Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 111

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

  1. #51
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    That's "being in the marriage business", though.

    Your post is double-speak.
    Yes it is...but people are afraid of the word "marriage" and would be more accepting of the words "civil unions."
    Libertarian and Atheist...wow I'm a hated man.

  2. #52
    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
    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.
    You are refering to state laws, and not Federal Laws. The United States Federal Governemnt never passed anti-miscegenation laws. What is being argued today is to have the Federal Goverment step in and redefine a word.

    Fact.

  3. #53
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,755

    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.
    What difference does it make what you call it? If you called it a civil union, then the anti-gay people would only want civil unions for straight couples. This isn't about a word, and for those people who only care about a word, you're fricking idiots, it's about demanding rights only for straight people and denying them to gays.
    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. #54
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,137

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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".
    I'm not suggesting that. I'm refuting ocean's assertion that it's all about changing the definition of a word. It doesn't matter what you call it. Some people are going to be against any kind of gay rights.


    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.

  5. #55
    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
    Then by all means, demonstrate the "facts" for us and show us what a genius you are.


    Well there you go. I'm just all inspired to step up to the plate at your command.

    I think I'm going to opt out, and leave you to wonder...

  6. #56
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    What difference does it make what you call it? If you called it a civil union, then the anti-gay people would only want civil unions for straight couples. This isn't about a word, and for those people who only care about a word, you're fricking idiots, it's about demanding rights only for straight people and denying them to gays.

    I don't care what they call it personally. I am of the firm belief that either the government gets out of it altogether (straight or gay) or they can't deny rights for any couple if they choose to recognize it.
    Libertarian and Atheist...wow I'm a hated man.

  7. #57
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    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.....
    Since when do we allow the civil rights of a minority be dependent upon a vote of the people? By the way, the polls showed prop 8 failing until money from one of the most conservative states (Utah) started flowing in.


  8. #58
    Professor
    madman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    So. California
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    1,936

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    The first step is in requiring comprehensive personal and financial pre-marital counseling so that dysfunctional marriages occur less often, and when there is a significant problem it can be fixed instead of leading to a divorce. After a couple has achieved the standard for their marriage license and marry, a divorce should require that every effort to save the marriage first be tried. Easy no-fault divorce should be removed from the law.
    Many religions already require this marital counseling (the personal aspect of it) already. I know, i had to sit through it.

  9. #59
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,755

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    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.
    Which is fine, but there's a lot of people who don't do that, they want to deny gay people the same rights and benefits that straight people have always enjoyed, in exactly the same way that many whites used to want to deny black people the same rights and benefits.

    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".
    Actually, most people don't care, so long as the SAME WORD is used for everyone. It's the same act, it has the same rights, it has the same benefits, what is your rationale for using different words to refer to the same thing? We already have a perfectly serviceable word for it, you make a case for why there ought to be different words.
    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. #60
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,129

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    You are refering to state laws, and not Federal Laws. The United States Federal Governemnt never passed anti-miscegenation laws. What is being argued today is to have the Federal Goverment step in and redefine a word.

    Fact.
    What do you think that Loving v. Virginia did? You are aware, are you not....the the SCOTUS makes laws all the time. Its called "Caselaw".
    <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>

Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •