Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

[Pietro Armando]

Jupiter wrote:

<quoted text>
Why would they want to marry someone they're not attracted to? Why can't they marry the one they ARE attracted to. At least they can in some states.

Why not call it something else? Is this a self esteem issue?

[Pietro Armando]

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
Marriage means nothing. It is a legal issue dummy.

Stated by the Wonderful and Wise Wizard of Waste Water

[Frankie Rizzo]

Jupiter wrote:

<quoted text>
I said you seemed angry; that is not an insult. I never said I didn't support incest or poly marriage.

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?

[Pietro Armando]

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!

Go Frankie!

[Jupiter]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Why not call it something else? Is this a self esteem issue?

It possibly is for you.

[Jane Dodo]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
You really don't understand the simple concept that if marriage means everything, it means nothing? You should be embarrassed, not proud.
If marriage means everything, everyone will be married. It won't mean anything. Very simple concept.
I'd like to find the place where it is fair and equal to everyone. I think it includes same sex poly and incest marriage. You obviously do not. No reason to get angry. I am simply more tolerant than you.

everything=nothing? A very simple concept indeed. So simple you can't even explain it.

[Jane Dodo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Go Frankie!

Perhaps YOU can explain what you THINK he means? Good luck.

[Jane Dodo]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

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?

... and you think that proves the opposite? nincompoop.

[Pietro Armando]

Jupiter wrote:

<quoted text>
No, they want marriage. Same as what you have. Simple.

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.

[Jupiter]

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.

[Jupiter]

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.

[Pietro Armando]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Pietro Armando]

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.

[Jerald]

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]

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".

[Pietro Armando]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Which denies that right to a related consenting adult. Why?

Why is that restriction acceptable to SSMers? Rather odd.