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.

“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.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26523 Jan 27, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
"Heard it" means I have heard it before IDIOT, many times. Yet you pipe up with it once again.

You wish to deny a group equal protection because granting it would be too complicated. It's a dumb argument. Try again.

As far as they are not working hard enough for it, I call bullsh!t. Prove it.

If you don't think polygamy should be allowed, give some logical compelling reasons to deny rights, don't just whine like a colicky toddler.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26524 Jan 27, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
You a PR person? Good job opportunity for you. But I doubt you are!

Homosexuals have huge PR problems in the eyes of IGNORANT BIGOTS too. Comes with the territory.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26525 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.
Okay.....
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.
Exactly.....technically it's OPPOSITE SEX marriage, it hasn't happened yet.
Therefore, it is erroneous to assume that HOMOSEXUAL marriage between two people will lead to HETEROSEXUAL marriage between multiple partners.
Technically it's same sex marriage. The assumption is based on a simple, yet reasonable argument. If the legal definition, and common cultural, historic, traditional, and/or religious understanding of marriage as a conjugal union of husband wife centered around their monogamous,, sexual, potentially procreative union, is no longer the standard, then other forms of marriage are possible. Legalizing SSM, has open the door to line possible legalization of plural marriage. Just Think about it.
Nice try, though.
Right back at ya Think Meister
I'm afraid you'll have to find a different argument to support your homophobia.
I'm afraid YOU'LL have to find another argument to support your polyphobia.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26526 Jan 27, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
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.
<quoted text>
Apparently they've garnered enough viewers to last one than one season. Such anger towards them...and after all the support they've given your movement. Shame....shame.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26527 Jan 27, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
If heteros, with their 50% marriage-failure rate, haven't "weakened" marriage, nothing we do could.
Fair enough..."heteros" ....some that is have failed to live up to their vows and commitments.
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?
<quoted text>
Actually we still have it, had it since it inception as an opposite sex union. If SSM is such a hot idea...why did it take until the late 20th/early 21st century for its creation....and in the West? Is same sex sexual behavior something new? No....no it's not....and yet except for a few scattered historical examples of officially recognized same sex union....marriage was, and still is throughout most of the world, a boy girl affair. Why haven't human societies organized themselves around the marriage as a "union of two people regardless of gender composition"?

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#26528 Jan 27, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay.....
<quoted text>
Exactly.....technically it's OPPOSITE SEX marriage, it hasn't happened yet.
<quoted text>
Technically it's same sex marriage. The assumption is based on a simple, yet reasonable argument. If the legal definition, and common cultural, historic, traditional, and/or religious understanding of marriage as a conjugal union of husband wife centered around their monogamous,, sexual, potentially procreative union, is no longer the standard, then other forms of marriage are possible. Legalizing SSM, has open the door to line possible legalization of plural marriage. Just Think about it.
<quoted text>
Right back at ya Think Meister
<quoted text>
I'm afraid YOU'LL have to find another argument to support your polyphobia.
Dodging again, sunshine?

Please provide any shred of proof - and let's use your technical terms here - that shows allowing same sex marriage between two people will magically lead to opposite sex marriage between multiple people when - clearly - opposite sex marriage between two people hasn't given multiple opposite sex partners any hope.

Any proof at all.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26529 Jan 27, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Dodging again, sunshine?
Please provide any shred of proof - and let's use your technical terms here - that shows allowing same sex marriage between two people will magically lead to opposite sex marriage between multiple people when - clearly - opposite sex marriage between two people hasn't given multiple opposite sex partners any hope.
Any proof at all.
Charles Krauthammer makes the argument in the Washington Post. "Traditional marriage is defined as the union of two people of opposite gender," he observes.

"If, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices," then "on what grounds do they insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two?"
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26530 Jan 27, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Dodging again, sunshine?
Please provide any shred of proof - and let's use your technical terms here - that shows allowing same sex marriage between two people will magically lead to opposite sex marriage between multiple people when - clearly - opposite sex marriage between two people hasn't given multiple opposite sex partners any hope.
Any proof at all.
Certainly allowing same sex marriage will make it more likely same sex poly marriage will be allowed someday, wouldn't you agree? It's not going to make the chances worse for poly same sex marriage, right?

See where I'm going with this?

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26531 Jan 27, 2013
I typed it before, as well, dickweed.

For the umpteenth time, I don't give a damn about polygamy one way or the other. I am pointing out real-life barriers they will need to deal with. And no, they aren't working hard enough; they aren't working at all. Examine how other civil-rights movements began--taking life-altering (and occasionally life-taking) risks as well as educating the public on their terms, not the group's terms.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
"Heard it" means I have heard it before IDIOT, many times. Yet you pipe up with it once again.
You wish to deny a group equal protection because granting it would be too complicated. It's a dumb argument. Try again.
As far as they are not working hard enough for it, I call bullsh!t. Prove it.
If you don't think polygamy should be allowed, give some logical compelling reasons to deny rights, don't just whine like a colicky toddler.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26532 Jan 27, 2013
You think their viewers are all supporters? They're a freak show, like honey boo boo or the kardashians.

As noted, a lot of polygamists are mormons or muslims...two groups that do NOT support SSM.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently they've garnered enough viewers to last one than one season. Such anger towards them...and after all the support they've given your movement. Shame....shame.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26533 Jan 27, 2013
Krauthammer was senile 20 years ago. Gays aren't going for traditional marriage, we're going for legal marriage.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Charles Krauthammer makes the argument in the Washington Post. "Traditional marriage is defined as the union of two people of opposite gender," he observes.
"If, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices," then "on what grounds do they insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two?"
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26534 Jan 27, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
I typed it before, as well, dickweed.
For the umpteenth time, I don't give a damn about polygamy one way or the other. I am pointing out real-life barriers they will need to deal with. And no, they aren't working hard enough; they aren't working at all. Examine how other civil-rights movements began--taking life-altering (and occasionally life-taking) risks as well as educating the public on their terms, not the group's terms.
<quoted text>
So you think the only place I ever heard that is from you typing it DICKWEED? I heard that argument. Many times and NOT JUST FROM YOU STUPID.

Many people say "for the umpteenth time I don't give a damn about same sex marriage" too. Not me. I think it should be allowed. Polygamy too.

So you've researched polygamy rights thoroughly and you can say that no one is working to advocate legalizing polygamy. Bullsh!t. And even if they weren't does that mean they don't deserve equal rights?

Bottom line, you're selfish. And maybe a closet hypocrite. And probably stupid.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26535 Jan 27, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Krauthammer was senile 20 years ago. Gays aren't going for traditional marriage, we're going for legal marriage.
<quoted text>
So are polygamists.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26536 Jan 27, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Dodging again, sunshine?
Please provide any shred of proof - and let's use your technical terms here - that shows allowing same sex marriage between two people will magically lead to opposite sex marriage between multiple people when - clearly - opposite sex marriage between two people hasn't given multiple opposite sex partners any hope.
Any proof at all.
Would ya please Just Think.....Oh Madone!

Are ya that stubborn? It's quite simple. SSM and Polygamy both represent significant changes from the commonly understood, legal, cultural, historic, and/or religious, concept of MARRIAGE as THE UNION of ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN AS HUSBAND AND WIFE. That's it! If it no longer means that, why can't it mean two men, two women, one man several women, one woman several men, etc. Where do we draw the line?

What makes SSM such a secular sacred cow that marriage has to be redefined for it, and nothing else? Why are SSM rights more important that poly rights? So much for the notion of "equality". "Some are more equal than others".

How the heck did American society survive into the 21st century on the quaint notion that marriage is a union of husband and wife, orientated around their sexual union, and the products of that union, children? Crazy I tell ya....our civilization should've died out decades ago.

If two men/women don't marry will the sky fall? Will legions of unwed gay pregnant men live in shame? Will gay women wonder what to do with all the sperm they produce?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26537 Jan 27, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Krauthammer was senile 20 years ago. Gays aren't going for traditional marriage, we're going for legal marriage.
<quoted text>
Or to put it another way.....

"Gays aren't going for traditional marriage, we're going for....gender segregated marriage....non conjugal marriage .....gay marriage.....lesbian marriage....no girls allowed marriage...no boys allowed marriage.....two of a kind marriage....."

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26538 Jan 27, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Charles Krauthammer makes the argument in the Washington Post. "Traditional marriage is defined as the union of two people of opposite gender," he observes.
"If, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices," then "on what grounds do they insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two?"
To quote Arthur Fonzarelli, a.k.a. "The Fonz",

EXACTAMUNDO!

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#26539 Jan 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Would ya please Just Think.....Oh Madone!
Are ya that stubborn? It's quite simple. SSM and Polygamy both represent significant changes from the commonly understood, legal, cultural, historic, and/or religious, concept of MARRIAGE as THE UNION of ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN AS HUSBAND AND WIFE. That's it! If it no longer means that, why can't it mean two men, two women, one man several women, one woman several men, etc. Where do we draw the line?
What makes SSM such a secular sacred cow that marriage has to be redefined for it, and nothing else? Why are SSM rights more important that poly rights? So much for the notion of "equality". "Some are more equal than others".
How the heck did American society survive into the 21st century on the quaint notion that marriage is a union of husband and wife, orientated around their sexual union, and the products of that union, children? Crazy I tell ya....our civilization should've died out decades ago.
If two men/women don't marry will the sky fall? Will legions of unwed gay pregnant men live in shame? Will gay women wonder what to do with all the sperm they produce?
oooh...big wordy dodge!

In other words, there is no proof whatsoever, no historical precedent, nothing that would lead anyone to believe the SSM would lead to polygamous marriage.

Nothing, that is, except your homophobia and rampant paranoia.

Good to know.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#26541 Jan 28, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Charles Krauthammer makes the argument in the Washington Post. "Traditional marriage is defined as the union of two people of opposite gender," he observes.
"If, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices," then "on what grounds do they insist upon the traditional, arbitrary and exclusionary number of two?"
Of course, the same silly argument would hold for straight folk's marriages.

"If two people of opposite gender can legally marry, what's to stop one man from wanting to marry 10 women"?

So, you are promoting banning ALL legal marriages, on the off chance that someday, straight polygamists might demand marriage rights?

Makes as much sense as your arguments. More, because most polygamists seem to be straight religious folks.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26542 Jan 28, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, the same silly argument would hold for straight folk's marriages.
"Silly argument"? "Straight folk's marriages"?
"If two people of opposite gender can legally marry, what's to stop one man from wanting to marry 10 women"?
Nothing....he can want all he wants and marry said women with their consent in non legally binding marriages....sometimes referred to as "spiritual marriages". Legally no. We both know changing the legal definition of marriage from "husband and wife", to "spouses for life" regardless of gender composition, opens the door to polygamy. Not that hard to see.
So, you are promoting banning ALL legal marriages, on the off chance that someday, straight polygamists might demand marriage rights?
Not quite there Questy.....very simple....either marriage is "husband AND wife" only....one standard legal definition throughout the land, or its not. If its not, why not ssm, why not plural marriage? If the OS requirement is deened unnecessary, prejudiced, unreasonable, arbitrary, why is the number "two, not as well?

[QUOTE[
Makes as much sense as your arguments. More, because most polygamists seem to be straight religious folks.[/QUOTE]

As long as marriage remained one man one woman joined together as husband AND wife, there wasn't any reasonable expectation for legal plural marriage. Since that's no longer the standard......the door is now open. As if you don't know this, or can't grasp this. C'mon we both know you're smarter than that.

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 Everyone's talking about LGBT law -- except sta... 10 min Three Days Paleo 6
News Anti-Gay Jehovah's Witness Cartoon Tells Kids T... 29 min Demon Finder 1,779
News Pope Francis eases way for divorced Catholics w... 39 min Demon Finder 25
News Minnesota becomes 12th state to OK gay marriage (May '13) 1 hr woodtick57 1,849
News Feds' transgender guidance provokes fierce back... 1 hr woodtick57 760
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Brian_G 35,925
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 2 hr Brian_G 11,660
More from around the web