Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

[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.

[Jupiter]

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.
Let's maintain the big picture here

The compelling reason is that consenting adults of a different sexual orientation than yours do not have the right to form a legally regocnized committed union. You have that right; they don't, which constitutes unequal rights.

[Jane Dodo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

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

Would you care to demonstrate with FACTS just how SSM increases instability in straight marriage???? I'm sure NOM would be interested in your research.

[Jane Dodo]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

When marriage means everything, it will mean nothing.

Repeating that silliness often doesn't make it any less silly. Everything=nothing? Oh wait.... you're the same person that thinks 3=2.

[Pietro Armando]

Jupiter wrote:

<quoted text>
The compelling reason is that consenting adults of a different sexual orientation than yours do not have the right to form a legally regocnized committed union. You have that right; they don't, which constitutes unequal rights.

I see.....and within that rational statement lies an answer. A legally recognized committed union for SSCs should be an option. There's no reason it can't be. Instead of trying to be just like husband and wife, why not focus on same sex spouses for life and the uniqueness of both male and female same sex unions. Both sides win

[Pietro Armando]

Jane Dodo wrote:

<quoted text>
Would you care to demonstrate with FACTS just how SSM increases instability in straight marriage???? I'm sure NOM would be interested in your research.

"Straight marriage"? Madone! Its not straight marriage Mc Fly.... its either same sex or opposite sex. Josh Weed a self described gay Mormon man is married to a woman and they have children together. Is that a "straight" marriage? If a bisexual woman marries a man, is that a "straight" marriage?

[Jane Dodo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
"Straight marriage"? Madone! Its not straight marriage Mc Fly.... its either same sex or opposite sex. Josh Weed a self described gay Mormon man is married to a woman and they have children together. Is that a "straight" marriage? If a bisexual woman marries a man, is that a "straight" marriage?

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

OK... have it your way:
Would you care to demonstrate with FACTS just how SSM increases instability in opposite sex marriage????

[Quest]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<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.
....

But the positional (or desire) to create new life is certainly NOT a requirement for legal marriage today. If it were, you would be able to make an argument that only a "man and woman" be able to marry.
You can't be suggesting creating a slew of new laws that place that requirement on only certain married couples, are you? It would have to placed on ALL married couples.
Don't you think that straight married couples (or potential married couples) would fight that just as firmly as any gay person would?

[Quest]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

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

Illogical, of course, since no one has ever suggested it mean "everything".

[Quest]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
...... There's no reason it can't be. Instead of trying to be just like husband and wife, why not focus on same sex spouses for life and the uniqueness of both male and female same sex unions. Both sides win

No gay couple is trying to be just like a "husband and wife". You seem a little confused. But don't worry. EACH gay person entering a marriage with another gay person of the same gender is absolutely unique, and brings their own strengths, weaknesses, and personality traits to the marriage. Their gender is not what makes them special and unique individuals.

But, the love is the same. The attraction is the same. The commitment is the same. The need for recognition is the same. The benefits and protections are the same. Their children benefit in the same way. Elderly gay married couples are more secure in the same way. Society benefits from their strong family in the same way.

Yep, it's a marriage all right!

For ALL the same reasons, save one. And that has never and WILL never be a legal requirement for any marriage.

[Tony C]

Mrs-Whitewater wrote:

<quoted text>
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

Well done!

[Pietro Armando]

Jane Dodo wrote:

<quoted text>
You wrote:
"Marriage serves society by linking men, women, and their children together. Any deviations from this only serve to increase the instability of that function."
OK... have it your way:

Do u disagree with that statement?

Would you care to demonstrate with FACTS just how SSM increases instability in opposite sex marriage????

First, you are proceeding from the assumption that same sex personal intimate sexual relationships are viewed as "marriage" by the population at large. Clearly that's not the case. Second, you nor I can know the long term consequences of redefing an institution fundamental to societal stability. Third, there is a small segnent of the gay community who opposes redefining marriage because of its importance to society. Legal recognition yes, redefining marriage, no. Lastly what is the compelling need to recognize same sex relationships as marriage? Are there legions of unwed pregnant men out there? Women accidentally impregnated by sperm producing women? Why does society need two men/women to marry? What will happen if they don't?

[Frankie Rizzo]

Mrs-Whitewater wrote:

<quoted text>
Let me Help you out.
<quoted text>
This would be a more personal example...
"Frankie has been implicated in several vile posts with others"
<quoted text>
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

Aw, did I hurt your feelings Miss Thing? Good!

Jerald has admitted his grammar mistakes that you are defending, didn't you notice? Maybe try and tell him he wasn't wrong, but he knows he was. Too funny!

Save your phony "Bright Blessings", Jackass. You don't wish me "Bright Blessings", you fake.

We don't have "souls" to try and save fundie. Good luck searching for yours. When you die you're dead. If there is someone we must reckon with, what are you going to tell him when he asks about your hypocrisy and bigotry?

Hope that helps.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Tony C wrote:

<quoted text>
Well done!

No it wasn't. It was a stupid pack of lies! Jerald "checkmated" me! When was that?

Too funny!

[Frankie Rizzo]

Mrs-Whitewater wrote:

<quoted text>
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

Please refer us to the post where Jerald "checkmated" me.

Please refer us to the post where I threw a tantrum.

Please stop lying and stop your stupid ad hominem. I called you a jackass and hurt your feelings. Get over it. Your dopey attempts at revenge don't bother me, they're FUNNY!

Now lets get back to the topic. Why are you a hypocrite? Why do you support monogamous homosexuals but not polygamous homosexuals?