Obama Announces Full Support for Gay ...

Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

There are 26164 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.

Straight Sh00ter

United States

#26207 Jan 22, 2013
Apparently Wahabi islam supports gay rights, I mean why else would Lil' Bam-Bam support it so forcefully?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#26208 Jan 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Explain, in detail and using statistics, why it is better for the children of gay couples to have forcibly unmarried parents.

Then, prove how gay people marrying hurts the children of straight parents, or any straight married couple.

If you can't do that, you can't logically make this argument.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26209 Jan 23, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain, in detail and using statistics, why it is better for the children of gay couples to have forcibly unmarried parents.
Then, prove how gay people marrying hurts the children of straight parents, or any straight married couple.
If you can't do that, you can't logically make this argument.
Stand on on leg, put your finger on your nose, and jump around explaining in detail, why you are so imperious.

Then prove the Pythagorean theorem.

If you can't do that, you are a jackass!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26210 Jan 23, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain, in detail and using statistics, why it is better for the children of gay couples to have forcibly unmarried parents.
Then, prove how gay people marrying hurts the children of straight parents, or any straight married couple.
If you can't do that, you can't logically make this argument.
"Forcibly unmarried"!

Priceless!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#26211 Jan 23, 2013
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26213 Jan 23, 2013
Voila wrote:
<quoted text>This thread isn't about your hatred of any fair treatment for Obama. It's about his selling out to radical homosexual hate groups and his support for the political charade of homosexual 'marriage.' Homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud.
It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals as an actual practice in every country that allows it, and studies have shown that most such 'marriages' aren't even exclusive arrangements.
No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Homosexual 'marriage,' where legal, isn't even a basic building block of homosexual society, much less of society as a whole. There is no standardized format for homosexual 'marriages,' and no economically unequal genders are involved.
Why not forget about disenfranchising others in order for force your concocted, failed philosophy into law? Why not try a little live and let live?
http://www.politicalcartoons.com/cartoon/69c4...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26214 Jan 23, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
"Forcibly unmarried"!
Priceless!
Would that be a "shotgun no marriage?
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#26215 Jan 23, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Stand on on leg, put your finger on your nose, and jump around explaining in detail, why you are so imperious.
Then prove the Pythagorean theorem.
If you can't do that, you are a jackass!
That's not an answer.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#26216 Jan 23, 2013
Voila wrote:
<quoted text>
1. This thread isn't about your hatred of any fair treatment for Obama. It's about his selling out to radical homosexual hate groups and his support for the political charade of homosexual 'marriage.' Homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud.

2. It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals as an actual practice in every country that allows it, and studies have shown that most such 'marriages' aren't even exclusive arrangements.

3. No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage.

4. No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother.

5. Homosexual 'marriage,' where legal, isn't even a basic building block of homosexual society, much less of society as a whole. There is no standardized format for homosexual 'marriages,' and no economically unequal genders are involved.

6. Why not forget about disenfranchising others in order for force your concocted, failed philosophy into law? Why not try a little live and let live?
1. opinion. laughable at that. but you can keep your opinion since it doesn't matter to anyone else.

2. prove it. cite the sources of those studies. provide some proof of your claims. but remember, percentiles of the citizenship that utilizes a "civil right" doesn't negate it's necessity. just look at the massive numbers of people that don't vote in this country - the majority of eligible american adults don't vote. with your reasoning (or lack there of), then voting for public offices should be eliminated in america.

3. wrong. the hired attornies (by the republican party) in the prop 8 case couldn't show any legitimate state interest in not allowing homosexual couples to marry. that decision has ben upheld by every judge that has dealt with the appeal.

4. not germain as there is no legal requirement to procreate in order to obtain a marriage license anywhere in the united states.

5. there is no standardized format of heterosexual marriage either - a successful marriage is defined and lived by the individuals in that marriage. their neighbors don't decide what's best for them. similarly, a same sex marriage would be the same way - the two adults involved in the legal contract and relationship would define what works for them within the marriage, without intereference from their neighbors. does anyone step into your marriage (if you are married) and tell you what works for you and what doesn't? i would hope not. that kind of privacy is reserved for the people involved in the marriage & not for anyone else to sneak peaks at.

6. "live and let live"? pot, meet kettle! and you call same sex marriage a failure? how about taking a look at the overwhelming statistics regarding heterosexual marriage before you point fingers at homosexual couples desiring to enter it the same legal contract as their heterosexial neighbors and family members. the divorce rate is pretty indicative of what people like you think of marriage. so why not let everyone else live and let live, to use your own words? why force everyone else to live by your personal feelings? by allowing same sex couples to marry, it does nothing to prevent heterosexual couples from marrying so it alters nothing for heterosexual couples.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#26218 Jan 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Would that be a "shotgun no marriage?
That's about right.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#26219 Jan 23, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Stand on on leg, put your finger on your nose, and jump around explaining in detail, why you are so imperious.
Then prove the Pythagorean theorem.
If you can't do that, you are a jackass!
You seem to have drifted off topic.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#26220 Jan 23, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
"Forcibly unmarried"!
Priceless!
Don't you support gay folks being forced by the government to remain unmarried, despite their wishes in the matter?

I thought that was your goal?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#26221 Jan 23, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not an answer.
That's because he doesn't have one.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26222 Jan 23, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not an answer.
Right. I took avoiding the answer lessons from the master, Jane Dodo aka Mona Lott aka Aida Lott aka Frankie's Pudenda aka Jackass aka Dummy!

YUK!YUK!YUK!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26223 Jan 23, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you support gay folks being forced by the government to remain unmarried, despite their wishes in the matter?
I thought that was your goal?
That's because you are stupid. Don't try and think!

I fully support marriage equality. Do you?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26224 Jan 23, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because he doesn't have one.
That's because I wasn't asked a question.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26225 Jan 23, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to have drifted off topic.
Yes, because you brought me there with your prissy list of commands. Please get on topic.

Do you think Obama should also announce full support for other forms of marriage besides same sex marriage?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26226 Jan 23, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not an answer.
Neither is your post.

I didn't answer mostly because I wasn't asked a question dummy. Pay attention.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26227 Jan 23, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain, in detail and using statistics, why it is better for the children of gay couples to have forcibly unmarried parents.
Explain, in detail and using statistics, why it is better for the children of plural marriages to have forcibily unmarried parents.

Explain, in detail and using statistics, why it is better for children of adult siblings to have forcibly unmarried parents.
Then, prove how gay people marrying hurts the children of straight parents, or any straight married couple.
Then, prove how opposite sex polygamists marrying more than one person hurts the children of an opposite sex parents, any opposite sex married couple?
If you can't do that, you can't logically make this argument.
If you can't do that, you can't logically claim, SSCs who have children should be considered legally married.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26228 Jan 23, 2013
Evidently catholicism supports child rape; they supported and protected pedophiles for decades.

BTW--obama is a christian.
Straight Sh00ter wrote:
Apparently Wahabi islam supports gay rights, I mean why else would Lil' Bam-Bam support it so forcefully?

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
BIG LABOR DAY PaRTAAY! 1 min GAY NEWZ 1
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 min TomInElPaso 38,536
News L.G.B.T. Asian-Americans share stories to educa... 2 min Pope Ben Out To P... 8
News Warnings of meningococcal disease among SoCal g... 4 min Fa-Foxy 4
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 5 min lides 14,778
News Actress who played TV psychic, Miss Cleo, dies ... 14 min Imprtnrd 4
News NBA Moves All-Star Game Out of North Carolina O... 17 min Imprtnrd 49
More from around the web