Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

[Frankie Rizzo]

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]

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]

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

[Jerald]

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.

[Jerald]

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]

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]

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!

[Jerald]

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]

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

[Jerald]

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]

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]

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?

[Jerald]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

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?

I think you're full of sh1t.

[Mrs-Whitewater]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
"Implicate"?
Limit the "affect"!
Speak English dummy! I

Let me Help you out.

Google Dictionary wrote:

<quoted text>im·pli·cate
Verb
Show (someone) to be involved in a crime: "police implicated him in more killings".
Bear some of the responsibility for (an action or process, esp. a criminal or harmful one): "he is heavily implicated in the bombing".
Synonyms
involve - entangle - embroil - imply

This would be a more personal example...
"Frankie has been implicated in several vile posts with others"

Google Dictionary wrote:

<quoted text>affect
Verb
Have an effect on; make a difference to: "the dampness began to affect my health".
Pretend to have or feel (something): "as usual I affected a supreme unconcern".
Noun
Emotion or desire, esp. as influencing behavior or action.
Synonyms
verb. touch - influence - pretend
noun. emotion - affection

A more personal example...
No one is affected because you stomp your feet, flail your arms about and scream obscenities.

Bright Blessings,
And Happy Searching for Your Soul,
Mrs Whitewater

[Mrs-Whitewater]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

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?

How typical. Instead of staying your course and proving your argument, you turn to another and ask the same question again hoping for different results.

Jerald check mated you and your ego simply can't take the blow, so you lower yourself to calling Jerald and others names, while flailing yourself all about.

How old must one be before they realize that the tantrums they threw as children will have the same "affect" on them now as they did then: ignored. The only difference is when you have tantrums as an adult, you will not only be ignored, but people will talk about you and say, "Bless his soul" http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Bright Blessings,
Mrs Whitewater

[Pietro Armando]

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.

Nor do opposite sex couples have to.....only sex between men and women is potentially procreative. Proponents of SSM are arguing from the standpoint that same sex personal intimate emotional sexual relationships are in fact marriages, even though there is still significant disagreement nation wide on this point, and seek to graft them onto the existing legal, cultural, historical, and/or religious understanding, and structure, of marriage as a union of husband and wife, including the body of laws that address that sexual union.

Marriage serves society by linking men, women, and their children together. Any deviations from this only serve to increase the instability of that function.

[Jupiter]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

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?

I think you talk out of both sides of your mouth. You apparently want marriage to mean nothing.

[Pietro Armando]

Jupiter wrote:

<quoted text>I think you talk out of both sides of your mouth. You apparently want marriage to mean nothing.

Why not change the meaning at all? A conjugal union of husband and wife, incorporates both sexes, links the products of that union, children, to their mother and father. What compelling reason is there to change that now? None.

Let's maintain the big picture here

[Jane Dodo]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Still don't get it eh? It's a simple concept really. If everyone is married, marriage won't mean anything. It will be silly to ask are you married when the answer is always yes. Starting to get it?
I think you understand it but are playing dumb because you have no intelligent response. I'm just waiting for your dopey ad hominem! Please try and make it funny!

Gee..... ask everyone if they are alive. The answer is always yes. I guess being alive means nothing, eh?

Insert your favorite "dopey" ad hominem here:_________
Now multiply it by infinity. The result is your stupidity score.

[Jane Dodo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Why not change the meaning at all? A conjugal union of husband and wife, incorporates both sexes, links the products of that union, children, to their mother and father. What compelling reason is there to change that now? None.

None? Well shit.... I guess that settles it. Run to the Courthouse and tell them YOU decided.