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

#24850 Dec 31, 2012
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
yawn
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.

Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24851 Dec 31, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
Yeah the ones that proved you a liar. Funny that.
No, what's funny is that the only posts you've referred to are ones where I *didn't* make the claim that you accused me of.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24852 Dec 31, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
I'll post what I want where I want.
As I said, apparently not, since you were complaining about some of your posts being deleted.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24853 Dec 31, 2012
What does that have to do with "equality"? Equality between whom and whom?
Aquarius-WY wrote:
Those citizens involved in any "marriage" which is different than other "marriages".
You mean, like a marriage between a person and a non-human animal? Or a marriage between a person and a piece of furniture?

Does it violate "marriage equality" if people aren't allowed to engage in such marriages? Is that your argument?
Aquarius-WY wrote:
Make your case that a marriage can ONLY be two persons regardless of gender
Even in those countries where polygamy is given legal recognition, each marriage is still between only two persons.

I guess you missed that.

Maybe you don't know what "polygamy" means.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24854 Dec 31, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?
Nobody said that heterosexuality wasn't morally or socially relevant to marriage.

The point you miss is that homosexuality is *also* morally and socially relevant to marriage.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#24855 Dec 31, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
"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.
Defend is also a relative term dear. What is necessary and not necessary to feel secure or to be able to defend one's self, etc is in the eye of the beholder, correct. But we live as members of society, which means the opinions of others have to be dealt with if not accommodated to.
Aquarius-WY wrote:
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.
Bears are not particularly social animals and the human species stopped living like them ages ago. So buying your analogy, not so much. If the firepower available today weren't beyond the imagination of our founding fathers, do you seriously imagine they would have viewed the right to keep and bear arms the same way? We have weapons capable of mass destruction readily available and are surprised when they get used that way. I exercise my second amendment rights, the state even allows me to carry a concealed weapon in public where allowed, but there are those among my fellow Americans who shouldn't be allowed much of an option when it comes to exercising that right.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24856 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said, apparently not, since you were complaining about some of your posts being deleted.
Great argument against polygamy Fruitloops! Now I see your point!

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24857 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
No, what's funny is that the only posts you've referred to are ones where I *didn't* make the claim that you accused me of.
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.

Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24858 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody said that heterosexuality wasn't morally or socially relevant to marriage.
The point you miss is that homosexuality is *also* morally and socially relevant to marriage.
The point you miss is that so is polygamy.

I fully support marriage equality. You do not. The end.
Pietro Armando

Boston, MA

#24859 Dec 31, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Because their partners would give them hell if they thought their partner was thinking about someone else besides them.
Think about it. Women share men all the time. A wife shares her husband with a mistress. Two, or more, will share a "baby's daddy". A couple w/kids divorces, husband remarries younger woman, and has kids with her. How is a consentual polygynist relationship that much different?
Pietro Armando

Boston, MA

#24860 Dec 31, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.
Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?
Grazie paisan
Pietro Armando

Boston, MA

#24861 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody said that heterosexuality wasn't morally or socially relevant to marriage.
The point you miss is that homosexuality is *also* morally and socially relevant to marriage.
If a gay man marries a lesbian, perhaps. Then it would be relevant.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24862 Dec 31, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm...
Since I didn't do that, your point is irrelevant.
Mike DiRucci wrote:
Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage...
Who here said that it isn't morally or socially relevant to marriage?

The point is, homosexuality is *also* morally and socially relevant to marriage.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24863 Dec 31, 2012
The point you miss is that homosexuality is *also* morally and socially relevant to marriage.
Mike DiRucci wrote:
The point you miss is that so is polygamy.
Not in Western culture.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24864 Dec 31, 2012
The point you miss is that homosexuality is *also* morally and socially relevant to marriage.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If a gay man marries a lesbian, perhaps. Then it would be relevant.
Nope. But it's relevant for a male couple or for a female couple.
Pietro Armando

Boston, MA

#24865 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
What does that have to do with "equality"? Equality between whom and whom?
<quoted text>
You mean, like a marriage between a person and a non-human animal? Or a marriage between a person and a piece of furniture?
Does it violate "marriage equality" if people aren't allowed to engage in such marriages? Is that your argument?
<quoted text>
Even in those countries where polygamy is given legal recognition, each marriage is still between only two persons.
I guess you missed that.
Maybe you don't know what "polygamy" means.
So that means Kody Brown's marriage to Mrs. Brown, is equal to his marriage to Mrs. Brown, and Mrs. Brown, and Mrs. Brown?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24866 Dec 31, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
I fully support marriage equality.
No, you don't. You just like dredging up polygamy as a red herring to argue against same-sex marriage. As the national popular opinion and the November votes show, your strategy isn't working.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24867 Dec 31, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
So that means Kody Brown's marriage to Mrs. Brown, is equal to his marriage to Mrs. Brown, and Mrs. Brown, and Mrs. Brown?
No, since "marriage equality" refers to equality in terms of legal recognition.

Kody's second and subsequent marriages don't have legal recognition.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#24868 Dec 31, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
C'mon Sparky....games are for the kids on the 4th of July.

LOL!!!

We were not discussing polygamy but since you brought it in go find me a group of 3 women who want to enter into a polygamous marriage together.

You know...fetch!

LOL!!

Ya big silly...you're dragging in things into this discussion on GAY marriage that don't even exist. And if three women want to marry in the fantasy land of Oz let 'em.

(It's always polite to ask first)

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#24869 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
What does that have to do with "equality"? Equality between whom and whom?
<quoted text>
You mean, like a marriage between a person and a non-human animal? Or a marriage between a person and a piece of furniture?
Does it violate "marriage equality" if people aren't allowed to engage in such marriages? Is that your argument?
<quoted text>
Even in those countries where polygamy is given legal recognition, each marriage is still between only two persons.
I guess you missed that.
Maybe you don't know what "polygamy" means.
Perhaps.
It is certain however, that you have mastered the strawman approach to rebuttal.
Shame on you.

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) 2 hr oops 26,089
News Gay pastor fights censure by United Methodist C... 2 hr 93James 158
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr cpeter1313 48,044
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 7 hr June VanDerMark 13,378
News Court allows Chicago church to fire gay worker ... 7 hr Xstain Mullah Aroma 21
News Lesbian Methodist bishop faces challenge to her... 7 hr Elizabeth1912 1
News Anti-transgender bus sparks protests as it visi... 10 hr Defeat Elizabeth ... 6
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 14 hr Bernice 69,521
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 14 hr Rose_NoHo 5,587
More from around the web