• 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

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'."



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.



Yet that's all you talk about.


:lamo

Get informed, lose the absurd bias that appears to be blinding you, and then revisit the issue.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

No, but I don't see a need to even waste squat on some posters.

Yeah, the ones that show what a laughable position you hold.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

Get informed, lose the absurd bias that appears to be blinding you, and then revisit the issue.

Says the one with the absurd bias, who seems to be getting hot and bothered whenever someone points it out.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

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.

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


Interesting. Thanks for the link.

With divorce rate as high as it is, and with a majority of the country being religious, you would think it wouldn't work very well.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Hmmmm. I read the words and it was YOU that mentioned the voters of California was the reason the case was before SCOTUS, since you didn't mention it, I asked the question. Care to answer it without implying that bigotry nonsense?
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

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.

But I still see that as a faulty premise because if it was really made up then all the various individuals and groups making the push that helped cause the shift over the last 5 yeras could stop doing what they're doing and it would come to pass. I don't actually believe that would happen. If suddenly tomorrow there were no groups pushing for gay marriage, there was no media covering gay marriage, if college kids and young professionals weren't chatting about it between their peers, then I absolutely DON'T think that within the next decade or so we'd see it win at the ballot box.

By stating that America has "made up it's mind" it's stating that it's a done deal and that essentially nothing more needs to be done. That's foolishness, pure and simple. Especially in a political climate that is known to ebb and flow a bit. America's mind is NOT made up. It's BEING made up, and it's going in a certain direction, but it's not there yet. The article is an issue of counting ones eggs before they hatch, which is why I have an issue with the general premise it's built upon.

If anything, this isn't the time to sit back and go "Hey, we're a shoe in. This is a done deal. The side of Gay Marriage has won, it's going to happen". This is the time to say "Hey, we're gaining support and it seems in the general mindshare of the country we're becoming the majority. Now is the time to actually push, to take the fight forward even harder, and see if we can have some impact in the polls that matter [voting booths] rather than gallup"
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

Hmmmm. I read the words and it was YOU that mentioned the voters of California was the reason the case was before SCOTUS, since you didn't mention it, I asked the question.

Correct, I did. Which, as I noted in the first post, is an indication of a failed premise of suggesting that the American publics "Mind is made up" when you had a majority of voters in America's largest state casting their votes in a way opposite of what the article was claiming. If the voters hadn't voted as they did on Prop 8 then the court cases that eventually spawned the current one before SCOTUS would've never came to be.

I made literally zero comment what so ever to the entire notion of whether the votes should have been cast, because that's not the topic of the thread. MY post was actually dealing with the topic. I didn't answer your inane strawman based off your prejudiced reading of my words because it's entirely irrelevant to my point, the topic, or anything I've said. If you want to actually respond to a point I made, or ask me a question actually pertaining with the specific topic, be my guest.
 
Last edited:
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

Hmmmm. I read the words and it was YOU that mentioned the voters of California was the reason the case was before SCOTUS, since you didn't mention it, I asked the question. Care to answer it without implying that bigotry nonsense?
The voters, not the Governor, brought this to SCOTUS.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

The voters, not the Governor, brought this to SCOTUS.
.

Which voters are you talking about: All, for SSM or against SSM?
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

Which voters are you talking about: All, for SSM or against SSM?
Well the last appeals ruling shot down prop8, which would have meant ssm would be legal, so obviously the party filing an appeal to SCOTUS would be in opposition to ssm.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

I think its pretty crazy that in the "land of the free" conservatives can justify restricting the rights of other Americans. Seems a little mixed upto me.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

I think its pretty crazy that in the "land of the free" conservatives can justify restricting the rights of other Americans. Seems a little mixed upto me.

So your up for multiple spouses and killing unborn babies? How about good old fashioned bestiality?
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

So your up for multiple spouses and killing unborn babies? How about good old fashioned bestiality?

lol wow comparing gay marriage to bestiality, nice.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

So your up for multiple spouses and killing unborn babies? How about good old fashioned bestiality?

idiot argument is idiotic.
Come on, you can do better than that.

edit: almost as bad as invoking a NAZI analogy.
 
Back
Top Bottom