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.

“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

Hayward, 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

Hayward, 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

Hayward, 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

Hayward, 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.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26517 Jan 27, 2013
"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*'"

1) How the hell does this douchebag think SSM became "mainstream"? It's because we've been working or asses off for over 50 years--going from being treated as mentally-ill pariahs to standing in the halls of power and industry. Our struggle is not yet over. And this lazy bastard just wants everything handed to them.

2) It's not the same argument at all. SSM requires only a change of gender access; every situation otherwise stays the same. Polygamy rrequires not only huge changes in existing marriage laws but must overcome other laws, such as bigamy statutes, as well. If they want to be mainstream, they are going to have to work on their image, which wavers between religious exploitation of women to rural nutjobs. And why is it that I never see stories about several men and one wife?
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://www.nationalreview.com/ articles/296493/polygamy-too-d avid-j-rusin#
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.”

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26518 Jan 27, 2013
If heteros, with their 50% marriage-failure rate, haven't "weakened" marriage, nothing we do could. You keep bringing up tradition and history; well, you've had marriage for millennia and you idiots can't deal with it effectively, so who are you to tell us WE could harm it?
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.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26519 Jan 27, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
"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*'"
1) How the hell does this douchebag think SSM became "mainstream"? It's because we've been working or asses off for over 50 years--going from being treated as mentally-ill pariahs to standing in the halls of power and industry. Our struggle is not yet over. And this lazy bastard just wants everything handed to them.
2) It's not the same argument at all. SSM requires only a change of gender access; every situation otherwise stays the same. Polygamy rrequires not only huge changes in existing marriage laws but must overcome other laws, such as bigamy statutes, as well. If they want to be mainstream, they are going to have to work on their image, which wavers between religious exploitation of women to rural nutjobs. And why is it that I never see stories about several men and one wife?
<quoted text>
The old "polygamy should not be allowed because it would be too complicated" argument. Heard it. It's bogus.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26520 Jan 27, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
.... If they want to be mainstream, they are going to have to work on their image, which wavers between religious exploitation of women to rural nutjobs. d why is it that I never see stories about several men and one wife?
<quoted text>
".... If they want to be mainstream, they are going to have to work on their image, which wavers between religious exploitation of women to rural nutjobs."

Nice! Same sex marriages contain some unsavory people too I'm sure, what a bigot!

"And why is it that I never see stories about several men and one wife?"

If you did see polyandry, would that be OK with you? Why would that be OK and polygyny not be OK with you? Polygamy includes both. And allowing one without the other would be stupid.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26521 Jan 27, 2013
You heard it? I typed it, idiot.

That wasn't my argument. If they want polygamous civil marriage, they are going to have to directly address the issues involved, not just whine like colicky toddlers.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
The old "polygamy should not be allowed because it would be too complicated" argument. Heard it. It's bogus.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26522 Jan 27, 2013
I'm pointing out that polygamists have huge PR problems; if they want to advnce, they are going to have to deal with it. BTW--the brown family doesn't help; he's a controlling redneck, and the wives are doormats. It actually enforces stereotypes.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
".... If they want to be mainstream, they are going to have to work on their image, which wavers between religious exploitation of women to rural nutjobs."
Nice! Same sex marriages contain some unsavory people too I'm sure, what a bigot!
"And why is it that I never see stories about several men and one wife?"
If you did see polyandry, would that be OK with you? Why would that be OK and polygyny not be OK with you? Polygamy includes both. And allowing one without the other would be stupid.

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 Malta bans 'gay cure' conversion therapy 6 min Trump Wins 1
News Transgender student named king of Kansas school... 7 min Trump Wins 4
News Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... 8 min Imprtnrd 2,247
News LGBTQ Activist Cleve Jones: 'I'm Well Aware How... 8 min Trump Wins 19
News Trump's staff picks disappoint, alarm minority ... 9 min Trump Wins 241
Gay oovoo (Dec '12) 1 hr greekboy26 27
Why Are We Being Forced To Accept Homosexuality? (Feb '12) 6 hr Truth Sayer 1 942
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 6 hr Truth Sayer 1 42,928
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 7 hr Betty Davis 22,495
More from around the web