Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

May 9, 2012 Full story: politix.topix.com 26,180

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

Full Story

“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

Union City, 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

Union City, 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

Union City, 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

Union City, 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

Union City, 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

Watsonville, 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

Union City, 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

Union City, 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

Watsonville, 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

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#26068 Jan 20, 2013
Droppin in for a tad wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Whoa. First corporations are "persons", and now marriages would be corporations... that would make marriages "persons" under the law. Imagine what the Supreme Court would do with that. Citizens United would be a molehill.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26069 Jan 20, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
How does that make me a bigot dummy? Please explain.

This should be good!

OK, you caught me Kojak! I'm a fundie spy! Secretly against same sex marriage! I'm lying to try and trick you! Too funny!

You're paranoid jerky. Not good.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26070 Jan 20, 2013
When marriage means everything, it will mean nothing.

There has to be a limit. Where is that limit that is fair and equal?

Only idiots like the paranoid jerk "Jerald" think that question is "anti gay".

If you do not feel threatened by that question like he does, let's discuss it.

I think same sex, poly and incest should be allowed. What do you think?

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
Ex-Ford Employee Claims He Was Fired For Anti-G... 58 min Heinz Pickle 30
Witness disputes sex assault charges against ga... 1 hr I give up 24
Exxon adds discrimination protections in U.S. f... 1 hr Heinz Pickle 7
Biggest Gay Lies (May '14) 1 hr Cali Girl 2014 3,151
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 1 hr Cali Girl 2014 68,889
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 1 hr hetero violation 57,253
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Abrahammock Relig... 8,815
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 7 hr Dab 6,350
How gay couples should plan finances ahead of t... 14 hr CantonOhioGuy 7
More from around the web