• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

pbrauer

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,208
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
time-magazine-covers-gay-marriage-kiss-cropped-proto-custom_28.jpg


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

pbrauer said:
View attachment 67145151


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
Click to expand...

I sure am glad I dont buy TIME magazine !!:2razz:
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

pbrauer said:
View attachment 67145151


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
Click to expand...

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

ocean515 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

ocean515 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then why do we have the arguments about how gays can't have children? Wouldn't that be an issue either way?

It just seems to me that most of the anti-gay marriage rhetoric isn't about the word "marriage." It's just anti-gay and a lot of people wouldn't be OK with gay rights no matter if you called it "marriage" or "baking a cake."
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

Time Magazine will do anything to survive, obviously. Time knows that Conservatives don't read their disgusting Liberal tripe so they're hoping the homosexuals and other unusual Liberals will see those pictures and immediately subscribe or at least buy a copy. Soon, like far left Newsweek, Time will be sold for $1.00. Cash only.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

0bserver92 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's not about a word

It's about a tradition and institution which has a specific purpose and has always meant one thing

If it's "just a word" than anyone can marry whatever the hell they want right? Anything goes
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

0bserver92 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Really? Well think how stupid it is to hold up receiving Federal recognition because they want a word to mean something else. Idiotic.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

rocket88 said:
Then why do we have the arguments about how gays can't have children? Wouldn't that be an issue either way?

It just seems to me that most of the anti-gay marriage rhetoric isn't about the word "marriage." It's just anti-gay and a lot of people wouldn't be OK with gay rights no matter if you called it "marriage" or "baking a cake."
Click to expand...

Last time I checked, gay people could have children. Please post a link to places where a gay person can't have a child.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

Bronson said:
It's not about a word

It's about a tradition and institution which has a specific purpose and has always meant one thing

If it's "just a word" than anyone can marry whatever the hell they want right? Anything goes
Click to expand...


Exactly. Well written.

It's irrefutable the issue has been about the demand to change the meaning of a word, and not about obtaining rights. That's why the LGBT activists celebrate state victories, when the real issue is about Federal recognizion, taxation, property rights, etc.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

pbrauer said:
time-magazine-covers-gay-marriage-kiss-cropped-proto-custom_28.jpg


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
Click to expand...
I don't know anyone who reads Time Mag. Shall we talk about Mad Mag's spoof of The Croods?
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

ocean515 said:
Last time I checked, gay people could have children. Please post a link to places where a gay person can't have a child.
Click to expand...

I thought it was common knowledge that 2 men couldn't conceive.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

0bserver92 said:
First of all think about how stupid that really sounds, your arguing over a ****ing word.
Click to expand...

University Takes Action to Punish Student:
Jerry said:
Sounds like a great demonstration on the power of words and symbols, especially since this made the news and our attention.
Click to expand...

A lot of people feel that same-sex marriage is like writing the word 'marriage' on a piece of paper and stepping on it; disrespectful.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

rocket88 said:
I thought it was common knowledge that 2 men couldn't conceive.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything? So if the definition of marriage was changed, they could?.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

rocket88 said:
ocean515 said:
Last time I checked, gay people could have children.
Click to expand...
I thought it was common knowledge that 2 men couldn't conceive.
Click to expand...
That's right, 2 men cannot "conceive", but two men can "have children": adoption and foster parenting.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

rocket88 said:
I thought it was common knowledge that 2 men couldn't conceive.
Click to expand...

Gay people are not infertile though. They're not incapable of impregnating (or being impregnated) by the opposite sex. Surrogate mothers and sperm donors are a few examples of how gay people can have children.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

ocean515 said:
Really? Well think how stupid it is to hold up receiving Federal recognition because they want a word to mean something else. Idiotic.
Click to expand...

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

ocean515 said:
What does that have to do with anything? So if the definition of marriage was changed, they could?.
Click to expand...

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

Jerry said:
That's right, 2 men cannot "conceive", but two men can "have children": adoption and foster parenting.
Click to expand...

I know more about adoption than half the people here will ever know.

I'm referring to the anti-gay marriage argument that always gets into the procreation argument.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

rocket88 said:
II'm referring to the anti-gay marriage argument that always gets into the procreation argument.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

rocket88 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

pbrauer said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

rocket88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

ocean515 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom