Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

May 9, 2012 Full story: politix.topix.com 26,169

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

Full Story

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#26122 Jan 21, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, that seems to be universal here, I mention poly, everyone gets very angry but they won't admit they are against it.
They, like you, just say "I didn't say I was against it." Yeah, well you didn't say you were for it did you?
I support marriage between two individuals, whether they be man and woman, two women or two men. I don't have to support polygamy in order to support marriage between two people. I neither support nor abhor polygamy; I am indifferent on the issue.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#26123 Jan 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Same as what I have? A marriage of husband and wife of 20 plus years and our biological children ?Excellent! Then marry like I did. Find yourself someone of the opposite sex to be your lawfully wedded respective husband or wife. Its not hard to figure out. Tell ya what we'll even let male lesbians marry women. Nothing says both lesbians in a lesbian marriage have to be female.
No dear, I mean the same right that you have to pursue marriage with an unrelated, consenting adult. Bye.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26124 Jan 21, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps YOU can explain what you THINK he means? Good luck.
Not hard to figure out there Doo Doo. Either marriage is understood to mean a legally, culturally, historically, and/or rekiguous union of husband and wife orientated around the procreative aspect of that union for the stability and greater good of their children, and thus society as a WHOLE, or it means what ever any combination of adults mean it to be. Thus it loses its fundamental meaning. Why do SSMers get to redefine marriage for a few, but no one else gets to redefine it to fit their view of marriage?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26125 Jan 21, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>... and you think that proves the opposite? nincompoop.
It proves you refuse to state your opinion. Why?

Why make us guess? Just tell us.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26126 Jan 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Not hard to figure out there Doo Doo. Either marriage is understood to mean a legally, culturally, historically, and/or rekiguous union of husband and wife orientated around the procreative aspect of that union for the stability and greater good of their children, and thus society as a WHOLE, or it means what ever any combination of adults mean it to be. Thus it loses its fundamental meaning. Why do SSMers get to redefine marriage for a few, but no one else gets to redefine it to fit their view of marriage?
Jane (it's hard remembering he is a man with a name like Jane!) Dodo knows what it means, it's just his usual diversionary tactic he uses whenever he's at a loss for an effective rebuttal, which is always.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26127 Jan 21, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
No dear, I mean the same right that you have to pursue marriage with an unrelated, consenting adult. Bye.
Which denies that right to a related consenting adult. Why?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26128 Jan 21, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
I support marriage between two individuals, whether they be man and woman, two women or two men. I don't have to support polygamy in order to support marriage between two people. I neither support nor abhor polygamy; I am indifferent on the issue.
Yeah, you are "indifferent". Translation- you don't want it legalized but don't want to say that since it would reveal your hypocrisy.

If you were truly indifferent you wouldn't have responded.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26129 Jan 21, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
I support marriage between two individuals, whether they be man and woman, two women or two men. I don't have to support polygamy in order to support marriage between two people. I neither support nor abhor polygamy; I am indifferent on the issue.
You seem fixated on the number two.....yet....Out of 1170 societies recorded in Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas, polygyny (the practice of men having more than one wife) is prevalent in 850. Even our own culture, which has an astoundingly high divorce and remarriage rate, practices a form of serial polygamy.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#26130 Jan 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Not hard to figure out there Doo Doo. Either marriage is understood to mean a legally, culturally, historically, and/or rekiguous union of husband and wife orientated around the procreative aspect of that union for the stability and greater good of their children, and thus society as a WHOLE, or it means what ever any combination of adults mean it to be. Thus it loses its fundamental meaning. Why do SSMers get to redefine marriage for a few, but no one else gets to redefine it to fit their view of marriage?
You mean like you have done in this response?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26131 Jan 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem fixated on the number two.....yet....Out of 1170 societies recorded in Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas, polygyny (the practice of men having more than one wife) is prevalent in 850. Even our own culture, which has an astoundingly high divorce and remarriage rate, practices a form of serial polygamy.
The same old story from these clowns. Denying same sex marriage is BAD! Denying polygamy is GOOD!

Then they refuse to say how that makes any sense at all. It's "off topic".

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26132 Jan 21, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Which denies that right to a related consenting adult. Why?
Why is that restriction acceptable to SSMers? Rather odd.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26133 Jan 21, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like you have done in this response?
Think about it Jerald....are SSCs trying to graft their relationship onto not only the existing legal structure of marriage as a conjugal union of husband and wife, but the cross cultural historical, legal, and/or religious understanding of marriage as a male female union in general, and a sexual union in particular, or vice versa as in OSC's trying to graft onto a preexisting same sex marriage structure?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26134 Jan 21, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
No dear, I mean the same right that you have to pursue marriage with an unrelated, consenting adult. Bye.
I can only pursue marriage with an unrelated female/first cousin, because it requires a male and a female to begin the pursuit in the first place. It be like a man trying to pursue motherhood.....he can't be a mother because.....d'uh he's a man.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26135 Jan 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is that restriction acceptable to SSMers? Rather odd.
Because they are hypocrites. And they refuse to discuss it, it's "off topic".

If you attempt to discuss the topic, which is marriage equality, they'll post long off topic rants scolding you for being off topic!

Then they'll resume chattering about decorating tips.

The bottom line is they hate poly and cannot admit it so it makes em mean and nasty!

WOO HOOOO!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26136 Jan 21, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
I support marriage between two individuals, whether they be man and woman, two women or two men. I don't have to support polygamy in order to support marriage between two people. I neither support nor abhor polygamy; I am indifferent on the issue.
Do you support motherhood for men? Fatherhood for women? The right of male lesbians to be treated equal to female lesbians? Etc.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26137 Jan 21, 2013
Why should I? I've worked for gay rights for over two decades, and many have worked even longer. Polygamists evidently can't be bothered to work for their rights, and have done nothing for ours.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26138 Jan 21, 2013
In other words, if you have to share it, you won't feel special anymore. That's whre you're going with this.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.
Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?
See where I'm going with this?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26139 Jan 21, 2013
Parental rights exist regardless of marital status. Marriage helps to stabilize the couple, which in turn creates a more stable home for them. But there are no inherent legal protections for kids inherent to the marriage contract.
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 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.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#26140 Jan 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Think about it Jerald....are SSCs trying to graft their relationship onto not only the existing legal structure of marriage as a conjugal union of husband and wife, but the cross cultural historical, legal, and/or religious understanding of marriage as a male female union in general, and a sexual union in particular, or vice versa as in OSC's trying to graft onto a preexisting same sex marriage structure?
Your argument is inherently circular and therefore unpersuasive.

You've defined the sole purpose of civil marriage in so narrow a fashion (one that no state uses) as to exclude couples who cannot procreate. According to your circular reasoning, same-sex couples cannot marry because marriage is defined by opposite-sex partners.

That merely begs the question -- why must that be so?

There are other reasons people wish to marry, reasons that the state has no business interfering with; indeed, reasons that the state does support right now. Infertile and elderly couples marry all the time; their procreative capacities are inconsequential to their ability to marry. They support one another through their lives, freeing the state from having to provide care; their combined incomes and abilities enrich their communities; and any children that they may raise (not necessarily bear) benefit from their marriage.

Since procreation is NOT the sole purpose of civil marriage and NO STATE defines it so narrowly as you have "redefined" it, what remains as the purpose of excluding same-sex couples from marrying if not animus against gay and lesbian people?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26141 Jan 21, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Why should I? I've worked for gay rights for over two decades, and many have worked even longer. Polygamists evidently can't be bothered to work for their rights, and have done nothing for ours.
<quoted text>
I am not a polygamist or gay but I have also worked for gay rights. I have dear friends and relatives that are gay. I bet I have been to more same sex weddings than you have. I may even have worked harder for YOUR rights than you. Because I believe in equal rights.

I still have room in my heart for others being denied rights. Too bad you don't, but you're very selfish, I understand, as I've told you before.

What harm would a marriage of three men do you? Why do you wish to deny it? The number of people wishing to enter a group marriage is so small you'll probably never ever meet a polygamist. Relax and give others the rights you enjoy. They are not limited. You won't lose yours.

You are being a hypocrite. Stop it.

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
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 min Joy Division 15,777
Catholic Church Waging War on Women and Gays (Oct '07) 2 min Brian_G 219,714
Is Jeb Bush 'evolving' on same-sex marriage and... 3 min WeTheSheeple 197
Gay rights activist charged with faking abducti... 8 min Earl 8
Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 18 min Brian_G 1,121
Pizza chain sued over healthcare for gay couples (Aug '14) 19 min Cat Lover 41
Kelly Clarkson doesn't mind if her daughter is gay 20 min Justin 31
Texas lawmaker married five times files error-f... 2 hr Kellys Hair 42
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 2 hr swedenforever 57,929
Biggest Gay Lies (May '14) 8 hr Frankie Rizzo 3,230
More from around the web