Obama Announces Full Support for Gay ...

Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

There are 26143 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.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#26973 May 15, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
However...it is part of the promotion of the breakdown of the traditional family...
No, that break down started among heterosexuals decades before same sex marriage became a political issue.
Get That Fool wrote:
What discrimination against gays??? Doesn't ssm apply to heterosexuals too????
Equal application of the law isn't equal protection of the law, FOOL. After all, anti-miscegenation and segregation laws were applied equally to both blacks and whites but were deemed unconstitutional anyway. Separate but equal was ruled inherently unequal by SCOTUS in Brown v. Board of Education.

You're simply not qualified to have an opinion on, much less discuss, matters of constitutional law.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#26974 May 15, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
But you just proved that 'legal consent' can be given to a child of 13/14 years....don't back-track now...you hit the nail on the head....
Because children are humans and under the guardianship of their parents or other appointed legal guardian. Under law, animals are property, not citizens with rights they can exercise on their own or under someone else's guardianship. Are you really this f-ing stupid? If so, perhaps your legal status should be downgraded to animal.
Get That Fool wrote:
you are right! The pedaphiles will have their day soon too!!
They already can. They just have to find one of your "model" families and persuade the parents to allow a marriage to their underage son or daughter. Apparently you heterosexuals don't really care about child molestation as long as you get to choose the pedophile doing it.
Get That Fool wrote:
Are you saying there are no homosexuals in legislatures???
Of course not. Are you asserting gays comprise a majority of lawmakers or the electorate such that they can pass legislation on their own with no support from other groups?
Get That Fool wrote:
...and who knows what it will be in DSM 6!
But we do know pedophilic disorder remains in DSM-5 contrary to your oft repeated lie.
Get That Fool wrote:
So is there an age at which ssm is illegal???
Age requirements within marriage laws apply to all who seek to marry.
Get That Fool wrote:
We have a case now where a 20 year old coach has been in a relationship with a 14 year old student (both males) and the parents don't seem to see this as a problem???? It won't be long before pedophilia is de-stygmatized....
And neither the local school authorities nor the local prosecutor has seen fit to step in to start disciplinary or criminal proceedings? That's not a failure of only the parents. And if the coach and student were allowed marry in your state, then legally it would be only subject to age and parental consent requirements of your state's marriage law. As I pointed out yesterday, one state llows 13 year girls to marry with parental consent and another doesn't even set a lower age limit with parental consent. Those laws were created by heterosexuals, not gays.

And a student/coach relationship shouldn't be outside the bounds of school district rules of conduct, however, regardless of the other legal circumstances. So why isn't the school district doing something about it?
Get That Fool wrote:
I don't discriminate against gays...I don't care for ssm among heterosexuals either...
Equal application of the law is not equal protection of the law. cupcake.
Get That Fool wrote:
This has to be the dum-best thing you have ever posted...
No, that you think so only reaffirms your utter stupidity regarding research studies.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#26975 May 15, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
However...it is part of the promotion of the breakdown of the traditional family...
<quoted text>
What discrimination against gays??? Doesn't ssm apply to heterosexuals too????
Extending marriage rights to include same sex couples has no impact on the traditional family. Your claim is fallacious.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#26976 May 15, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Because children are humans and under the guardianship of their parents or other appointed legal guardian.
According to you...no parents required for fourteen year olds to marry...don't try to back track now....keep moving forward...you are proving my 'slippery slope' point exquisitely...
Under law, animals are property, not citizens with rights they can exercise on their own or under someone else's guardianship.
Not according to the animal rights people...they say they are as individual as you and I and have the same rights...you really need to keep up with your left-wing crazies like you...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#26977 May 15, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Extending marriage rights to include same sex couples has no impact on the traditional family. Your claim is fallacious.
Except that it doesn't create one...My claim is true...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#26978 May 15, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that break down started among heterosexuals decades before same sex marriage became a political issue.
Well adding ssm certainly isn't taking any steps to correct it...
Equal application of the law isn't equal protection of the law, FOOL. After all, anti-miscegenation and segregation laws were applied equally to both blacks and whites but were deemed unconstitutional anyway. Separate but equal was ruled inherently unequal by SCOTUS in Brown v. Board of Education.
You're simply not qualified to have an opinion on, much less discuss, matters of constitutional law.
Wow are you d-umb.....ss heterosexual couples have the same rights as ss homosexual couples...you didn't know that???

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#26979 May 15, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
According to you...no parents required for fourteen year olds to marry...don't try to back track now....keep moving forward...you are proving my 'slippery slope' point exquisitely...
The only thing being proved is your continued willful lying. I never stated 14 year olds should be allowed to marry without parental consent and in fact provided a link detailing age requirements in every state for marriage with and without parental consent.

But by all means, keep proving you're a pathological liar.
Get That Fool wrote:
Not according to the animal rights people...they say they are as individual as you and I and have the same rights...you really need to keep up with your left-wing crazies like you...
Do you and your fellow heterosexuals comprising an overwhelming majority of legislators and voters plan on changing the law to allow human/animal marriages any time soon? Are you unable to think of any rational reasons that would pass constitutional muster to prevent human/animal marriages in a court of law?

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#26980 May 15, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
Well adding ssm certainly isn't taking any steps to correct it...
Neither is prohibiting same sex marriage. BUt apparently implementing your prejudice against gays into law is more important than doing something to address the decline of the "traditional family" about which you whine incessantly.
Get That Fool wrote:
Wow are you d-umb.....ss heterosexual couples have the same rights as ss homosexual couples...you didn't know that???
You're stupid. You can't understand the difference between equal application of the law and constitutionally guaranteed equal protection under the law. Which is one of the reason's you're unqualified to have an opinion about, much less discuss, constitutional law.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#26981 May 15, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither is prohibiting same sex marriage. BUt apparently implementing your prejudice against gays into law is more important than doing something to address the decline of the "traditional family" about which you whine incessantly.
<quoted text>
You're stupid. You can't understand the difference between equal application of the law and constitutionally guaranteed equal protection under the law. Which is one of the reason's you're unqualified to have an opinion about, much less discuss, constitutional law.
Are you saying a heterosexual ss couple has more rights than a homosexual ss couple??

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#26982 May 15, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither is prohibiting same sex marriage. BUt apparently implementing your prejudice against gays into law is more important than doing something to address the decline of the "traditional family" about which you whine incessantly.
Doesn't ssm apply to heterosexuals too???

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#26983 May 15, 2013
fr Get That Fool:

>...Wow are you d-umb.....ss heterosexual couples have the same rights as ss homosexual couples...you didn't know that???<

No, we don't. Have mommy explain to you after your bath and naptime just what rights GLBT's do and don't have. Have her tell it to you in one-syllable words so that even YOU can understand it.

In short, grow UP and get a life. You are in serious need of one.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#26984 May 15, 2013
Pattysboi wrote:
fr Get That Fool:
>...Wow are you d-umb.....ss heterosexual couples have the same rights as ss homosexual couples...you didn't know that???<
No, we don't. Have mommy explain to you after your bath and naptime just what rights GLBT's do and don't have. Have her tell it to you in one-syllable words so that even YOU can understand it.
In short, grow UP and get a life. You are in serious need of one.
My 'life' includes education and common sense...your's has neither..

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#26985 May 15, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying a heterosexual ss couple has more rights than a homosexual ss couple??
No. But opposite sex couples are given legal recognition of their marriage in all states which isn't the case for same sex couples. A restriction placed on a fundamental right that impacts a class of citizens must have a compelling government interest to be constitutional. In this instance, however, the attribute sex serves as a surrogate of the real attribute in question: sexual orientation.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#26986 May 15, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't ssm apply to heterosexuals too???
Just as anti-miscegenation laws applied equally to whites and blacks.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#26987 May 15, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Just as anti-miscegenation laws applied equally to whites and blacks.
So, ss hets have more rights than ss homs?? Really??? How so???

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#26988 May 15, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
No. But opposite sex couples are given legal recognition of their marriage in all states which isn't the case for same sex couples.
That's because that is the univeral standard of marriage...
A restriction placed on a fundamental right that impacts a class of citizens must have a compelling government interest to be constitutional. In this instance, however, the attribute sex serves as a surrogate of the real attribute in question: sexual orientation.
Those poor polygamists.......

Sexual orientation is not a protected class.....

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#26989 May 15, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
So, ss hets have more rights than ss homs?? Really??? How so???
When you figure out what the appropriate class of people really is, then you might understand. But even then I doubt it.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#26990 May 15, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because that is the univeral standard of marriage...
It's simply a lie to call something a "universal standard" when exceptions exist both now and in the past. You're so sloppy and imprecise in your use of language.
Get That Fool wrote:
Those poor polygamists.......
Not to worry. If they feel unjustly discriminated against, they can exercise their constitutional right to petition government to address their grievances.
Get That Fool wrote:
Sexual orientation is not a protected class.....
True for now at the federal level. But even classes not given constitutional special protection ca still bring equal protection challenges against laws using rational basis judicial review. And sexual orientation in general and homosexuals in particular meet all of the requirements established by SCOTUS for being designated a protected class. It's just that SCOTUS has always found a way to date to rule in favor of gays using rational basis review so has never had a need to evaluate them for protected class status. And in Romer v. Evans, SCOTUS even overturned a state constitutional amendment discriminating against gays on nothing more than rational basis review. So don't think Prop 8 is safe simply because gays aren't designated a federal protected class.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26991 May 15, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Just as anti-miscegenation laws applied equally to whites and blacks.
And the rest of the races?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26992 May 15, 2013
Selecia Jones- JAX FL wrote:
The times they are a changin'! Great Britain this week. So now the sun never sets on GAY MARRIAGES!
God save the Queen. Now on to polygamy in the UK

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/polygamous-m...

An “unprecedented” number of Muslim women are inquiring about polygamy, the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain has said.

Newspaper reports suggest that thousands of Muslim women in Britain are entering polygamous relationships.

The news comes as the Westminster Government launched a consultation on whether marriage should be redefined.

Polygamy

British Muslim men reportedly bring about 12,000 brides to Britain each year, leaving UK-born Muslim females struggling to find a husband.

Although polygamy is illegal in Britain, many Muslim communities believe it is legitimate for a man to have up to four wives.

Under UK law only one marriage is legal, but men can have “nikah” religious ceremonies.

Professional

A BBC producer, who researched polygamy for a documentary last year, said the ‘co-wife’ option was appealing for many females.

Perminder Khatkar said:“In some cases professional women like the idea of being a second wife because it can help them with their careers”.

She continued:“If the first wife is more traditional, she can look after the second wife’s kids as well.”

Consideration

Hinnah Qureshi, who is from West Sussex and uses a Muslim dating website, said,“a lot of Muslim women who can’t find anyone will settle with being a second or third wife”.

Miss Qureshi added:“I would rather not do that, but if I’m not married in 10 years, I would consider it.”

Advantages

Last month Guardian blogger Martin Robbins claimed that there were “economic advantages” for children having three parents.

Mr Robbins said:“What’s wrong with polygamy? It seems to be that a child brought up by three loving parents would have some quite big economic advantages, and humans have cooperated in child-rearing since the year dot.”

His remarks came as he attacked the Coalition for Marriage (C4M), a grassroots organisation set up to campaign against the redefinition of marriage. You can sign the C4M petition here: www.c4m.org.uk

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 School textbook with gay maths problem go viral 26 min Wondering 64
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 1 hr Frisco 28,030
News Missouri Supreme Court weighs whether 'sex' bia... 1 hr Norman 3
News God can deliver homosexuals - Foh-Amoaning 2 hr OkieDarren 9
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 hr RiccardoFire 19,259
NE Fun 4 hr NE Jade 1
News Springdale council to review rainbow crosswalk ... 6 hr Wondering 11
News 'Roseanne' Star Recalls Fight to Air Controvers... 13 hr Roy 111
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 16 hr River Tam 61,058