Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 111

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

  1. #41
    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 Cephus View Post
    Because it's primarily the religious people who are arguing against gay marriage, on the basis that they somehow think they control the word "marriage" and they have an imaginary friend in the sky that tells them what to do. Once you throw out religious arguments and silly things like "I think it's icky", there really are no other arguments against allowing equality in marriage.
    I appreciate your opinion, but it's not supported by the facts.

  2. #42
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 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
    No, it didn't. It changed the application laws related to skin color in the issue, not the sex of the individuals.
    It still changed the definition. Sorry. Marriage as defined prior to 1957 was marriage between two members of the same race. Anti-miscegenation laws changed the way marriage is defined.
    <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>

  3. #43
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 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
    I appreciate your opinion, but it's not supported by the facts.
    Then by all means, demonstrate the "facts" for us and show us what a genius you are.
    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!

  4. #44
    Educator AreteCourage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Seen
    08-30-13 @ 12:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    790

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

    This is an issue where I side with left. I personally think that government should have no business in marriage at all...whether it be homosexual or heterosexual. I believe they should only recognize civil unions for joint tax and financial purposes.

    However, if the government wants to continue to recognize marriage then recognize all marriages regardless of sexual orientation. Discrimination has been a black eye on our history for quite some time and we never seem to learn from it. If two people are in love and wish to marry then so be it. What does it have to do with you? Nothing at all.

    Don't give me the "traditional marriages are better for kids" BS either. Check out those divorce rates and rethink that gem of a philosophy.

    We have so much more to worry about then who gets married. It is petty compared to our deficit issues. It is an easy decision...get it out of the way and lets fix our crumbling financial sector.
    Libertarian and Atheist...wow I'm a hated man.

  5. #45
    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 Cephus View Post
    Because it's primarily the religious people who are arguing against gay marriage, on the basis that they somehow think they control the word "marriage" and they have an imaginary friend in the sky that tells them what to do. Once you throw out religious arguments and silly things like "I think it's icky", there really are no other arguments against allowing equality in marriage.
    Pro-ssm law is not about equality, it's about gays and gays only. Pro-ssm doesn't care about other minorities being denied marriage. Go ahead and advocate ssm if you like, but saying it's about equality is a lie.

    My arguments are about equality, because I am all-inclusive of every kind of relationship which is not otherwise harmful. Polygamy, same-sex, a large age gap...any kind of relationship which completes comprehensive personal and financial pre-marital counseling has my blessing.

  6. #46
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 0bserver92 View Post
    First of all think about how stupid that really sounds, your arguing over a ****ing word. It's the concept that two people regardless of sex who love each other should be able to get married not a word.
    Think how stupid it is when liberals call a rifle an assault weapon when the rifle isn't an assault weapon.

  7. #47
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,943
    Blog Entries
    25

    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.


    TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares 'Gay Marriage Already Won' (PHOTO) | TPM LiveWire

    I prefer the copy with the two women. But Time is right, it is just a matter of time before all states will recognize gay marriages. How long that will take probably will depend on the rulings from the SCOTUS perhaps even more important, what they based their decision on.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  8. #48
    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 Cephus View Post
    We've already had the debate on "separate but equal" nonsense and it's been found to be illegal. If two people do the same thing, it's absurd not to use the same word to refer to it. Why do you have such a hard-on for the word "marriage"?
    You realize I could ask the same "hard-on" question of you?

    I can find no compelling reason for the Federal Government to deny the same recognition it gives heterosexual couples who sign a binding contract, and meet the specific criteria outlinned by the government. Same sex couples should be recognized exactly the same way, having met the same criteria.

    However, the hill the LGBT activists seem to want to die on relates to the word used to describe this action.

    Who cares? A rock is a rock, it's not a donut, and it's not a bowl of jello. Same principle applies to the word "Marriage".

  9. #49
    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 AreteCourage View Post
    This is an issue where I side with left. I personally think that government should have no business in marriage at all...whether it be homosexual or heterosexual. I believe they should only recognize civil unions for joint tax and financial purposes.
    That's "being in the marriage business", though.

    Your post is double-speak.

  10. #50
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 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 Jerry View Post
    Pro-ssm law is not about equality, it's about gays and gays only. Pro-ssm doesn't care about other minorities being denied marriage. Go ahead and advocate ssm if you like, but saying it's about equality is a lie.
    Every legal challenge cannot address every possible contingent. Saying that the civil rights movement was invalid because it didn't address every conceivable set of civil rights for every possible group of people is silly. Yes, gay marriage is about gay marriage. So what?

    My arguments are about equality, because I am all-inclusive of every kind of relationship which is not otherwise harmful. Polygamy, same-sex, any kind of relationship which completes comprehensive personal and financial pre-marital counseling has my blessing.
    I'm fine with all of those things too, assuming we work out the potential legal issues beforehand. I have no problem with polygamy, but it does carry a lot of potential problems that are not currently dealt with in the law. We need to figure out how inheritance, divorce, child custody, etc. would work with a polygamous marriage and if we can do so, let them get married too.
    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!

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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
  •