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.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26993 May 15, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
What will you do when most states have legalized marriage equality?
Hi ya Wastey, Che si deech?
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
The trajectory of justice moving toward equality for all citizens.
Hi ya Wastey....Che si dice (deech)?

Here's a few excerpts for you:
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/double...

Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.

Finally, prohibiting polygamy on “feminist” grounds—that these marriages are inherently degrading to the women involved—is misguided. The case for polygamy is, in fact, a feminist one and shows women the respect we deserve. Here’s the thing: As women, we really can make our own choices. We just might choose things people don’t like. If a woman wants to marry a man, that’s great. If she wants to marry another woman, that’s great too. If she wants to marry a hipster, well—I suppose that’s the price of freedom.

And if she wants to marry a man with three other wives, that’s her damn choice.

We have a tendency to dismiss or marginalize people we don’t understand. We see women in polygamous marriages and assume they are victims.“They grew up in an unhealthy environment,” we say.“They didn’t really choose polygamy; they were just born into it.” Without question, that is sometimes true. But it’s also true of many (too many) monogamous marriages. Plenty of women, polygamous or otherwise, are born into unhealthy environments that they repeat later in life. There’s no difference. All marriages deserve access to the support and resources they need to build happy, healthy lives, regardless of how many partners are involved. Arguments about whether a woman’s consensual sexual and romantic choices are “healthy” should have no bearing on the legal process. And while polygamy remains illegal, women who choose this lifestyle don’t have access to the protections and benefits that legal marriage provides.

As a feminist, it’s easy and intuitive to support women who choose education, independence, and careers. It’s not as intuitive to support women who choose values and lifestyles that seem outdated or even sexist, but those women deserve our respect just as much as any others. It’s condescending, not supportive, to minimize them as mere “victims” without considering the possibility that some of them have simply made a different choice.

The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26994 May 15, 2013
Oops did a bit of extra cut and pasting on that last one.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#26995 May 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
And the rest of the races?
They were classified with blacks as "non whites".

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26996 May 15, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
They were classified with blacks as "non whites".
How was "white" defined?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#26997 May 15, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi ya Wastey, Che si deech?
<quoted text>
Hi ya Wastey....Che si dice (deech)?
Here's a few excerpts for you:
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/double...
Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too. Legalized polygamy in the United States is the constitutional, feminist, and sex-positive choice. More importantly, it would actually help protect, empower, and strengthen women, children, and families.
Finally, prohibiting polygamy on “feminist” grounds—that these marriages are inherently degrading to the women involved—is misguided. The case for polygamy is, in fact, a feminist one and shows women the respect we deserve. Here’s the thing: As women, we really can make our own choices. We just might choose things people don’t like. If a woman wants to marry a man, that’s great. If she wants to marry another woman, that’s great too. If she wants to marry a hipster, well—I suppose that’s the price of freedom.
And if she wants to marry a man with three other wives, that’s her damn choice.
We have a tendency to dismiss or marginalize people we don’t understand. We see women in polygamous marriages and assume they are victims.“They grew up in an unhealthy environment,” we say.“They didn’t really choose polygamy; they were just born into it.” Without question, that is sometimes true. But it’s also true of many (too many) monogamous marriages. Plenty of women, polygamous or otherwise, are born into unhealthy environments that they repeat later in life. There’s no difference. All marriages deserve access to the support and resources they need to build happy, healthy lives, regardless of how many partners are involved. Arguments about whether a woman’s consensual sexual and romantic choices are “healthy” should have no bearing on the legal process. And while polygamy remains illegal, women who choose this lifestyle don’t have access to the protections and benefits that legal marriage provides.
As a feminist, it’s easy and intuitive to support women who choose education, independence, and careers. It’s not as intuitive to support women who choose values and lifestyles that seem outdated or even sexist, but those women deserve our respect just as much as any others. It’s condescending, not supportive, to minimize them as mere “victims” without considering the possibility that some of them have simply made a different choice.
The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.
Looking forward to having a harem Pietro? Hey, more power to ya. How will you keep up?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26999 May 15, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Looking forward to having a harem Pietro? Hey, more power to ya. How will you keep up?
Viagra maybe.....nice set up.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#27000 May 16, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
When you figure out what the appropriate class of people really is, then you might understand. But even then I doubt it.
..and when you figure out that ssm isn't just for homosexuals...you'll figure out you don't know what you are talking about...but I doubt it even then...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#27001 May 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
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
What do you mean??? There's no 'slippery slope'...NOOOOOOOOOO......

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#27002 May 16, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I'm sorry you do not understand plain english...please allow me to help...

u·ni·ver·sal/&#716;yun &#601;&#712;v&#604 ;rs&#601;l/
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole: universal experience.
2. applicable everywhere or in all cases; general: a universal cure.
3. affecting, concerning, or involving all: universal military service.
4. used or understood by all: a universal language.
5. present everywhere: the universal calm of southern seas.

stand·ard/&#712;stænd& #601;rd/
noun
1. something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model.
2. an object that is regarded as the usual or most common size or form of its kind: We stock the deluxe models as well as the standards.
3. a rule or principle that is used as a basis for judgment: They tried to establish standards for a new philosophical approach.
4. an average or normal requirement, quality, quantity, level, grade, etc.: His work this week hasn't been up to his usual standard.
5. standards, those morals, ethics, habits, etc., established by authority, custom, or an individual as acceptable: He tried to live up to his father's standards.

Perhaps this may help...though I doubt it...you have to have a 4th grade reading comprehension level to put the two together....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#27003 May 16, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
They were classified with blacks as "non whites".
Clueless....

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#27004 May 16, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
..and when you figure out that ssm isn't just for homosexuals...you'll figure out you don't know what you are talking about...but I doubt it even then...
If same sex heterosexuals want to marry as a result of the efforts of gays to have their marriages legally recognized, no one's stopping them. Fell free to divorce your husband and marry your best gal pal.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#27005 May 16, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry you do not understand plain english...please allow me to help...
u·ni·ver·sal/&#716;yun &#601;&#712;v&#604 ;rs&#601;l/
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole: universal experience.
2. applicable everywhere or in all cases; general: a universal cure.
3. affecting, concerning, or involving all: universal military service.
4. used or understood by all: a universal language.
5. present everywhere: the universal calm of southern seas.
stand·ard/&#712;stænd& #601;rd/
noun
1. something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model.
2. an object that is regarded as the usual or most common size or form of its kind: We stock the deluxe models as well as the standards.
3. a rule or principle that is used as a basis for judgment: They tried to establish standards for a new philosophical approach.
4. an average or normal requirement, quality, quantity, level, grade, etc.: His work this week hasn't been up to his usual standard.
5. standards, those morals, ethics, habits, etc., established by authority, custom, or an individual as acceptable: He tried to live up to his father's standards.
Perhaps this may help...though I doubt it...you have to have a 4th grade reading comprehension level to put the two together....
Thanks for admitting you don't even have a 4th grade reading comprehension. Same sex marriage did in fact exist in past times and cultures; it just wasn't common or typical. But the fact it did exist means your view of marriage is NOT "universal" by the definition you cited above.

Perhaps your grandchildren can explain it better to you.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#27006 May 16, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Clueless....
Yes, you are with regards to anti-miscegenation laws.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#27007 May 16, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
If same sex heterosexuals want to marry as a result of the efforts of gays to have their marriages legally recognized, no one's stopping them. Fell free to divorce your husband and marry your best gal pal.
Seriously Terry what is the point? If "marriage" is nothing more than validation for one's personal intimate complete with a government's bennies package, why bother licensing it all? Or why not apply the designation to any adult consenting relationship who wants it?

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#27008 May 16, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for admitting you don't even have a 4th grade reading comprehension. Same sex marriage did in fact exist in past times and cultures; it just wasn't common or typical.
Hence it isn't the 'universal standard'....

That is a lie...ssm was never practiced prior to this century...
But the fact it did exist means your view of marriage is NOT "universal" by the definition you cited above.
Perhaps your grandchildren can explain it better to you.
You really are d-umb...please by all means...do not procreate...the rest of us would really, really, REALLY appreciate that....

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#27009 May 16, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
If same sex heterosexuals want to marry as a result of the efforts of gays to have their marriages legally recognized, no one's stopping them. Fell free to divorce your husband and marry your best gal pal.
So you are saying that ssm wasn't 'intended' for anyone but homosexuals???

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#27010 May 16, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously Terry what is the point? If "marriage" is nothing more than validation for one's personal intimate complete with a government's bennies package, why bother licensing it all? Or why not apply the designation to any adult consenting relationship who wants it?
What's the point of how you want to define marriage? You need to realize all you're doing is whining about where to draw the line, not why the line exists.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#27011 May 16, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Hence it isn't the 'universal standard'....
And hence neither was opposite sex marriage a "universal standard" since other forms of marriage existed.
Get That Fool wrote:
That is a lie...ssm was never practiced prior to this century...
Yes it was. Your ignorance of history doesn't negate it.
Get That Fool wrote:
You really are d-umb...please by all means...do not procreate...the rest of us would really, really, REALLY appreciate that....
Unfortunately, you've already polluted the human gene pool by spawning. We can only hope your children and grandchildren were able to overcome the disability of having your genetic material.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#27012 May 16, 2013
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are saying that ssm wasn't 'intended' for anyone but homosexuals???
No, I'm saying only gays cared enough about marrying a same sex partner to fight to have it legally recognized. The millions of "same sex heterosexual partners" you seem to think exist apparently were content to suffer in silence. Or settle for marrying opposite sex people they didn't love.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#27013 May 16, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for admitting you don't even have a 4th grade reading comprehension. Same sex marriage did in fact exist in past times and cultures; it just wasn't common or typical. But the fact it did exist means your view of marriage is NOT "universal" by the definition you cited above.
Perhaps your grandchildren can explain it better to you.
Although there are scattered historical examples in various cultures of recognized same sex unions, not all were called marriage, there is no cross time cross cultural sustained sane sex marriage culture, particularly in Western civilization. If there was, there'd be no need for this debate, ssm would be legal.

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 also mocked Rosie O'Donnell for being gay... 5 min Prosperity Fundie... 1
News Anti-gay slur sparks protest on BC campus 6 min Flordia Gator 12
News I'm traumatised by Trump, says Cher, warning el... 25 min FedUp 5
News Alabama chief justice removed from bench for de... 1 hr Quirky 24
News Identity Inc. presents anti-hate crimes rally 1 hr Jaded 11
News The Latest: Alabama chief justice blames a radi... 2 hr TerriB1 1
Is Fa-Foxy a Catholic? (Mar '16) 5 hr PedoQueer 502
News Eastern Kentucky holds first Pride Festival 5 hr antipolicticalcor... 123
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 5 hr antipolicticalcor... 18,588
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 6 hr Pauli 68,998
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 11 hr TomInElPaso 40,519
More from around the web