Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 111

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

  1. #81
    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
    Yeah, the ones that show what a laughable position you hold.
    Let's see. You actually wrote that people don't want to allow gay couples to use the word "marriage". That's absurd. Gay couples can call it anything they want. So clearly, you are very misinformed about the subject and probably aren't the best judge of what is laughable.

    Question: Why does something called a civil ceremony exist, and why does it apply when the action takes place in a government building and is conducted by a authorized representative of the court?

  2. #82
    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
    GOING to be and WILL be are two entirely different things, when talking about the ballot box. The OP's story asserts that the mind of America is "made up" which suggests a PRESENT tense, not a future tense. Regardless of your personal opinions regarding the legitimacy of the campaign in california, the clear undisputable fact is that the majority of voters there voted to disallow gay marriage. That's fact. You can attempt to degrade that fact in any fashion you wish, but you can't actually CHANGE that fact. The reality is that over 26 states, meaning more than half the states in the nation, have statutes and or constitutional measures that ban same sex marriage. While general polls are showing a definitive uptick and majority over all that support it, POLLS don't make laws...voting does, and the voting record and reality does not paint anywhere near as clear cut of a reality as the OP's story is being made.

    I agree completely that if the courts don't mandate it we'll see a majority of states recognizing same sex marriage in the coming decades. Absolutely that will happen. But to claim that the American Public has "made up their mind" in favor of it today is a rather ridiculous premise given the reason the case is even able to be heard right now, the status in the majority of states, and the mixed record it has at the ballot box.
    I understand what you are saying and I agree with you, speaking literally. But the article is not speaking "literally". The article is making the argument that there has been an exponential shift in America's attitudes over the last five years. In essence, America's mind IS made up. Right-wing groups are going to continue to fight, but the war is over. Gay marriage is an inevitability, the only question that remains if it will be by ballot or by Court decree.
    <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. #83
    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
    Wow.....just shows how little you understand the SCOTUS and what "CASELAW" is. After Loving States cannot pass laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage. This is based on Federal caselaw...which is based on the US Constitution.
    Learn to read.

  4. #84
    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
    Learn to read.
    I can read just fine....thank you. Perhaps you should take a conlaw course and then get back to us. It kinda helps you know what you are talking about to understand how the SCOTUS works.
    <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>

  5. #85
    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
    Says the one with the absurd bias, who seems to be getting hot and bothered whenever someone points it out.
    Hot and bothered?

    If you say so...

  6. #86
    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
    Let's see. You actually wrote that people don't want to allow gay couples to use the word "marriage". That's absurd. Gay couples can call it anything they want. So clearly, you are very misinformed about the subject and probably aren't the best judge of what is laughable.
    Go talk to the TONS of people right this second who are debating that allowing gays to use the word "marriage" somehow destroys the word "marriage" because "marriage" can only possibly refer to opposite-sex couples. Seriously?

    Question: Why does something called a civil ceremony exist, and why does it apply when the action takes place in a government building and is conducted by a authorized representative of the court?
    Because people who get married in civil ceremonies want them? Why does anything exist? I got married in a civil ceremony. Nobody says you have to be, you can just get the paperwork and be legally married and never have any kind of ceremony, civil or otherwise.
    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!

  7. #87
    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
    I can read just fine....thank you. Perhaps you should take a conlaw course and then get back to us. It kinda helps you know what you are talking about to understand how the SCOTUS works.
    Really?

    Well, I'll take that under advisement.

  8. #88
    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
    But you've already said you don't want the government to get out of it, you still want something by which the government provides rights and benefits! If you wanted the government to get out of it completely, you wouldn't want civil unions either!
    Listen to me....read this very carefully....throw your obvious irrational emotions away for a second.

    I personally would like to see government completely out of anything to do with marriage. I want government out of a lot of things, but I'm also a realist and understand it won't happen.

    My argument is they either allow everyone the benefits or no one....zero middle ground for discrimination.

    The civil unions part was only for those morons that have an issue with the wording because they are all for civil unions, but not marriage for gay couples. Does it make sense? No, but it makes them feel like they won something.
    Libertarian and Atheist...wow I'm a hated man.

  9. #89
    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 AreteCourage View Post
    The civil unions part was only for those morons that have an issue with the wording because they are all for civil unions, but not marriage for gay couples. Does it make sense? No, but it makes them feel like they won something.
    And I'm saying that morons should not be catered to. If you're going to have the government do something like marriage, then just call it marriage and all the inbred asshats who don't like it can pound sand. We have a perfectly valid word for it, let's just use the word we already have unless there is a pressing and demonstrable reason not to. Religion is neither.
    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. #90
    Sage
    Peter King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    14,029

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

    If it is not going to be legalized or made possible now, it will be in the future because all the younger generations support gay weddings and they have the future, not the 60 plus citizens. And those will hopefully also see the light in where no one will be discriminated against for their being straight or gay, black/white or other, man or woman and young or old.

    People used to deny their sexuality for decades, living as nice straights while all the time denying what they actually were.
    Former military man (and now babysitter of Donald Trump) John Kelly, is a big loud lying empty barrel!

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •