• 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!

State to Eliminate “Bride” & “Groom” on Marriage Certificates [W:303]

You don't think their resistance to change in this case has to do with them seeing the tradition that they have always known, slipping away?

no because in reality it isnt going anywhere its not going anywhere
 
1.) thanks for your opinion on that word but that has no impact to my statements
2.) there is no problem, what you are talking is nonsense, just because you say a person was part of the same movements and that causes YOU to think those movements were "indistinguishable" thats your issue and your problem, its not reality, black panthers marched with every day blacks for rights, so did Muslim brother hood, nobody is uneducated enough to say that makes them the SAME movement and "indistinguishable" because theres no logic to support that.
3.) didnt say you made stuff up what im saying only somebody with broken logic would say they were NEVER distinguishable and again to anybody educated, non-bigoted, honest and object that simply doesnt make RATIONAL sense because the movments were ALWAYS different because they have different goals. Its basic common sense.

You are very welcome, Bigot should be taken out of the English language since it's one of the most incredibly overused and misused words of this day and age. Bigots = the type of people who would beat up on a gay person just for being gay, it does not equal people who have a different opinion than you. Using it to describe people who have a different opinion than you kind of destroys any weight that it may have once carried.

I say that they were indistinguishable because they were indistinguishable back during the sexual revolution, they were a part of the same movement (gay rights movement) because people were all about free love and they started to apply that to cases dealing with minors, they used research of the time to support that opinion. I provided sources, feel free to read through them, we may not always like history but it is something that can't be changed and it does us no good to deny it. It is what it is.
 
no because in reality it isnt going anywhere its not going anywhere
Marriage equaling one man and one woman (aka traditional marriage) changing to encompass more than that = the tradition that they have always known is slipping away.
 
1.)You are very welcome, Bigot should be taken out of the English language since it's one of the most incredibly overused and misused words of this day and age.
2.) Bigots = the type of people who would beat up on a gay person just for being gay, it does not equal people who have a different opinion than you. Using it to describe people who have a different opinion than you kind of destroys any weight that it may have once carried.

3.)I say that they were indistinguishable because they were indistinguishable back during the sexual revolution, they were a part of the same movement (gay rights movement) because people were all about free love and they started to apply that to cases dealing with minors, they used research of the time to support that opinion. I provided sources, feel free to read through them, we may not always like history but it is something that can't be changed and it does us no good to deny it. It is what it is.

1.) more opinion
2.) good thing nobody ever said this nor do i believe this :shrug:
3.) nope they never were cant be the same movement when they had clearly different goals so the facts void your broken logic.

just like my example black panthers and the muslim brother hood, feminist, minorities etc all were PART of the "equal rights movement" but they were never be indistinguishable because there not facts or rational or logic to support such nonsense.

let me know when you have anything logical or factual that shows those moments were indistinguishable your link did nothing like that at all LMAO
 
Marriage equaling one man and one woman (aka traditional marriage) changing to encompass more than that = the tradition that they have always known is slipping away.

1.) thats only traditional marriage to YOU
2.) thats not changing to the people that want that type of marriage its still available, hence in reality nothing its not going away

again basic common sense
 
It doesn't matter if it's true or not. The fact is that, today, same sex marriage is an important issue for the left and uncomfortable truths like this need to be expunged from the record. By the time they're done it will probably be a crime to even suggest something so "outrageous". But, hey... it's progress, right?

As long as history tells people what they want to hear than I guess it's okay? I personally think it's important not to forget the shadier side, that whole history repeats itself "mantra". We can't keep it from repeating itself if people refuse to acknowledge to begin with.

Then again, who's to say it'll make a difference either way...
 
Marriage equaling one man and one woman (aka traditional marriage) changing to encompass more than that = the tradition that they have always known is slipping away.

A man can still marry a woman and vice versa. So what tradition is slipping away?
 
1.) thats only traditional marriage to YOU
2.) thats not changing to the people that want that type of marriage its still available, hence in reality nothing its not going away

again basic common sense

It's traditional marriage in the United States since it's what has traditionally been practiced by the majority of the people since the beginning of our nation.

Marriage being all encompassing is a change in its form although not necessarily it's functionality but that's a whole other ball game.
 
A man can still marry a woman and vice versa. So what tradition is slipping away?

Traditional marriage. As in marriage being solely between a man and a woman.
 
1.)It's traditional marriage in the United States since it's what has traditionally been practiced by the majority of the people since the beginning of our nation.

Marriage being all encompassing is a change in its form although not necessarily it's functionality but that's a whole other ball game.

1.) again simply your opinion :shrug:
2.) and yet nothing is changing for those that dont want the other type of marriage HENCE in REALITY its not going anywhere, sorry this facts are hard to understand but its just the reality of things.


10 years ago a man and woman could get married get married, today a man and woman could get married, no change for those people, they have NOTHING to fear or worry about and they are not affected
 
A man can still marry a woman and vice versa. So what tradition is slipping away?

exactly seems facts like these are hard to understand for some
 
1.) more opinion
2.) good thing nobody ever said this nor do i believe this :shrug:
3.) nope they never were cant be the same movement when they had clearly different goals so the facts void your broken logic.

just like my example black panthers and the muslim brother hood, feminist, minorities etc all were PART of the "equal rights movement" but they were never be indistinguishable because there not facts or rational or logic to support such nonsense.

let me know when you have anything logical or factual that shows those moments were indistinguishable your link did nothing like that at all LMAO

That's what forums are for...posting your opinions are they not?

They had some of the same goals and some different ones, gaining rights for same sex couples... I posted links supporting this, it's history, it's a part of the sexual revolution, it was listed on a glbt history website. There's not much more to say on this, I've done the research since I was lucky enough to not be around during the 1970's, I get to read about it (no offense to those of you that were). Either way the information is there. Did you look at those sources I posted?
 
Really, people are pulling out the NAMBLA garbage?

How about we talk about the civil rights for blacks movement and the communists?

Same amount of relevance in most discussions.
 
What traditional gay marriages? They have been on for a long time.

We're talking about the US and traditional marriage in the US. Gay marriage is new here, hence the resistance to change.
 
We're talking about the US and traditional marriage in the US. Gay marriage is new here, hence the resistance to change.

Well the tradition of codified discrimination against gays is coming to an end. And heterosexual couples can still have their traditional man woman 2.3 kids, one dog, white picket fence house marriage.
 
We're talking about the US and traditional marriage in the US. Gay marriage is new here, hence the resistance to change.

And racists felt uncomfortable about anti-miscegenation laws coming to an end. Why should anyone care?
 
Well the tradition of codified discrimination against gays is coming to an end. And heterosexual couples can still have their traditional man woman 2.3 kids, one dog, white picket fence house marriage.

They should have had marriage a long time ago.
 
I have to admit that things like this sadden me. Its not that I object to "progress", its just that there is no need for something like this.

The "old" terms could still have been accomodated, this sort of thing is just inflamatory really.

Besides (and apologies if someone else has already pointed this out), there's still the problem of who gets to be "A" and who gets to be "B."
 
And racists felt uncomfortable about anti-miscegenation laws coming to an end. Why should anyone care?

We're not talking about racists, and no one is saying anyone else should care. I was just pointing out one reason why this might be upsetting to some people even though to others its just a simple title change on a legal document.
 
I'm still wondering why they can't be bride and bride for two females or groom and groom for two males. What's the problem?
 
We're not talking about racists, and no one is saying anyone else should care. I was just pointing out one reason why this might be upsetting to some people even though to others its just a simple title change on a legal document.

No, we're talking about bigots.

The point was that changes like this are always upsetting to the prejudiced.
 
No, we're talking about bigots.

The point was that changes like this are always upsetting to the prejudiced.

People who don't want 'bride and groom' to change to 'person A' and 'person B' are bigots?
What about the lgbt who don't want to see it change? Are they bigots too?
 
I'm still wondering why they can't be bride and bride for two females or groom and groom for two males. What's the problem?

I don't know :thinking. This whole 'issue' is like the 'freedom fries' thing in my opinion. Why waste the time and effort?
 
Back
Top Bottom