Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

May 9, 2012 Full story: politix.topix.com 26,169

It's a historic day for gay rights activists: Obama has just announced his support for gay marriage.

Full Story

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#25962 Jan 20, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
The illegality of bigamy has more than merely a religious foundation.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution requires this.
The same holds true for most every culture on earth. Out of 1170 societies recorded in Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas, polygyny (the practice of men having more than one wife) is prevalent in 850. Even our own culture, which has an astoundingly high divorce and remarriage rate, practices a form of serial polygamy.

The reasons for favoring gay marriage while excluding polygamy are completely arbitrary and based on personal preference. If you truly believe that gays have a legal right to marry then you have no grounds for barring polyamorous groups from doing the same.

What's that 72% or so?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#25963 Jan 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The same holds true for most every culture on earth. Out of 1170 societies recorded in Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas, polygyny (the practice of men having more than one wife) is prevalent in 850. Even our own culture, which has an astoundingly high divorce and remarriage rate, practices a form of serial polygamy.
The reasons for favoring gay marriage while excluding polygamy are completely arbitrary and based on personal preference. If you truly believe that gays have a legal right to marry then you have no grounds for barring polyamorous groups from doing the same.
What's that 72% or so?
73.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#25964 Jan 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Those crazy French! Are gay people who protest redefining marriage for the same reason that straight folks do, bigots?
No.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#25965 Jan 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Everyone? Polygamists? Incest marriage?
Polygamists should have the equal right as anyone else to have their first marriage given legal recognition by the state.

And since the purpose of marriage is to establish next-of-kinship between otherwise unrelated individuals, the state has no interest in giving legal recognition to incestuous marriage.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#25966 Jan 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
If the number always has to be two, if it can't be one or three, why is that not denying rights?
If the number of votes that you're allowed to give in an election always has to be one, if it can't be two or three, why is that not denying rights?

Funny that you can never seem to answer *that* question, yet you expect others to answer yours.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#25967 Jan 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The reasons for favoring gay marriage while excluding polygamy are completely arbitrary
They aren't arbitrary at all. It should be illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender.

The state has no interest in recognizing multiple simultaneous marriages, because it interferes with the function of marriage from the perspective of the state, which is to establish a unique next-of-kinship between two otherwise unrelated individuals.

Now, are you going to keep ignoring it when I point that out, and simply reiterate your baseless claim as if I never said what I said, or are you going to move on?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#25968 Jan 20, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamists should have the equal right as anyone else to have their first marriage given legal recognition by the state.
And since the purpose of marriage is to establish next-of-kinship between otherwise unrelated individuals, the state has no interest in giving legal recognition to incestuous marriage.
Likewise, you have the same right as anyone else to have your opposite sex marriage given legal recognition by the state.

Why does the state have an in interest in establishing next of kin in same sex marriage but not in polygamy?

Why can first cousins with the same last name marry but sisters with the same last name cannot? Why does the state have an interest in cousins marrying but not brothers?

Who is the bigot here? Me or you?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#25969 Jan 20, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
If the number of votes that you're allowed to give in an election always has to be one, if it can't be two or three, why is that not denying rights?
Funny that you can never seem to answer *that* question, yet you expect others to answer yours.
Because it's a stupid irrelevant question. And a red herring and a straw man hardly even worthy of this response!

WOOHOOOO!

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#25970 Jan 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Likewise, you have the same right as anyone else to have your opposite sex marriage given legal recognition by the state.
Limiting recognition only to opposite-sex marriages discriminates on the basis of sex.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Why does the state have an in interest in establishing next of kin in same sex marriage but not in polygamy?
The first marriage of a polygamist is legal. That marriage established *unique* next-of-kinship. Recognition of later marriages would interfere with that.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Why can first cousins with the same last name marry but sisters with the same last name cannot?
Having the same last name doesn't determine legal next-of-kinship.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Why does the state have an interest in cousins marrying but not brothers?
Next of kinship.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#25971 Jan 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Because it's a stupid irrelevant question.
Just like your question about polygamy!

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#25972 Jan 20, 2013
A lesbian couple is not the same as a sisterly relationship. Your constant denigration of gay relationships just means you have the emotional depth of wallpaper.

It took millennia to define gravity; just because it takes a while to understand something doen't mean it isn't a good thing.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
As would be the two sisters.
<quoted text>
It wouldn't be that difficult demonstrating, for all practical purposes, the sisters have in essence a spousal relationship with each other. They have pooled their finances, assist each other with child care, provide emotional support to each other, health care assistance, cohabitated for a long period of time, perhaps even own a house together, all similar to a female SSC. Other than they are sisters, the relationship, as practiced, is virtually the same as a female SSC. So why does one get the tax breaks and benefits but not the other? Don't like the fact they're sisters, okay half sisters, step sisters, female first cousins.
<quoted text>
Simply demonstrating there are other human relationships that are marriage like, but are not designated marriage.
<quoted text>
Do ya ever wonder why, if SSM is such a brilliant idea, that in the course of human societal history, that someone, somewhere, would have thought of it before? That except for a few scatted historical examples of recognized ss unions, there hasn't been a sustained cross cultural SSM development with deep historical roots? That marriage, as organizing relationship structure of society, has been a virtual exclusive male female union? Why, based on all of that, would procreation, have to be legally required?
<quoted text>
Now that was funny....it just may be your best come back line yet.
P.S. How's the rest of the family on 1313 Mockingbird Lane?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#25973 Jan 20, 2013
sure, as long as you ignore the immense and inescapable legal problems inherent in polygamy. SSM has never been ILLEGAL.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Picking up where Frankie left off.....why should number of wives, or husbands matter? Why first cousins, but not sisters, or brothers? If it doesn't matter who marries who, why bother regulating it at all?
So in 2003, and centuries prior, in the U.S. except for 19th century Utah perhaps, marriage was defined, legally, and or religiously, as man/husband and wife.
2004 Massachusetts husband and wife are replaced "Party A", and "Party B". Children were replaced with "Party C".....welllll.....not yet, but it could happen.
Since then, some states have replaced husband and wife with spouses for life.
It's not unreasonable to project into the future that legal recognition of consenting polygamous relationships is possible.
So again, at what, does it become pointless, not need state recognition and/or regulation?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#25974 Jan 20, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like your question about polygamy!
So Squeaky, you're insisting that the number part of "one man one woman" is relevant but the gender part is irrelevant and you can't say why. Got it. Great post!

You're a dope!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#25975 Jan 20, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
sure, as long as you ignore the immense and inescapable legal problems inherent in polygamy. SSM has never been ILLEGAL.
<quoted text>
Why can't you do it in most states then?

Semantics is not an effective argument. Stop it.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#25976 Jan 20, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
A lesbian couple is not the same as a sisterly relationship. Your constant denigration of gay relationships just means you have the emotional depth of wallpaper.
It took millennia to define gravity; just because it takes a while to understand something doen't mean it isn't a good thing.
<quoted text>
Why aren't a lesbian couple that are sisters worthy of the same respect and consideration as any other couple?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#25977 Jan 20, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like your question about polygamy!
Come back if you have an argument that's not a red herring, a straw man or just plain dumb.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#25978 Jan 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why aren't a lesbian couple that are sisters worthy of the same respect and consideration as any other couple?
I think they're double worthy.....two alternative forms of marriage for the price of one.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#25979 Jan 20, 2013
Well, we're doing quite well with SSM. Why don't you go work for polygamists, especially since they appear to be too lazy to do nything for hemselves?
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. You don't care that they don't have equal rights. Same as many people feel about same sex marriage.
Not me though, I care about equal rights for everyone.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#25980 Jan 20, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Well, we're doing quite well with SSM. Why don't you go work for polygamists, especially since they appear to be too lazy to do nything for hemselves?
<quoted text>
Why don't you?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#25981 Jan 20, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Limiting recognition only to opposite-sex marriages discriminates on the basis of sex.
<quoted text>
The first marriage of a polygamist is legal. That marriage established *unique* next-of-kinship. Recognition of later marriages would interfere with that.
<quoted text>
Having the same last name doesn't determine legal next-of-kinship.
<quoted text>
Next of kinship.
There is nothing new here I haven't already rebutted.

If first cousins can marry and the sky doesn't fall, why will the sky fall if sisters marry?

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
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 min Reverend Alan 16,167
Pediatrician Won't Treat Baby With Lesbian Moms 7 min EdmondWA 293
Latest gay marriage ruling creates confusion in... 9 min Newt G s Next Wife 62
Religious objection to gay marriage leads to bi... 11 min Belle Sexton 91
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 14 min EdmondWA 29,899
Major survey shows most Americans support same-... 16 min Newt G s Next Wife 1
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 17 min Joe fortuna 201,437
Is Jeb Bush 'evolving' on same-sex marriage and... 1 hr Frankie 272
Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 1 hr Frankie 1,188
More from around the web