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
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, 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

Union City, 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

Boston, 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

Hoboken, 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

Hoboken, 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?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#26168 Jan 22, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
Yea we all know how you are interested in the broads.

We also know you have no interest in the law which is what the marriage argument is based upon.

Why not go out and get laid?
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#26169 Jan 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Which marriage requirements and/or restrictions are acceptable to you?
For me personally, I have no interest in getting married. If a couple wishes to be married and they are, for whatever reason, denied, they have a right to take their grievance to court.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26170 Jan 22, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Flaw in my response? Really?...and just what was that?
Let's see what u wrote:

(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.)

"Fundamental meaning"as it applies to marriage as a common institution....a shared understanding of its purpose, function, and benefit to society based......not individual marriages. Is it your contention that legal SSM has had no negative impact on individual marriages? If the answer is yes, then the question is, and this is where the flaw is, "How would legal plural marriage, sane sex sibling marriage, etc., effect any one's marriage personally?

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#26171 Jan 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Which means what exactly? The laws governing marriage apply to all men and women equally.
That's what the court is debating Jackass.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#26172 Jan 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see what u wrote:
(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.)
"Fundamental meaning"as it applies to marriage as a common institution....a shared understanding of its purpose, function, and benefit to society based......not individual marriages. Is it your contention that legal SSM has had no negative impact on individual marriages? If the answer is yes, then the question is, and this is where the flaw is, "How would legal plural marriage, sane sex sibling marriage, etc., effect any one's marriage personally?
Let me see if I understand.... I didn't answer so my answer is flawed. Is that your point?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26173 Jan 22, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Let me see if I understand.... I didn't answer so my answer is flawed. Is that your point?
You never answer. You just say the question isn't valid! That's because you're angry enough to post but not smart enough to be effective.

Your welcome!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26174 Jan 22, 2013
LuLu Ford wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what the court is debating Jackass.
Is that silly parrot gonna post today Toots?

I like that squawky jackass! It's silly-squawky!

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26175 Jan 22, 2013
Marriage has primarily been about property--acquiring it, keeping it, inheriting it, and marrying it. Wives have been the possession of their husbands for millennia; men and women being equal is a VERY modern idea, only the last century or so.

In this culture, at this time, marriage is about two people committing to each other with the protections and responsibilities outlined by the state. Neither gender nor fertility are necessry to that concept.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26176 Jan 22, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Except I never said polygamy should be illegal. Geez, pal... dense much?
Yes you did don't lie we both know you did.

Now you're gonna say go find that post. Like I said before. Too hard.

You can fool everyone here about this but you can't fool me or yourself silly.

But why not set the record straight? Do you think polygamy should be illegal?

Please don't answer "your question is a fallacy".

Thanks!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26177 Jan 22, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Flaw in my response? Really?...and just what was that?
Your whole response was one big flaw!

YUK!YUK!YUK!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26178 Jan 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Which marriage requirements and/or restrictions are acceptable to you?
He won't say now but he once ranted on and on against polygamy like some rabid maniac! He actually said "What about the children"!

Priceless.

Now he clams up. Won't argue the subject beyond his usual dopey ad hominem. If at least he made it funny! But no, it's just you're wrong because you're stupid.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26179 Jan 22, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea we all know how you are interested in the broads.
We also know you have no interest in the law which is what the marriage argument is based upon.
Why not go out and get laid?
OK! Wanna take a walk on the wild side toots?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26180 Jan 22, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>For me personally, I have no interest in getting married. If a couple wishes to be married and they are, for whatever reason, denied, they have a right to take their grievance to court.
Absolutely, its the American way. If the state is going to recognize marriage as a legally privleged relationship, it has the authority to set the requirements for it. The question is how does the state, and/or society define marriage, and why is it privleged to begin with?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26181 Jan 22, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Marriage has primarily been about property--acquiring it, keeping it, inheriting it, and marrying it. Wives have been the possession of their husbands for millennia; men and women being equal is a VERY modern idea, only the last century or so.
I'm not disputing that, just the notion that elevation of the wife in the marital relationship, somehow means that she is not required for the marital relationship. Gee...we progressed from the "wife is equal to the husband" to the "wife can be replaced with another husband". Just think she only had a few decades of equality before she is shown the door. Oh well....all in the name of progress.
In this culture, at this time, marriage is about two people committing to each other with the protections and responsibilities outlined by the state. Neither gender nor fertility are necessry to that concept.
Hmmmmmm......oooh so close...actually its about what that "two" becomes...three or four or five....sex between men and women still makes babies....I would think that Mr. & Mrs. Munster's baby boy CPeter who resides at 1313 Mockingbird lane would understand this concept. Yes I know one does not need to be married in order to procreate, and out of wedlock births have risen considerably over the past 10 to 20 years. That still doesn't change the orientation of marriage...get it?...toward the procreative sexual aspect of the male female relationship. There's really not much dispute that children do best when conceived and raised by their OWN biological mother and father in a low conflict stable marriage. My parents did, I did, my children are. Even gay kids I would imagine would prefer their own married mother and father in a stable marriage and home life.

Why does it matter to society at large that two men/women marry? Are there legions of unwed pregnant men out there? If two men/women don't marry, what will happen? If marriage is such a hot item within the gay community, why is there such indifference to the idea? Why aren't more couples, that can, legally marrying, other than the lack of nationwide recognition, which I don't think is the primary reason? Why do more female couples marry than male?

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
Latest gay marriage ruling creates confusion in... 3 min Lamer 70
Wall Street pushes SCOTUS on gay marriage 6 min NorCal Native 34
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 9 min SW Jaid R2D2 68,613
Major survey shows most Americans support same-... 11 min The New Righteous 1 16
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 12 min GayleWood 16,207
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 12 min RiccardoFire 201,445
Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 13 min Newt G s Next Wife 6
Biggest Gay Lies (May '14) 51 min SW Jaid 3,245
Is Jeb Bush 'evolving' on same-sex marriage and... 2 hr swedenforever 277
Religious objection to gay marriage leads to bi... 3 hr WeTheSheeple 96
More from around the web