• 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

Jerry said:
That's "being in the marriage business", though.

Your post is double-speak.
Click to expand...

Yes it is...but people are afraid of the word "marriage" and would be more accepting of the words "civil unions."
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

disneydude said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

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

Zyphlin said:
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".
Click to expand...

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

Cephus said:
Then by all means, demonstrate the "facts" for us and show us what a genius you are.
Click to expand...

:roll:

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

Cephus said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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...

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

Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

Many religions already require this marital counseling (the personal aspect of it) already. I know, i had to sit through it.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

ocean515 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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".
Click to expand...

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

ocean515 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

ocean515 said:
:roll:

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...
Click to expand...

In other words, as we all already knew, you got squat.

No surprise.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

Cephus said:
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?
Click to expand...
The thing is, polygamy is conceivable, yet is still being left out. This means ssm is not a 'marriage equality' movement.

Cephus said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's less complicated than Obama'Care or the assault weapons ban, so if we can do those, we can do polygamy.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

AreteCourage said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

pbrauer said:
Since when do we allow the civil rights of a minority be dependent upon a vote of the people?
Click to expand...

Nice strawman. Since when did my comment have anything to do with that assertoin? My comment was just relating to the story in the OP's assertion that the notion of gay marriage already "won" by winning over the view of the american public. Read the words that are written, not the ones you bigotedly imagine are present when you see some elephants to the left of the persons post.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

Cephus said:
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.
Click to expand...

True to a tee.....the same vocal anti-gay marriage people were also anti-civil union until gay marriage became a real possibility. Suddenly...a number of them became pro-civil union.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

Zyphlin said:
Nice strawman. Since when did my comment have anything to do with that assertoin? My comment was just relating to the story in the OP's assertion that the notion of gay marriage already "won" by winning over the view of the american public.
Click to expand...

and it absolutely has. There is no question that gay marriage is going to be the law of the land, whether by Supreme Court ruling or at the ballot box. That is the cruxt of the article.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

madman said:
Many religions already require this marital counseling (the personal aspect of it) already. I know, i had to sit through it.
Click to expand...
But the state does not, and that's the problem, because it's a state license and not everyone is in your religion.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

Jerry said:
The thing is, polygamy is conceivable, yet is still being left out. This means ssm is not a 'marriage equality' movement.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's being left out, I think it's a separate issue and really needs to be, based on the huge amount of existing case law that needs to be reviewed and resolved. Allowing polygamous marriage without first handling the inherent problems associated therein will just clog the courts for decades to come. We need to decide how to handle these issues FIRST, then let them get married.

Of course, there doesn't seem to be a very large contingent of polygamists who are vocally speaking out for polygamous marriage, that could have a lot to do with it as well. Don't blame the gays when the polygamists aren't making it an issue.

It's less complicated than Obama'Care or the assault weapons ban, so if we can do those, we can do polygamy.
Click to expand...

I agree that we can. Go ahead and get the ball rolling.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

Cephus said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

I don't need to make a case for the word, voters and others have already done that. Why did the people of California vote to change the state Constitution to protect the definition of the word?

There is example after example of people all across the country, religious and agnostic, who have made it very clear they want the meaning of the word "marriage" to remain the same as it has always been.

I'm interested in the rights, and not the word.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

Jerry said:
But the state does not, and that's the problem, because it's a state license and not everyone is in your religion.
Click to expand...

Even IF the state mandated all married couples go though this counseling, what would be different today? Probably not much. Divorce rate would hover probably where it's at now. I say this because many people are married though the church now and are required to go though the counseling already, and look at the high divorce rate now?
Counseling wont work.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

disneydude said:
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".
Click to expand...

You are aware the SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia, ruled that STATES cannot pass laws that relate to race and marriage. The Federal Government has never had such laws on the books.

I'd be careful being too snarky with your responses. Your comments are not serving you well.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

ocean515 said:
I don't need to make a case for the word, voters and others have already done that. Why did the people of California vote to change the state Constitution to protect the definition of the word?
Click to expand...

Where did you get the idea that they passed Prop. 8 to protect the word? Clearly that's not the case. They did it to continue to discriminate against gay couples. Had they wanted to protect the word, they would have said "gay people can have the same legal rights as straight people, they just cannot call their union 'marriage'."

There is example after example of people all across the country, religious and agnostic, who have made it very clear they want the meaning of the word "marriage" to remain the same as it has always been.
Click to expand...

You still haven't made a case for why we ought to invent another word for something that we already have a perfectly serviceable word in use for.

I'm interested in the rights, and not the word.
Click to expand...

Yet that's all you talk about.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

disneydude said:
and it absolutely has. There is no question that gay marriage is going to be the law of the land, whether by Supreme Court ruling or at the ballot box. That is the cruxt of the article.
Click to expand...

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

Cephus said:
In other words, as we all already knew, you got squat.

No surprise.
Click to expand...

No, but I don't see a need to even waste squat on some posters.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

madman said:
Even IF the state mandated all married couples go though this counseling, what would be different today?
Click to expand...
A lower the divorce rate: Premarital counseling reduces divorce risk

Before marrying, couples need to be in agreement on money, religion, kids and in-laws, as divorces most often come from conflict over one or more of those categories.

It doesn't matter what their position on each category is, so long as they are in agreement. An atheist couple who values a high FICO score, never wants children and loves their in-laws, is just as viable as a Catholic couple who hate any kind of debt, want 2-3 children and can tolerate the in-laws for holidays.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom