Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

May 9, 2012 | Posted by: Top Mod2 | Full story: politix.topix.com

It's a historic day for gay rights activists: Obama has just announced his support for gay marriage.

Comments (Page 1,247)

Showing posts 24,921 - 24,940 of26,178
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25951
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Bravo paisan. Another gem. I saw that and thought, "WOW"! Excellent point.
You have got to be kidding me....
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25952
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text> You have got to be kidding me....
I don't think he's kidding you. When marriage means everything, it will mean nothing.

Let me explain since you are a real dummy. If the requirements for marriage become so general they apply to everyone, everyone will be married.

Or to put it another way, you're stupid.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25953
Jan 20, 2013
 
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
When marriage means everything, it will mean nothing.
Fortunately, nobody here is advocating that marriage "mean everything".

So we have nothing to worry about.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25954
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Fortunately, nobody here is advocating that marriage "mean everything".
So we have nothing to worry about.
Right. You are against equal rights for some people. We know that.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25955
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think he's kidding you. When marriage means everything, it will mean nothing.
Let me explain since you are a real dummy. If the requirements for marriage become so general they apply to everyone, everyone will be married.
Or to put it another way, you're stupid.
...yawn...

You make up some ridiculous answer and then have the nerve to call me stupid? Where do you get these stupid ideas of yours about cause/effect. "Marriage will mean nothing???" LMFAO@you.... you're a flaming idiot.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25956
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
You are against equal rights for some people.
On the contrary, I'm in favor of equal rights for everyone, regardless of their gender. In order for that to happen, a man should have the same right to marry someone that a woman could marry, and vice versa.

And that means that I'm in favor of equal rights for everyone.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25957
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
...yawn...
You make up some ridiculous answer and then have the nerve to call me stupid? Where do you get these stupid ideas of yours about cause/effect. "Marriage will mean nothing???" LMFAO@you.... you're a flaming idiot.
Still don't get it eh? It's a simple concept really. If everyone is married, marriage won't mean anything. It will be silly to ask are you married when the answer is always yes. Starting to get it?

I think you understand it but are playing dumb because you have no intelligent response. I'm just waiting for your dopey ad hominem! Please try and make it funny!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25958
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
On the contrary, I'm in favor of equal rights for everyone, regardless of their gender. In order for that to happen, a man should have the same right to marry someone that a woman could marry, and vice versa.
And that means that I'm in favor of equal rights for everyone.
Everyone? Polygamists? Incest marriage?

How about a woman who wants to marry herself?(There is at least one case of this.)
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25959
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

If the number always has to be two, if it can't be one or three, why is that not denying rights?

Why is gender now irrelevant but number is still relevant?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25960
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Jan 17, 2013
French Homosexuals Join Demonstration Against Gay Marriage
By Wendy Wright
NEW YORK, January 18 (C-FAM) Perhaps as many as a million people marched in Paris last Sunday and at French embassies around the world against proposed legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage in France.  One of the surprises in the French campaign for traditional marriage is that homosexuals have joined pro-family leaders and activists in the effort.
“The rights of children trump the right to children,” was the catchphrase of protesters like Jean Marc, a French mayor who is also homosexual.

Even though France is known for its laissez faire attitude toward sex, pro-family leaders were quick to organize huge numbers. When President Hollande announced his intentions to legalize homosexual marriage last November, a demonstration against the proposal gathered 100,000 protesters. And then what started as a debate about homosexual rights changed to one about a child’s right to a mother and a father, and the numbers in opposition exploded and has come to include unlikely allies. 

Xavier Bongibault, an atheist homosexual, is a prominent spokesman against the bill.“In France, marriage is not designed to protect the love between two people. French marriage is specifically designed to provide children with families,” he said in an interview.“[T]he most serious study done so far ... demonstrates quite clearly that a child has trouble being raised by gay parents.”

Jean Marc, who has lived with a man for 20 years, insists,“The LGBT movement that speaks out in the media ... They don’t speak for me. As a society we should not be encouraging this. It’s not biologically natural.”

Outraged by the bill, 66-year old Jean-Dominique Bunel, a specialist in humanitarian law who has done relief work in war-torn areas, told Le Figaro he “was raised by two women” and that he “suffered from the lack of a father, a daily presence, a character and a properly masculine example, some counterweight to the relationship of my mother to her lover. I was aware of it at a very early age. I lived that absence of a father, experienced it, as an amputation."

"As soon as I learned that the government was going to officialize marriage between two people of the same sex, I was thrown into disarray,” he explained. It would be “institutionalizing a situation that had scarred me considerably. In that there is an injustice that I can in no way allow." If the women who raised him had been married,“I would have jumped into the fray and would have brought a complaint before the French state and before the European Court of Human Rights, for the violation of my right to a mom and a dad."

A pro-family coalition that includes homosexuals is certainly different than in the United States and likely most places around the world. It is unclear why at least some French homosexuals would not only favor man-woman marriage only, but would campaign against homosexual marriage. It could be that France has allowed for civil unions, for all couples, for more than a decade. Whatever the reason, this potent coalition may stop homosexual marriage in France.

France’s National Assembly will take up the bill on January 29.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25961
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Those crazy French! Are gay people who protest redefining marriage for the same reason that straight folks do, bigots?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25962
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Drew Smith wrote:
The illegality of bigamy has more than merely a religious foundation.
<quoted text>
Laws against bigamy predate Christianity.
***
Our Constitution requires that our laws have a *secular* purpose, not merely a religious one. So it's irrelevant as to whether Christianity supports or opposes any particular law.
<quoted text>
The U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution requires this.
The same holds true for most every culture on earth. Out of 1170 societies recorded in Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas, polygyny (the practice of men having more than one wife) is prevalent in 850. Even our own culture, which has an astoundingly high divorce and remarriage rate, practices a form of serial polygamy.

The reasons for favoring gay marriage while excluding polygamy are completely arbitrary and based on personal preference. If you truly believe that gays have a legal right to marry then you have no grounds for barring polyamorous groups from doing the same.

What's that 72% or so?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25963
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The same holds true for most every culture on earth. Out of 1170 societies recorded in Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas, polygyny (the practice of men having more than one wife) is prevalent in 850. Even our own culture, which has an astoundingly high divorce and remarriage rate, practices a form of serial polygamy.
The reasons for favoring gay marriage while excluding polygamy are completely arbitrary and based on personal preference. If you truly believe that gays have a legal right to marry then you have no grounds for barring polyamorous groups from doing the same.
What's that 72% or so?
73.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25964
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
Those crazy French! Are gay people who protest redefining marriage for the same reason that straight folks do, bigots?
No.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25965
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Everyone? Polygamists? Incest marriage?
Polygamists should have the equal right as anyone else to have their first marriage given legal recognition by the state.

And since the purpose of marriage is to establish next-of-kinship between otherwise unrelated individuals, the state has no interest in giving legal recognition to incestuous marriage.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25966
Jan 20, 2013
 
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
If the number always has to be two, if it can't be one or three, why is that not denying rights?
If the number of votes that you're allowed to give in an election always has to be one, if it can't be two or three, why is that not denying rights?

Funny that you can never seem to answer *that* question, yet you expect others to answer yours.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25967
Jan 20, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
The reasons for favoring gay marriage while excluding polygamy are completely arbitrary
They aren't arbitrary at all. It should be illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender.

The state has no interest in recognizing multiple simultaneous marriages, because it interferes with the function of marriage from the perspective of the state, which is to establish a unique next-of-kinship between two otherwise unrelated individuals.

Now, are you going to keep ignoring it when I point that out, and simply reiterate your baseless claim as if I never said what I said, or are you going to move on?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25968
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamists should have the equal right as anyone else to have their first marriage given legal recognition by the state.
And since the purpose of marriage is to establish next-of-kinship between otherwise unrelated individuals, the state has no interest in giving legal recognition to incestuous marriage.
Likewise, you have the same right as anyone else to have your opposite sex marriage given legal recognition by the state.

Why does the state have an in interest in establishing next of kin in same sex marriage but not in polygamy?

Why can first cousins with the same last name marry but sisters with the same last name cannot? Why does the state have an interest in cousins marrying but not brothers?

Who is the bigot here? Me or you?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25969
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
If the number of votes that you're allowed to give in an election always has to be one, if it can't be two or three, why is that not denying rights?
Funny that you can never seem to answer *that* question, yet you expect others to answer yours.
Because it's a stupid irrelevant question. And a red herring and a straw man hardly even worthy of this response!

WOOHOOOO!

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25970
Jan 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Likewise, you have the same right as anyone else to have your opposite sex marriage given legal recognition by the state.
Limiting recognition only to opposite-sex marriages discriminates on the basis of sex.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Why does the state have an in interest in establishing next of kin in same sex marriage but not in polygamy?
The first marriage of a polygamist is legal. That marriage established *unique* next-of-kinship. Recognition of later marriages would interfere with that.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Why can first cousins with the same last name marry but sisters with the same last name cannot?
Having the same last name doesn't determine legal next-of-kinship.
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Why does the state have an interest in cousins marrying but not brothers?
Next of kinship.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 24,921 - 24,940 of26,178
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••