Obama Announces Full Support for Gay ...

Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

There are 26169 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

#25941 Jan 19, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
And gay marriage is already legal in parts of the country now. After Rhode Island (coming soon) that will be all of New England.
Yes, now not mid 19th century NYC. The idea of a same sex marriage, was.... are ya ready...Inconceivable.... get it? Actually it still is for many.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#25942 Jan 19, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Right here you admit you "don't care" about equal rights.
So climb down off your high horse and tell us why.
I support equal rights. You do not. You're not very good at this are you?
Seriously, get a life.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#25943 Jan 19, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
That's funny. I saw it and thought, "What a bunch of crap that doesn't even mean anything. This guy thinks he's writing for Hallmark..."
p.s. I'm Italian also, but I don't want to be associated with that guy.
Like I'd want to hang out with your hypocrite ass!

Too funny!

You're a dummy too. If marriage means everything, it means nothing. There must be a limit somewhere. Where do you suggest we put that limit will be fair and equal?

Please try and keep your emotions out of it and tell me. And I'll tell you what I think. Like gentlemen. Or you can continue to be a jackass! Please do! I like that better!

What a jackass!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#25944 Jan 19, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously, get a life.
Ad hominem already jerky?

Too Funny!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#25945 Jan 19, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously, get a life.
C'mon he's a paisan. He does have a valid question. Here it is.

If marriage means everything, it means nothing. There must be a limit somewhere. Where do you suggest we put that limit will be fair and equal?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#25946 Jan 19, 2013
The illegality of bigamy has more than merely a religious foundation.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The objection to it was Christian based
Laws against bigamy predate Christianity.

***

Our Constitution requires that our laws have a *secular* purpose, not merely a religious one. So it's irrelevant as to whether Christianity supports or opposes any particular law.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Does the Constitution state this?
The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution requires this.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#25947 Jan 19, 2013
I support ending marriage discrimination on the basis of gender.
So where is your evidence for "hypocrisy"?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Is Josh Weeds, the self described Mormon gay man, marriage to his wife, legally valid in all fifty states?
Assuming you mean Josh *Weed*, yes, his marriage is legally recognized in all 50 states.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Did he exercise his constitutional right to marry, by marrying a woman?
He exercised his constitutional right to marry by marrying another person.

In any event, Weed does not encourage such marriages for others.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#25948 Jan 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Prove my feeling by contributing to the divorce culture? E' pazzo?
Weren't you claiming that you felt that marriage had become meaningless? If you truly feel that, why not divorce and demonstrate that you feel that way?
Pietro Armando wrote:
it won't help it either to redefine marriage.
It will help it for those same-sex couples (and their families and friends) who want to have their marriages legally recognized.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Becaue they're older than me, that's why they should get legal recognition for their relationship?
They should get legal recognition for their *marriage* because it is wrong for our laws to discriminate on the basis of gender.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It tells me that Orwellian new speak definition of marriage denies the union of husband and wife is unique
Orwell would no doubt be rolling over in his grave to think that his novel about the destruction of freedom was being used to deny equality to a group of people.

What is unique is when two *people* find each other and want to share their lives with each other, with legal recognition from society through the actions of the government. I'm sorry to have to break the news to you, Pietro, but your relationship with your wife is not a smidgen more "unique" than my relationship with my husband.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If not for the union of a man and a woman, you and your spouse would not exist. Both of you are a product of the coital sexual union of a man and a woman.
Whether that man and woman were married or not. Agreed?

Now that we both understand sexual reproduction, we can turn to the actual issue before us, which is *marriage*. And *marriage* doesn't require that the participants sexually reproduce.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So I honor her by advocating she is not necessary?
Are you saying that if your wife had never married you (or anyone else), then no marriage on Earth would be valid? She is necessary for all marriages to exist?

Oh, wait, you mean that she is necessary to *your individual* marriage.

Guess what? My husband is necessary to *my individual* marriage.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#25949 Jan 19, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Ya had some creditbility there until the "father of his children" line. Did I miss something in biology class?
Yeah, you missed the fact that humans can adopt and parent children that they did not personally biologically produce. That's part of biology, too.
Pietro Armando wrote:
So if the other man is the "father", does that mean the first man is the "mother" of children?
No, it means that the children have two fathers.

Some children have two mothers.

And you are being
Pietro Armando wrote:
We both know not all in the gay community support legal ssm.
Just as not all women supported giving women the vote. So what?
Pietro Armando wrote:
As to the "50%" support, that depends on how the question is asked, and among who its asked.
Really? Take a look at the numbers since March of last year:
http://freemarry.3cdn.net/5ae85613318ade1b2e_...
Pietro Armando wrote:
Women could not vote, half the population could not vote, thus that was changed.
If a group constituted only 10% of the population, would it be ok to deny them the vote? How about if they were only 5%? Or 3%? Do percentages determine human rights? Is it ok to discriminate against a group because of its size?
Pietro Armando wrote:
The right to vote doesn't require any other person to be involved.
So?
Pietro Armando wrote:
You forget, YOU ALREADY POSSES THE RIGHT TO MARRY in all fifty states
You forget, the issue here is that the right to marry does not mean "the right to marry someone of the opposite sex".

Otherwise, we can go back to the Lovings in 1967 and remind them that they could marry someone of the same race (where race is defined as either "white" or "non-white"), and therefore, Pietro doesn't think that they have anything to whine about.

But I don't think that they would have bought that argument, and the USSC certainly did not.
Pietro Armando wrote:
I beleive you said something to the effect a legal contract doesn't require a specific gender. Obviously some do.
I said that, to be a legal contract, it doesn't *have* to. When it *does*, it's because the service being contracted for requires a specific gender (as someone else has already pointed out).
Pietro Armando wrote:
you seem to have trouble with humor.
I have trouble with your usual childish resorting to humor when you're losing the adult-level argument.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The median age at which most people marry is late twenties, so it stands to reason most married men will have to deal with PMS for some time.
And some married men will not. Are they married men or not?
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#25951 Jan 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Bravo paisan. Another gem. I saw that and thought, "WOW"! Excellent point.
You have got to be kidding me....
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#25952 Jan 20, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text> You have got to be kidding me....
I don't think he's kidding you. When marriage means everything, it will mean nothing.

Let me explain since you are a real dummy. If the requirements for marriage become so general they apply to everyone, everyone will be married.

Or to put it another way, you're stupid.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#25953 Jan 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
When marriage means everything, it will mean nothing.
Fortunately, nobody here is advocating that marriage "mean everything".

So we have nothing to worry about.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#25954 Jan 20, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Fortunately, nobody here is advocating that marriage "mean everything".
So we have nothing to worry about.
Right. You are against equal rights for some people. We know that.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#25955 Jan 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think he's kidding you. When marriage means everything, it will mean nothing.
Let me explain since you are a real dummy. If the requirements for marriage become so general they apply to everyone, everyone will be married.
Or to put it another way, you're stupid.
...yawn...

You make up some ridiculous answer and then have the nerve to call me stupid? Where do you get these stupid ideas of yours about cause/effect. "Marriage will mean nothing???" LMFAO@you.... you're a flaming idiot.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#25956 Jan 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
You are against equal rights for some people.
On the contrary, I'm in favor of equal rights for everyone, regardless of their gender. In order for that to happen, a man should have the same right to marry someone that a woman could marry, and vice versa.

And that means that I'm in favor of equal rights for everyone.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#25957 Jan 20, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
...yawn...
You make up some ridiculous answer and then have the nerve to call me stupid? Where do you get these stupid ideas of yours about cause/effect. "Marriage will mean nothing???" LMFAO@you.... you're a flaming idiot.
Still don't get it eh? It's a simple concept really. If everyone is married, marriage won't mean anything. It will be silly to ask are you married when the answer is always yes. Starting to get it?

I think you understand it but are playing dumb because you have no intelligent response. I'm just waiting for your dopey ad hominem! Please try and make it funny!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#25958 Jan 20, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
On the contrary, I'm in favor of equal rights for everyone, regardless of their gender. In order for that to happen, a man should have the same right to marry someone that a woman could marry, and vice versa.
And that means that I'm in favor of equal rights for everyone.
Everyone? Polygamists? Incest marriage?

How about a woman who wants to marry herself?(There is at least one case of this.)
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#25959 Jan 20, 2013
If the number always has to be two, if it can't be one or three, why is that not denying rights?

Why is gender now irrelevant but number is still relevant?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#25960 Jan 20, 2013
Jan 17, 2013
French Homosexuals Join Demonstration Against Gay Marriage
By Wendy Wright
NEW YORK, January 18 (C-FAM) Perhaps as many as a million people marched in Paris last Sunday and at French embassies around the world against proposed legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage in France.  One of the surprises in the French campaign for traditional marriage is that homosexuals have joined pro-family leaders and activists in the effort.
“The rights of children trump the right to children,” was the catchphrase of protesters like Jean Marc, a French mayor who is also homosexual.

Even though France is known for its laissez faire attitude toward sex, pro-family leaders were quick to organize huge numbers. When President Hollande announced his intentions to legalize homosexual marriage last November, a demonstration against the proposal gathered 100,000 protesters. And then what started as a debate about homosexual rights changed to one about a child’s right to a mother and a father, and the numbers in opposition exploded and has come to include unlikely allies. 

Xavier Bongibault, an atheist homosexual, is a prominent spokesman against the bill.“In France, marriage is not designed to protect the love between two people. French marriage is specifically designed to provide children with families,” he said in an interview.“[T]he most serious study done so far ... demonstrates quite clearly that a child has trouble being raised by gay parents.”

Jean Marc, who has lived with a man for 20 years, insists,“The LGBT movement that speaks out in the media ... They don’t speak for me. As a society we should not be encouraging this. It’s not biologically natural.”

Outraged by the bill, 66-year old Jean-Dominique Bunel, a specialist in humanitarian law who has done relief work in war-torn areas, told Le Figaro he “was raised by two women” and that he “suffered from the lack of a father, a daily presence, a character and a properly masculine example, some counterweight to the relationship of my mother to her lover. I was aware of it at a very early age. I lived that absence of a father, experienced it, as an amputation."

"As soon as I learned that the government was going to officialize marriage between two people of the same sex, I was thrown into disarray,” he explained. It would be “institutionalizing a situation that had scarred me considerably. In that there is an injustice that I can in no way allow." If the women who raised him had been married,“I would have jumped into the fray and would have brought a complaint before the French state and before the European Court of Human Rights, for the violation of my right to a mom and a dad."

A pro-family coalition that includes homosexuals is certainly different than in the United States and likely most places around the world. It is unclear why at least some French homosexuals would not only favor man-woman marriage only, but would campaign against homosexual marriage. It could be that France has allowed for civil unions, for all couples, for more than a decade. Whatever the reason, this potent coalition may stop homosexual marriage in France.

France’s National Assembly will take up the bill on January 29.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#25961 Jan 20, 2013
Those crazy French! Are gay people who protest redefining marriage for the same reason that straight folks do, bigots?

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 Rowan County clerk closes office ahead of gay r... 6 min Wondering 19
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 7 min Respect7l 25,634
News Prosecutors: Charges against Bean likely to be ... 9 min Wondering 2
News Kentucky clerk defies order, refuses to issue s... 14 min Wondering 299
News Ian Mckellen Wants To Take Gay Rights Fight Global 19 min Wondering 2
News Court: Baker who refused gay wedding cake can't... 34 min Prep-for-Dep 1,085
News Gay Iranian refugee gets new start in Bay Area 43 min SpaceBlues 3
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 1 hr Rainbow Pride 2,971
News Kentucky clerk seeks Supreme Court help to deny... 4 hr lides 27
More from around the web