Obama Announces Full Support for Gay ...

Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

There are 26163 comments on the politix.topix.com story from May 9, 2012, titled Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage. In it, politix.topix.com reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at politix.topix.com.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#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

Hayward, 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

Hayward, 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!<

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#26151 Jan 21, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Including your dopey comments. And you.
Oh yea? Up yours tosser!!!!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26152 Jan 21, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yea? Up yours tosser!!!!
Exit only! Except for my silly Chinese doctor's slim finger once a year! And he doesn't even buy me dinner. Sends me a bill!

Hi toots! Love ya silly! How they not hangin' tonight?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26153 Jan 21, 2013
Mrs-Whitewater wrote:
<quoted text>
and most of those in opposition to equality in marriage argue that every single couple are and should only get married to procreate.
Who is arguing that the husband and wife are not equal? That they are both not needed equally to have a valid marital relationship?

Not every OSC needs to procreate or should in order to marry. There will always be those that don't. I don't need to tell you that sex, aka coital intercourse, between men and women, makes babies. Is it not in the best interest of the state that sex, and its natural consequence, conception occur within the conjugal marital relationship?
In a world that is already failing because we humans have over populated it, why make laws that married couples must have offspring?
What state requires a married couple to procreate? Perhaps SSM is a form of birth control?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26154 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.
I see oh Wonderful, Wise, and Witty Wizard of Waste Water. Why does marriage exist in the first place?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#26155 Jan 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I see oh Wonderful, Wise, and Witty Wizard of Waste Water. Why does marriage exist in the first place?
Who cares? I'm only interested in the part that provides equal protection of our laws as defined in the Constitution.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#26156 Jan 21, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I see oh Wonderful, Wise, and Witty Wizard of Waste Water. Why does marriage exist in the first place?
Since there is no definitive answer, what is yours?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26157 Jan 21, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares? I'm only interested in the part that provides equal protection of our laws as defined in the Constitution.
Which means what exactly? The laws governing marriage apply to all men and women equally.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26158 Jan 21, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Since there is no definitive answer, what is yours?
Synper

Think about it. What is the one universal cross time, cross cultural, central feature of marriage? Male female relationship. Why....that's easy....sex makes babies. Marriage has either been one man one wife, or one many wives. If SSM is such a hot idea, why didn't it develop along side OSM? Same sex sexual behavior isn't new....so why no deep rooted SSM across time and place?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26159 Jan 21, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Exit only! Except for my silly Chinese doctor's slim finger once a year! And he doesn't even buy me dinner. Sends me a bill!
Hi toots! Love ya silly! How they not hangin' tonight?
Funny stuff...didn't quite get Wastey's "tosser" dig until I read this.
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#26160 Jan 22, 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?
It loses its fundamental meaning? Really? So your marriage has been meaningless for 8yrs now? Did you receive a letter from the State informing you that you are no longer married? Did ANYTHING AT ALL about your marriage change? No, nothing changed...except your whining.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26161 Jan 22, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Who cares? I'm only interested in the part that provides equal protection of our laws as defined in the Constitution.
Many of us have much broader interests than your narrow legal interests. It's OK for us to post here too! It doesn't say "narrow legal interests only!" in the title.

Your interests are very narrow, My interests are very BROAD!

FUN Stuff!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26162 Jan 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Which means what exactly? The laws governing marriage apply to all men and women equally.
It means she has no rebuttal but you're still wrong!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26163 Jan 22, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>It loses its fundamental meaning? Really? So your marriage has been meaningless for 8yrs now? Did you receive a letter from the State informing you that you are no longer married? Did ANYTHING AT ALL about your marriage change? No, nothing changed...except your whining.
Same thing will happen to you if polygamy is made legal. Nothing.

The sky won't fall on you. You'll still be whining and crying that it should be illegal because of the children! And the forced child brides! And other horrors only dopely imagined.

Mona Lott! What a dope!
Pietro Armando

North Billerica, MA

#26164 Jan 22, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Same thing will happen to you if polygamy is made legal. Nothing.
The sky won't fall on you. You'll still be whining and crying that it should be illegal because of the children! And the forced child brides! And other horrors only dopely imagined.
Mona Lott! What a dope!
Ya beat me to it paisan.....I was thinking the same thing...just didn't get a chance to respond. Even Jane Doo Doo can see the flaw in his(?) response. Would a state allowing same sex siblings to marry affect anyone else's marriage personally? No. Sooooo...the opposite sex requirement is unfair, not constitutional, mean, yada yada yada....but all the other requirements are just hunky Dorey. Where is the line drawn?
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#26165 Jan 22, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Same thing will happen to you if polygamy is made legal. Nothing.
The sky won't fall on you. You'll still be whining and crying that it should be illegal because of the children! And the forced child brides! And other horrors only dopely imagined.
Mona Lott! What a dope!
Except I never said polygamy should be illegal. Geez, pal... dense much?
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#26166 Jan 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya beat me to it paisan.....I was thinking the same thing...just didn't get a chance to respond. Even Jane Doo Doo can see the flaw in his(?) response. Would a state allowing same sex siblings to marry affect anyone else's marriage personally? No. Sooooo...the opposite sex requirement is unfair, not constitutional, mean, yada yada yada....but all the other requirements are just hunky Dorey. Where is the line drawn?
Flaw in my response? Really?...and just what was that?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26167 Jan 22, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Except I never said polygamy should be illegal. Geez, pal... dense much?


Which marriage requirements and/or restrictions are acceptable to you?

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
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 3 min wow 18,608
News Moore goes before ethics panel on gay marriage ... 22 min Rosa_Winkel 7
News Rainbow flag honoring Orlando victims fuels a feud 24 min Annonymous 31
Will NE Jade come out of hiding? 27 min DebraE 4
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 30 min DebraE 40,586
News Cameroon asylum row man 'told to prove he is gay' 33 min Phillip 4
News Embattled Nebraska senator may survive cybersex... 39 min Clinton Rape Machine 3
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 2 hr Dunk 69,003
News Eastern Kentucky holds first Pride Festival 2 hr Emmett 114
More from around the web