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.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#24870 Dec 31, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
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....
<quoted text>
DEFLECTION !!!
Interesting.
NO ONE has said anything about marrying other mammals of a different species.
How about actually addressing the point?
She inferred other types of marriages. There have been men wanting to marry their dogs for crying out loud ya little whiner.

What a little sniveling bitch your momma raised...LOL!!!

Gays should be able to marry. It's no big deal except to maybe your sensitivities little man.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#24871 Dec 31, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
Cool.
I never said otherwise - Einstein.
<smile>
Post 24806;

"Let's not exclude on the basis of freedom and equality for all how many wives or husbands one can have."

--You sad little fool. I merely advised polygamy and gay marriages fall on their own merits in accordance to your post.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#24872 Dec 31, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps.
It is certain however, that you have mastered the strawman approach to rebuttal.
Shame on you.
Why not try to get to your point if you have one rather than play hide and seek while simultaneously dancing in here?

Gays should be able to marry nationwide. I myself was not able to find any viable harm in it and from every angle it looks like we're blocking our fellow Americans who happen to be homosexual a basic liberty and right.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24873 Dec 31, 2012
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.
Aquarius-WY wrote:
Perhaps.
It is certain however, that you have mastered the strawman approach to rebuttal.
Shame on you.
Funny that you couldn't manage to point out what the supposed "strawman" was in my posting.

Shame on you.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#24874 Dec 31, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>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.
<quoted text>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.
"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?"

You assume that they were not visionaries, and you are incorrect sir.
You also pretend to know their imaginations of the future concerning technology, and you have no way of knowing and no ground to defend on that point sir.

Do I imagine they would have a different view on the matter?
NO !

Why?
Because they are and werer correct concerning the nature of man himself, and THAT sir, is what they wrote about to help we the people protect ourselves from that evil in men's haerts - which is EXACTLT what they wrote about sir.

The nature of man - his primal instinct and behavior - is a constant sir.

The main point of writing the second amendment was to STOP the government from infringing upon something they had no right to alter or change.
The point? The MAIN point of private weapons ownership is to allow the people the means to defend themselves against any overly powerful government when that inevitable evil crept into the hearts of our elected leaders. That being said, the most realistic way to do defend that situation, is to be equipped with like weaponry.

There were MULTIPLE weapons available at the time of the founding, and the most advanced were in the hands of the army AND in the hands of the citizenry. LARGE cannons were in private ownership at the time.
Many privately owned merchant ships were more heavily equipped and armoured than much of the Continental Army's fleet sir.

Your point has no foundation of worth sir.

If you want to draw the line at nuclear weaponry, I agree.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24875 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Since I didn't do that, your point is irrelevant.
<quoted text>
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.
So is polygamy.

In the words of a famous thread jackass "I've already addressed that."

If heterosexuality is no longer relevant to marriage why is monogamy?

How do you justify that?

We won't wait for your boring non-answer which is "this is a thread about same sex marriage bla bla bla..."

Too funny!

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#24876 Dec 31, 2012
Wakanatabi wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not try to get to your point if you have one rather than play hide and seek while simultaneously dancing in here?
Gays should be able to marry nationwide. I myself was not able to find any viable harm in it and from every angle it looks like we're blocking our fellow Americans who happen to be homosexual a basic liberty and right.
I HAVE.
MANY times sir.
It is your fault that you just arrived. But then, you already responded to a couple posts in the first person when they were addressed to Saltpeter.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#24877 Dec 31, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
I HAVE.
MANY times sir.
It is your fault that you just arrived. But then, you already responded to a couple posts in the first person when they were addressed to Saltpeter.
Doubt it.

And just in case you missed it this is a public forum...with over twenty four THOUSAND posts genius.

Since you can't answer I'll take that as you're all outta ammo.

You lose.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24878 Dec 31, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
If heterosexuality is no longer relevant to marriage why is monogamy?
Nobody said that heterosexuality was no longer relevant to marriage.

We just pointed out that *homosexuality* is *also* relevant to marriage.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#24879 Dec 31, 2012
Wakanatabi wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not try to get to your point if you have one rather than play hide and seek while simultaneously dancing in here?
Gays should be able to marry nationwide. I myself was not able to find any viable harm in it and from every angle it looks like we're blocking our fellow Americans who happen to be homosexual a basic liberty and right.
"Gays should be able to marry nationwide."

Won't happen.
It's a state's rights issue.
The best you can hope for is to live in a state that does recognize it.

I have no personal problem with who your bunkmate is. That is your business. You insist on making it my business, when it does not concern me, but yet you insist that "marriage" be redefined to suit you.

I and a few others ask you why you do not like poly, and you dodge and deflect and avoid the direct question.
I find that funny sir.
I pick at it and will continue to poick at it until one or more of you admit why, you personally do not like it, but instead you all get all hot and bothered and deflect the direct personal question and slather your bullshit about legal this and legal definition that.,
The question was and has been directed at YOU (you meaning any gay here) personally - NOT the law.

I find it hilarious that you (meaning gays here) do not want to go there, as it would mean that your "marriages" are EXACTLY the same as any hetero marriage in that regard of monogamy.

You INSIST on being the "SAME", and "EQUAL", but yet INSIST on being "different" and "apart" and "separate" from all the heteros. THAT sir, cracks me up.

Hell, I do not care about poly marriages either, unless I happened along a couple gals that may like to give it a go.
I have already encountered several gays in my life that wished to give it a go with me sir. Not my type.
I'm not holding out for a poly thing either. Just chuggin' along the road to perdition, and having a few laughs to bide the time.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#24880 Dec 31, 2012
Wakanatabi wrote:
<quoted text>
Doubt it.
And just in case you missed it this is a public forum...with over twenty four THOUSAND posts genius.
Since you can't answer I'll take that as you're all outta ammo.
You lose.
Asked and answered.
MULTIPLE times.

You missed them?
Damnation !

Oh this is all about you winning I see.

Nice.

Gee, I thought it was an open forum DISCUSSION, not a pissing contest that will ultimately declare a winner and a loser sir.

Which way to the pisser?
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#24881 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
The point you miss is that homosexuality is *also* morally and socially relevant to marriage.
<quoted text>
Nope. But it's relevant for a male couple or for a female couple.
The point u miss is that its irrelevant. All that matters is that husband and wife are present. So notions of "homo" or "hetero" sexuality matter not.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#24882 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.
<quoted text>
Funny that you couldn't manage to point out what the supposed "strawman" was in my posting.
Shame on you.
Choosing not to do a thing should never be confused to mean that the one making the decision to avoid doing something, with an inability to do that same thing sir.

You failed before, and fail yet again to listen to what I have already posted here MANY times about my reasons for fcuking with you comedians sir.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#24883 Dec 31, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Defend is also a relative term dear.
...
Correct Rick.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHY - the right of the people to keep and bear arms must remain likewise sir. The weaponry of the citizens MUST remain DIRECTLY relative to the power of the government's weapons Rick.

See below for further explanation.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#24884 Dec 31, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>...
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?
...
Every person seeking to diminish Our Constitutional Rights, either does not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment or refuses to address it stating:“Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.” The answer to this question is straightforward: The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions. The Second Amendment is not about Bambi and burglars --

There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees Our Right to keep and bear. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure Our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court justice Joseph Story — who was, it bears noting, appointed to the Court by the guy who wrote the Constitution:

"The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

“Usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers”— not Bambi, not burglars.

Liberals are forever asking:“Why would anybody need a gun like that?” And the answer is: because we are not serfs. We are a free people living under a republic of our own construction. We may consent to be governed, but we will not be ruled.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/336529 ...#

“Just Call It Marriage Now”

Since: Sep 08

All rights For All!

#24885 Dec 31, 2012
This is for Everyone on here...
It is for those who agree with me and those who do not.

The year 2013 will hold for you:
Renewing of good health
A lost friendship regained
An increase in wealth
A best friend
A bad habit dropped
A good habit gained
And a miracle

So Mote It Be and Blessed Be!
Mrs Whitewater

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24886 Dec 31, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
"Gays should be able to marry nationwide."
Won't happen.
It's a state's rights issue.
Funny, but the USSC didn't see it that way in the case of Loving v. Virginia.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24887 Dec 31, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
The point u miss is that its irrelevant. All that matters is that husband and wife are present. So notions of "homo" or "hetero" sexuality matter not.
The point you miss is that marriage exists because humans form pair bonds, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Without sexuality, marriage would never have come into existence.

And all that matters to the legal recognition of marriage is that there are two people who are part of that pair bond, excepting those cases where it is in the state's interest not to recognize their marriage.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24888 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I support marriage equality. You do not. It makes me happy when people in love get married. I'm silly like that. I have been to three same sex marriages in NY recently. What fun! I love weddings especially homosexual ones! The best!

And marriage is good for society. ALL marriage, even ones that you are bigoted against. I hope I get to dance at some happy peoples poly wedding someday and I hope it gives you heartburn, hypocrite!

WOO HOOO!

P.S. Polygamy is marriage. It's not a fish!

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24889 Dec 31, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
Choosing not to do a thing should never be confused to mean that the one making the decision to avoid doing something, with an inability to do that same thing sir.
That you can't identify the so-called "straw man" in my previous posting speaks loudly to your inability to do so.

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 Washington court rules against florist in gay w... 8 min Amused 65
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 47 min Respect71 45,158
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 49 min guest 1,092
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr carter county res... 24,777
Looking for a girlfriend for a married bi-sexual (Aug '08) 7 hr Pleasures feminin... 55
News Singer Greg Gould: 'I was told not to be too gay' 8 hr Marco R s Secret ... 1
News Gay Pride just 'not black enough' 8 hr Marco R s Secret ... 1
More from around the web