Obama Announces Full Support for Gay ...

Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

There are 26163 comments on the politix.topix.com story from May 9, 2012, titled Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage. In it, politix.topix.com reports that:

It's a historic day for gay rights activists: Obama has just announced his support for gay marriage.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at politix.topix.com.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#23818 Dec 8, 2012
Virtually all places with legal polygamy allow only patriarchal polygamy--one husband, many wives. These countries do not have legal equality between spouses, as we do.

Slavery "has a deep historical foundation, and is still practiced in many societies around the globe"--which is why tradition is such a sucky basis for an argument.
Pierrot Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Welllllll......it's not "an entirely different form of marriage", but rather an excepted form of marriage, that has a deep historical foundation, and is still practiced in many societies around the globe, including, albeit on a small scale, in this country.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#23819 Dec 9, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
The legal recognition of same-sex marriage no more sets a precedent for polygamy than does the legal recognition of opposite-sex marriage or the legal recognition of interracial marriage.
No matter how you dice and slice it.
Yes it does, we both know it. "If sane sex marriage, why not polygamy?", is a question that has been asked, and will be continued to be asked in the ongoing SSM debate. Why would a reasonable person think otherwise?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#23820 Dec 9, 2012
The legal recognition of same-sex marriage no more sets a precedent for polygamy than does the legal recognition of opposite-sex marriage or the legal recognition of interracial marriage.
No matter how you dice and slice it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Yes it does, we both know it.
No it doesn't, we both know that it doesn't.
Pietro Armando wrote:
"If sane sex marriage, why not polygamy?", is a question that has been asked, and will be continued to be asked in the ongoing SSM debate.
A question that is no more logical than "If opposite-sex marriage, why not polygamy?".

"If women and blacks can vote, why not allow everyone to have as many votes as they want?"

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#23821 Dec 9, 2012
Some of these morons also say, if SSM, why not marry your goat?" Just because someone posits something doesn't mean it's a logical connection.

The legal bases for SSM and polygamy are entirely different. You can keep asking about it, but it's still irrelevant.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it does, we both know it. "If sane sex marriage, why not polygamy?", is a question that has been asked, and will be continued to be asked in the ongoing SSM debate. Why would a reasonable person think otherwise?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#23822 Dec 9, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Virtually all places with legal polygamy allow only patriarchal polygamy--one husband, many wives. These countries do not have legal equality between spouses, as we do.
Slavery "has a deep historical foundation, and is still practiced in many societies around the globe"--which is why tradition is such a sucky basis for an argument.
<quoted text>
The point is not "tradition", rather that societies have organized themselves around the male female union. All the "equality" between spouses doesn't change the differences between men and women.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#23823 Dec 9, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Some of these morons also say, if SSM, why not marry your goat?" Just because someone posits something doesn't mean it's a logical connection.
The legal bases for SSM and polygamy are entirely different. You can keep asking about it, but it's still irrelevant.
<quoted text>
I'm pointing out that marriage as practiced around the globe includes polygamy. If one group's concept of marriage, ssm, differs from that of the norm , conjugal husband wife union, and it is to receive legal consideration, it is logical that the other form of different than the norm marriage, consensual polygamy, will at least be part of the discussion.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#23824 Dec 9, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm pointing out that marriage as practiced around the globe includes polygamy. If one group's concept of marriage, ssm, differs from that of the norm , conjugal husband wife union, and it is to receive legal consideration, it is logical that the other form of different than the norm marriage, consensual polygamy, will at least be part of the discussion.
If polygamist's wanted to fight for the right to marry multiple people, they don't need to wait for Same-Sex Couples to get that right......they can start their fight all on their own, but first they must have polygamy decriminalized before they can fight for the right to marry multiple people!!!

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#23825 Dec 9, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
The point is not "tradition", rather that societies have organized themselves around the male female union.
That's still "tradition".

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#23826 Dec 9, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
I'm pointing out that marriage as practiced around the globe includes polygamy.
And which predates the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

So the legal recognition of same-sex marriage does not lead to the legal recognition of polygamy, since the legal recognition of polygamy is older.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If one group's concept of marriage, ssm, differs from that of the norm , conjugal husband wife union, and it is to receive legal consideration, it is logical that the other form of different than the norm marriage, consensual polygamy, will at least be part of the discussion.
Why?

If women argue in favor of the vote, and get it, does that mean that giving the vote to 5-year-olds must be part of the discussion?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#23827 Dec 9, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Some of these morons also say, if SSM, why not marry your goat?" Just because someone posits something doesn't mean it's a logical connection.
The legal bases for SSM and polygamy are entirely different. You can keep asking about it, but it's still irrelevant.
<quoted text>
Pietro is just a Jesuit Jackass promoting the Vatican agenda. It doesn't need to make sense. It is propaganda.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#23828 Dec 9, 2012
Most societies organized around survival, shared values, and/or central philosophies. Marital or sexual elationships happened one way or another.

Legal equality is very important in how marriage is administered. Ask a woman in a polygamous marriage in the middle east how much say she has in any aspect of her life, or what her options are if her husband rapes or beats her. In this country, spouses are equal regardless of gender--the "differences" may mean something to the participants but not to the law.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is not "tradition", rather that societies have organized themselves around the male female union. All the "equality" between spouses doesn't change the differences between men and women.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#23829 Dec 9, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Pietro is just a Jesuit Jackass promoting the Vatican agenda. It doesn't need to make sense. It is propaganda.
Did u make that up all by yourself? Oh u flatter me so.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#23830 Dec 9, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
That's still "tradition".
Is it tradition that human reproduction is sexual?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#23831 Dec 9, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
Is it tradition that human reproduction is sexual?
Nope. But that wasn't the issue. After all, every other species beyond humans manages to reproduce without the need for marriage. And even humans reproduce without the need for marriage.

So what, again, is your point?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#23833 Dec 9, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Did u make that up all by yourself? Oh u flatter me so.
Glad I could help you.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#23834 Dec 9, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm pointing out that marriage as practiced around the globe includes polygamy. If one group's concept of marriage, ssm, differs from that of the norm , conjugal husband wife union, and it is to receive legal consideration, it is logical that the other form of different than the norm marriage, consensual polygamy, will at least be part of the discussion.
Bigamy is illegal in most countries around the world. How do you explain that?

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#23835 Dec 9, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
If polygamist's wanted to fight for the right to marry multiple people, they don't need to wait for Same-Sex Couples to get that right......they can start their fight all on their own, but first they must have polygamy decriminalized before they can fight for the right to marry multiple people!!!
Exactly. In this context it is simply a red herring.
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#23836 Dec 9, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a crime.
NEXT
Perhaps in Utah. What other states ban a man from living with two or more consenting women, and referring to each of them as his wives? Or a woman from living with more than one consenting man and referring to each as her husband?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#23837 Dec 9, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps in Utah. What other states ban a man from living with two or more consenting women, and referring to each of them as his wives? Or a woman from living with more than one consenting man and referring to each as her husband?
Bigamy is against the law in the United States. Bigamy is legally marrying more than one person at a time. Your argument is invalid. We are discussing bigamy. Are red herrings your stock and trade? Did the Jesuits teach you that? Too bad for you, I am hip to that game. Nice try though.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#23838 Dec 10, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. But that wasn't the issue. After all, every other species beyond humans manages to reproduce without the need for marriage. And even humans reproduce without the need for marriage.
So what, again, is your point?
Yet virtual all human societies throughout human history have had some form marriage, some form of formaly recognizing the male female union. Why is that?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 40 min River Tam 56,124
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr cpeter1313 10,121
News 'Christian Militant' Hopes More Police Officers... 2 hr Rainbow Kid 9
News Free weddings for all same-sex couples: mayor's... 2 hr Rainbow Kid 11
News Cake fundraiser supports gay marriage as Suprem... 3 hr Rainbow Kid 3
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 3 hr neighbor 2,420
News Gay teen against same-sex marriage heckled at u... 4 hr Xstain Spot Remover 65
News Same-sex marriage protesters clash - exchange v... 6 hr Prisoner of my Mo... 4
News Judge rejects couple's argument for refusing ga... 7 hr EdmondWA 105
News Senate hopeful Roy Moore: gay sex is the 'same ... 13 hr EdmondWA 33
More from around the web