Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

[Frankie Rizzo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
The rainbow handbook? Now.....that was funny?

;)

[Pietro Armando]

Jerald wrote:

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

What is the rational basis to redefine it? What will happen if its not?

[Jerald]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
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 stat comes from the US Census. "Eighty-four percent of these [same-sex couple] households contained own children of the householder."
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-0...

Pietro Armando wrote:

The children had the protection of civil marriage when their mother and father were married.

But that marriage ended, just like the over 50% of heterosexual first marriages do.

Pietro Armando wrote:

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.

That makes no sense.

All the available evidence demonstrates that children do best when raised in stable households with two parents, regardless of gender.

Marriage is more likely to brings stability to households than co-habitation. If you're arguing that being raised in co-habitation households is as good for children as being raised in households where the parents are married, you're going to have to provide evidence to support the claim.

[Jerald]

Mikey DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

No you don't. You're just another lying troll.

[Jerald]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't tell Sheeple your a bigot....he hates them....even gay ones.

That's all right. He doesn't like me anyway.

[Jerald]

Mikey DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
Aw, no problem, Fruitloops! Glad we're all cool again.
So why do you support monogamous homosexuals but not polygamous homosexuals?

I support monogamous civil marriage regardless of gender. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.

Mikey DiRucci wrote:

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

Monogamous marriage implicates no other marriages. Polygamous marriages potentially implicate all others.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Jerald wrote:

<quoted text>
No you don't. You're just another lying troll.

I do, and you don't, and you have admitted it jackass!

What a dopey troll!

[Jerald]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Hate is hate. Bigotry is bigotry.

So what? I hate lots of things. I'm not afraid of being called a "hater." I'm proud of most of the things I hate.

The thing I hate the most is willful ignorance.

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

You have no right to whine about it when you participate in it.

I have every right to whine or bitch or moan, or argue. Too bad you can't do a thing about it, huh?

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

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

Hope you feel good about it. You don't have much else to crow about.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Jerald wrote:

<quoted text>
I support monogamous civil marriage regardless of gender. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.
<quoted text>
Monogamous marriage implicates no other marriages. Polygamous marriages potentially implicate all others.

"Implicates"? What are you trying to say dummy?

You're a bigot. Same as those against SSM that you whine about.
You have admitted it.

"potentially implicate"? Too funny!

[Jerald]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
What is the rational basis to redefine it? What will happen if its not?

Polygamous marriage implicates all other marriages in ways that monogamous marriages do not. The legal implications alone, and the scope of the changes necessary in civil and family law is a rational basis for a state to decline to allow more than one marriage at a time.

The rational basis for denying civil marriage to already closely related persons includes the legal entanglements and huge changes in civil and family law that such a change would entail, not to mention the obvious effects of offspring born to closely related opposite-sex couples.

But I'm not fully confident about these arguments. Polygamy and claims of "sibling marriage" don't really interest me. Perhaps I can be persuaded by reason and evidence to change my mind, perhaps not.

Still, the arguments for or against these forms of marriage are not contingent or dependent on the arguments for or against civil marriage for same-sex couples. They are entirely different arguments.

Only the anti-gay who are unable to provide cogent arguments against civil marriage for same-sex couples keep bringing them up.

Want to argue for polygamy? Join Warren Jeffs and his group. See how far you get.

[Jerald]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
"Implicates"? What are you trying to say dummy?
You're a bigot. Same as those against SSM that you whine about.
You have admitted it.
"potentially implicate"? Too funny!

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.

[Pietro Armando]

Jerald wrote:

<quoted text>
I support monogamous civil marriage regardless of gender

"Regardless of gender"? Huh? Regardless of which gender.....there's only two of them?

. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.

Exactly! It matters not the sexual orientation of the husband and wife in the joining together and the potential to create new life.

Monogamous marriage implicates no other marriages. Polygamous marriages potentially implicate all others.

Finally some sanity. Monogamous marriage helps insure the husband is the father of the child in the wife's baby carriage.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Jerald wrote:

<quoted text>
Polygamous marriage implicates all other marriages in ways that monogamous marriages do not. The legal implications alone, and the scope of the changes necessary in civil and family law is a rational basis for a state to decline to allow more than one marriage at a time.
The rational basis for denying civil marriage to already closely related persons includes the legal entanglements and huge changes in civil and family law that such a change would entail, not to mention the obvious effects of offspring born to closely related opposite-sex couples.
But I'm not fully confident about these arguments. Polygamy and claims of "sibling marriage" don't really interest me. Perhaps I can be persuaded by reason and evidence to change my mind, perhaps not.
Still, the arguments for or against these forms of marriage are not contingent or dependent on the arguments for or against civil marriage for same-sex couples. They are entirely different arguments.
Only the anti-gay who are unable to provide cogent arguments against civil marriage for same-sex couples keep bringing them up.
Want to argue for polygamy? Join Warren Jeffs and his group. See how far you get.

People against same sex marriage- BAD!!!

People against marriages you don't approve of- GOOD!!!

Too funny!

[Frankie Rizzo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
"Regardless of gender"? Huh? Regardless of which gender.....there's only two of them?
<quoted text>
Exactly! It matters not the sexual orientation of the husband and wife in the joining together and the potential to create new life.
<quoted text>
Finally some sanity. Monogamous marriage helps insure the husband is the father of the child in the wife's baby carriage.

What do you think he means by his dopey misuse of the word "implicates"?

Polygamy "implicates" other marriages?? Wha?

[Jerald]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
"Regardless of gender"? Huh? Regardless of which gender.....there's only two of them?

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.

Pietro Armando wrote:

Exactly! It matters not the sexual orientation of the husband and wife in the joining together and the potential to create new life.

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.

Pietro Armando wrote:

Finally some sanity. Monogamous marriage helps insure the husband is the father of the child in the wife's baby carriage.

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.

[Frankie Rizzo]

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

[Jerald]

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!

[Jerald]

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!

[Pietro Armando]

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]

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.