Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

[Drew Smith]

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.

[Drew Smith]

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.

[Drew Smith]

Pietro Armando wrote:

Polygamy isn't given legal recognition because of poly phobia

Got any evidence of that?
No, I didn't think so.

[Jerald]

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.

[Jerald]

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]

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.

[Pietro Armando]

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]

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.

[Jerald]

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.

[Jerald]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
That you think poly and other forms of marriage that you don't like are "horribles" speaks volumes.

I can see a rational basis for restricting marriage on the basis of number and close relation, just as you can.

But you're a lying troll who claims otherwise. So what should anyone expect from you but irrational BS?

[Frankie Rizzo]

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
You can't seem to provide any reason for its being "dopey".
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
Siblings are more closely related than cousins. I guess you missed that.

You give the same dopey answers over and over dummy! They were dopey the first time they're boring now.

How does it feel to be arguing against equal rights? You do it poorly.

For just one comment on your dumb responses- How do you draw that line between cousins and siblings and why? Who decides how close is too close? You? The rainbow handbook?

[Drew Smith]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

How does it feel to be arguing against equal rights?

Let me know when you start putting forward an argument for equal rights, instead of red herrings.

[Pietro Armando]

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Because removing gender discrimination from eligibility for a legal contract does not mean that all other possible eligibility requirements are automatically dropped.

Not if the legal contract is founded on a specific relationship. In this case, husband and wife. As a man, you have the same right to enter into such a relationship as any other man, and you are subjected to the same limitations. No more, no less.

[Mikey DiRucci]

Jerald wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Well I support your rights, too bad for me that you don't support mine, but that's the way it is with bigots like you.

[Pietro Armando]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
You give the same dopey answers over and over dummy! They were dopey the first time they're boring now.
How does it feel to be arguing against equal rights? You do it poorly.
For just one comment on your dumb responses- How do you draw that line between cousins and siblings and why? Who decides how close is too close? You? The rainbow handbook?

The rainbow handbook? Now.....that was funny?

[Pietro Armando]

....funny!

[Pietro Armando]

Jerald wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Don't tell Sheeple your a bigot....he hates them....even gay ones.

[Mikey DiRucci]

Jerald wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Aw, no problem, Fruitloops! Glad we're all cool again.

So why do you support monogamous homosexuals but not polygamous homosexuals?

Why is it wrong to restrict what gender a woman marries but not how many wives she has?

[Mikey DiRucci]

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Let me know when you start putting forward an argument for equal rights, instead of red herrings.

If you'll notice Twinkletoes, that's what I am doing. And it's what you are not doing.

Remember your stupid one vote/poly vote straw man and red herring? Good one! Too bad it didn't work out for you. Try again!

What a dope!

[Frankie Rizzo]

Jerald wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Hate is hate. Bigotry is bigotry. You have no right to whine about it when you participate in it.

You admit you are a bigot. No better than the people against SSM. That's what I set out to prove.

Mission Accomplished.