• 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’ (

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

CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...


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

rocket88 said:
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."
Click to expand...

Not sure where the procreation arguement comes in to the issue.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

Zyphlin said:
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.....
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

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

disneydude said:
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.
Click to expand...


:lol:

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

rocket88 said:
I'm referring to the anti-gay marriage argument that always gets into the procreation argument.
Click to expand...

And when the procreation argument is revealed to be absurd, as it always is, what then? We don't require that straight couples be able to or willing to procreate before granting a marriage license, so clearly procreation and/or the raising of children has nothing whatsoever to do with getting married.

I'm still waiting for the anti-gay-marriage crusaders to come up with a *REAL* argument.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

ocean515 said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is EXACTLY the same argument that went on back in the day. Mixing the races was sinful, allowing people of different races to get married would ruin marriage, yadda yadda yadda. Same crap, different day.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

Cephus said:
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.
Click to expand...

:lamo

Well, think how rediculous it is to try and make this an issue about just what "religious" people think the word means.


Here, this might help:

This is a rock. It's not a donut. Identical concept.

GabbroRockCreek1[1].jpg
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

ocean515 said:
:lol:

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.
Click to expand...

But...it "changed" the definition of marriage. Prior to that....marriage was defined as a man/woman of the same race.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

Cephus said:
This is EXACTLY the same argument that went on back in the day. Mixing the races was sinful, allowing people of different races to get married would ruin marriage, yadda yadda yadda. Same crap, different day.
Click to expand...

It seems to me, the majority of people have no problem with same sex couple receiving the same recognition by the Federal Government as heterosexual couples do. However, they have strong opinions about changing the definition of the word that applies.

As you're perhaps unwittingly proving, activists have made the main issue the definition of a word, and not the rights. That false effort is what has caused this issue to drag on for so many years, IMHO.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

Jerry said:
The state's interest in marriage is supporting stable relationships for the sake of raising children and for economic stability.
Click to expand...

And that argument is laughable as well with the obscene percentage of NON "supporting stable relationships."
Perhaps we should make divorce illegal, huh? After all, the state is interested in relationships, right?
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

disneydude said:
But...it "changed" the definition of marriage. Prior to that....marriage was defined as a man/woman of the same race.
Click to expand...

No, it didn't. It changed the application laws related to skin color in the issue, not the sex of the individuals.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

ocean515 said:
Well, think how rediculous it is to try and make this an issue about just what "religious" people think the word means.
Click to expand...

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

ocean515 said:
It seems to me, the majority of people have no problem with same sex couple receiving the same recognition by the Federal Government as heterosexual couples do. However, they have strong opinions about changing the definition of the word that applies.
Click to expand...

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

madman said:
And that argument is laughable as well with the obscene percentage of NON "supporting stable relationships."
Perhaps we should make divorce illegal, huh? After all, the state is interested in relationships, right?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

Cephus said:
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.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your opinion, but it's not supported by the facts.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

ocean515 said:
No, it didn't. It changed the application laws related to skin color in the issue, not the sex of the individuals.
Click to expand...

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

ocean515 said:
I appreciate your opinion, but it's not supported by the facts.
Click to expand...

Then by all means, demonstrate the "facts" for us and show us what a genius you are.
 
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.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

Cephus said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...

Think how stupid it is when liberals call a rifle an assault weapon when the rifle isn't an assault weapon.
 
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 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.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

Cephus said:
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"?
Click to expand...

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

AreteCourage said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's "being in the marriage business", though.

Your post is double-speak.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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