Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

May 9, 2012 | Posted by: Top Mod2 | Full story: politix.topix.com

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

Comments (Page 1,248)

Showing posts 24,941 - 24,960 of26,178
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25973
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25974
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25975
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25976
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25977
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25979
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25980
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25981
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25982
Jan 20, 2013
 
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
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.
I've already said why. More than once.

So you're lying again.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25983
Jan 20, 2013
 
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Why can't you do it in most states then?
You're confusing two people getting married with two people having their marriages given legal recognition.

There's a difference.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25984
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
There is nothing new here I haven't already rebutted.
You haven't rebutted *any* of it.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25985
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
I've already said why. More than once.
So you're lying again.
But your answer is dumb. And when you repeat it yet again it still will be dumb.

P.S. "Liar" is such boring ad hominem, jazz it up! Make it funny!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25986
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't rebutted *any* of it.
I have rebutted all of it. It was dumb. You say dopey stuff like the state has no interest in polygamy but a big interest in SSM. I ask why and you get mad. And start rattling nonsense about kinship. Cosuins and sisters are all kin.

The bottom line is you are arguing against equal rights and doing it poorly.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25987
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
You're confusing two people getting married with two people having their marriages given legal recognition.
There's a difference.
OK Squeaky, then why isn't same sex marriage GIVEN LEGAL RECOGNITION just like polygamy isn't given legal recognition?

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25988
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I have rebutted all of it. It was dumb. You say dopey stuff like the state has no interest in polygamy but a big interest in SSM. I ask why and you get mad. And start rattling nonsense about kinship. Cosuins and sisters are all kin.
The bottom line is you are arguing against equal rights and doing it poorly.
I want to understand your argument.

Are you arguing in favor of the recognition of civil marriage for same-sex couples, already closely-related couples (like siblings), and multiple-partners because you genuinely believe that there should be no government restrictions in civil marriage based on sex, close relation, or number?

Are the arguments in favor any of these situations contingent or dependent on the arguments in favor of any of the others?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25989
Jan 20, 2013
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
You're confusing two people getting married with two people having their marriages given legal recognition.
There's a difference.
You're confusing two people confusing their personal intimate sexual relationship as marriage with what the majority of states of the United States, and nations of the world defines marriage.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25990
Jan 20, 2013
 
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
I want to understand your argument.
Are you arguing in favor of the recognition of civil marriage for same-sex couples, already closely-related couples (like siblings), and multiple-partners because you genuinely believe that there should be no government restrictions in civil marriage based on sex, close relation, or number?
Are the arguments in favor any of these situations contingent or dependent on the arguments in favor of any of the others?
Yes!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 24,941 - 24,960 of26,178
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••