Obama Announces Full Support for Gay ...

Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

There are 26169 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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26497 Jan 26, 2013
The rest can be read via the link
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26498 Jan 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The rest can be read via the link
Let me predict the general response from the SSM community-

Same sex marriage GOOD!

Polygamy BAD!

And/Or

Polygamy is a red herring and a straw man and off topic!(With little foot stomps and clenched fisties!)

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26499 Jan 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me predict the general response from the SSM community-
Same sex marriage GOOD!
Polygamy BAD!
And/Or
Polygamy is a red herring and a straw man and off topic!(With little foot stomps and clenched fisties!)
It would be interesting, considering the Muslim support for polygamy, to see if SSMers opposition to Islamic poly is the same as it is for Christian poly marriage.

SSMers....thoughts?

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#26500 Jan 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The rest can be read via the link
Dude...World Nut Daily? Really?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26501 Jan 26, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude...World Nut Daily? Really?
He's so silly right?

Everyone knows for the truth you must go only to the Huffington Post!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26502 Jan 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It would be interesting, considering the Muslim support for polygamy, to see if SSMers opposition to Islamic poly is the same as it is for Christian poly marriage.
SSMers....thoughts?
Christian polygamists- VERY BAD!

Islamic polygamists- NOT so bad!

Something like that?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26503 Jan 26, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude...World Nut Daily? Really?
Are you objecting to the messenger, or the message?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26504 Jan 26, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me predict the general response from the SSM community-
Same sex marriage GOOD!
But of course.....its a secular sacred cow. Only "progressive" societies have SSM.
Polygamy BAD!
UGH. POLYGAMY NOT LIKE SSM.....POLYGAMY NOT "EQUAL".... ONLY CAVEMEN LIKE ME WANT POLYGAMY.
And/Or
Polygamy is a red herring and a straw man and off topic!(With little foot stomps and clenched fisties!)
There's only so much equality to go around. Some are more equal than others.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#26505 Jan 26, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you objecting to the messenger, or the message?
I never read cut and paste spam...I figure if someone has a thought they will write their own words.

As for World Nut Daily - they believe and promote whacked out crap on such a level that anyone who references them as a "source" immediately becomes laughable.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26506 Jan 27, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
I never read cut and paste spam...I figure if someone has a thought they will write their own words.
As for World Nut Daily - they believe and promote whacked out crap on such a level that anyone who references them as a "source" immediately becomes laughable.
There are Muslim polygamist communities in this country. Dismiss the messenger, but the message is the same.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26507 Jan 27, 2013
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/296493... #

With the legal definition of marriage expanding in various U.S. states, as it has in other nations, should we anticipate rising demands that we recognize polygamous marriages? Debra Majeed, an academic apologist for Islamic polygamy, has tried to downplay such concerns, claiming that “opponents of same-sex unions, rather than proponents of polygyny as practiced by Muslims, are the usual sources of arguments that a door open to one would encourage a more visible practice of the other.” Yet some American Muslims apparently did not get the memo.

Because off-the-cuff remarks can be the most revealing, consider a tweet by Moein Khawaja, executive director of the Philadelphia branch of the radical Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). After New York legalized same-sex marriage last June, Khawaja expressed what many Islamists must have been thinking:“Easy to support gay marriage today bc it’s mainstream. Lets see same people go to bat for polygamy, its the same argument.*crickets*”

The “same argument” theme is fleshed out in an October 2011 piece titled “Polygamy: Tis the Season?” in the Muslim Link, a newspaper serving the Washington and Baltimore areas.“There are murmurs among the polygamist community as the country moves toward the legalization of gay marriage,” it explains.“As citizens of the United States, they argue, they should have the right to legally marry whoever they please, or however many they please.” The story quotes several Muslim advocates of polygamy.“As far as legalization, I think they should,” says Hassan Amin, a Baltimore imam who performs polygamous religious unions.“We should strive to have it legalized because Allah has already legalized it.”

Again and again the article connects the normalization of same-sex marriage and Islamic polygamy.“As states move toward legalizing gay marriage, the criminalization of polygamy is a seemingly striking inconsistency in constitutional law,” it asserts.“Be it gay marriage or polygamous marriage, the rights of the people should not be based on their popularity but rather on the constitutional laws that are meant to protect them.”

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26508 Jan 27, 2013
Would ya "Just Think" about it,'cuz ya might learn something?

So is "National Review" credible enough for you? Or is the Huff n' Puff Post the only "credible" source for you.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#26509 Jan 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
There are Muslim polygamist communities in this country. Dismiss the messenger, but the message is the same.
There are also Mormon polygamist communities in this country - what's your point?

We know, we know...you don't have a point.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#26510 Jan 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Would ya "Just Think" about it,'cuz ya might learn something?
So is "National Review" credible enough for you? Or is the Huff n' Puff Post the only "credible" source for you.
As previously stated, I don't read cut and paste spam, regardless of the source.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26511 Jan 27, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
There are also Mormon polygamist communities in this country - what's your point?
We know, we know...you don't have a point.
I think his point is that there are a lot more polygamists in the USA than most same sex marriage supporters believe. Some on this thread have insisted there aren't enough polygamists to deserve equal rights. Therefore we shouldn't allow poly. A truly dumb opinion.

And some idiots have even insisted NO one is interested in legalizing polygamy therefore we should not allow it.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26512 Jan 27, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
As previously stated, I don't read cut and paste spam, regardless of the source.
And anything you don't agree with is spam. Got it!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26513 Jan 27, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
There are also Mormon polygamist communities in this country - what's your point?
We know, we know...you don't have a point.
I do, you either unable, or unwilling to acknowledge it. Legal SSM legitimately raises the possibility of legal polygamy. Such a continued course of "expansion" of the meaning of marriage could render it meaningless. So rather than strengthen marriage, the conjugal union of husband and wife as a commonly accepted and understood definition of marriage, SSM weakens it. Perhaps that is the ultimate objective of the movement.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26514 Jan 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I do, you either unable, or unwilling to acknowledge it. Legal SSM legitimately raises the possibility of legal polygamy. Such a continued course of "expansion" of the meaning of marriage could render it meaningless. So rather than strengthen marriage, the conjugal union of husband and wife as a commonly accepted and understood definition of marriage, SSM weakens it. Perhaps that is the ultimate objective of the movement.
When polygamy starts coming to court, I don't think the "there aren't a lot of polygamists" argument against it is going to cut it.

I don't see why these clowns think that's a good argument. I suppose it's because it's the only argument they've got.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#26515 Jan 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I do, you either unable, or unwilling to acknowledge it. Legal SSM legitimately raises the possibility of legal polygamy. Such a continued course of "expansion" of the meaning of marriage could render it meaningless. So rather than strengthen marriage, the conjugal union of husband and wife as a commonly accepted and understood definition of marriage, SSM weakens it. Perhaps that is the ultimate objective of the movement.
Let's logically assume that because of their religion, all of the Muslim and Mormon polygamists you're discussing here are heterosexual.

It would make more sense that allowing HETEROSEXUAL marriage between two people would open the door to HETEROSEXUAL marriage between multiple partners. This has not happened. At all.

Therefore, it is erroneous to assume that HOMOSEXUAL marriage between two people will lead to HETEROSEXUAL marriage between multiple partners.

Nice try, though.

I'm afraid you'll have to find a different argument to support your homophobia.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26516 Jan 27, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's logically assume that because of their religion, all of the Muslim and Mormon polygamists you're discussing here are heterosexual.
It would make more sense that allowing HETEROSEXUAL marriage between two people would open the door to HETEROSEXUAL marriage between multiple partners. This has not happened. At all.
Therefore, it is erroneous to assume that HOMOSEXUAL marriage between two people will lead to HETEROSEXUAL marriage between multiple partners.
Nice try, though.
I'm afraid you'll have to find a different argument to support your homophobia.
The fact that you erroneously believe that advocating legalizing polygamy is homophobia proves his point.

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 Religious liberty is rallying cry after gay mar... 1 min Lawrence Wolf 533
News 4 GOP candidates sign anti-gay marriage pledge 1 min Lawrence Wolf 162
News Court: Baker who refused gay wedding cake can't... 1 min Prep-for-Dep 978
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 1 min too lazy to log in 2,823
News Denver puts Chick-fil-A bid on back burner 1 min Belle Sexton 13
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 1 min Belle Sexton 34,809
News Clerk ordered to issue same-sex marriage licenses 1 min FlatbushSam 6
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 58 min too lazy to log in 25,586
News Duke freshman says Jesus forbids him from readi... 2 hr Wondering 43
More from around the web