Obama Announces Full Support for Gay ...

Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

There are 26164 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.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24558 Dec 29, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
How did it go that for him the last time he used the Slippery Slope argument?
Let me explain it too you. Scalia believes that we have a right to legislate morality. He argues it to the point of ridiculousness (his own words.) Should we allow murder because we have no willingness to enforce ethics? The big problem with such an argument is the logical fallacy. Murder has a victim where as other types of moral/ethical behaviors do not. What's more, ethics and morals have traditionally been legislated (turned into law) on the basis of acceptable social standards. These standards change over time and from place to place. Not long ago we had such standards which justified racial discrimination. Our Constitution requires us to give all citizens equal protection and due process. Two people are allowed to marry. Man and woman equals two. Man and man equals two. Woman and woman equal two. Each can be married as a couple, one at a time. It is a contract between two people regulated by our laws. Poly is more than two people and is against our current laws. One plus one plus another is greater than two. It is a separate legal issue. The slippery slope fails because it is both a fallacy and a hypothetical.
If we allow same sex marriage what will we say to other groups who demand equal consideration for their reform of marriage?

I say we should respect and consider them. You say we should flat deny them equal rights because their cause is "not valid".

The end.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#24559 Dec 29, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
If we allow same sex marriage what will we say to other groups who demand equal consideration for their reform of marriage?
I say we should respect and consider them. You say we should flat deny them equal rights because their cause is "not valid".
The end.
Doesn't matter does it. That is a hypothetical. Each case must be considered upon it's own legal merits. I agree but it remains a separate legal issue. Their cause is valid should they wish to pursue it. Hypothetical arguments have no place in an interpretation of the law.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24560 Dec 29, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't matter does it. That is a hypothetical. Each case must be considered upon it's own legal merits. I agree but it remains a separate legal issue. Their cause is valid should they wish to pursue it. Hypothetical arguments have no place in an interpretation of the law.
Law schmaw!

Just asked if poly deserves equal consideration. Didn't expect you to get all lawyer on me, tell me to ask Tony and sh!t. Sheeesh toots!

Anyway you're not a lawyer and I certainly am not qualified nor do I wish to discuss the intricacies of the law.

Allowing polygamy will cause you no harm. You won't even notice it the numbers are so small. That's why the slippery slope does not matter.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24561 Dec 29, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
If we allow same sex marriage what will we say to other groups who demand equal consideration for their reform of marriage?
The same thing that we would say to any group: make the case.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#24562 Dec 29, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
Law schmaw!
Just asked if poly deserves equal consideration. Didn't expect you to get all lawyer on me, tell me to ask Tony and sh!t. Sheeesh toots!
Anyway you're not a lawyer and I certainly am not qualified nor do I wish to discuss the intricacies of the law.
Allowing polygamy will cause you no harm. You won't even notice it the numbers are so small. That's why the slippery slope does not matter.
We are discussing same sex marriage as the law. Nothing else is relevant. I don't care about polygamy one way or the other. Do you?

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24563 Dec 29, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
We are discussing same sex marriage as the law. Nothing else is relevant. I don't care about polygamy one way or the other. Do you?
I don't see Law in the title of the thread. That stuff is boring to me.

My point is the slippery slope is real and should be dealt with honestly.
And it's easy to do that and much better than insisting it's not real. People don't come to see your point of view when you bullsh!t them.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24564 Dec 29, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
The same thing that we would say to any group: make the case.
My point is the slippery slope is real and should be dealt with honestly.
And it's easy to do that and much better than insisting it's not real. People don't come to see your point of view when you bullsh!t them.

The case for polygamy is the same as for SSM. Marriage equality.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24565 Dec 29, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
We are discussing same sex marriage as the law. Nothing else is relevant. I don't care about polygamy one way or the other. Do you?
You are so juiced on the success of using judicial fiat to advance SSM that you don't care about popular support. And that's arrogant.

There has never been a state to allow SSM due to a popular support. There should be. If there were detractors will accept it while they justifiably resent judicial fiat.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24566 Dec 29, 2012
Woops. Forgot to add "before the 2012 election" SSM hasn't been by popular vote.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24567 Dec 29, 2012
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.

Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24568 Dec 29, 2012
The same thing that we would say to any group: make the case.
Mike DiRucci wrote:
My point is the slippery slope is real and should be dealt with honestly.
It's a real fallacy. And one deals with it by pointing out that nothing in the legal recognition of same-sex marriage implies that it should be in the state's interest to give legal recognition to multiple simultaneous marriages.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24569 Dec 29, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
The case for polygamy is the same as for SSM. Marriage equality.
The case for polygamy isn't about marriage "equality". It's about giving legal recognition to *multiple* simultaneous marriages. Quite a different issue from "equality".

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24570 Dec 29, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
The case for polygamy isn't about marriage "equality". It's about giving legal recognition to *multiple* simultaneous marriages. Quite a different issue from "equality".
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.

Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24571 Dec 29, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
The same thing that we would say to any group: make the case.
<quoted text>
It's a real fallacy. And one deals with it by pointing out that nothing in the legal recognition of same-sex marriage implies that it should be in the state's interest to give legal recognition to multiple simultaneous marriages.
Why do you say it's a fallacy?

If we drop the gender part of "one man one woman" why can't we drop the number part? Asking that question is not a fallacy.

Mike DiRucci

“Formerly Frankie Rizzo”

Since: Sep 12

Canarsie, NY

#24572 Dec 29, 2012
At least you lunkheads dropped the silly notion that polygamy is a fish! We're making slight progress.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24573 Dec 29, 2012
The case for polygamy isn't about marriage "equality". It's about giving legal recognition to *multiple* simultaneous marriages. Quite a different issue from "equality".
Mike DiRucci wrote:
I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm
I'm not defending anything on the basis of its being an "historic norm".
Mike DiRucci wrote:
...when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.
And those states have departed when they recognized that denying monogamous marriage to homosexuals interferes with social stability.
Mike DiRucci wrote:
Put bluntly, if heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?
I don't recall anyone claiming that heterosexuality wasn't morally or socially relevant to marriage. It's relevant because *pair-bonding* is relevant to marriage. Because most people are heterosexual, those people form *heterosexual* pair bonds. But some people aren't heterosexuals, and they form *homosexual* pair bonds.

Society benefits when the state *recognizes* and *supports* those pair bonds (whether heterosexual or homosexual) in cases where such recognition would not interfere with some other state interest (such as the prevention of children from being exploited). It's also in the state's interest to prevent such things as multiple individuals asserting next-of-kinship in, for example, cases of medical decision-making or in control of inherited property.

There are already countless cases in our court system where multiple claimants come forward claiming to be the legal spouse and therefore the person who should inherit or make other legal decisions. Laws against bigamy are intended to prevent these situations.

And if you'd bother to read recent court decisions regarding polygamy, you'd see that the courts make an issue of the harm that results in such situations. In particular, the courts see harm to women and to children.

Therefore, the courts find justification in defending laws against polygamy, and nothing seems to indicate that polygamy would assist in social stability. Quite the contrary.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#24574 Dec 29, 2012
It's a real fallacy. And one deals with it by pointing out that nothing in the legal recognition of same-sex marriage implies that it should be in the state's interest to give legal recognition to multiple simultaneous marriages.
Mike DiRucci wrote:
Why do you say it's a fallacy?
Because it has not been demonstrated to be a valid reason for rejecting legal recognition of same-sex marriage.
Mike DiRucci wrote:
If we drop the gender part of "one man one woman" why can't we drop the number part? Asking that question is not a fallacy.
Why can't we drop the number part when we're discussing voting? We dropped the gender part.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#24575 Dec 29, 2012
Mike DiRucci wrote:
<quoted text>
You are so juiced on the success of using judicial fiat to advance SSM that you don't care about popular support. And that's arrogant.
There has never been a state to allow SSM due to a popular support. There should be. If there were detractors will accept it while they justifiably resent judicial fiat.
Popular support for SSM

a new CBS News Poll finds 51 percent of Americans nationwide think same-sex marriage should be legal, while four in 10 do not.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57556481/...

BTW, did you happen to notice the word LEGAL?

The changes echo times when attitudes toward African Americans and women were in flux, scholars say. With young adults by far the most tolerant of homosexuality — among those 18 to 29 years old, 73% support same-sex marriage — the trend seems more likely to accelerate than reverse.

While 53% support gay marriage, 46% oppose it. A third would go further: They say gay or lesbian relations between consenting adults should be illegal.(There is that pesky word illegal.)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2...

Another important finding is the discrepancy between young and older voters which it comes to the rights of same-sex couples. 63 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds backed same-sex marriage, while only 36 percent of voters from 30-59 said they supported it. Only 30% of seniors said they thought LGBT couples should be able to marry.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/09/gay-...

The trend is in favor of SSM.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#24576 Dec 29, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
The case for polygamy isn't about marriage "equality". It's about giving legal recognition to *multiple* simultaneous marriages. Quite a different issue from "equality".
<quoted text>
I'm not defending anything on the basis of its being an "historic norm".
<quoted text>
And those states have departed when they recognized that denying monogamous marriage to homosexuals interferes with social stability.
<quoted text>
I don't recall anyone claiming that heterosexuality wasn't morally or socially relevant to marriage. It's relevant because *pair-bonding* is relevant to marriage. Because most people are heterosexual, those people form *heterosexual* pair bonds. But some people aren't heterosexuals, and they form *homosexual* pair bonds.
Society benefits when the state *recognizes* and *supports* those pair bonds (whether heterosexual or homosexual) in cases where such recognition would not interfere with some other state interest (such as the prevention of children from being exploited). It's also in the state's interest to prevent such things as multiple individuals asserting next-of-kinship in, for example, cases of medical decision-making or in control of inherited property.
There are already countless cases in our court system where multiple claimants come forward claiming to be the legal spouse and therefore the person who should inherit or make other legal decisions. Laws against bigamy are intended to prevent these situations.
And if you'd bother to read recent court decisions regarding polygamy, you'd see that the courts make an issue of the harm that results in such situations. In particular, the courts see harm to women and to children.
Therefore, the courts find justification in defending laws against polygamy, and nothing seems to indicate that polygamy would assist in social stability. Quite the contrary.
There is no inequality either due to the fact bigamy is illegal due to federal law.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#24577 Dec 29, 2012
The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (37th United States Congress, Sess. 2., ch. 126, 12 Stat. 501) was a federal enactment of the United States Congress that was signed into law on July 8, 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln. Sponsored by Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont, the act banned bigamy and limited church and non-profit ownership in any territory of the United States to $50,000.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Anti-Big...

The law in every state prohibits a man or a woman from being married to more than one living person at a time. The crime of having more than one current spouse is called either bigamy (having two spouses) is a subset of the crime of polygamy (having more than one spouse), and the law makes no practical distinction between the two. Even in states that separately criminalize both polygamy and bigamy, either crime is committed when a married person first enters into an unlawful marriage with a second person. However, additional marriages beyond the second would support prosecution for additional criminal counts and possibly a longer sentence.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

It would take an Act of Congress to change these laws due to the fact there is no discrimination other than religious discrimination against the old Mormon Church. Modern Mormons practice monogamy and are disinterested in pursuing legalization of polygamy on the First Amendment basis.

Polygamy is a NON-ISSUE.

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 Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min Nostrilis Waxmoron 1,395,543
News How the White House prepared for Brexit 2 min davy 24
News GOP seizes on video to hit Hillary Clinton on t... 3 min barefoot2626 11
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 3 min who cares 13,099
News Obama: Notion that being armed would have saved... 5 min OK Barry 962
News Orlando Democrat: FDA should end ban on gay men... 5 min WeTheSheeple 6
News Analysis: Clinton Turns Benghazi Hearing Into P... (Oct '15) 10 min davy 75
News Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment righ... 15 min barefoot2626 1,159
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 53 min Taletha 16 388,143
News News 28 Mins Ago 'Not the America we want': Oba... 54 min WasteWater 307
News African-Americans should start voting for Repub... 1 hr Sara 283
More from around the web