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.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24830 Dec 31, 2012
Wakanatabi wrote:
<quoted text>
If it fits but keep in mind Einstein same sexed marriages and polygamy are inherently different and therefore would need separate considerations based on merit.
"Same sexed".

What a dope!

YUK!YUK!YUK!

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24831 Dec 31, 2012
Wakanatabi wrote:
<quoted text>
Why?
Because we don't see Farmer Brown marrying his favorite milking cow as a legitimate marriage?
LOL!!!
Give it a rest sister.
Still have that same ranch house?
No. Because you don't see a loving consensual marriage of three women to be a legitimate marriage.

P.S. Farmer Brown can't marry his cow dummy, cows cannot enter into contracts! What a dope!

Too funny!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#24832 Dec 31, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
You do realize, do you not, that "natural right", and "inalienable right" are the exact same thing and they are synonyms for each other?
There are those who do use the two as interchangeable, I do not. While we have the natural right to personal security, the right to keep and bear arms is not an absolute one. There are arms that we do not want in the public's hands and there are members of the public who we do not want armed. The question is where do we draw the lines that limit the right in the least offensive ways?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24833 Dec 31, 2012
In the United States, the only structure of opposite-sex marriage that is given legal recognition is monogamy. Therefore, if we are comparing the legal recognition of same-sex marriage with the legal recognition of opposite-sex marriage, then we are discussing it within the context of monogamy.

Therefore, polygamy fails to be relevant.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Is monogamy a "legal structure"?
The legal recognition of marriage is a legal structure. In the United States, that legal recognition is given only in cases where the marriage is exclusive (monogamy).
Pietro Armando wrote:
The issue before the country is what is marriage.
No, the issue before the country is the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. And a majority of Americans already support that.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24834 Dec 31, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
Polygamy is not like allowing someone to vote more than once.
Both involve doing someone more than once where it is legal to do it only once but illegal to do it more than once at the same time. They are alike in that way.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24835 Dec 31, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
Polygamy is marriage, the subject of this thread.
No, the subject of this thread is the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. The idea of polygamy occurs nowhere in the Obama interview.

How are you coming with creating your own thread to discuss your pet topic? Oh, right, you're just an Internet troll so you're not here to seriously discuss anything. You're just here to act like a child.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24836 Dec 31, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
I'll post whatever I want when I want.
Apparently not, since you were complaining about some of your posts being deleted.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24837 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently not, since you were complaining about some of your posts being deleted.
Yeah the ones that proved you a liar. Funny that.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24838 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the subject of this thread is the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. The idea of polygamy occurs nowhere in the Obama interview.
How are you coming with creating your own thread to discuss your pet topic? Oh, right, you're just an Internet troll so you're not here to seriously discuss anything. You're just here to act like a child.
Listen up Fruitloops! I'll post what I want where I want. Stop whining. It's annoying and pathetic. Got it? Good.

The only reason you whine that poly is off topic is because you're trying to avoid revealing your hypocrisy.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24839 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Both involve doing someone more than once where it is legal to do it only once but illegal to do it more than once at the same time. They are alike in that way.
Too Funny!

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24840 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
In the United States, the only structure of opposite-sex marriage that is given legal recognition is monogamy. Therefore, if we are comparing the legal recognition of same-sex marriage with the legal recognition of opposite-sex marriage, then we are discussing it within the context of monogamy.
Therefore, polygamy fails to be relevant.
<quoted text>
The legal recognition of marriage is a legal structure. In the United States, that legal recognition is given only in cases where the marriage is exclusive (monogamy).
<quoted text>
No, the issue before the country is the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. And a majority of Americans already support that.
Quit whining, admit you are bigoted against poly and move on.

Your incessant whining is annoying. Come out with it Squeaky! You hate poly people. Give us a nice long bigoted rant, you'll feel better!

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#24841 Dec 31, 2012
Wakanatabi wrote:
<quoted text>
If it fits but keep in mind Einstein same sexed marriages and polygamy are inherently different and therefore would need separate considerations based on merit.
Really?
Cool.
I never said otherwise - Einstein.
<smile>

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#24842 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
What does that have to do with "equality"? Equality between whom and whom?
Those citizens involved in any "marriage" which is different than other "marriages".
If marriage can be redefined as you have framed it to be redefined to allow same sex marriage, then it can certainly be redefined for poligamy, by those who wish to have more than one mate in a legal contract.

Make your case that a marriage can ONLY be two persons regardless of gender, and explain why it can NOT be redefined for more than two persons in the contract.

I have ALREADY CAPITULATED on SEVERAL occasions that poly and ssm have different dynamics in the relationships themselves, but you have yet to make a valid case that would exclude multiple partners in a legal redefinition of "marriage".

You gays here keep insisting that your marriages are not the "same" or "equal" unless they get recognized so that the benefits of the marriage can be obtained by yourselves. I agree.
WHY do you not offer to extend that same benefit to poly marriage?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#24843 Dec 31, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
I know you don't care about anyone else...that's what makes your whole 'equality' argument a farce....
Wakanatabi wrote:
<quoted text>
Why?
Because we don't see Farmer Brown marrying his favorite milking cow as a legitimate marriage?
LOL!!!
Give it a rest sister.
Still have that same ranch house?
DEFLECTION !!!

Interesting.
NO ONE has said anything about marrying other mammals of a different species.

How about actually addressing the point?
Pietro Armando

Boston, MA

#24844 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
In the United States, the only structure of opposite-sex marriage that is given legal recognition is monogamy. Therefore, if we are comparing the legal recognition of same-sex marriage with the legal recognition of opposite-sex marriage, then we are discussing it within the context of monogamy.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
MONOGAMY. A marriage contracted between one man and one woman, in exclusion of all the rest of mankind; it is used in opposition to bigamy and polygamy.(q.v.) Wolff, Dr. de la Nat. Sec. 857. The state of having only one husband or one wife at one time.

Nothing in that definition that reads "husband and husband", or "wife and wife". There still has to be a general consensus that same sex personal intimate relationships should be legally defined as "marriage", something not all states/courts/citizens agree on. If we are discussing marriage, which we are, and debating whether or not it should be redefined in terms of gender composition, the inclusion of polygamy, a parralell marital structure which retains the opposite sex composition of the marital relationship, into the debate, is logical. How can one ignore such an obvious connection.
The legal recognition of marriage is a legal structure. In the United States, that legal recognition is given only in cases where the marriage is exclusive (monogamy).
So far.....stay tuned.
No, the issue before the country is the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. And a majority of Americans already support that.
Thirty plus state constitutions say otherwise.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#24845 Dec 31, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Is monogamy a "legal structure"? The issue before the country is what is marriage. You are either unwilling or unable to acknowledge that not all states/courts/citizens view SS intimate relationships as marriage. As with SSM in various states, OSPM is practiced without legal recognition. Any change in legal definition of .marriage as a conjugal union of husband and wife, opens the discussion to include both SSM, and OSPM. Why should non conjugal, or non opposite sex binary marriage (SSM) trump, plural opposite sex conjugal marriage?
You and I know why.
It is the same reason that opposite sex couples of TWO persons shun poligamy. The gays do not want to go there or they will face a problem from their mate at home, just like a male man would from his female woman mate, if she knew that he was discussing poligamy for any reason.

I am still wondering though, why NONE of them want to answer my repeatedly asked question about why the Native tribes highly valued their gay members.
What the hell is so damn scary to the gays here about finding out why the natives did value the gay members within their tribes?
Pietro Armando

Boston, MA

#24846 Dec 31, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Those citizens involved in any "marriage" which is different than other "marriages".
If marriage can be redefined as you have framed it to be redefined to allow same sex marriage, then it can certainly be redefined for poligamy, by those who wish to have more than one mate in a legal contract.
Make your case that a marriage can ONLY be two persons regardless of gender, and explain why it can NOT be redefined for more than two persons in the contract.
I have ALREADY CAPITULATED on SEVERAL occasions that poly and ssm have different dynamics in the relationships themselves, but you have yet to make a valid case that would exclude multiple partners in a legal redefinition of "marriage".
You gays here keep insisting that your marriages are not the "same" or "equal" unless they get recognized so that the benefits of the marriage can be obtained by yourselves. I agree.
WHY do you not offer to extend that same benefit to poly marriage?
Why do SSMers seem to think number "2", trumps the inclusion of both genders in the marital relationship?

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#24847 Dec 31, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>There are those who do use the two as interchangeable, I do not. While we have the natural right to personal security, the right to keep and bear arms is not an absolute one. There are arms that we do not want in the public's hands and there are members of the public who we do not want armed. The question is where do we draw the lines that limit the right in the least offensive ways?
It may interest you to know Rick, that the law says they are interchangable sir, so your position is uh, moot.

"While we have the natural right to personal security,"

WHAT? No Rick, we do not have such a "right" sir.
We have a right to defend our persons, family, and property.
"Security" is a relative term sir, and it is determined by the individual as to what "security" means to them. When >you< FEEL secure, may well be that I do not feel the same way in the same situation.

Yes Rick, the right to keep and bear arms, is a natural right, an inalienable right.
Since the right to self defend is an instinctual response, it is a natural right and an inalienable right. Since there is NO natural law in nature which states that the grizzly can ONLY defend himself with his hind claws and not employ his front claws and teeth, then it is by extension of the inalienable right to self defend, it stands to reason that one can do so as they see fit. It IS their life they are defending sir. One can employ their ability and mental prowess of the human being to use their "teeth" as well as their hands and feet. That "teeth" of the commoner, in today's world sir, is the firearm.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#24848 Dec 31, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do SSMers seem to think number "2", trumps the inclusion of both genders in the marital relationship?
Because their partners would give them hell if they thought their partner was thinking about someone else besides them.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#24849 Dec 31, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do SSMers seem to think number "2", trumps the inclusion of both genders in the marital relationship?
yawn

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 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 4 min Jonah1 18,526
News Moore goes before ethics panel on gay marriage ... 5 min Justin 5
News Eastern Kentucky holds first Pride Festival 8 min Justin 103
News The Escape Every Gay San Franciscan Loves 43 min Xstain Mullah Fra... 1
News Priests and nuns hold bizarre ceremony to 'puri... 46 min Hogan 50
News Lawyers who challenged Kansas gay marriage ban ... 53 min Xstain Mullah Fra... 5
News The Latest: California bars travel to protest a... 55 min Xstain Mullah Fra... 1
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Andy 40,551
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 5 hr Frankie Rizzo 68,993
More from around the web