Obama Announces Full Support for Gay ...

Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

There are 26163 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.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26047 Jan 20, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, if your inability to understand the language is getting in your way, perhaps an unabridged dictionary will help.
If marriage is limited to one partner per person, then legally one can marry no more than one person at a time, so no others are implicated (actually or potentially involved) in that union.
If marriage is not limited to one partner, then legally one can marry others, implicating (potentially involving) more, or many more, than one person in that union.
Monogamous marriages legally affect no other marriages. Polygamous marriages legally could affect all other marriages.
A rational basis to deny marriage to more than one partner at a time is to limit the affect of one marriage on other marriages.
"Implicate"?

Limit the "affect"!

Speak English dummy! I

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#26049 Jan 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
People against same sex marriage- BAD!!!
That's right!(More precisely, it's people against civil marriage for same-sex couples -- BAD.)
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
People against marriages you don't approve of- GOOD!!!
Not quite junior.

People against civil marriages that don't have at least a rational basis for them in law -- GOOD!

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#26050 Jan 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
"Implicate"?
Limit the "affect"!
Speak English dummy! I
Jeez, now you want me to translate perfectly good English words into English?

Get an unabridged dictionary, dummy!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26051 Jan 20, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you're just being obtuse. There is no rational basis for denying civil marriage because of the sex of the partners. Same-sex or opposite-sex couples should be able to obtain a civil marriage.
You assume there's a rational basis for it. What is it?
And procreation is not the sole reason for obtaining a civil marriage, so the sex of the partners is of no consequence. Opposite-sex couples will still get married and have children. Same-sex couples, and elderly or infertile opposite-sex couples will get married.
Why does marriage exist in the first place? Why did it develop throughout time and place as a male female union?
And when that doesn't (or can't) happen, monogamous marriage provides the stability that a two-parent household provides a child, regardless of the sex of the parent. There is no evidence that the sex of the parents matters in the successful upbringing of a child.
Ask the child which parent, his/her mother or his/her father should be eliminated? Ask the child if his/her mother and aunt could raise him/her just as well as his/her mother and his/her mother's same sex partner?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26052 Jan 20, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Jeez, now you want me to translate perfectly good English words into English?
Get an unabridged dictionary, dummy!
Yes I do. Translate them into English.

Learn the difference between affect and effect. Learn what implicate means. Just for starters.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26053 Jan 20, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
That's right!(More precisely, it's people against civil marriage for same-sex couples -- BAD.)
<quoted text>
Not quite junior.
People against civil marriages that don't have at least a rational basis for them in law -- GOOD!
Well that's what you are grandpa!

What's the rational basis for SSM and why doesn't it apply to poly?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26054 Jan 20, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Jeez, now you want me to translate perfectly good English words into English?
Get an unabridged dictionary, dummy!
Is that your actual picture Fruitloops? How old are you?

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#26055 Jan 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
You assume there's a rational basis for it. What is it?
The rational basis for civil marriage? It's good for the individuals involved, good for the couple as a unit, good for any children they may have or raise, and good for the society in general.

Civil marriage is a social good.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Why does marriage exist in the first place? Why did it develop throughout time and place as a male female union?
I don't really care about why marriage existed in some long-ago time. Marriage has as many historical reasons for its existence as there are arguments about it. Economic, sex control, political. So what?

The fact is that civil marriage exists now under our current law. So long as that institution is as the Supreme Court says it is -- a fundamental civil right that does not require the ability or willingness to have children -- then limiting marriage on the basis of the sex of the partners violates the equal protection of the law. It discriminates on the basis of sex.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Ask the child which parent, his/her mother or his/her father should be eliminated? Ask the child if his/her mother and aunt could raise him/her just as well as his/her mother and his/her mother's same sex partner?
Who is arguing that some person be "eliminated"?

Feel free to provide evidence that children raised by same-sex couples fare any worse by any objective metric than children raised by opposite-sex couples.

The evidence supports the fact that the number of the parents who raise the child -- two -- is more important that the sex of the parents.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#26056 Jan 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I do. Translate them into English.
Learn the difference between affect and effect. Learn what implicate means. Just for starters.
All right. I misused "affect" where I should have typed "effect". My bad. But you understood the meaning.

Implicate = involve or effect; "to involve in the nature or operation of something"

Monogamous marriages that are limited to one partner per person at a time, implicate no other marriages. Polygamous marriages, where the number of partners or marriages is unlimited, potentially implicate all other marriages.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#26057 Jan 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
What's the rational basis for SSM and why doesn't it apply to poly?
The rational basis for civil marriage for same-sex couples is the exact same basis for opposite-sex couples, since legally opposite-sex couples do not have to be willing or able to produce children.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#26058 Jan 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that your actual picture Fruitloops? How old are you?
You've got to be kidding. Like I would post my actual picture any more than I would put my own name. Like you would.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26059 Jan 20, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
The rational basis for civil marriage for same-sex couples is the exact same basis for opposite-sex couples, since legally opposite-sex couples do not have to be willing or able to produce children.
And it's the exact same for polygamy and incest marriage too.

If procreation has no relevance in marriage why are you against incest marriage?

What harm would a loving marriage of three men cause you? Why do you wish to deny it?

You say you are a bigot. As such do you consider yourself superior to other bigots like those opposed to same sex marriage? Why?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26060 Jan 20, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
You've got to be kidding. Like I would post my actual picture any more than I would put my own name. Like you would.
So who is it Twinkletoes? Your dream date?
Droppin in for a tad

Boulder Creek, CA

#26061 Jan 20, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Jeez, now you want me to translate perfectly good English words into English?
Get an unabridged dictionary, dummy!
The words you should have used were "impacted" and "e-ffected".

The second is a common colloquial error.

"The difference between the right word and the almost-right word is the same as that between 'lightning' and 'lighting bug'."

- Samuel Clemens

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#26062 Jan 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
And it's the exact same for polygamy and incest marriage too.

No it's not. Sex is not the exact same as number or close relation.

[QUOTE who="Frankie Rizzo"]If procreation has no relevance in marriage why are you against incest marriage?
I never said that procreation has no relevance in marriage.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
What harm would a loving marriage of three men cause you? Why do you wish to deny it?
I don't imagine that it would personally harm me. But it could harm other married people or marriages because there wouldn't be a legal limit on the number of people in a marriage, and it would certainly require a great deal of change in civil and family law. A state legislature could rationally decide that an unlimited number of partners in marriage would lead to a legal and social tangle that it would not want to create.

Personally, the evidence suggests that polygamous marriages in this country create imbalances and a class of men who can't find wives, negatively and economically disadvantage women involved, and subordinate women and prey on minors in religious cults.

But that's just my view. I'm not married to it.

Want to make the argument in favor of polygamy? Knock yourself out.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
You say you are a bigot. As such do you consider yourself superior to other bigots like those opposed to same sex marriage? Why?
No. Just superior to bigots like you.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#26063 Jan 20, 2013
Droppin in for a tad wrote:
<quoted text>
The words you should have used were "impacted" and "e-ffected".
The second is a common colloquial error.
"The difference between the right word and the almost-right word is the same as that between 'lightning' and 'lighting bug'."
- Samuel Clemens
I acknowledged the misuse of affect. My bad.

I meant "implicate" not "impacted." You just don't understand it. Not my problem.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26064 Jan 20, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said that procreation has no relevance in marriage.
<quoted text>
I don't imagine that it would personally harm me. But it could harm other married people or marriages because there wouldn't be a legal limit on the number of people in a marriage, and it would certainly require a great deal of change in civil and family law. A state legislature could rationally decide that an unlimited number of partners in marriage would lead to a legal and social tangle that it would not want to create.
Personally, the evidence suggests that polygamous marriages in this country create imbalances and a class of men who can't find wives, negatively and economically disadvantage women involved, and subordinate women and prey on minors in religious cults.
But that's just my view. I'm not married to it.
Want to make the argument in favor of polygamy? Knock yourself out.
<quoted text>
No. Just superior to bigots like you.
Why do you call me a bigot? I support equality, you do not.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26065 Jan 20, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
I acknowledged the misuse of affect. My bad.
I meant "implicate" not "impacted." You just don't understand it. Not my problem.
Too funny!

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#26066 Jan 20, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you call me a bigot? I support equality, you do not.
No you don't. You even said so, right here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TQATTKSB8...

"When marriage means everything, it will mean nothing."

You don't support equality.

You're an anti-gay troll pretending to put forward an argument about polygamy and incest because you are unable to make a rational case against civil marriage for same-sex couples.

You're full of it.
Droppin in for a tad

Boulder Creek, CA

#26067 Jan 20, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said that procreation has no relevance in marriage.
<quoted text>
I don't imagine that it would personally harm me. But it could harm other married people or marriages because there wouldn't be a legal limit on the number of people in a marriage, and it would certainly require a great deal of change in civil and family law. A state legislature could rationally decide that an unlimited number of partners in marriage would lead to a legal and social tangle that it would not want to create.
Personally, the evidence suggests that polygamous marriages in this country create imbalances and a class of men who can't find wives, negatively and economically disadvantage women involved, and subordinate women and prey on minors in religious cults.
But that's just my view. I'm not married to it.
Want to make the argument in favor of polygamy? Knock yourself out.
<quoted text>
No. Just superior to bigots like you.
There is a way around the legal tangle that came to me a few years ago ... declare all marriages to be corporations. The problem is that the children would be the "assets" AND "liabilities" of the corporation. lol

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 Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 min Respect71 51,535
News California AG bans state travel to Texas, 3 oth... 6 min TomInElPaso 106
News Supreme Court to decide whether a Colorado bake... 28 min Truth 48
News Should businesses be able to refuse service on ... 30 min Talbot 5
This Is NOT an NE Jade Thread 42 min Lon 8
News Nikki Haley and her son heckled during NYC gay ... 58 min Talbot 23
News How does the anti-gay cakemaker in Denver do on... 1 hr Talbot 6
News Gay bar opens near Macon Road, drawing visitors... 9 hr Victor Hugo 129
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 22 hr Frankie Rizzo 69,552
More from around the web