Obama Announces Full Support for Gay ...

Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

There are 26137 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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#25496 Jan 10, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you're entitled to believe that.....but I don't think siblings are really into marrying each other......and your polygamy issue has been addressed many times by many people......polygamist don't need to wait until the right to marry is there for Same-Sex Couples.......they can start their fight at any time and I wish them all the luck.....but it isn't my fight and If they should be successful, their marriage still will have no affect on mine!!!
Where is the line drawn? Is there a line? Can any consenting adult relationship be granted marital status?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#25498 Jan 10, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody's impressed with your "Italianness."
Maybe not on Jupiter they're not.....
Mikey DiRucci

Hayward, CA

#25499 Jan 10, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
It may or may not be used to further polygamy; I dont give a damn....Nothing that redneck and his doormats have to say interests me.
<quoted text>
Good! So STFU about it.

I mean if you have nothing but anger to add to the discussion. And you don't give a damn anyway and hate rednecks, why tell us. We don't care.

What a dope!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#25500 Jan 10, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Fallacy #1: Marriage does nothing to protect the biological family.
Nothing? Nothing at all? So why then is marriage so important? I have to deisagree here. Marriage is important to both the husband and wife and thier children.
Fallacy #2: Giving Same-sex families equal protection and due process has no impact on opposite-sex families.
Are you seeking "equal protection", or simply some form of legal recognition? The problem is, once the standard, "conjugal marriage of husband and wife" is no longer the standard, then there's not much legitimate reason to deny legal recognition to all sorts of adult consensual relationship situations. This whole notion that two women/men with children are somehow on the same as a man and woman with their own biolgical children is simply bizzare. Needless to say one of the women of the couple, is not the biological parent. Are two sisters who are raising children similar to a female SSC, worthy of "marital status"? All other factors being equal, why does the female "couple", trump the female "pair"? Sexual intimacy, or lack there of? The "next of kin argument? Okay so make the sisters, first cousins. Does that change things?
Two for Zero buddy.
No no no, it's "two for tea", or "two for the show", or......

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#25501 Jan 10, 2013
Mikey DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Good! So STFU about it.
I mean if you have nothing but anger to add to the discussion. And you don't give a damn anyway and hate rednecks, why tell us. We don't care.
What a dope!
What's he got against rednecks? There has to be pink plaid flannel wearing gay red neck somewhere, maybe even one who didn't make the first cut of the Village People tryouts.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#25502 Jan 10, 2013
sickofit wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL...SAYS SOMEONE WHO ANTS TO CONTROL PEOPLES PRIVATE LOVE LIVES AND BODIES...AND IS A GOP NAZI FASCIST KKK SUPPORTER....Die scum traitor!!!!
Now that's not very nice, certainly it violates the whole, "love and tolerance" rule in the rainbow manual. As to the "control peoples private love lives and bodies", rant, its done all the time, and no not just by republicans but democrats too. Private behavior doesn't always translate into public acceptance, or recogntion. Think about the abortion issue. A woman can have one legally, but can't sell herself, sexually, legally in the first place to get pregnant. Is that not a form of control over a person's private love life?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#25503 Jan 10, 2013
Mikey DiRucci wrote:
Cute. Everyone knows that one about the pink elephants though! It's a real old one.
Did you have a point or are you just starting off on a light and breezy note?
I just happened to see that you two were talking about seeing pink elephants and I couldn't resist. Would you rather I leave a link to AA groups in your area? Most of the random links I leave for people are to psychiatric help, maybe I shouldn't make jokes at your expense and see that you get the help you obviously need.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#25504 Jan 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe not on Jupiter they're not.....
Planet Earth isn't impressed either.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#25505 Jan 10, 2013
Mikey DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Good! So STFU about it.
I mean if you have nothing but anger to add to the discussion. And you don't give a damn anyway and hate rednecks, why tell us. We don't care.
What a dope!
Why are YOU on here?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#25506 Jan 10, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
You men, marriage will be pointless for you because you want to belong to a special club. If this is your point, then why are you advocating the two forms of "marriage" specifically denied by law?
<quoted text>
Actually I mean society as a whole, but thanks for asking. Perhaps you care to enlighten us, now that you've taken a break from watching "Sister Wives", as to how changing the legal meaning of marriage cannot possibly render the meaning pointless at some time in the future.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#25507 Jan 10, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
Planet Earth isn't impressed either.
Ohhhhh.....that's where you're wrong. Italian culture, food, wine, fashion, etc is loved the world round, and maybe someday even on your home planet.

Ciao
Vita e' bella

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#25508 Jan 10, 2013
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because that's discrimination.....
Its also discrimination to deny a man more than one wife, a woman more than one husband, first cousins to marry, siblings to marry, etc. All forms of discrimination.
.marriage is not about slot a going into slot b, the State DOESN'T care if the couple can have children, want children, will NEVER have children and that has been proven in many court cases already....
Actually its not about the state caring if a couple can have children, plans to have children, or want children. its about what happens when tab A goes into slot B, and outcomes child C. Think about it, if sex didn't result in conception, would marriage as we know it exist? Would it be a state concern? Its been said that marriage developed as a means of dealing with the end product, children, of sex between men and women. A same sex relationship by its composition is sterile, there's no issue that results from their intimacy, as there is with opposite sex couples, that mandates state interest.

Not all courts, nor states agree with your opinion regarding marriage and children, if they did, there'd be no need for futher debate.
......it is you that keeps wanting to define marriage on the narrowest terms, instead of it being inclusive, you want it to remain EXCLUSIVE
Narrowest terms?! What so narrow about one man and one woman? Both sexes are involved, both sexes contribute to the reproductive process, and its a concept that has stood, along with polygamy perhaps, the test of time, and is universally, practiced, cross culturally in time and place.
and you are already losing that battle.........allowing Gay and Lesbian couples to marry is NOT harming heterosexuals or their marriages in anyway.......my marriage has NO affect on your marriage.......
By that reasoning, polygamous marriages would not harm anyone else's marriage, nor would sibling marriages, first cousing marriages, etc. For someone who is arguing that defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman, is too exclusive, it would be consistant in your argument to include not just SSM, but a variety of alternative marriage forms. Inclusion just doesn't apply to SSCs.
.and to say it does just because of how you want to define it......a compelling enough to the State to deny the right to marry.!!!
Actually many people, including 31 U.S. states, want to define it that way. The argument is not who has the right to marry, but how we define marriage as a society. SSM adovcates want to deny that as individuals they have the right to marry, because it doesn't fit into the couples right to marry that they claim exists. Perhaps the states in legalizing SSM should require a "statement of orientation" be included in their marriage applications, and only allow a person to marry based on that statement. If a person declares a ss orientation, s/he can only marry someone of the same sex, an os statement limits one to an opposite sex marriage. Hmmmmmm.....I suppose that leaves out bisexuals, oh well, I guess someone has to be discriminated against on the basis of orientation.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#25509 Jan 10, 2013
Monogamy = polygamy? Nice try.

Every two-party divorce finalizes the relationship and all legal issues therein. That is not possible with polygamy unless all parties divorce and terminate all relationships. Nor do ex-spouses have a legal status involving their exes; once you divorce, you have no legal ties.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually there are, they're just not legally recognized.
http://lovetimesthree.com/
Americans actually practice a form of polygamy. Its called serial monogamy. For example a man can have several ex wives with kids, and a current legal wife with kids. All seem to have a legal status as it relates to him. The question is, why does society allow that arrangement, but not allow coexisting simultaneously legal marriages? Granted polygamy makes legal issues complicated, not impossible however, yet oddly serial monogamy is okay, but polygamy. Where's the "morally acceptable" line drawn, and why?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#25510 Jan 10, 2013
That's not what I said, you illiterate oaf. I turn the channel when those rednecks pop up.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU WATCH THE BROWN FAMILY on TV?????!!!!
Let me guess, "Queer Eye for the Polygamy Guy"
Anti sickofit the commie

Schenectady, NY

#25511 Jan 10, 2013
sickofit wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL...SAYS SOMEONE WHO ANTS TO CONTROL PEOPLES PRIVATE LOVE LIVES AND BODIES...AND IS A GOP NAZI FASCIST KKK SUPPORTER....Die scum traitor!!!!
LOL....SAYS SOMEONE WHO WANTS NO CONTROL PEOPLES PRIVATE LOVE LIVES AND BODIES .....AND IS A DEMORAT SOVIET COMMUNIST KGB SUPPORTER....Die scum traitor!!!"
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#25512 Jan 10, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Monogamy = polygamy? Nice try.
Every two-party divorce finalizes the relationship and all legal issues therein. That is not possible with polygamy unless all parties divorce and terminate all relationships. Nor do ex-spouses have a legal status involving their exes; once you divorce, you have no legal ties.
<quoted text>
The issues maybe finalized, but that doesn't necessarily mean there's not a link, legal or otherwise. An ex wife may be entitled to part of her ex husbands pension for example. He still might gave made arrangements for her in his will. She still has a connection through their children. He might even grant her health care proxy.

So why is it morally acceptable for a man to have multiple ex wives with children, but not simultaneous wives with children? Is it strictly a matter if legalities?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#25513 Jan 10, 2013
Because the "meaning" of marriage varies from couple to couple. Always has; always will. The state provides the legal framework in which we are protected from certain processes, and others are equally protected from us. That is the sole interest of the state--stabilization of legal and economic functions. They don't care why you marry unless the reason is in itself illegal.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I mean society as a whole, but thanks for asking. Perhaps you care to enlighten us, now that you've taken a break from watching "Sister Wives", as to how changing the legal meaning of marriage cannot possibly render the meaning pointless at some time in the future.
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#25514 Jan 10, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
That's not what I said, you illiterate oaf. I turn the channel when those rednecks pop up.
<quoted text>
Ohhhhhh.....my bad. Would you watch Kody if he were on "Queer Eye for the Polygamy Guy"?

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#25515 Jan 10, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ohhhhh.....that's where you're wrong. Italian culture, food, wine, fashion, etc is loved the world round, and maybe someday even on your home planet.
Ciao
Vita e' bella
Of course it is; I was talking about you personally.
Mikey DiRucci

Hayward, CA

#25517 Jan 10, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>I just happened to see that you two were talking about seeing pink elephants and I couldn't resist. Would you rather I leave a link to AA groups in your area? Most of the random links I leave for people are to psychiatric help, maybe I shouldn't make jokes at your expense and see that you get the help you obviously need.
That was a joke? Don't quit your day job!

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 'Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom' Deleted a Scen... 5 min Clayton 1
News US top court rules for baker in gay wedding cak... 16 min EdmondWA 799
News Pride and awareness: Annual event a chance to s... 25 min Stryder 2
News Supreme Court sides with Colorado baker on same... 1 hr Straight Shooter 328
weekend freak 1 hr Straight Shooter 2
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Straight Shooter 63,276
kag! 2 hr Straight Shooter 1
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 2 hr Straight Shooter 28,183
News As We Celebrate Pride, Trump Packs the Courts W... 3 hr BillfartedonHilly 22