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.

Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26230 Jan 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
Then, prove how opposite sex polygamists marrying more than one person hurts the children of an opposite sex parents, any opposite sex married couple?
<quoted text>
If you can't do that, you can't logically claim, SSCs who have children should be considered legally married.
Bravo paisan!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26231 Jan 23, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Evidently catholicism supports child rape; they supported and protected pedophiles for decades.
BTW--obama is a christian.
<quoted text>
Yes. I went to church with my Catholic girlfriend and the priest said we must support more child rape, not enough children are being raped.

And we must do all we can to protect pedophiles. There should be no pedophiles caught or punished.

I didn't see Obama there though. I think Obama is whatever religion or anything else he needs to be to get elected. And we will see a much more leftist less Christian Obama now. The true Obama. Get ready for the ride!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26232 Jan 23, 2013
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#26233 Jan 23, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
So it's ok if YOU do it but nobody else.... Hmmmmmm
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#26234 Jan 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
First, homosexual couples are not trying to enter into the same contract as heteosexual couples. The foundation for the latter is different. Second the divorce rate for OSC underlines the fact that marriage is an opposite sex union, and yes I agree OSCs have done a lousy job keeping their commitments. Lastly, different composition, SS compared to OS, and ultimately different function and purpose.
First, there is only one marriage contract.
Second, you are using divorce to advocate for marriage? Really?
Last, legal recognition is the function and purpose of marriage.

Do you think same sex couples being permitted to marry is going to just fade away because you don't like it?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26235 Jan 23, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>So it's ok if YOU do it but nobody else.... Hmmmmmm
Janey Dodo, the man did not ask me a question. So of course I did not answer. Are you stupid?

But lets skip your straw man nonsense and get back to the topic. Why are you a hypocrite? Why do you think Obama would not announce full support for poly marriage?

Thank you.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26236 Jan 23, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>

Do you think same sex couples being permitted to marry is going to just fade away because you don't like it?
Do you think support for polyamorists being permitted to marry is going to just fade away because you don't like it?
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#26237 Jan 23, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Why do you think Obama would not announce full support for poly marriage?
Because he's not stupid.
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#26238 Jan 23, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think support for polyamorists being permitted to marry is going to just fade away because you don't like it?
What support?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26239 Jan 23, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text> Because he's not stupid.
You believe supporting marriage equality for polyamorists is stupid.

Why is it stupid?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26240 Jan 23, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>What support?
Support for polyamorists being permitted to marry.

You read my question! What did I stutter Fruitloops?

YUK!YUK!YUK!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26241 Jan 23, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
First, there is only one marriage contract.
Different foundation there Janey..we both know that.
Second, you are using divorce to advocate for marriage? Really?
Uhhhh....noooooo.....but some gay folks are finding out, after the intitial hoopla...being married isn't what they thought it would be...so with gay marrige comes gay divorce.
Last, legal recognition is the function and purpose of marriage.
Seriously? That's your answer? Granted this case dates back to 1971, and SOME don't agree with the opinon expressed here, but it does illustrate the function and purpose of marriage.

http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/walton/ba...
The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation.

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 8 S.Ct. 723, 31 L. Ed. 654 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations./5/"

Loving does indicate that not all state restrictions upon the right to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.
Do you think same sex couples being permitted to marry is going to just fade away because you don't like it?
Not at all...I think it will continue...and it will provide others, namely plural marriage practictioners, encouragement, and legal grounds to pursue their vision of marriage.....after that who knows maybe the state will get out of the marriage business all together. Now why don't you find the opposite of what ever sex you claim to be, settle down, have a few kids, and add to the tax base. The Feds need all the taxpayers they can get.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26242 Jan 23, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Evidently catholicism supports child rape; they supported and protected pedophiles for decades.
They're not the only ones....all sorts of organizations have protected pedophiles...Boy Scouts, Schools, Sports teams, various Protestant denominations, other Religious groups.....NAMBLA
BTW--obama is a christian.
Some denomionational Protestant Christian. Come to think of it, isn't he a, maternally speaking, a white Anglo Saxon or Irish Scottish Protestant, either a WASP or a WISP?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26243 Jan 23, 2013
Deflection? Sad. The FACT is that the vatican protected pedophile priests as an institutional norm for decades, and the current pope used to hold the position that ARRANGED such cover-ups.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
They're not the only ones....all sorts of organizations have protected pedophiles...Boy Scouts, Schools, Sports teams, various Protestant denominations, other Religious groups.....NAMBLA
<quoted text>
Some denomionational Protestant Christian. Come to think of it, isn't he a, maternally speaking, a white Anglo Saxon or Irish Scottish Protestant, either a WASP or a WISP?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26244 Jan 23, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Deflection? Sad. The FACT is that the vatican protected pedophile priests as an institutional norm for decades, and the current pope used to hold the position that ARRANGED such cover-ups.
<quoted text>
No deflection at all, just providing a bit of perspective. What the Church did is inexcusable. However sexual abuse of children is not just a Catholic issue, and you know that. Did not the Boy Scouts also engage in a cover up? Protestants are not innocents either.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/...

One of the most striking aspects of the Protestant clergy sex abuse pattern is that most people don't realize it is a pattern. The Catholic Church has taken a well deserved beating in the courts and in the court of public opinion as former altar boys, orphans and ordinary parishioners come forward with appalling stories of sex abuse. Yet equally egregious violations by Protestant clergy fail to generate the same level of outrage. Why?

You might answer that the problems in the Catholic Church are uniquely widespread, but that would be the wrong answer. Last week's Eddie Long scandal, in which one of the nation's most politically connected and homophobic mega-ministers was accused of strong-arming gay sex out of teens, was just one tip of an enormous Protestant iceberg. The news monthly Freethought Today has a regular feature called "Black Collar Crime Blotter," typically a two-page sampler of fraud, theft, and sexual abuse taken from the media across the country. They just turned their archive over to the Kinsey Institute. A website called ClergyGoneWild.com provides links to recent crime stories, including child abuse (206 articles) and internet solicitation (18).

This problem is nothing new. The first book on clergy sex abuse in this country, Betrayal of Trust, was published in 1988. The perception that Catholic priests are overrepresented among offenders is correct. They do offend at a higher rate. But because this country is predominantly Protestant, more children are abused by Protestant ministers than by Catholic priests. In 1990, the Freedom from Religion Foundation issued a study on pedophilia by clergy. At that time, two clergy per week were being arrested in North America for sex crimes against children. Fifty-eight percent of them were Protestant.

Why do we largely overlook the horrific pattern of Protestant pedophilia and sexual exploitation? Here are a few factors to consider:
•The Catholic Church is easier to think of as a monolithic entity. That means it is easier for the press to cohere the abuse incidents into a single story and our brains to grok it. The idea of one big conspiracy appeals to us: "The Church" did it and then covered it up.

•The centralized hierarchy of Catholicism makes Catholic offenders easier to sue and guarantees deep pockets. The lawsuits in turn both generate their own news cycle and bring victims out of the closet.

•Since most Americans are Protestants, the Catholic sex abuse scandal is a story about "them." Protestant Pedophilia is a story about "us," which makes it less gratifying and more uncomfortable.

•Most Americans find the idea of celibacy peculiar at best. It makes for a more interesting narrative than a generic story about abuse of authority.

When Annie Laurie Gaylor wrote Betrayal of Trust 22 years ago, the pattern in Catholic congregations was to huddle the wagons around accused clergy. She quotes one defense witness who described the abuse as "one drop of ink in crystal clear water." Today, after years of repeated exposure, Catholics are less likely to rally to the side of pedophiles, turning potentially devastating ire and scorn on the victims. To Gaylor, the New York Times stories this week of Eddie Long taking the pulpit amidst standing ovations and catcalls of love is déjà vu. "Some Protestants are where Catholics were 20 years ago," she says. "We have a long ways to go."

heartandmind

Moline, IL

#26245 Jan 23, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Okay
<quoted text>
2. So if polygamists who claim their desire to have more than one legal spouse at a time is a "civil right", that claim is not negated by their small numbers?
<quoted text>
3. So who hired the attorneys for the other side? As there are judges that rule for SSM, there are judges who rule against SSM.
<quoted text>
4. Why, considering that marriage, througout time and place, except for a few scattered historical examples of recognized same sex relationships, has been a male female relationship of either one man one woman, or one man many women, would procreation need to be a legal prerequisite to marry? Granted not every opposite sex married couple, can or will procreate, but chances are the vast majority will consumate, engage in coital sexual intercourse, and possibly conceive. Remember SSMers are trying to graft same sex marriage onto the existing legal marital structure of husband and wife, and yes that structure does reference that sexual union.
<quoted text>
5. Actually there is-one man one woman not closely related other than first cousins in certain states, of a certain age, freely consenting to the marriage....that's pretty standard
<quoted text>
6. Ahhhhh......but we're not discussing what makes a successful marriage from an individual couple standpoint...that's the provice of counselors, clergy, sociologists, etc., but rather how marriage is defined by the state, and ultimately society at large
<quoted text>
7. First, homosexual couples are not trying to enter into the same contract as heteosexual couples. The foundation for the latter is different. Second the divorce rate for OSC underlines the fact that marriage is an opposite sex union, and yes I agree OSCs have done a lousy job keeping their commitments. Lastly, different composition, SS compared to OS, and ultimately different function and purpose.
1. skip

2. the guy's posting i responded to was stating there were studies, etc with regards to homosexual couples. that's what my comments regarded. i know nothing of polygamy and cannot discuss if that reason. any questions directed at me in that regards i won't answer.

3. as stated, the republicans in CA congress hired the attornies to defend Prop 8. CA's state attorney's office refused to defend the law in court so the republicans rallied to defend it. they clearly had an inability to present any salient reasons for the state to deny same sex couples the ability to marry. i'm sure there'll continue to be legal skirmishes no matter what the outcome is. it's a matter of laws. so far, in this case, the judges' have found against prop 8. that is an observation of the events surrounding the case.

4. the laws are quite clear in the US. none exist with regards requiring a couple to procreate. please correct me if i'm wrong by telling us the law and the locality where a guarantee of procreation is agreed to by the couple requesting a marriage license.

5. and that tide is changing, in regards to same sex couples being allowed to legally marry. the prop 8 case shows us there's no legitimate reason to bar same sex couples from marrying. you may continue to disagree, but, until there's a proven legitimate reason presented in court that is accepted, well, it just won't hold water. your opinion is your own and again, something you may have as you see fit. legally, that's another story.

6. and the DOMA and Prop 8 trials and cases delve into those reasons...hopefully with the outcome from SCOTUS that agrees with every judge that's heard the cases. it's about the law, not our opinions of the law.

7. marriage law is contract law. once same sex couples can enter into the same contract of choice that heterosexual couples may enter into then it is the same contract. only the names change that are signed on the document. the purpose of any marriage is defined by those that choose to enter into the union. no one else.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26246 Jan 23, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
1. skip
2. the guy's posting i responded to was stating there were studies, etc with regards to homosexual couples. that's what my comments regarded. i know nothing of polygamy and cannot discuss if that reason. any questions directed at me in that regards i won't answer.
3. as stated, the republicans in CA congress hired the attornies to defend Prop 8. CA's state attorney's office refused to defend the law in court so the republicans rallied to defend it. they clearly had an inability to present any salient reasons for the state to deny same sex couples the ability to marry. i'm sure there'll continue to be legal skirmishes no matter what the outcome is. it's a matter of laws. so far, in this case, the judges' have found against prop 8. that is an observation of the events surrounding the case.
4. the laws are quite clear in the US. none exist with regards requiring a couple to procreate. please correct me if i'm wrong by telling us the law and the locality where a guarantee of procreation is agreed to by the couple requesting a marriage license.
5. and that tide is changing, in regards to same sex couples being allowed to legally marry. the prop 8 case shows us there's no legitimate reason to bar same sex couples from marrying. you may continue to disagree, but, until there's a proven legitimate reason presented in court that is accepted, well, it just won't hold water. your opinion is your own and again, something you may have as you see fit. legally, that's another story.
6. and the DOMA and Prop 8 trials and cases delve into those reasons...hopefully with the outcome from SCOTUS that agrees with every judge that's heard the cases. it's about the law, not our opinions of the law.
7. marriage law is contract law. once same sex couples can enter into the same contract of choice that heterosexual couples may enter into then it is the same contract. only the names change that are signed on the document. the purpose of any marriage is defined by those that choose to enter into the union. no one else.
Way too long and boring. Brevity! Keep your audience involved!

I drifted off after a few lines.

It's about 75% fluff. Chop off all the fluff.

Then I might read it!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26247 Jan 23, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
1. skip
2. the guy's posting i responded to was stating there were studies, etc with regards to homosexual couples. that's what my comments regarded. i know nothing of polygamy and cannot discuss if that reason. any questions directed at me in that regards i won't answer.
3. as stated, the republicans in CA congress hired the attornies to defend Prop 8. CA's state attorney's office refused to defend the law in court so the republicans rallied to defend it. they clearly had an inability to present any salient reasons for the state to deny same sex couples the ability to marry. i'm sure there'll continue to be legal skirmishes no matter what the outcome is. it's a matter of laws. so far, in this case, the judges' have found against prop 8. that is an observation of the events surrounding the case.
4. the laws are quite clear in the US. none exist with regards requiring a couple to procreate. please correct me if i'm wrong by telling us the law and the locality where a guarantee of procreation is agreed to by the couple requesting a marriage license.
5. and that tide is changing, in regards to same sex couples being allowed to legally marry. the prop 8 case shows us there's no legitimate reason to bar same sex couples from marrying. you may continue to disagree, but, until there's a proven legitimate reason presented in court that is accepted, well, it just won't hold water. your opinion is your own and again, something you may have as you see fit. legally, that's another story.
6. and the DOMA and Prop 8 trials and cases delve into those reasons...hopefully with the outcome from SCOTUS that agrees with every judge that's heard the cases. it's about the law, not our opinions of the law.
7. marriage law is contract law. once same sex couples can enter into the same contract of choice that heterosexual couples may enter into then it is the same contract. only the names change that are signed on the document. the purpose of any marriage is defined by those that choose to enter into the union. no one else.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzz. Wha? huh? zzzzzzzzzzzz
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#26248 Jan 23, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You believe supporting marriage equality for polyamorists is stupid.
Why is it stupid?
I said the PRESIDENT wouldn't say it because he's not stupid. God damn. You really have shitty reading comprehension skills!

You do realize that the President had just taken the oath of office, right? Why would he then voice support for something that is illegal in all 50 States? The GOP would start impeachment proceedings so fast........ You think the President should advocate that people commit a crime??????

I know you like to think the arguments for gay marriage and polygamous marriage are the same. You forget one thing: polygamy is illegal. If you do it anyway, you go to jail. Gay marriage is not illegal. If you do it anyway, you don't go to jail.

I have said from the very first time I ever replied to one of your silly posts that until polygamy is decriminalized, you don't stand a chance. It was true then and it is true today.

Lililth_Satans_B ore

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#26249 Jan 23, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
I said the PRESIDENT wouldn't say it because he's not stupid. God damn. You really have shitty reading comprehension skills!
You do realize that the President had just taken the oath of office, right? Why would he then voice support for something that is illegal in all 50 States? The GOP would start impeachment proceedings so fast........ You think the President should advocate that people commit a crime??????
I know you like to think the arguments for gay marriage and polygamous marriage are the same. You forget one thing: polygamy is illegal. If you do it anyway, you go to jail. Gay marriage is not illegal. If you do it anyway, you don't go to jail.
I have said from the very first time I ever replied to one of your silly posts that until polygamy is decriminalized, you don't stand a chance. It was true then and it is true today.
hi sweetie

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 Washington court rules against florist in gay w... 30 min Eagle 12 61
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr River Tam 24,761
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 1 hr June VanDerMark 13,060
News Mike Huckabee links same-sex marriage to straig... (Feb '11) 3 hr Lottery Traitors 63
News Congressman Under Fire For 'Outlaw Divorce' Rem... (Jul '06) 3 hr Lottery Traitors 103
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 hr Respect71 45,038
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 4 hr Inquisitor 1,062
More from around the web