White House, Obama Campaign on Defens...

White House, Obama Campaign on Defense After Biden Backs Gay Marriage

There are 265 comments on the ABC News story from May 7, 2012, titled White House, Obama Campaign on Defense After Biden Backs Gay Marriage. In it, ABC News reports that:

The White House and the Obama campaign are playing defense on gay marriage , after comments by Vice President Joe Biden reignited debate over the president's position on the issue and whether he would seek to legalize same-sex marriages in a second term.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at ABC News.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#116 May 9, 2012
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, you can't refute my arguments.
In other words you don't have any arguments, just dizzy comments that don't need refuting, they need life support...

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#117 May 9, 2012
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
Mental illness affects a lot of heterosexuals too, so once again, your point is moot. The fact is, it's been proven that brothers and sisters (who are NOT mentally ill) could produce children with birth defects and/or mental illness, so it is for the protection of the potential child that marriage between siblings is prohibited. Aside from all that, I am 55 years old and have never met anyone who wanted to marry their brother or sister!
You mean like the state's interest in promoting homes with mom/dads in them are for the protections of the child?

Just because you don't know of anyone personally, doesn't mean they are not out there. I personally don't know any gay people that want to marry.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#118 May 9, 2012
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
Procreation is not a requirement but it is a possibility.
LOL!!! Isn't that what we've been saying about marriage???? You all are sooooo funny!

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#119 May 9, 2012
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
Would YOU want to marry a homosexual who hadn't come out yet? Why would a homosexual want to marry someone of the opposite sex? It would make neither of them happy. Think about it.
How do you know it wouldn't be happy????? Homosexuals have been marrying in opposite sexed marriages for generations.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#120 May 9, 2012
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
...and you're living proof.
YOU originally brought up the "why can't brothers and sisters marry" argument. Then lides gives you a legitimate answer and you ask him why he brought it up.
You're only here because you love all the attention. I have to admit I enjoy your posts, though -- they're so goofy, they're entertaining.
Well therein lies your answer...he didn't give a 'logical' answer. He gave an answer he believed was 'logical'. The same things he's saying about the kids have been the argument proponents of traditional marriage have been saying all along. It's best for the children that might result in this union.

You all want it both ways...you don't want children to matter when it comes to supporting traditional marriage...and then you 'do' want children to matter in other circumstances. That my friend is the very definition of 'illogical'.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#121 May 9, 2012
akpilot wrote:
Yes, all people are equally protected under the law- everyone is allowed to marry, but they must all follow the same law and marry someone of the opposite sex.
You canít even come up with a rational basis for denying same sex couples the right to marry. The argument that homosexuals are free to mmarry someone of the opposite sex a) is advocating sham marriages (way to protect the sanctity of marriage, imbecile), and b) does not even have so much as a rational basis.
akpilot wrote:
No homosexual has been denied marriage.. They can marry just like everyone else.
akpilot wrote:
You should read Henandez v Robels, the court will explain it to you.
You should wake up and smell the legislation. Is gay marriage legal in New York, the jurisdiction where the ruling was made. You look foolish citing a court ruling that invited the legislature to act, and the legislature did so effectively invalidating the court ruling. The legislature didnít have to authorize gay marriage, yet they did so anyway.
akpilot wrote:
So it's OK to deny freedom so long as the State thinks its important? Got it..
No, it haas to be more than the state thinking it is important, there must be a legitimate state interest served. Youíve regularly failed to indicate any such interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry.
akpilot wrote:
Since procreation is not a requirement of marriage, what problem do you have with incest??
Only an imbecile would make this argument. Incestuous reproduction is prone to a higher rate of mental illness and birth defects. Ergo, there is a compelling state interest in denying close relatives the right to marry.
Get That Fool wrote:
Even if that were true,
It is.
Get That Fool wrote:
what is the state's interest in not allowing them to marry??? What do their offspring have to do with the state???
Traditional marriage routinely , but not always, results in offspring. The state has a legitimate interest in preventing offspring from unions that are likely to produce offspring with a routinely higher rate of mental disease or birth defects.

Do you really mean to make a case for incestuous marriage, which is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand?
Get That Fool wrote:
You don't have a good reason to deny this situation, you might as well admit it.
I have offered my reason, but the reality is that this has long been settled as a matter of law and has no bearing upon the topic at hand. Your regular return to it both makes you look desperate, and as though you have no valid argument against same sex marriage, which is the topic.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#122 May 9, 2012
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You canít even come up with a rational basis for denying same sex couples the right to marry. The argument that homosexuals are free to mmarry someone of the opposite sex a) is advocating sham marriages (way to protect the sanctity of marriage, imbecile), and b) does not even have so much as a rational basis.


We have the exact same rational basis you do for denying incest marriage. The children. Children need a mother/father in the home, and that is where the state's interest lies.
No, it haas to be more than the state thinking it is important, there must be a legitimate state interest served. Youíve regularly failed to indicate any such interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry.


You have none denying incest marriages. So who's to say who's right and who's wrong. According to you...your own standard works against you....
Only an imbecile would make this argument. Incestuous reproduction is prone to a higher rate of mental illness and birth defects. Ergo, there is a compelling state interest in denying close relatives the right to marry.
Can you prove that????? Even if that were true, who are we to say a couple can't make defected babies if they want to????
Traditional marriage routinely , but not always, results in offspring. The state has a legitimate interest in preventing offspring from unions that are likely to produce offspring with a routinely higher rate of mental disease or birth defects.
Do you really mean to make a case for incestuous marriage, which is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand?
Just as we have been saying all along with traditional marriage. If you don't want to consider the kids for this, then don't even try to consider the kids for that.
I have offered my reason, but the reality is that this has long been settled as a matter of law and has no bearing upon the topic at hand. Your regular return to it both makes you look desperate, and as though you have no valid argument against same sex marriage, which is the topic.
There are 32 states that now have ssm against the law, yet that hasn't stopped you from posting about it.

“Liberal Teachers ruin Kids”

Since: Mar 09

Paradise Valley Arizona

#124 May 9, 2012
Once the Obama speaks today, He will be falling more in the polls, and the stock market will be down again. The Obama has failed

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#125 May 9, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Well therein lies your answer...he didn't give a 'logical' answer. He gave an answer he believed was 'logical'. The same things he's saying about the kids have been the argument proponents of traditional marriage have been saying all along. It's best for the children that might result in this union.
You all want it both ways...you don't want children to matter when it comes to supporting traditional marriage...and then you 'do' want children to matter in other circumstances. That my friend is the very definition of 'illogical'.
I said that he gave a "legitimate" answer.

I want children to matter all the time, but I don't see how same sex marriage will put any children at risk. Sure, some same sex couples may want to adopt children or use a surrogate mother/father, but there is no evidence that this will be harmful to the children. They have just as good a chance of having good parents as do the children -- adopted or natural -- of heterosexuals.

Another moot point for you.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#126 May 9, 2012
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
I said that he gave a "legitimate" answer.
I want children to matter all the time, but I don't see how same sex marriage will put any children at risk. Sure, some same sex couples may want to adopt children or use a surrogate mother/father, but there is no evidence that this will be harmful to the children. They have just as good a chance of having good parents as do the children -- adopted or natural -- of heterosexuals.
Another moot point for you.
He didn't give a 'legitimate' answer either. He gave the same old softshoe you and other like you dance to, and call it a show.

Anytime a child is created with the intent of excluding either his/her mother/father in the home is putting that child at risk. One could even make a paralell that it is child abuse.

“Liberal Teachers ruin Kids”

Since: Mar 09

Paradise Valley Arizona

#127 May 9, 2012
Billionaire financier George Soros is pledging $2 million to political groups supporting progressive causes and President Barack Obama's re-election
harvey

Columbus, OH

#128 May 9, 2012
The Dogturd wrote:
We are sick of the lies about the diseases connected to homosexuality, ABC is the worst about promoting this lifestyle.
.
Doctors Say Same-Sex Marriage Will Give False Impression Gay Sex is Safe
IllinoisĖ The looming ..blah, blah, blah.....
Not one shred of evidence that gay marriage will lead to health risks for society at large (quite the opposite is true, of course) or that gay sex is any more INHERENTLY risky than straight sex (obviously not all gay people, even gay men, have anal sex while many HETEROSEXUAL people DO).

You're just a bigot cloaked in a lab coat. F--- off.
harvey

Columbus, OH

#129 May 9, 2012
Vanceline wrote:
Billionaire financier George Soros is pledging $2 million to political groups supporting progressive causes and President Barack Obama's re-election
Bravo, Mr. Soros! Bravo! Thanks so much for your help in electing progressive leaders for our nation!

We must fight the plague of poor teaTHUGlican leadership, and their fanatical lunacy which endangers our nation.
harvey

Columbus, OH

#130 May 9, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
He didn't give a 'legitimate' answer either. He gave the same old softshoe you and other like you dance to, and call it a show.
Anytime a child is created with the intent of excluding either his/her mother/father in the home is putting that child at risk. One could even make a paralell that it is child abuse.
Sheer, unsupported nonsense. By that standard Evangelical Christians, who divorce at one of the highest rates of any group in America, are guilty of massive amounts of child abuse.

Gay marriage doesn't "exclude" a father or mother, there are simply two of one or the other. You don't want to deal with this, so you make up false claims.

Period.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#131 May 9, 2012
harvey wrote:
<quoted text>
Bravo, Mr. Soros! Bravo! Thanks so much for your help in electing progressive leaders for our nation!
We must fight the plague of poor teaTHUGlican leadership, and their fanatical lunacy which endangers our nation.
Mr. Soros is a well know liberal trying to take down America. You should choose your heroes more wisely.

“Liberal Teachers ruin Kids”

Since: Mar 09

Paradise Valley Arizona

#132 May 9, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Mr. Soros is a well know liberal trying to take down America. You should choose your heroes more wisely.
Communists love Communists

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#133 May 9, 2012
harvey wrote:
<quoted text>
Sheer, unsupported nonsense. By that standard Evangelical Christians, who divorce at one of the highest rates of any group in America, are guilty of massive amounts of child abuse.
Gay marriage doesn't "exclude" a father or mother, there are simply two of one or the other. You don't want to deal with this, so you make up false claims.
Period.
Then they are simply 'excluding' the mother or father of that child. No matter how you try to deny the truth, you will only be successful at demonstrating how desperately you don't want to acknowlege the truth. I can't blame you....it's devastating to your whole argument, but you have to be real.

There are 'waaayyy' too many studies that show children in homes where mom/dad are married and in low conflict relationships are the best environment in which to raise children. You can't change the truth no matter how bad you want it not to be so.
harvey

Columbus, OH

#134 May 9, 2012
Get This Fool wrote:
Mr. Soros is a well know liberal trying to take down America. You should choose your heroes more wisely.
LIke most goose-stepping Righties, you seek to make "liberals" into something dangerous or threatening, to red-bait them like you did Communists (real or imagined) in the '50s.

In fact Soros is trying to help FIX America by ending the radical Right 'bagger conspiracy against it. Good for you, George! A true American hero!
harvey

Columbus, OH

#135 May 9, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Then they are simply 'excluding' the mother or father of that child. No matter how you try to deny the truth, you will only be successful at demonstrating how desperately you don't want to acknowlege the truth. I can't blame you....it's devastating to your whole argument, but you have to be real.
There are 'waaayyy' too many studies that show children in homes where mom/dad are married and in low conflict relationships are the best environment in which to raise children. You can't change the truth no matter how bad you want it not to be so.
Since most children of gay parents have two parents, obviously no parents have been "excluded," contrary to your absurd, bigoted BS.

Two gay parents is a perfectly acceptable way to raise a child. Households with parents who are divorced Evangelicals or far Right haters are bad, very bad indeed for kids.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#136 May 9, 2012
harvey wrote:
<quoted text>
Since most children of gay parents have two parents, obviously no parents have been "excluded," contrary to your absurd, bigoted BS.
Two gay parents is a perfectly acceptable way to raise a child. Households with parents who are divorced Evangelicals or far Right haters are bad, very bad indeed for kids.
I didn't say 'two parents'. I said a mother and a father in the home. That is a massive difference that even 'you' know, that's why you try to down play its value.

Divorce among o/s marriage is not justification of ssm.

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.

Top Stories - Gay Marriage Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Australian to soon post ballots in gay marriage... Sep 11 Gomez 1
News Australian court dismisses challenge to gay mar... Sep 7 Bella NE 5
News Australia's top court hears bid to stop gay mar... Sep 5 Gremlin 5
News Chile's Bachelet presents gay marriage bill Aug 28 Newt s Gimlet Rage 1
News Haiti may ban gay marriage, public support for ... Aug '17 Pepper 3
News Anti-gay marriage fight costs Kentucky at least... Aug '17 Evilgelicalling 18
News Legal fight continues over Mississippi gay-marr... Jul '17 Frankie Rizzo 29
More from around the web