• 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

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.

Contract is contract. You want to infringe upon one's right to contract, then you're going to have to have damned good and compelling reason as to why government force should be used against the free exercise of rights.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

Contract is contract. You want to infringe upon one's right to contract, then you're going to have to have damned good and compelling reason as to why government force should be used against the free exercise of rights.

Government force?

Amazing how far the argument has been taken.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

Government force?

Amazing how far the argument has been taken.

Yes, it takes the force of government to prevent the exercise of contract. In the natural state, that force doesn't exist. Instead it is exerted by government through the Marriage License.

Did that really have to be explained? It's like people have given up on thinking.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

Yes, it takes the force of government to prevent the exercise of contract. In the natural state, that force doesn't exist. Instead it is exerted by government through the Marriage License.

Did that really have to be explained? It's like people have given up on thinking.

LOL. Yea, that's it. Thank goodness there is your there to even up the imbalance.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

LOL. Yea, that's it. Thank goodness there is your there to even up the imbalance.

My god, that is one horrific sentence.

I try my best to educate people on the proper roles and necessary constraints of government. But some of y'all just love to run to it when you don't get your way.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

My god, that is one horrific sentence.

I try my best to educate people on the proper roles and necessary constraints of government. But some of y'all just love to run to it when you don't get your way.

Is that right?

Well, dang, I guess I should just plain shudder in the shadow of your alphabetic presence.

The thing is, I'm in support of the equality same sex couples are seeking, just not the way they are going about it.

I suppose you were too caught up in your willful magnificence to catch that.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

Is that right?

Well, dang, I guess I should just plain shudder in the shadow of your alphabetic presence.

The thing is, I'm in support of the equality same sex couples are seeking, just not the way they are going about it.

I suppose you were too caught up in your willful magnificence to catch that.

No I caught your "separate but equal" argument. Problem is, we already did that once....didn't really pan out. I see no reason to repeat past stupidities.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

As Sotomayer put it

Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits? Or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other decision-making that the government could make -- denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?

The answer is obviously no, so why bar them from marriage?
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

No I caught your "separate but equal" argument. Problem is, we already did that once....didn't really pan out. I see no reason to repeat past stupidities.

Well, I suppose the concept of equivalence will be something to avoid with you.

Again, it's quite interesting to see how far afield proponants of SSM are taking the issue. I guess I shouldn't be surprised when racism is pulled from the quiver.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

Well, I suppose the concept of equivalence will be something to avoid with you.

Again, it's quite interesting to see how far afield proponants of SSM are taking the issue. I guess I shouldn't be surprised when racism is pulled from the quiver.

Indeed not, particularly when you are using the marriage license for its intended purpose....discrimination against "yucky" marriage (it was initially inter-racial, that's why the Marriage License came into existence in the first place. Big government loving busybodies who couldn't keep to their own beeswax). At some point, I hope that as a society and people we can evolve.
 
Re: TIME Magazine Features Two Covers, Two Couples, Declares ‘Gay Marriage Already Wo

Not going to go into the usual SSM argument (as there are already many threads on the subject), so I will just say I think it is premature for a magazine to declare something like this. As much as I like saying the same thing, call me old fashion, but I like my journalism to be somewhat real. This issue still has a long way to go and we won't find out for months what the verdict is on this so for TIME to do this is definitely premature and they need to be knocking on wood at this point.
 
Back
Top Bottom