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.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#22323 Sep 22, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not the point I was making. In states where joint custody is the policy of the courts, there are fewer divorces. Women are less likely to divorce if they know they won't automatically get the kids and the payments.
I doubt that sincerely......I've personally known women who have divorced regardless of whether or not they would get sole custody of their children.......but again, you need to believe what you need to believe.

There's ALWAYS a point you are trying to make.....no matter how wrong it might be!!!

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#22324 Sep 22, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh and another thing......if JOINT custody was award to both parents.......it usually INDICATES that a divorce has taken place!!!
Not neccessarily. It could mean that the parents simply hosted a party and they could not find the bong, so a guest handed them some zigzags.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#22325 Sep 22, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Or...find one that presents factual information.
My links provided FACTUAL information......just not the information you want to believe in!!!

As a researcher.......I try real hard to look at recent articles and websites to provide information.....not just ones I agree with!!!

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#22326 Sep 22, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Which box do you check?
"OTHER"?
DISCLAIMER:
The above was a joke.
I check MARRIED........with an explanation if it happens to be a federal form!!!

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#22327 Sep 22, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Not neccessarily. It could mean that the parents simply hosted a party and they could not find the bong, so a guest handed them some zigzags.
Ha Ha!!!

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#22328 Sep 22, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Now THERE's a great name for a restaruant eh.
'THE FLIPPANT PLACATION'
Specializing in flap jacks and other comfort food.
ADD:
And served with an attitude.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#22329 Sep 22, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do men find it acceptable to refer to women as "DEAR", "HONEY", "SWEETHEART" or "GIRLFRIEND" when they don't know the person and it's nothing more than a sexist comment?
When did Utah become a state? Are there polygamist couples in existence today in spite of it being illegal and a criminal offense? I'll admit that I never knew that the issue had been voted on, but in reality it really is a moot point and the votes took place way before my time!!!
It's not a sexist comment. It is more of a nongender putdown when the target of the comment needs scolding like a dutch uncle would do. The big he men in the oilfield and other areas of the employment world where it is predominantly men at work, they call each other those terms all the time. Why do many waitresses call the men "hon" all the time? It does not bother me at all.
Utah became a state on January 4, 1896 since you asked.
Are there polygymist couples that exist even though it is illegal? Of course there are. Good God woman,(feel better now that I avoided those icky "sexist" names? Is "woman" sexist to you?) there is even a reality TV show that depicts that very thing.
Moot point you say?
Interesting.
It was >YOU< who tried to make a point of the matter in the begining and I ogliged you in pointing out that you were off base and therefore your "point" was moot.
Nice to see you finally admit that.
Thanks.
And again, you try more foolishness in saying that it was before your time and thereby imply that it is still unconnected and has nothing to do with your current legal definition of marriage situation. And again you are still wrong about that. What happens in the past has a direct effect on what we experience today.
Pietro Armando

Boston, MA

#22330 Sep 22, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Now THERE's a great name for a restaruant eh.
'THE FLIPPANT PLACATION'
Specializing in flap jacks and other comfort food.
I like that.:)
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#22331 Sep 22, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
My links provided FACTUAL information......just not the information you want to believe in!!!
As a researcher.......I try real hard to look at recent articles and websites to provide information.....not just ones I agree with!!!
Rose

Part of any debate is presenting information which supports one's argument. You know that. I understand the need to look at both sides, no disagreement there.

Women initiate 2/3 of all divorces. In joint custody women do not initiate as often, the divorce rate drops. If women know the courts favor them over the husband/father its a greater incentive to initiate divorce.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#22332 Sep 22, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not a sexist comment. It is more of a nongender putdown when the target of the comment needs scolding like a dutch uncle would do. The big he men in the oilfield and other areas of the employment world where it is predominantly men at work, they call each other those terms all the time. Why do many waitresses call the men "hon" all the time? It does not bother me at all.
Utah became a state on January 4, 1896 since you asked.
Are there polygymist couples that exist even though it is illegal? Of course there are. Good God woman,(feel better now that I avoided those icky "sexist" names? Is "woman" sexist to you?) there is even a reality TV show that depicts that very thing.
Moot point you say?
Interesting.
It was >YOU< who tried to make a point of the matter in the begining and I ogliged you in pointing out that you were off base and therefore your "point" was moot.
Nice to see you finally admit that.
Thanks.
And again, you try more foolishness in saying that it was before your time and thereby imply that it is still unconnected and has nothing to do with your current legal definition of marriage situation. And again you are still wrong about that. What happens in the past has a direct effect on what we experience today.
Sorry, but you don't know me and ya don't get to scold me like your some parent of mind!!!

I stated that there are polygamist couples in the world today......regardless of whether or not there was a reality TV show!!!

The rest of your post ain't worth a response!!!
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#22333 Sep 22, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do men find it acceptable to refer to women as "DEAR", "HONEY", "SWEETHEART" or "GIRLFRIEND" when they don't know the person and it's nothing more than a sexist comment?
Is it sexist when women use those terms towards men they don't know?

When did Utah become a state? Are there polygamist couples in existence today in spite of it being illegal and a criminal offense? I'll admit that I never knew that the issue had been voted on, but in reality it really is a moot point and the votes took place way before my time!!!
Polygamy continued as a a practice despite the LDS officially disavowing it as a condition for statehood in 1896. It never really ended.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#22334 Sep 22, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it sexist when women use those terms towards men they don't know?
<quoted text>
Polygamy continued as a a practice despite the LDS officially disavowing it as a condition for statehood in 1896. It never really ended.
Yes, it is just as sexist!!!

True, it is still prevalent in today's society.....your point?

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#22335 Sep 22, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Rose
Part of any debate is presenting information which supports one's argument. You know that. I understand the need to look at both sides, no disagreement there.
Women initiate 2/3 of all divorces. In joint custody women do not initiate as often, the divorce rate drops. If women know the courts favor them over the husband/father its a greater incentive to initiate divorce.
Again, so what if women do initiate the divorce first.......the fact still remains that divorce happens!!!

Again, women will and still initiate divorce proceeding EVEN in states that they might have to share custody.......remember, divorce is usually NOT about the children, but about something not working out between the adults!!!
1 post removed
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#22337 Sep 22, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, so what if women do initiate the divorce first.......the fact still remains that divorce happens!!!
I NEVER SAID IT DIDN'T. That's not the point I was making, and you know it.

Again, women will and still initiate divorce proceeding EVEN in states that they might have to share custody.
I'm not disputing that, but point out the numbers drop in joint custody states. Why do you think that is?
......remember, divorce is usually NOT about the children, but about something not working out between the adults!!!
True, but they do factor in when divorce is contemplated. Many a married woman with children have contemplated divorce at one time or another,whether it be a passing thought, or a serious consideration. It ain't always about abuse, neglect, or infidelity that prompts the contemplation. I've spoken with a few who've wondered how much the court would award in child support. Now in states that promote joint custody, there's less incentive to divorce.

Now if 2/3 of heterosexual women initiate divorce,does that willingness apply to homosexual women in female SSMs/CUs/DPs? If so how so?

Please offer your opinion.
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#22338 Sep 22, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt that sincerely......I've personally known women who have divorced regardless of whether or not they would get sole custody of their children.......but again, you need to believe what you need to believe.
There's ALWAYS a point you are trying to make.....no matter how wrong it might be!!!
That doesn't disprove my assertion. How do you know I'm wrong? Because of personally known women?
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#22339 Sep 22, 2012
I http://www.crimes-de-la-justice.com/child-sup...

n separate studies, researchers have found that states with strong joint custody laws show both a substantial increase in child support compliance and a significant decline in their divorce rates. In other words, joint custody produces not only more stable support for children after divorce; it also lowers divorce rates by making divorce ó and therefore child poverty and psychopathology ó less likely in the first place. The researchers have advanced several reasons for

A parent without joint custody cannot easily see whether the parent with custody is properly spending support payments on the children. With joint custody, however, spending on the children can be readily monitored by the paying parent, and his or her concern about possible misappropriation of support payments by the other parent is thereby substantially reduced. Even more intriguing are the reasons for joint custodyís moderating effect on the divorce rate. Because joint custody guarantees both parents a full parental role after divorce, a father can permit himself, during marriage, to bond closely to his children without fear of a complete break in the event

With these increased emotional ties, the father correspondingly increases his investment in marriage and is less likely to start a divorce. Although joint custody guarantees the father close ties even after divorce, it does not compare in stability, intensity and integrity to the fathering opportunities available to him in marriage; joint custody is just the fatherís insurance policy. Similarly, when joint custody is a serious alternative to sole custody, a motherís expectations of post-divorce custody are considerably lowered. Under those conditions, divorce becomes a less attractive alternative, and a lower divorce rate is the result.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#22340 Sep 22, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
I'm not disputing that, but point out the numbers drop in joint custody states. Why do you think that is?
<quoted text>
True, but they do factor in when divorce is contemplated. Many a married woman with children have contemplated divorce at one time or another,whether it be a passing thought, or a serious consideration. It ain't always about abuse, neglect, or infidelity that prompts the contemplation. I've spoken with a few who've wondered how much the court would award in child support. Now in states that promote joint custody, there's less incentive to divorce.
Now if 2/3 of heterosexual women initiate divorce,does that willingness apply to homosexual women in female SSMs/CUs/DPs? If so how so?
Please offer your opinion.
I don't know that the numbers actually do drop......your article mentions that, but gave no specific number or percentage!!!

You ask a question like somehow I'm suppose to know the answer........why is it that people think because I am a Lesbian, that SOMEHOW I know the stats on things involving other Lesbian women?

Go do the research on your own......I'm certain you can find some asinine article to prove your point or answer your question!!!

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#22341 Sep 22, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That doesn't disprove my assertion. How do you know I'm wrong? Because of personally known women?
Why do I seriously care if you are or you're not? What you give is a LOT of your opinion.......and that is almost always biased in some way because it is about what we believe.

Trying posting a link just once and let others draw their own conclusions......instead of copying and pasting what you believe makes your point!!!
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#22342 Sep 22, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
why is it that people think because I am a Lesbian, that SOMEHOW I know the stats on things involving other Lesbian women?
Fair enough, it was presumptuous of me to think that. Mi dispiace....I'm sorry.
Pietro Armando

Schenectady, NY

#22343 Sep 22, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do I seriously care if you are or you're not? What you give is a LOT of your opinion.......and that is almost always biased in some way because it is about what we believe.
Absolutely.... is that the whole point of this forum?
We one stands often times depends on where one sits.

Trying posting a link just once and let others draw their own conclusions......instead of copying and pasting what you believe makes your point!!!
Allllll.....righty then, I will endeavor to heed your advice. Ciao

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 2 min Ice Man 42,525
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 3 min Susanm 320,356
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min Realtime 1,643,561
News Trump's lack of moral compass leaves America on... 20 min lori579 977
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 21 min Science 223,039
News Trump discounts sex assault accusations against... 24 min Retribution 50
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 26 min RiccardoFire 14,243
More from around the web