Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

May 9, 2012 Full story: politix.topix.com 26,178

It's a historic day for gay rights activists: Obama has just announced his support for gay marriage.

Full Story

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26567 Jan 28, 2013
I didn't read past this point, because it's a lie. None of us call it "redefining" marriage, because it's not. All that changes is gender ratio; not one other marital law changes. Nor would anyone say someone might not try to use SSM for their own purposes--such a statement would be meaningless.
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/...
January 5, 2013
From Same-Sex Marriage to Polygamy and Polyandry
By James M. Arlandson
Part 1
I keep hearing same-sex marriage (SSM) activists assuring us that no one else will legally redefine the essence of marriage, after they enjoy the privilege of doing so. It's a red herring to distract us from the real issue: redefining it for them alone....

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26568 Jan 28, 2013
What two people do within their own legal marriage does not redefine it, idiot.

BTW--wake me when islam accepts gays.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Part 2
So what is the answer? Dr. Hatem al-Hajis the Dean of Sharia Academy of America, is Board Certified in Pediatrics by the American Board of Pediatrics, and is Associate Professor of Fiqh at Sharia Academy of America and Islamic University of Minnesota. Since the questioner was so thorough, Dr. al-Haj replies in a short fatwa (no. 2550):
Allah said: "Should He not know what He created? And He is the Subtle, the Aware."
You are absolutely right, and the Muslim community should join hands with any religious community towards this noble end to relieve the suffering of many women. Will this happen any time soon? Allah knows best, but we must do our part.
For more fatwas about polygamy at AMJA, see nos. 3370, 22550, 79208, and 1366.
Remember, those fatwas are in an American context, not a distant sultanate. Muddy business, that.
We now peer, not leer, into polyamory or open, nonmongamous relationships, including open marriages.
Traditionally, monogamy has been defined as relational and sexual exclusivity between one man and one woman. But some nonconformists say that while they have their primary partnership, they allow hook ups with others. "It's a redefinition of marriage," says one.
A mature student in my class told us of her friend who is in a polyamorous relationship. Her husband gives her "free rein," so to speak.
Derek McCullough and David S. Hall, Ph.D., say monogamy is a cultural myth and polyamory is an option:
...Much of the evidence seems to indicate that human attainment of the cultural ideal of monogamy is a myth. The moral argument for monogamy is a weak position. A better moral argument can be made regarding what is best for each individual and for society, that is, do we make life better for each and all by insisting on sex only in monogamous marriage of heterosexual couples, or on letting individuals find responsible ways of relating that, in Pagan terms, "harm none". Liberal religion has taken a fine stance supporting homosexual and heterosexual couples, and unmarried couples as well. What is so hard about seeing the parallels to the "more than a couple" part?
In the old days, polyamory used to be called adultery or fornication. But the "moral argument for monogamy is a weak position." Apparently, in a diverse and tolerant society any point of view and feeling becomes the new norm. McCullough and Hall use the long history of polygamy to shore up the naturalness of polyamory. It's evolutionary biology, you see. Liberal religion can endorse it. In their whole piece they project such a cool, open-minded vibe and write in such soothing psychological terms,old-school vices become new-school virtues.
Things are a little confusing for me, however. Polyamorists may not get married, but if they were to do so, apparently they would become polygamists of sorts. Yet it would not be limited to one heterosexual husband and four heterosexual wives as we see in Islam's old-school polygamy. Instead, we're entering a brave new world, so any combination of men and women and sexual orientation would do (e.g. four "husbands"). Despite the confusion right now, we would get used to their marriage, just as we're getting used to SSM. "Progress" is inevitable.
One gay activist who works hard at redefining marriage says the ultimate goal is to change society. "In the end we will have so remade society, it will have to adjust to us, because it will seem absurd not to." Others say marriage has no essence, so we can "fiddle" with it as society evolves. Scholars rewrite the definitions in the trade dictionaries and encyclopedias to go with the muddy flow and establish new norms. Now the public has to catch up.
Further, to borrow a question from SSM advocates, how would polygamy or polyamory harm your individual traditional marriage?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26569 Jan 28, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
...
There is a huge difference between "illegal" aand "not recognized." SSM is not recognized; polygamy and bigamy are illegal.
<quoted text>
Same effect, Fruitcake.

Same sex marriage is effectively illegal in most states. It shouldn't be. Poly shouldn't be either.

Supporting one but not the other is hypocritical.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26570 Jan 28, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
You are quoting someone from the Sharia Academy?
Really?
Are you presenting another straw man? Really?

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#26571 Jan 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Some people say SSM is not marriage, some say it is. Some people voted for SSM, some voted against it. Some judges said SSM is a right, other Judges said no it isn't.
Soooooo....all that means....what?
<quoted text>
Oh madone! Its all part of the same fight, of how, we as a society define marriage, not how individuals define it. If monogamous marriage of one man and one woman orientated toward the procreative aspect of the male female union is no longer the standard, then there's no reason to consider other forms of marriage. Not that hard to see the link. Legal SSM has raised the question, "if SSm is legal, why not polygamy?". It that "just change it for us, but not them", mantra that SSMers use when polygamy is mentioned in the same discussion of redifining marriage. Why is SSM such a sacred secular cow, that nothing else can be compared to it?
<quoted text>
As you have no real arguments for it, nor real arguments against redefining marriage to include plural marriage structures. "Oh we're (SSMers) not like those people (polygamists), we're just like everybody else, we want to keep the number two because everybody knows marriage is about two people regardless of gender"....oh shoooooor...that just ignores thousands of years of human societal evolution.
Still more dodging...wonder why?

AGAIN, 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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26572 Jan 28, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems Cpeter's own tactics, when used to support groups he doesn't approve of, make him mad.
Funny that.
Mrs. Munster's little boy: "But its not fair Mommy....we did all the work and now those mean wierd ole poly people are trying to cheat.... its just not fair!"

Mrs Munster: "Its okay little one.... don't get your rainbow underoos in a knot....there's enough marriage equality to go around"
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#26573 Jan 28, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you presenting another straw man? Really?
Um... it would be your friend Pietro that presented it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26574 Jan 28, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Still more dodging...wonder why?
AGAIN, 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.
Oh but poly phobia is okay? There ya have it folks, a page right out of George Orwell's "ANIMAL FARM", "SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS"!

I guess "equality" only goes so far.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#26575 Jan 28, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Supporting one but not the other is hypocritical.
No it isn't.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#26576 Jan 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Mrs. Munster's little boy: "But its not fair Mommy....we did all the work and now those mean wierd ole poly people are trying to cheat.... its just not fair!"
Mrs Munster: "Its okay little one.... don't get your rainbow underoos in a knot....there's enough marriage equality to go around"
Yoour desperation is showing.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

#26577 Jan 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh but poly phobia is okay? There ya have it folks, a page right out of George Orwell's "ANIMAL FARM", "SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS"!
I guess "equality" only goes so far.
Do you need another arithmetic lesson?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26578 Jan 28, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you need another arithmetic lesson?
Some people don't know 1 + 1 = 2.

Some people don't know the difference between a man and a woman.

That's no reason for either to deny rights.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26579 Jan 28, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text> No it isn't.
Why not?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26580 Jan 28, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Um... it would be your friend Pietro that presented it.
As if you have never.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26581 Jan 28, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you need another arithmetic lesson?
Arithmetic lesson? Hellooooooooo...."Animal Farm".....George Orwell's book.....apparently you're nor familiar with it...it was used in ENGLISH class....not math class....oh wait...I know it wasn't on your G.E.D. test. That explains it.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26582 Jan 28, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Some people don't know 1 + 1 = 2.
Some people don't know the difference between a man and a woman.
That's no reason for either to deny rights.
Very true....Frankie..when they learn the difference then they'll understand how 1+1 can equal 3, or 4, or 5. Remember the old saying, "Two go to bed, but three get up!". Maybe their Dad....or Mom I suppose or even non gender specific parental unit....never had "The talk", with them? Good thing for them we're here to help.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26583 Jan 28, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
No, bigamy is holding more than one concurrent marriage contract with the state. Whether the parties know about it or not, it's still a crime. Don't make up stupid definitions.
<quoted text>
Bigamy is the act or condition of marrying one person while still being legally married to another, and it is generally the legal term used for the offense/crime.

Polygamy is a broader, more generic term for multiple marriages and encompasses bigamy - it's not generally the word to use in a technical, legal context.

Etymologically, the prefix "bi-" means "two," whereas "poly-" means "more than one." As a result, from an etymological (though not necessarily legal) standpoint, all bigamists are polygamists, but not all polygamists are bigamists.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26584 Jan 28, 2013
So getting arrested and going to jail is the same effect as not getting arrested and ot going to jail?

Your absurdity is noted.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Same effect, Fruitcake.
Same sex marriage is effectively illegal in most states. It shouldn't be. Poly shouldn't be either.
Supporting one but not the other is hypocritical.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#26585 Jan 28, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
So getting arrested and going to jail is the same effect as not getting arrested and ot going to jail?
Your absurdity is noted.
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage is effectively illegal in most states. You won't go to jail for it like you will for poly but you cannot do it, same effect. It's wrong in both cases.

You seem to enjoy the fact that you go to jail for poly. Why?

Your hypocrisy is noted.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26586 Jan 28, 2013
I'm pointing out reality and you have a hissy. Typical childish behavior. Doesn't bother me--the work I and millions of other gays have put in is coming to fruition. Your precious polygamy? Still a freak show with unsavory religious associations.

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
Biggest Gay Lies (May '14) 8 min Frankie Rizzo 2,716
Gay Marriage Ban on Precarious Legal Ground 11 min david traversa 3
Florida gay rights groups vow legal fights if c... 18 min NorCal Native 8
Gay couples exchange vows in Montana after ruling 23 min JIMMYREAPS 129
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 24 min KiMerde 2,955
Homophobic Pastor Named Gaylard Williams (Yes, ... 39 min Frankie Rizzo 2
Watch a Sneak Peek of TLC's New Special My Husb... 41 min Frankie Rizzo 13
Supreme Court won't stop gay marriages in Florida 2 hr Jerald 43
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 3 hr Frankie Rizzo 68,552
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 hr Rick in Kansas 5,785
Supreme Court allows gay marriage to proceed in... 4 hr Otter in the Ozarks 53
More from around the web