Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

May 9, 2012 Read more: politix.topix.com 26,169

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

Read more

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26182 Jan 22, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
OK! Wanna take a walk on the wild side toots?
Actually Frankie, for him, it might be considered, "on the straight and narrow".:)
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#26183 Jan 22, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
If I never answer, then how can my answer be flawed? Focus.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#26184 Jan 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
If the state is going to recognize???? I think they already do recognize marriage as a legally protected relationship. The question is: what is the State's interest in denying equal protection to a specific group.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26185 Jan 22, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>If the state is going to recognize???? I think they already do recognize marriage as a legally protected relationship. The question is: what is the State's interest in denying equal protection to a specific group.
Every state recognizes "marriage" as a legally protected relationship, distinct from all others. Each state defines marriage differently. Some states have removed the opposite sex requirenment, while others have constitutionalized it. The question is: What is the state's interest in recognizing a specific group if said group's pairings, same sex, do not share the same foundation as the larger group's pairing, opposite sex. Why does a same sex relationship need recognizing at all, and/or in the same way an opposite sex relationship is recognized?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26186 Jan 22, 2013
LuLu Ford wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what the court is debating Jackass.
Aw c'mon toots. Let's be honest. Jane Dodo is a much bigger jackass than Pietro. Pietro is a gentleman! Jane Dodo is, er, ah, not.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26187 Jan 22, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>If the state is going to recognize???? I think they already do recognize marriage as a legally protected relationship. The question is: what is the State's interest in denying equal protection to a specific group.
No, the topic is Obama.

YUK!YUK!YUK!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26188 Jan 22, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>If I never answer, then how can my answer be flawed? Focus.
To pull Jane Dodo sh!t on Jane Dodo- When did I say it was? Focus yourself jackass!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26189 Jan 22, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>If I never answer, then how can my answer be flawed? Focus.
There's a big difference between an answer and a response dufus! Just look at your posts. You respond, but you don't answer.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26190 Jan 22, 2013
When you replace something, you must remove one thing and put another in its place. You cannot do that in marriage; you can only dissolve the contract. If a marriage is between two men, there is no replacement; the spouse is original to the contract. No woman was ever involved.

It's hard for a child to be conceived by anyone BUT their biological parents, isn't it?
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26191 Jan 22, 2013
LuLu Ford wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what the court is debating Jackass.
In Italian American lingo it would be, and this is the phonetic spelling, "chooch". Capeesh?!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26192 Jan 22, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
When you replace something, you must remove one thing and put another in its place. You cannot do that in marriage; you can only dissolve the contract. If a marriage is between two men, there is no replacement; the spouse is original to the contract. No woman was ever involved.
There was at one point, or neither man would have been there in the first place.:)
It's hard for a child to be conceived by anyone BUT their biological parents, isn't it?
There's hope for you yet. "1313"? Mockingbird Lane?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26193 Jan 22, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Aw c'mon toots. Let's be honest. Jane Dodo is a much bigger jackass than Pietro. Pietro is a gentleman! Jane Dodo is, er, ah, not.
Thanks paisan.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#26194 Jan 22, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Every state recognizes "marriage" as a legally protected relationship, distinct from all others. Each state defines marriage differently. Some states have removed the opposite sex requirenment, while others have constitutionalized it. The question is: What is the state's interest in recognizing a specific group if said group's pairings, same sex, do not share the same foundation as the larger group's pairing, opposite sex. Why does a same sex relationship need recognizing at all, and/or in the same way an opposite sex relationship is recognized?
The State acts on the behalf of ALL its citizens, not just the majority.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#26195 Jan 22, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
To pull Jane Dodo sh!t on Jane Dodo- When did I say it was? Focus yourself jackass!
Post #26177

You really are quite the dullard.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#26196 Jan 22, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
There's a big difference between an answer and a response dufus! Just look at your posts. You respond, but you don't answer.
Let's try this again.... If I don't answer, then how can my answer be flawed?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26197 Jan 22, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text> The State acts on the behalf of ALL its citizens, not just the majority.
Exactly...you're catching on! That's why its in the best interest of ALL of its citizens, particularly its younger citizens, not to tamper with one of its fundamental institutions, if not the institution, crucial to its stability, conjugal marriage.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26198 Jan 22, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Post #26177
You really are quite the dullard.
I said your response (singular) was "one big flaw" not your answer was flawed since you didn't answer, you only responded with an insult. Then I said you never answer you just respond and there is a difference. Remember dullard? Sure you do!

So I'll ask again- When did I say your answer was flawed? Before or after I said you never answer?

What a DULLARD!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26199 Jan 22, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's try this again.... If I don't answer, then how can my answer be flawed?
Let's try this again- I will only give your straw man arguments mild amusement. They get so silly. I don't want to go on and on with them. So stop them for now and let's get back on topic.

Do you think Obama should announce full support for poly marriage too? Why or why not?

Thank you.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26200 Jan 22, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's try this again.... If I don't answer, then how can my answer be flawed?
I said your response was flawed. I did not say your answer was flawed.

I said you never answer. And you don't so let's try once again!

Do you think Obama should announce full support for poly marriage?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26201 Jan 22, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Your whole response was one big flaw!
YUK!YUK!YUK!
Post 26177.

When did I say your answers were all flawed Jane Dodo? Never.

Your stupid response to that one post was just an insult, not an answer. Since you never answer.

Glad I could straighten this all out for 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 Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 14 min piratefighting 1,830
News Governor Cuomo bans non-essential state travel ... 21 min woodtick57 19
News Is the GOP losing Walmart? 22 min Robin Hood 3
News The Hoosier Nuremberg Laws 25 min Spuds 123
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 32 min EdmondWA 30,999
News Indiana House OKs religious objection bill by w... 37 min Learn to Read 182
News Arkansas Senate passes revised religious freedo... 42 min david traversa 3
News Indiana lawmakers try to quiet firestorm surrou... 1 hr Jesus Sheeeria 176
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Tony C 17,859
News U.S. corporations pressure two states accused o... 3 hr Jesus Sheeeria 50
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 4 hr GayleWood 1,970
More from around the web