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.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#26002 Jan 20, 2013
Jerald wrote:
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?
Because then he would have to stop being an Internet troll.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26003 Jan 20, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you're admitting that you were lying when you claimed that I hadn't answered it.
Funny! Relax Fruitloops.

Think about it for a while then maybe come back with some substance.

Awright then, maybe we'll talk later jerky.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#26004 Jan 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Sex between men and women makes babies
Not when the woman is past the age of menopause, or when the man is several months past having a vasectomy.

And yet we still give legal recognition to their marriages.

Why?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Marriage developed as a means of dealing with this aspect.
That's strange. Every sexually reproducing species other than humans doesn't require the institution of marriage in order to "deal with this aspect", so why would humans?
Pietro Armando wrote:
If sex didn't make babies, would it matter who married who?
Then why do men and women who can't have children get married?
Pietro Armando wrote:
If that component is no longer the foundation of marriage as it relates to society, why does the state need to be involved?
Because the state has an interest in marriage even when children will not be produced from it.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#26005 Jan 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
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
I disagree with your premise that procreation is the sole reason for civil marriage. As Justice Scalia quite correctly pointed out, such reasoning would "surely not" work to deny gay marriage because "the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry."

It is also clear that the RAISING of children (which hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples do; 84% of those children being the natural offspring of one of the partners) is at least as important as the BEARING of children.

What is the rational basis for denying children being raised by same-sex couples the benefits and protections that civil marriage affords their peers being raised by opposite-sex couples?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26006 Jan 20, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
I don't??

Egads!!

Why would I lie Fruitloops? No need for you to throw a cute little hissy fit. Relax.

Too bad you're too stupid and angry to have an intelligent discussion of marriage equality, I need to move on to someone who isn't.

Hope that helps.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26007 Jan 20, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Waitaminit ......SSMers want the opposite sex gender requirement from legal marriage dropped. Once that is done, why does it matter eho marries who? If same sex siblings marry? Who cares?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26008 Jan 20, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Because then he would have to stop being an Internet troll.
YUK!YUK!YUK!

You mad again Twinkletoes?

Maybe contribute to the discussion instead of throwing little hissy fits? Just a suggestion.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26010 Jan 20, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Same-sex marriage isn't given legal recognition because of homophobia.
Polygamy isn't given legal recognition because of poly phobia, same sex sibling marriages-homosiblingphobia, and the list goes on.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#26009 Jan 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't??
Egads!!
Why would I lie Fruitloops? No need for you to throw a cute little hissy fit. Relax.
Too bad you're too stupid and angry to have an intelligent discussion of marriage equality, I need to move on to someone who isn't.
Hope that helps.
"Fruitloops?" "Hissyfit?"

You're probably better off moving on to someone else. When you immediately stoop to ad hominem and name calling, it's clear that intelligence has passed you by long ago.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26011 Jan 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Waitaminit ......SSMers want the opposite sex gender requirement from legal marriage dropped. Once that is done, why does it matter eho marries who? If same sex siblings marry? Who cares?
Many SSM proponents including this jackass "Jerald" seem to be just as bigoted as the people they whine about who are against SSM. Or actually worse, because they are hypocrites.

They would draw the line on who is allowed to marry to suit their prejudices just like the big bad meanies who do it to them!

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#26012 Jan 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
SSMers want the opposite sex gender requirement from legal marriage dropped. Once that is done, why does it matter eho marries who?
Because removing gender discrimination from eligibility for a legal contract does not mean that all other possible eligibility requirements are automatically dropped.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#26013 Jan 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Maybe contribute to the discussion instead of throwing little hissy fits? Just a suggestion.
Maybe you could contribute to the discussion instead of being an Internet troll who merely tosses out childish insults? Just a suggestion.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#26014 Jan 20, 2013
Jerald wrote:
"Fruitloops?" "Hissyfit?"
You're probably better off moving on to someone else. When you immediately stoop to ad hominem and name calling, it's clear that intelligence has passed you by long ago.
He's not exactly a genius at disguising the fact that he is here merely to act like a troll.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#26015 Jan 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Polygamy isn't given legal recognition because of poly phobia
Got any evidence of that?
No, I didn't think so.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#26016 Jan 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Waitaminit ......SSMers want the opposite sex gender requirement from legal marriage dropped. Once that is done, why does it matter eho marries who? If same sex siblings marry? Who cares?
My argument is that there is no legitimate governmental reason to deny civil marriage solely based on the sex of the partners.

No one, let alone any of the anti-gay people here, have been able to offer a legitimate reason for doing so.

As evidence, I point out those who keep bringing up polygamy or incest. They can't successfully make the argument based on sex, so they move to arguments that they think they can more easily "win" -- those based on number or close relation.

Feel free to provide evidence of any country that has legalized civil marriage for same-sex couples that has subsequently legalized polygamy or sibling marriage. Or, provide evidence of a country that has legalized polygamy and subsequently legalized same-sex marriage or sibling marriage.

You have no evidence other than unsubstantiated claims of a "parade of horribles" that must occur should civil marriage for same-sex couples be accepted.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#26017 Jan 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Many SSM proponents including this jackass "Jerald" seem to be just as bigoted as the people they whine about who are against SSM. Or actually worse, because they are hypocrites.
They would draw the line on who is allowed to marry to suit their prejudices just like the big bad meanies who do it to them!
No. My bigotry is limited to polygamous and sibling relationships being granted civil marriage rights. I can see a rational basis for restricting civil marriage on the basis of number or close relation.

Your bigotry is unlimited.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26018 Jan 20, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
"Fruitloops?" "Hissyfit?"
You're probably better off moving on to someone else. When you immediately stoop to ad hominem and name calling, it's clear that intelligence has passed you by long ago.
I'll take that as submission Fruitloops! See ya!

P.S. You are a hypocrite. Worse than people against SSM. They're just bigots.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26019 Jan 20, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree with your premise that procreation is the sole reason for civil marriage. As Justice Scalia quite correctly pointed out, such reasoning would "surely not" work to deny gay marriage because "the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry."
It is also clear that the RAISING of children (which hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples do; 84% of those children being the natural offspring of one of the partners) is at least as important as the BEARING of children.
What is the rational basis for denying children being raised by same-sex couples the benefits and protections that civil marriage affords their peers being raised by opposite-sex couples?
I'm not sure where u got that stat, but it stands to reason those children are a product of one or both partners previous conjugal marriages. The children had the protection of civil marriage when their mother and father were married. If the opposite sex bio parent chooses to raise the children with the help and cohabitation of an adult sibling, marriage protection for the children would not be based on that situation, any more than the other bio parent's same sex sexual relationship.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26020 Jan 20, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>\
You have no evidence other than unsubstantiated claims of a "parade of horribles" that must occur should civil marriage for same-sex couples be accepted.
That you think poly and other forms of marriage that you don't like are "horribles" speaks volumes.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#26021 Jan 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll take that as submission Fruitloops! See ya!
P.S. You are a hypocrite. Worse than people against SSM. They're just bigots.
Glad to see you move on! I've never really liked debating someone who makes false claims, anyway.

And you're right. I am bigoted against polygamy, sibling marriage, and idiots. Calling me that doesn't really hurt my feelings. Sorry to have hurt yours.

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 Kentucky clerk, citing God, defies courts on ga... 15 min Just Think 51
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 15 min Pietro Armando 8,801
News Judge jails Kentucky clerk for refusing marriag... 17 min Just Think 165
News Atheism, the Bible and sexual orientation 1 hr Thinking 30
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 1 hr Mark Goodman 3,502
News Kentucky clerk defies order, refuses to issue s... 2 hr NorCal Native 634
News 4 GOP candidates sign anti-gay marriage pledge 3 hr NoahLikesPi 385
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 hr NoahLikesPi 25,985
News Supreme Court rules against clerk in gay marria... 9 hr TomInElPaso 111
More from around the web