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

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#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

#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

#25984 Jan 20, 2013
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

#25985 Jan 20, 2013
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

#25986 Jan 20, 2013
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

#25987 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.
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

#25988 Jan 20, 2013
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

#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

#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!

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#25991 Jan 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes!
So, your support of civil marriage for same-sex couples means that you are also in favor of civil marriage for closely-related people and multiple-partner relationships. This suggests that you are in favor of little or no restrictions on civil marriage, since all the arguments are contingent on one another.

Yet, in another post in response to such deregulation of civil marriage, you stated: "When marriage means everything, it will mean nothing."

Are you therefore in favor of marriage "meaning nothing"?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#25992 Jan 20, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
So, your support of civil marriage for same-sex couples means that you are also in favor of civil marriage for closely-related people and multiple-partner relationships. This suggests that you are in favor of little or no restrictions on civil marriage, since all the arguments are contingent on one another.
Yet, in another post in response to such deregulation of civil marriage, you stated: "When marriage means everything, it will mean nothing."
Are you therefore in favor of marriage "meaning nothing"?
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.

Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?

See where I'm going with this?

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#25993 Jan 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.
Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?
See where I'm going with this?
Yes, I think I see where you are going.

By offering your argument as a reductio ad absurdum, you appear to be stating that allowing any departure from "historic norms" leads to social instability.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#25994 Jan 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.
Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?
See where I'm going with this?
Wow....Grazie paisan...I just trying to remember how u worded that so I could respond to that last post......and you chimed in. What timing. Not really a difficult concept to grasp. Even the gay Frenchies get it. The French of all people. Apparently "honor thy Mother and thy Father" has more meaning to the French than "honor thy non gender specific parental unit" . Viva La France
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#25995 Jan 20, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I think I see where you are going.
By offering your argument as a reductio ad absurdum, you appear to be stating that allowing any departure from "historic norms" leads to social instability.
Nope. Got me all wrong. I agree with equal rights for same sex, poly and incest marriage. So my tolerance is quite wide. Most people's tolerance is less than mine. Where's yours?

Where is the point that is fair and equal for everyone? The point between fairness and ridiculousness is very hard to find and is at different places for different people. Where is it for you and why?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#25996 Jan 20, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I think I see where you are going.
By offering your argument as a reductio ad absurdum, you appear to be stating that allowing any departure from "historic norms" leads to social instability.
Jerald

Its quite simply actually. Sex between men and women makes babies.....even one who later are determined to be gay. Marriage developed as a means of dealing with this aspect. Hence marriage laws that reference the sexual union of husband and wife. If sex didn't make babies, would it matter who married who? SSM advocates want to graft their emotional sexual relationship onto the existing marriage laws, ignoring the opposite sexual references within the law. If that component is no longer the foundation of marriage as it relates to society, why does the state need to be involved?ws

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#25997 Jan 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
But your answer is dumb.
So now you're admitting that you were lying when you claimed that I hadn't answered it.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#25998 Jan 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Got me all wrong. I agree with equal rights for same sex, poly and incest marriage. So my tolerance is quite wide. Most people's tolerance is less than mine. Where's yours?
Where is the point that is fair and equal for everyone? The point between fairness and ridiculousness is very hard to find and is at different places for different people. Where is it for you and why?
I've never made a point about "fair and equal" for everyone. I've never made a claim for unfettered "tolerance" either.

I was asking because your claim of support for ending civil marriage restrictions appears to contradict your argument that doing so removes all meaning for marriage, brings social instability, and now makes it ridiculous.

You don't favor civil marriage for same-sex couples any more than you favor polygamy or incestuous marriage.

So why not just be honest about it?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#25999 Jan 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
You say dopey stuff like the state has no interest in polygamy but a big interest in SSM.
You can't seem to provide any reason for its being "dopey".
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
I ask why and you get mad.
No, you ask why, I tell you why, and then you ask the same question all over again as if I didn't already answer you.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Cosuins and sisters are all kin.
Siblings are more closely related than cousins. I guess you missed that.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#26000 Jan 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
why isn't same sex marriage GIVEN LEGAL RECOGNITION just like polygamy isn't given legal recognition?
Same-sex marriage isn't given legal recognition because of homophobia.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#26001 Jan 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
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.
Now you're engaged in a circular argument, claiming that same-sex marriage *shouldn't* be given legal recognition merely because most U.S. states and most countries *don't* give it legal recognition.

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
Transgender Bruce Jenner will be lesbian after ... 9 min Jonah1 119
Many 'Straight' Men Have Gay Sex (Sep '06) 15 min Ted Waller 4,391
CP exclusive: Wynne says some sex education pro... 26 min nhjeff 76
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 28 min Wondering 15,523
Pizza chain sued over healthcare for gay couples (Aug '14) 40 min nhjeff 23
Lockheed Martin ends Boy Scouts gifts over gay ban (Dec '13) 45 min Rick Perry s Closet 189
California Republicans vote to charter gay poli... 50 min WasteWater 12
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 1 hr GayleWood 57,857
Is Jeb Bush 'evolving' on same-sex marriage and... 2 hr Fa-Foxy 110
Biggest Gay Lies (May '14) 2 hr Larel 3,221
More from around the web