by two spouses the sole property of those spouses and unable to be willed to anyone else. Plus, there are many places where a legal arrangement other than marriage can be successfully challenged by family members to gain property/assets of the other spouse. There are also things such as military dependent status that are only available through marriage. Plus, there are many more things that are only granted through marriage, by being considered a person's legal "spouse", which is a relationship status only legally granted through marriage.
Click to expand...

Marriage is not required to protect property if bought as joint tenants with right of survivorship (aka in some states as tenants in the entirety)...
 
roguenuke said:
That is how it is now for opposite sex couples, so as long as that is how it is for opposite sex couples, then there is no reason to hold same sex couples at a higher standard.

And for marriage in general, well people are not perfect. Life happens and people change.
Click to expand...

My questions have been relating as to why the State would have a compelling interest to be involved if it cannot exercise some control...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
Marriage is not required to protect property if bought as joint tenants with right of survivorship (aka in some states as tenants in the entirety)...
Click to expand...

From what I have read, "tenancy by the entirety" is only granted to legal spouses.

In other "joint tenancies", from what I can find, it appears that the ownership of a person's share can be bequeathed to another person.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
My questions have been relating as to why the State would have a compelling interest to be involved if it cannot exercise some control...
Click to expand...

Because they are involved in recognizing other family relationships. The state issues birth certificates and adoption records. They work out who is a legal family member of deceased people (to a point). They are involved in recognizing legal family relationships, and spouse is a legal family relationship.
 
roguenuke said:
From what I have read, "tenancy by the entirety" is only granted to legal spouses.

In other "joint tenancies", from what I can find, it appears that the ownership of a person's share can be bequeathed to another person.
Click to expand...

It depends on how the rights are assigned at the time of purchase.

I'm out for the evening, have a good one...
 
In 15 years we are going to look back on the same sex marriage movement and think about how foolish it was, just like most rational people and how they feel towards the ciil rights movement and the woman's rights movement.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
It depends on how the rights are assigned at the time of purchase.

I'm out for the evening, have a good one...
Click to expand...

Joint tenancy is allowed for many different arrangements, but "tenancy by the entirety" is something related solely to spouses.

Tenancy by the Entirety legal definition of Tenancy by the Entirety. Tenancy by the Entirety synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Same-sex marriages create new questions in property laws - Washington Post

From further research it seems that the main advantage is that unlike other joint tenant contracts, tenancy by the entirety prevents a creditor from coming after a jointly held property by a married couple as long as the creditor is only owed by one of the spouses.

The reason this is considered to be the strongest form of ownership is that the claims of one tenant’s creditors do not attach to the real property owned by the tenancy by the entirety. The one exception is if the creditor is the Internal Revenue Service.
Click to expand...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
What are those reasons if it can be ended so easily on a whim? You see, we seem to think marriage is nothing more than individuals deciding to shack up until one get tired of the other...
Click to expand...
Why prevent an unhappy marriage from ending?
 
I think the supreme court will, at some point in the next ten or twenty years, hand down a real ruling, deciding once and for all the constitutional protections for SSM. And a generation or two later, same sex marriage will be just as normal as interracial marriage. It's not a matter of if. It's only a matter of when.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom