Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 111

Thread: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Won’ (

  1. #21
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,174

    Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    There is no meaningful difference between foster/adopt and biologically related children. There is no imperative that the children you raise be blood relatives; otherwise we would have to ban step-parents.
    I'm not making that argument. I'm saying that some people when they talk about why they disagree with SSM, it becomes about procreating. I think it's a crap argument, and changing the word from "marriage" to anything else doesn't change the procreation part.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    I'm not making that argument. I'm saying that some people when they talk about why they disagree with SSM, it becomes about procreating. I think it's a crap argument, and changing the word from "marriage" to anything else doesn't change the procreation part.
    Right, but you won't get much support for changing the word from 'marriage' to anything else, from either side. I agree that the procreation argument is a crap argument, but so is your 'change the name' argument a crap argument. You're both wrong in that neither of you have a winning argument.

    The state's interest in marriage is supporting stable relationships for the sake of raising children and for economic stability. Any relationship which is not otherwise harmful should be recognized by the state and honored as 'marriage' by the state, be that a traditional hetero couple, a same-sex couple, or a Native American or Muslim trio/quad.
    Last edited by Jerry; 03-28-13 at 01:31 PM.

  3. #23
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    TIME Magazine this week features two different covers with a pair of same-sex couples kissing under the headline, "Gay Marriage Already Won." The cover story, which was written by David Von Drehle, details how American attitudes have shifted on the issue to favor equality.
    Unfortunantly there is a slight premise fail, since the whole reason the case is at the SCOTUS is because the voters of one of the most liberal states in the country voted to disallow gay marriage.....

  4. #24
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    I'm not making that argument. I'm saying that some people when they talk about why they disagree with SSM, it becomes about procreating. I think it's a crap argument, and changing the word from "marriage" to anything else doesn't change the procreation part.
    The issue is a LOT of people on both sides aren't honest about their argument and that's why the notion you're suggesting wouldn't work.

    Despite all the BS many on the anti-SSM side peddle about "sanctity of marriage" or "tradition" or "changing the definition of marriage" it's really just about disliking/disagreeing with that life style so not wanting the government to sanction it as equally acecptable to their own lifestyle.

    Despite all the BS many of the pro-SSM side peddle about "equality under the law" or "being with the one they love" or "have the same rights as straight people" it's really just about having a way to strong arm society and the public into "accepting" them and providing them with a status and protection on par with race.

    In both instances, changing "Marriage" as a government entity into one term catch all of "Civil Unions" and allowing "marriage" to simply eixst as a societal term doesn't satisfy their ACTUAL desires in termes of the fight so both sides will scream bloody murder about how bad it is if that option was done and neither side would feel they "won".

  5. #25
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    This issue could have been resolved long ago if the LGBT radicals hadn't made the issue about redefining a word, and made it about receiving similar recognition by Federal agencies.

    Shameful.
    The same could have been said about the battle over inter-racial marriage. Why did they want to "Re-define" marriage to include marriages between the races?

    Perhaps you are incorrect and really should have written:

    This issue could have been resolved long ago if right-wing radicals hadn't made the issue about redefining a word, and made it about receiving liberty and justice for all.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  6. #26
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Good morning Ocean - hope all is well with you out in La La Land.

    As for "federal recognition", I've stated many times that there would be no fight over the official piece of paper if it wasn't a passport to tax benefits and bonuses from government. Strip away the government's use of the document as a way to engineer society and you won't have gays clamoring to get the paper, hell, you won't have straights wanting the paper any longer.

    From my perspective, if people are so much in love that it overcomes all reason, let them get married all they want to whomever they want as many times as they want - just don't give them government bonuses for doing so.

    Good day CJ. It continues to be a pleasure to read your sound words of wisdom here in this new "world".

    All is as well as can be expected in La La Land.

    I've tried to stay out of the "government encourages" side of the debate, although I think it is a very legitimate issue. As government complicates life with mountains of rules and regulations, it seems to me a simple binding contract is an elegant way to cut through all the red tape, related to taxes, property, etc.

    As you can tell, I am of the belief the issue should be about the way government views such relationships, and not about what they call them.

  7. #27
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    No, but just giving them equal rights under another name wouldn't change it either. Call it Gay Rutabaga, and it doesn't change the procreation argument about gay "marriage."
    Not sure where the procreation arguement comes in to the issue.

  8. #28
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Unfortunantly there is a slight premise fail, since the whole reason the case is at the SCOTUS is because the voters of one of the most liberal states in the country voted to disallow gay marriage.....
    You would have to understand the prop 8 battle that took place to put it in perspective. Prop 8 was failing big a month before the election. Then, the Mormon church and other right-wing groups poured millions into probably the largest deceitful propoganda campaign in the history of California politics. Running ads that Children would be forced to attend gay weddings, that churches would be forced to perform gay weddings, etc. They outright lied in order to play on people's fears and unfortunately it worked. There is no doubt in my mind that if it were on the ballot again, it would fail because people realized that they got taken. The fact is however, it shouldn't HAVE to be put on a ballot. Nobody's civil rights should ever be put to a popular vote. If they were it is questionable whether the civil rights legislation would have passed and inter-racial marriage bans might still be in effect in large parts of the country.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  9. #29
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,793

    Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    This issue could have been resolved long ago if the LGBT radicals hadn't made the issue about redefining a word, and made it about receiving similar recognition by Federal agencies.

    Shameful.
    Think about how idiotic it is that the religious think that they get to control the English language and are clinging desperately to a word?

    Not just shameful, downright stupid.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  10. #30
    Sage

    ocean515's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,705

    Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    The same could have been said about the battle over inter-racial marriage. Why did they want to "Re-define" marriage to include marriages between the races?

    Perhaps you are incorrect and really should have written:

    This issue could have been resolved long ago if right-wing radicals hadn't made the issue about redefining a word, and made it about receiving liberty and justice for all.



    Please. You just ran headlong into a wall. I hope it didn't leave a mark. Race has nothing to do with this issue. No matter how big an army of straw you throw at it.

    Even then, marriage was between a man and a woman. The absurdity of the issue related to skin color, not the sex of the individuals.

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •