Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 111

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

  1. #1
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

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



    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 by pbrauer; 03-28-13 at 12:33 PM.


  2. #2
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ft.Wayne In
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 03:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,305

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

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    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
    I sure am glad I dont buy TIME magazine !!

  3. #3
    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 pbrauer View Post
    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
    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.

  4. #4
    Sit Nomine Digna
    Carjosse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Montreal, QC, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,165

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    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.
    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.

  5. #5
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,137

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    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.
    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."


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  6. #6
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Nevada
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,838

    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.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 0bserver92 View Post
    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.
    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

  8. #8
    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 0bserver92 View Post
    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.
    Really? Well think how stupid it is to hold up receiving Federal recognition because they want a word to mean something else. Idiotic.

  9. #9
    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 rocket88 View Post
    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."
    Last time I checked, gay people could have children. Please post a link to places where a gay person can't have a child.

  10. #10
    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 Bronson View Post
    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

    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.

Page 1 of 12 12311 ... 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
  •