Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

May 9, 2012 Full story: politix.topix.com 26,178

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

Full Story
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.

“T.H.I.N.K. Before you Speak”

Since: Sep 08

With My Wife and Family

#26142 Jan 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
and most of those in opposition to equality in marriage argue that every single couple are and should only get married to procreate.

In a world that is already failing because we humans have over populated it, why make laws that married couples must have offspring?

That's like saying all pet owners must breed their animals. It just makes no sense to demand that people keep making more.

Mrs Whitewater
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26143 Jan 21, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
In other words, if you have to share it, you won't feel special anymore. That's whre you're going with this.
<quoted text>
No. Not at all. Your anger and selfishness is making you stupid.

If you cannot discuss the topic without getting so emotional, please don't try.

“T.H.I.N.K. Before you Speak”

Since: Sep 08

With My Wife and Family

#26144 Jan 21, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
Well done!
Thank you. It seems common sense is a rare commodity around here.

Bright Blessings,
Mrs Whitewater

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26145 Jan 21, 2013
1) Parents and offspring are equally joined regardless of marital status.

2) What the populace views as marriage is immaterial; civil marriage is a legal issue, not a popularity contest. BTW--just over half the population supports SSM--so by your logic, it should already be legal in every state.

3) Since SSM already exists, there is no redefining going on.

4) Again, this is about equal protection under the law, not what the state "needs."
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Do u disagree with that statement?
<quoted text>
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?

“T.H.I.N.K. Before you Speak”

Since: Sep 08

With My Wife and Family

#26146 Jan 21, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Aw, did I hurt your feelings Miss Thing? Good!
Not at all. I would not allow you that power over me.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
To be honest, if my eye did catch a grammer error, I moved right passed it so my mind could take in the meessage he was conveying.

My statements stand on their own without having to lower myself to picking out someone else;s mistakes.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Save your phony "Bright Blessings", Jackass. You don't wish me "Bright Blessings", you fake.
See, this is what I am speaking of. When you have no more proof, no more arguments that are valid in your mind, you turn to name calling.

If you really wanted to make the derogatory comment fit me, the correct derogatory slang would be biotch.(of course, spelled differently)

My signature is a reminder to myself and not a blessing to you when I post. I am reminding myself that everyone is a spiritual being and made by God. I would hate to piss Him off because I hated one of His creations.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't have "souls" to try and save fundie.


Well, I suspected but I wasn't going to assume.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
My converstation with God on my day of reconning is between myself and Him. Please know that you need not worry, I'm all good to go.:)

Bright Blessings,
Mrs Whitewater
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26147 Jan 21, 2013
Mrs-Whitewater wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. I would not allow you that power over me.
<quoted text>
To be honest, if my eye did catch a grammer error, I moved right passed it so my mind could take in the meessage he was conveying.
My statements stand on their own without having to lower myself to picking out someone else;s mistakes.
<quoted text>
See, this is what I am speaking of. When you have no more proof, no more arguments that are valid in your mind, you turn to name calling.
If you really wanted to make the derogatory comment fit me, the correct derogatory slang would be biotch.(of course, spelled differently)
My signature is a reminder to myself and not a blessing to you when I post. I am reminding myself that everyone is a spiritual being and made by God. I would hate to piss Him off because I hated one of His creations.
<quoted text>
Well, I suspected but I wasn't going to assume.
<quoted text>
My converstation with God on my day of reconning is between myself and Him. Please know that you need not worry, I'm all good to go.:)
Bright Blessings,
Mrs Whitewater
I nominate your post for the most pompous of the year!

The guy made a lot of mistakes in grammar. I mentioned them. He admitted them. You butted in defending his mistakes claiming they weren't mistakes and that I was wrong! Now you're embarrassed and mad at me!

Priceless!

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#26148 Jan 21, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Great post toots! What does it mean? Marriage means a lot to many people, otherwise all the whiners and malcontents like you wouldn't post here!
What a dummy!
The civil marriage is a contract between two individuals recorded before an administrative judge at the court house. Everything else is completely irrelevant.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26149 Jan 21, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
The civil marriage is a contract between two individuals recorded before an administrative judge at the court house. Everything else is completely irrelevant.
Including your dopey comments. And you.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26150 Jan 21, 2013
Mrs-Whitewater wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you. It seems common sense is a rare commodity around here.
Bright Blessings,
Mrs Whitewater
>Gag!<

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
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 2 min Frankie Rizzo 3,558
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler? 9 min Pro-Ukraine 2,756
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 9 min Frankie Rizzo 3,975
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 9 min cpeter1313 2,458
Judge resigns so he won't have to marry gay cou... 11 min barry 725
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 14 min thetruth 14,451
STUDY: Gay Sex Helps Humans Bond and Survive 15 min Mitt s Airtight D... 3
US judge strikes down Arkansas' gay marriage ba... 20 min cpeter1313 42
Homosexuality 'promotes bonding' 23 min Mitt s Airtight D... 57
Gay brains similar to opposite-sex straight brains 5 hr Obvious 29

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE