If SSM were decided and fully legalized next year (2015)...

[FrederickJones]

@jsgoddess

… what would the political result be?

An article I read today says

This question isn’t really about the likelihood of that happening, just what the political result would be, based on the decisions that have already come down.

Would the GOP give up the issue completely? Somewhat? On paper? Would it gain in intensity (this seems unlikely to me) or fade away? Would it become the next Roe v. Wade with people arguing the court moved too soon, or the next Loving where people look back and wonder what took so long?

This isn’t about SSM as a good or bad thing. If you want to talk about that, go to another thread.

SSM is not a bad thing? Ask God about that!!!

[iiandyiiii]

@FrederickJones

SSM is not a bad thing? Ask God about that!!!

You don’t need to resurrect every dead SSM thread – if you want to talk about it, just stick to the most recent thread in Great Debates.

[FrederickJones]

marriage equality? Quit inventing and attempting to change the meaning of words.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[iiandyiiii]

@FrederickJones

marriage equality? Quit inventing and attempting to change the meaning of words.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

The meanings of words change all the time. Language isn’t static. If most English speakers call a gay couple “married”, then that means the definition of “married” now can include gay couples.

[FrederickJones]

@iiandyiiii

You don’t need to resurrect every dead SSM thread – if you want to talk about it, just stick to the most recent thread in Great Debates.

Yes I do, and if you are a Christian you’ll do the same.

[FrederickJones]

@Edible_Hat

It will cause a brief burst of outrage, but will soon die as an issue in the following decade. Conservatives will claim twenty years from now that they always supported same sex marriage, that homophobia is over, and that liberals are the real homophobes.

You are right and that is why I must write. :eek: :eek: :eek:

[iiandyiiii]

@FrederickJones

Yes I do, and if you are a Christian you’ll do the same.

I’m not a Christian. But it makes it harder to have a discussion if you’re always jumping from thread to thread. Why not stick to just one thread so everyone can engage with you in one place?

[FrederickJones]

@Martin_Hyde

I meant recently. Obviously if I just meant American history it’s not been strictly true since the 1990s when some form of legalized gay marriage or unions started in parts of the United States (D.C. had domestic partnerships as did Hawaii in the 90s, many States have adopted SSM in the 2000s/2010s.) Prior to Denmark recognizing civil unions in 1989 I’m not aware of any historical precedent for same sex marriage. It really defies all the historical cultural reasons that marriage exist anyway since it’s tied up with things like property ownership and inheritance and traditionally two men or two women would produce no heirs.

Although the Romans had sort of short-circuited some of that (not for SSM reasons but for dynastic ones) when powerful Patricians would name nephews or even just close male subordinates as “adopted” heirs of sorts.

(This is in response to your debate about homo and hetero SEXUALITY.

Every word you uttered in your thesis is related to why we must continue to fight the Atheistic agenda. WHY?

Because few if any atheists are against pre, post, and extra marital sex OF ANY KIND.

That is not only a threat to marriage, it’s a threat to humankind. Without marriage producing children we cease to exist.

Now let’s not even debate about over population. How would you feel if half of that population had the diseases you mentioned?

We are headed in that direction.) :smack: :smack: :smack:

[FrederickJones]

@Double_Foolscap

Nitpick (and looking at the rest of the stuff in your post you probably implied it): American history.

There are lots of countries that allow same-sex marriage.

Lots of countries also allow pre, post, and extra marital sex as well. That is not a reason to allow it! :eek: :eek: :eek:

[iiandyiiii]

@FrederickJones

Because few if any atheists are against pre, post, and extra marital sex OF ANY KIND.

Are you against post-marital sex?

That is not only a threat to marriage, it’s a threat to humankind. Without marriage producing children we cease to exist.

Opposing post-marital sex is a much greater threat to producing children than gay marriage.

Gay marriage doesn’t do anything to affect reproduction, because whether it’s legal or not, gay people aren’t going to reproduce.

Whether gays can get married or not, straight people will continue to get married and have sex.

[FrederickJones]

@Ludovic

I guess it could help more with fundraising, since anyone can donate no matter what state or district they come from, and I don’t think any sensible money would go to the Democrats to defeat an anti-SSM amendment because it would never happen.

But in the few swing states/districts remaining, I’m just not seeing a huge turnout caused by an anti-SSM amendment, at least when you balance out some voters who would turn out to vote against it. I think swing districts tend to be moderate both in quantity and quality, having fewer radical rightists.

“Radical Rightists?” :dubious::dubious::dubious:

[Ethilrist]

The Republicans are desperately looking for ways to drag more of the middle to their side, without bringing along too many of the wingnuts and looney-tunes they’ve already managed to attract. I think they’d throw in the towel on fighting it and run with it instead, in hopes of getting some of the more conservative gay types to draft in along behind them.

[FrederickJones]

@Snarky_Kong

There’d be a giant backlash initial, but then all the retracted would die and in 5 years everyone would wonder what the big deal was about.

Yeah you would like that wouldn’t you? :mad::rolleyes::eek:

[FrederickJones]

@Buck_Godot

And in 20 years, the Republicans are going to be claiming they have always been the party of gay rights.

So what we all lose. :smack: :smack: :smack:

Give yourself an extra :smack:

[FrederickJones]

@iiandyiiii

It will further show the impotence of social conservatism. The rump end of the right-wing will freak out, and pretty much nothing will happen.

Except that I’m hopeful that, as some Republicans start to support SSM (because duh), the rump-right will split off into a third party, further consigning the Republican party (in its present form) to the dustbin of history.

Give yourself a jolly little Christmas Cheer. Oh that’s right you don’t believe.

[iiandyiiii]

Do you have any actual debate to offer, or is it just all emoticons?

[FrederickJones]

@marshmallow

The biggest utility for Reps would be as another example of the activist courts legislating from the bench. Then there’d be the usual “forcing it down our throats” language (oh baby).

I think they would drop the gay issue like a hot potato. Right wingers already decry the topic as a subject of debate at all, pro or anti, since there’s more important stuff to worry about.

I hope you are right, but judging by all the letters on the opposite side of this issue I don’t think it’s over yet.

[JoshuaSD]

To the OP

I really don’t see the issue as becoming the next Roe v. Wade. That issue has a much stronger emotional value in my opinion and often crosses the lines of Republican/Democrat - Religious/Atheist.

Equal rights for any group have historically been a case of uphill battle. Big faceoff. Victory with many subsequent backlashes. Then some period of time later pressed into the history books and… well hopefully not forgotten.

That’s not to say that just because society says the form of discrimination is no longer “OK” that it simply ends. I suspect we will continue to see many people and even potentially states finding ways to discriminate against homosexual married couples long after the issue is settled in the courts.

[asterion]

@iiandyiiii

Are you against post-marital sex?

Opposing post-marital sex is a much greater threat to producing children than gay marriage.

And here I thought the general understanding in the culture is that there is no such thing as post-marital sex. Are you telling me TV has lied to me?

[Ethilrist]

@asterion

And here I thought the general understanding in the culture is that there is no such thing as post-marital sex. Are you telling me TV has lied to me?

Well, maybe your wife has. Zing!