Obama Announces Full Support for Gay ...

Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

There are 26162 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

#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.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26587 Jan 28, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
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.
No one knows who you are posting to. It's better not to post while you're having a hissy fit, wait until you calm down first.

P.S. Your ignorance and bigotry is very ugly.

P.P.S. Relax, Fruitcake.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#26588 Jan 28, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Outsanding posts this morning Pietro! What more could I add? Maybe I'll take the day off!
HAH! I see this one wasn't "too wordy" for you.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26589 Jan 28, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
HAH! I see this one wasn't "too wordy" for you.
Still mad bro?

So Funny!

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#26590 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.
See, now you're just making things up...its so sad how far you've fallen. Of course, you were pretty low to begin with.

Because - when have I ever stated that I was against polygamous marriages?

But thank you for again dodging the question, and thereby admitting, that 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.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26591 Jan 28, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
See, now you're just making things up...its so sad how far you've fallen...
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26592 Jan 28, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
See, now you're just making things up...its so sad how far you've fallen. Of course, you were pretty low to begin with.
Because - when have I ever stated that I was against polygamous marriages?
But thank you for again dodging the question, and thereby admitting, that 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.
“In an essay 10 years ago, I pointed out that it is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights. After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender, and if, as advocates of gay marriage insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement - the number restriction (two and only two)- is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.”

Charles Krauthammer

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26593 Jan 28, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
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.
That has a mad scientist/super villian sound to it. "Today America, tomorrow THE WORLD.....HEH HEH HEH!".
Your precious polygamy? Still a freak show with unsavory religious associations.
As opposed to a freak show with unsavory secular associations? Those who live in glass houses...
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26594 Jan 28, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
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.
Is that your real picture?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26595 Jan 28, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
See, now you're just making things up...its so sad how far you've fallen. Of course, you were pretty low to begin with.
Actually George Orwell did write "Animal Farm". Perhaps you should "just think" before you write.
Because - when have I ever stated that I was against polygamous marriages?
Yet you continue to deny the link between legal ssm, and polygamy, and are willing to deny plural marriage practioners, "marriage equality".
But thank you for again dodging the question, and thereby admitting, that there is no proof whatsoever, no historical precedent, nothing that would lead anyone to believe the SSM would lead to polygamous marriage.
Oh noooo....Thank YOU for failing to see...more likely failing to admit, the obvious...the proverbial rainbow colored elephant in the room. But you're a crafty one, yes sir ree! Every thinking person...."progressive " thinking person that is... can clearly see there's no link between redefining marriage, to include same sex relationships, and plural marriage, even though polgamy is virtually as old as mongamous marriage. It doesn't matter that there are nummerous websites devoted to polygamy, a Supreme Court Justice mentioned it in his dissent on a case linked to SSM, a reality show of a polygamist family that continues to give interviews supporting SSM, more polygamists "coming out of the closet" citing legal SSM for giving them hope, and the list goes on and on and on.

Is there enough "marriage equality" to go around? Me thinks the SSMers protest too much.

Maybe...just maybe...you can explain to our television audience why legal ssm is the proverbial "line in the sand"? That marriage in the U.S. will be, or should be defined as a union of two people regardless of gender composition? Why there's no possible way that polygamy could be legalized, even though that was said about ssm at one time. Please oh great Thinker of Just impart on us your vast knowledge and wisdom to the lower minds.
Nothing, that is, except your homophobia and rampant paranoia.
Why the heck do you think I have a fear of homoginized milk? Condensed milk, maybe, certainly not homogenized milk. If one had a fear of milk men, would they be a calciumhomophobe? "Rampant paranoia"? The only ones out to get me are the polyphobes.

I'll be here all week, please be kind to your waitress.....uh I mean non gender specific wait person.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26596 Jan 28, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
I didn't read past this point, because it's a lie. None of us call it "redefining" marriage, because it's not.
Uhhhhhh....actually it is. Simply because "none of us" call it "redefining" doesn't mean all gay folks view it that way, or that its not redefining marriage. Reread the that paragraph:

*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*

The author uses the "essense of marriage" that is the union of husaband and wife. Obviously you don't want that. Thus the redefnition.
All that changes is gender ratio; not one other marital law changes.
Really? How about the foundation, the union of husband and wife, on which those laws are based? Especially the physical sexual union? Are you really suggesting that all three unions, same sex female, same sex male, and opposite sex, have the same foundation in that regard? We can argue back and forth on the emotional aspects, the "non gender specific" aspects of marriage, and whether or not they apply to both ss and os, but the physical union is different. Ain't no "consumation" taking place, "begetting children", "presuming paternity", etc. in a same sex relationship. If ya can't consumate, ya can't procreate, and ya don't have to worry about "presuming paternity". So yeah...it is "redefining".
Nor would anyone say someone might not try to use SSM for their own purposes--such a statement would be meaningless.
The cat's out of the bag.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26597 Jan 28, 2013
Since we don't use the word "redefine", attributing it directly to us is a lie. Of course, lying's all you people have, isn't it? I haven't seen or heard of any SSM activist forwarding any of this crap. BTW--what you consider the essence of marriage is not canonical; for many people, it's two people committing to each other.

Marriage doesn't require physical or sexual contact at all. Another irrelevant argument.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhhhhhh....actually it is. Simply because "none of us" call it "redefining" doesn't mean all gay folks view it that way, or that its not redefining marriage. Reread the that paragraph:
*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*
The author uses the "essense of marriage" that is the union of husaband and wife. Obviously you don't want that. Thus the redefnition.
<quoted text>
Really? How about the foundation, the union of husband and wife, on which those laws are based? Especially the physical sexual union? Are you really suggesting that all three unions, same sex female, same sex male, and opposite sex, have the same foundation in that regard? We can argue back and forth on the emotional aspects, the "non gender specific" aspects of marriage, and whether or not they apply to both ss and os, but the physical union is different. Ain't no "consumation" taking place, "begetting children", "presuming paternity", etc. in a same sex relationship. If ya can't consumate, ya can't procreate, and ya don't have to worry about "presuming paternity". So yeah...it is "redefining".
<quoted text>
The cat's out of the bag.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26598 Jan 28, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Since we don't use the word "redefine", attributing it directly to us is a lie. Of course, lying's all you people have, isn't it? I haven't seen or heard of any SSM activist forwarding any of this crap. BTW--what you consider the essence of marriage is not canonical; for many people, it's two people committing to each other.
Marriage doesn't require physical or sexual contact at all. Another irrelevant argument.
<quoted text>
Is that your real picture?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26599 Jan 28, 2013
You'll never know, mostly ecause you're too stupid to research it.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that your real picture?

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#26601 Jan 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually George Orwell did write "Animal Farm". Perhaps you should "just think" before you write.
<quoted text>
Yet you continue to deny the link between legal ssm, and polygamy, and are willing to deny plural marriage practioners, "marriage equality".
<quoted text>
Oh noooo....Thank YOU for failing to see...more likely failing to admit, the obvious...the proverbial rainbow colored elephant in the room. But you're a crafty one, yes sir ree! Every thinking person...."progressive " thinking person that is... can clearly see there's no link between redefining marriage, to include same sex relationships, and plural marriage, even though polgamy is virtually as old as mongamous marriage. It doesn't matter that there are nummerous websites devoted to polygamy, a Supreme Court Justice mentioned it in his dissent on a case linked to SSM, a reality show of a polygamist family that continues to give interviews supporting SSM, more polygamists "coming out of the closet" citing legal SSM for giving them hope, and the list goes on and on and on.
Is there enough "marriage equality" to go around? Me thinks the SSMers protest too much.
Maybe...just maybe...you can explain to our television audience why legal ssm is the proverbial "line in the sand"? That marriage in the U.S. will be, or should be defined as a union of two people regardless of gender composition? Why there's no possible way that polygamy could be legalized, even though that was said about ssm at one time. Please oh great Thinker of Just impart on us your vast knowledge and wisdom to the lower minds.
<quoted text>
Why the heck do you think I have a fear of homoginized milk? Condensed milk, maybe, certainly not homogenized milk. If one had a fear of milk men, would they be a calciumhomophobe? "Rampant paranoia"? The only ones out to get me are the polyphobes.
I'll be here all week, please be kind to your waitress.....uh I mean non gender specific wait person.
wow...you slipped straight into sad troll-ville. So many lies that anyone who has read the last few pages can see you tell...

Good to see that everyone recognizes it.

Next!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26602 Jan 28, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
wow...you slipped straight into sad troll-ville. So many lies that anyone who has read the last few pages can see you tell...
Good to see that everyone recognizes it.
Next!
"Troll-ville"? In the words of Bugs Bunny: "What a maroon!".
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26603 Jan 28, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
You'll never know, mostly ecause you're too stupid to research it.
<quoted text>
Not too stupid, just don't give a sh!t enough to, so I figured I'd just ask. If you're too stupid to answer, that's OK. Like I said. Don't give a sh!t.

Hope that helps!
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26604 Jan 28, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
wow...you slipped straight into sad troll-ville. So many lies that anyone who has read the last few pages can see you tell...
Good to see that everyone recognizes it.
Next!
"...slipped into sad trollville"?

Too funny!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26606 Jan 28, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
wow...you slipped straight into sad troll-ville. So many lies that anyone who has read the last few pages can see you tell...
Good to see that everyone recognizes it.
Next!
http://m.youtube.com/watch...

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 Southwestern Connecticut companies lauded for L... 23 min Community Disorga... 11
News Anti-gay married Republican quits after he is c... 36 min Just Think 54
Can't get no satisfaction 6 hr Master sir 2
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 7 hr Casey 14,065
News Rikki Beadle-Blair MBE is the recipient of the ... 8 hr Trump Plotza 1
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 14 hr June VanDerMark 57,913
News Ten Commandments judge faces runoff in Alabama ... 15 hr Rose_NoHo 180
Roy Moore.....Just Another Hypocrite 18 hr Frankie Rizzo 29
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 21 hr look out below 26,365
More from around the web