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.

Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#26713 Jan 30, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
where, when?
you merely insist I am not a lawyer day after day. You clearly don't mind being wrong.
Would you like me to repost your ridiculous comments about the Vermont inn that refused to host a gay wedding and how the KKK could do the same thing to a gay B&B because the law works both ways? How about my personal favorite of your fuck-ups: paying a fine is the same as forcing someone to hold a wedding? And your latest gem "laws turn people into criminals."

I insist that you aren't a lawyer because you have made too many errors in logic and reasoning. Your own posts are the proof.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26714 Jan 30, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text> No proof.
No substance.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26715 Jan 30, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, all the proof needed is contained in your own posts.
Time to dig out your LOGIC FOR 1st GRADERS textbook.
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#26716 Jan 30, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you like me to repost your ridiculous comments about the Vermont inn that refused to host a gay wedding and how the KKK could do the same thing to a gay B&B because the law works both ways? How about my personal favorite of your fuck-ups: paying a fine is the same as forcing someone to hold a wedding?
maybe if you did and not your dumb interpretation of what i said I would agree...
remember when you claimed for MONTHS I said the KKK was a protected class?
remember you proving you lied and i NEVER said that?

I do...

remember I called it a slippery slope argument when i said it?

remember when you said no one is forced if they just pay a fine if they do not meaning we all are not forced to pay taxes....
I do...and I appreciate your bringing it up again because of this...
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
And your latest gem "laws turn people into criminals."
"bad law"...see how you cannot be honest you fraud?
a criminal is one who violates the law so as usual what you turned my comment into was something utterly stupid and all yours...
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>

I insist that you aren't a lawyer because you have made too many errors in logic and reasoning. Your own posts are the proof.
and that is no proof as you spout as to your constant use of icons...

Hours and hours you have insisted and they get you NO WHERE...
in the end, you are too dumb to understand and somehow try to put your deficiency on me...
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#26717 Jan 30, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text> No proof.
I can see it through your post...
like you claim about having proof I was not an attorney?

You may be the most inconsistent person I have ever "talked" with...

Its obvious you play with the icons, its part of your overall fraud...
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#26718 Jan 30, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, all the proof needed is contained in your own posts.
as you are able to understand them...
which is not at all...
face it, you are a moron...

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26719 Jan 30, 2013
Changing gender access does not change any other marital law. Changing the number does.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
You really don't think redefining marriage by eliminating the "man woman" part of "one man one woman" will make it logical to eliminate the "one" part?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26720 Jan 30, 2013
SSM is justifiable on the basis of constitutional rights. It doesn't require popular consent.
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
you cannot logically justify gay marriage without them...
are you too dumb to realize that?
Obviously you are...
and you would make those arguments, you are just being a fraud as usual...
Hey what job did you have at GE fraud boy?
who do YOU think you are fooling besides those who already support your side and are as dumb as you?
And why do you deny playing with the icons all day, its obvious its you...
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26723 Jan 30, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Changing gender access does not change any other marital law. Changing the number does.
<quoted text>
So you are against marriage equality for poly because it would be complicated?

Where is that in the Constitution? Is there a clause that says it's OK to deny rights if granting them would be complicated?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26724 Jan 30, 2013
YOU insist you're not a lawyer with evey post. The OP is merely pointing it out.
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
where, when?
you merely insist I am not a lawyer day after day. You clearly don't mind being wrong.
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#26725 Jan 30, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
YOU insist you're not a lawyer with evey post. The OP is merely pointing it out.
<quoted text>
thanks for the second grade level analysis...

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26726 Jan 30, 2013
Civil marriage is a contract; a contract cannot be based on an illegal or fraudulent premise. Gay couples and their relationships are legal; their inclusion does not change the marital contract in any way. Incestuous and polygmist relationships ARE illegal regardless of marriage; thus, they CANNOTenter into acivil marriage.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights.
If traditional marriage is defined as the union of two people of opposite gender, and if the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love, then the other requirement, the number restriction (two and only two), is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26727 Jan 30, 2013
Once you change the LEGAL basis of civil marriage--primary kinship--you in fact DO redefine marriage. I said nothing, however, of denying anything due to complications; the fact is that there are specific issues that will have to be worked out before the SCOTUS would even consider a case for polygamy, because there are no laws in place to effect it.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are against marriage equality for poly because it would be complicated?
Where is that in the Constitution? Is there a clause that says it's OK to deny rights if granting them would be complicated?

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#26728 Jan 30, 2013
Thanks for the fetal response.
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
thanks for the second grade level analysis...
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26729 Jan 30, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Civil marriage is a contract; a contract cannot be based on an illegal or fraudulent premise. Gay couples and their relationships are legal; their inclusion does not change the marital contract in any way. Incestuous and polygmist relationships ARE illegal regardless of marriage; thus, they CANNOTenter into acivil marriage.
<quoted text>
So you are against equality for polygamy because it is presently illegal?

Same sex marriage is presently effectively illegal in most states. You won't go to jail for it, but you cannot legally do it. Should same sex marriage stay illegal in those states because it is presently illegal?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#26730 Jan 30, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Once you change the LEGAL basis of civil marriage--primary kinship--you in fact DO redefine marriage. I said nothing, however, of denying anything due to complications; the fact is that there are specific issues that will have to be worked out before the SCOTUS would even consider a case for polygamy, because there are no laws in place to effect it.
<quoted text>
Right.
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#26731 Jan 30, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Thanks for the fetal response.
<quoted text>
you get what you give petey...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26732 Jan 30, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Once you change the LEGAL basis of civil marriage--primary kinship--you in fact DO redefine marriage. I said nothing, however, of denying anything due to complications; the fact is that there are specific issues that will have to be worked out before the SCOTUS would even consider a case for polygamy, because there are no laws in place to effect it.
<quoted text>
That legal kinship is based on the union of male and female as husband and wife, is it not? Marriage creates legal kinship between a male and a female.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26733 Jan 30, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Civil marriage is a contract; a contract cannot be based on an illegal or fraudulent premise.
That's the puzzling part. What aspect of polygamy is illegal? Is it illegal for a man to father several children out of wedlock? Is illegal for a man to be intimate with several women? Is it illegal for a man to cohabitate with several women? Is the only "illegal" part in that he refers to several women as his wives, and they inturn refer to him as their husband?
Gay couples and their relationships are legal; their inclusion does not change the marital contract in any way.
Yes it does, it changes the very foundation on which legal marriage is based on, the union of one male and one female, as husband and wife.
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#26734 Jan 30, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
maybe if you did and not your dumb interpretation of what i said I would agree...
remember when you claimed for MONTHS I said the KKK was a protected class?
remember you proving you lied and i NEVER said that?
I do...
remember I called it a slippery slope argument when i said it?
remember when you said no one is forced if they just pay a fine if they do not meaning we all are not forced to pay taxes....
I do...and I appreciate your bringing it up again because of this...
<quoted text>
"bad law"...see how you cannot be honest you fraud?
a criminal is one who violates the law so as usual what you turned my comment into was something utterly stupid and all yours...
<quoted text>
and that is no proof as you spout as to your constant use of icons...
Hours and hours you have insisted and they get you NO WHERE...
in the end, you are too dumb to understand and somehow try to put your deficiency on me...
You haven't told us what's so bad about the law.

it does not take into account society's offense at the notion of a non biological parent taking custody over a biological one...
and so it makes criminals out of otherwise decent people.

Care to retract?

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 Trump bans transgender people from military 8 min Charlie 13
News Canning is 1st Republican to announce run for 1... 49 min cil 4
News Couple on vacation in Italy turned away from gu... 1 hr Johnny 14
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 1 hr neighbor 2,044
News 12-year-old girl comes out to her Mormon congre... 1 hr Tunnel out 503
News Study: 12,000 acts of condomless gay sex, 0 HIV... 1 hr TomInElPaso 38
News Gay bar opens near Macon Road, drawing visitors... 1 hr Rose_NoHo 499
News The Latest: Duckworth says transgender ban disc... 1 hr Theocraencyclical 27
News Blood donation rules relaxed for gay men and se... 1 hr Theocraencyclical 36
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr cpeter1313 52,218
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 hr Rose_NoHo 7,030
More from around the web