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.

Since: Oct 11

Beggs, OK

#5237 May 26, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
The author is a married lesbian by the name of E.J. Graf, whom I'm sure is known to many on this forum.
http://m.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/201...
There's another reason the bans on interracial marriage are a poor parallel with same-sex marriage: same-sex marriage is a new idea, while interracial marriage was possible until states banned it as part of a comprehensive post-Civil War regime to impose slave-like status on blacks in every way but outright ownership. That post-Reconstruction moral panic -- the attempt to enforce an ideology that black and white and yellow and brown were all separate species --was long, but historically temporary.
Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, hasn't been tried before. It may seem obviously just to many of us today, but that's only because the West's marriage ideology has been transformed by capitalism and feminism, from an older ideology of a gendered distribution of labor to a newer ideology of an equal partnership based on affection. Same-sex couples fit in today's definition -- but getting acceptance for that requires changing hearts and minds, bit by bit, one by one. That can't be accomplished by presidential fiat in a sharply divided country.
If interracial marriage bans aren't a good parallel with the same-sex marriage debate, what is? Divorce laws. Indiana passed the first radical no-fault divorce law in 1850, which became a national scandal until it tightened its residence requirements. Other then-Western states quickly stepped up for the divorce trade, including Illinois, Utah, South Dakota, North Dakota, Oklahome, Wyoming, and finally the state most clearly ensconced in cultural memory as a haven for would-be divorcees, Nevada. The question of whether states had to recognize each others' divorces reached the Supreme Court --repeatedly.
So why aren't you working to ban divorce, especially since that's something Jesus actually addressed?

Since: Oct 11

Beggs, OK

#5238 May 26, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That doesn't prove what he said is false. Marriage has its highs and lows over a long period of time. There are good times, bad times, mundane times, periods of indifference, moments of resentment, anger, "I can't stand the sight of you" moments,etc. No one stays "in love" 24/7.
Even when my partner and I argue, I know I love him and he knows he loves me.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#5239 May 26, 2012
Cheyenne277 wrote:
<quoted text>
The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Counseling Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics all say homosexuality is a normal unchangeable variant of human $exuality. Get over it.
Your statement on its face is true, there is one word 'variant' that changes the the meaning you were trying to convey??
Pietro Armando

Syracuse, NY

#5240 May 26, 2012
Cheyenne277 wrote:
<quoted text>
Separate but equal is not equal. Address that.
Define "equal". If I remove one half of the conjugal (husband and wife) marital relationship, and replace it with another of the same gender, how is that new composition "equal" to the orginal? Does the new composition serve the same purpose of the orginal? How does one apply those marital functions, unique to a opposite sex marriage, to a same sex marriage, if the latter cannot perform them because the are of the same sex?

Since: Oct 11

Beggs, OK

#5241 May 26, 2012
Marvin in Denver wrote:
<quoted text>
The study doesn't have to make that claim because the fact that sexually molested children are more likely to molest others is Psychology 101.
In addition, considering all the solid scientific evidence that many homosexuals are mentally disturbed to one degree or another because of sexual abuse (or dysfunctional parents or other negative developmental influences many homosexuals experienced), it is clear that those psychiatrists and psychologists who say homosexuality should NOT be on the officially approved list of mental illnesses are seemingly incompetent malpractitioners. They appear to be more interested in being "politically correct" than in the truth. Incompetent malpractitioners should have their licenses to ply their professions revoked.
(A book written by Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist, titled Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis, explains how the decision to remove homosexuality from the officially approved list of mental disorders was based on power politics and intimidation by homosexual groups NOT science.)
One last note: Homosexuals do not want you to know that many of them were sexually abused when young, because many people who were so abused go on to molest others. And homosexuals do not want you to know that they are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals are.(Note of clarification: While that is a fact, there is no proof at this time that it is because of their homosexuality, but rather because so many of them were sexually abused themselves.)
Wrong. All you have to do if you want to see the percentage of gays who mo1est is go to a $ex offender registry like the one for the State of Texas that lists the age and gender of each mo1ester's victim(s). You can enter even a gay-friendly zip code and pull a random sample and you'll see that well over 90% are men mo1esting little girls ONLY. 2 to 3% are women molesters. 2 to 3% are men who molested both genders. 2 to 3% are men who molested males only.

Since: Oct 11

Beggs, OK

#5242 May 26, 2012
Chicagoan by Birth wrote:
<quoted text>Your statement on its face is true, there is one word 'variant' that changes the the meaning you were trying to convey??
I meant it in the same way one would mean that left handedness is a variant of hand dominance.

Since: Oct 11

Beggs, OK

#5243 May 26, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Define "equal". If I remove one half of the conjugal (husband and wife) marital relationship, and replace it with another of the same gender, how is that new composition "equal" to the orginal? Does the new composition serve the same purpose of the orginal? How does one apply those marital functions, unique to a opposite sex marriage, to a same sex marriage, if the latter cannot perform them because the are of the same sex?
What functions are you referring to? Procreation? Because if that's it then we should move quickly to anull all marriages where people have decided not to have children or who have adopted.

Equal means equal. My partner and I make a commitment to spend our lives together. That's called marriage. A heterosexual couple makes a commitment to spend their lives together. That's called marriage. Equal.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#5244 May 26, 2012
Cheyenne277 wrote:
<quoted text>
I meant it in the same way one would mean that left handedness is a variant of hand dominance.
How then do you explain people that can use either hand or arm equally?

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#5245 May 26, 2012
Cheyenne277 wrote:
<quoted text>
What functions are you referring to? Procreation? Because if that's it then we should move quickly to anull all marriages where people have decided not to have children or who have adopted.
Equal means equal. My partner and I make a commitment to spend our lives together. That's called marriage. A heterosexual couple makes a commitment to spend their lives together. That's called marriage. Equal.
How many definitions in Webster's did you have to pass to come up with that meaning? What year? was the dictionary published?? You can call it anything you choose within your circle of aquaintances, just don't try and codify it, and foist it on the rest of us.
Pietro Armando

Syracuse, NY

#5246 May 26, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
True.
But laws reflect society, and it is a societal expectation that people should become attracted to and fall in love with the person they marry. Your argument here was an epic fail when applied to interracial marriage.
And it fails again with same gender marriage.
The unspoken back-story on your part is that you KNOW that most folks choose to marry for love--and that society expects and blesses that.
So it's a bit hypocritical to say that since the law doesn't REQUIRE it, that gay folks marrying someone they can't be attracted to and love is exactly the same as heterosexuals marrying for love.
Did you do it?
Did you teach your children that love has no place in marriage?
If not, your use of the argument is rather silly.
1.) Grazie

2.) I agree regarding societal expectations, and why people choose to marry. However the state licenses marriage not for its emotional motivational expectations of the applicants, but rather the gender composition of the marital relationship, and what that composition can potentially do, conceive a another life. Even if such potential is not possible, the license recognizes the complimentary gender composition of the marital relationship.

3.) Yes I did marry for love, and to make l'amore. A lesser included motivation was the natural result of conjugal love, conception. The old, "two go to bed but three get up" reason.

4.) I teach my children by example. Love is important. How one displays that is far more important. Love is a verb. Romanza, l'amore, e' passione. "Makin' love has consequences", I tell them,"just look in the mirror". LOL. Marriage also combines the love of one's mother, with love of one's father. My daughters also see, on virtually a daily basis, how a man should treat a woman, an example a same sex relationship cannot provide. There are many facets to marital love, romance is but one.

Lastly: a few old marriage proverbs

Chi ha moglie ha doglie

Ogni vite vuole il suo palo

La moglie e la chiave di casa.

Senza moglie a lato, l'uomo non e beato.

Since: Oct 11

Beggs, OK

#5247 May 26, 2012
Chicagoan by Birth wrote:
<quoted text>How then do you explain people that can use either hand or arm equally?
They're pretty rare, but that's another variant. What's your point?

Since: Oct 11

Beggs, OK

#5248 May 26, 2012
Chicagoan by Birth wrote:
<quoted text>How many definitions in Webster's did you have to pass to come up with that meaning? What year? was the dictionary published?? You can call it anything you choose within your circle of aquaintances, just don't try and codify it, and foist it on the rest of us.
Oh you poor victim. Has someone suggested that you have to marry someone of the same sex?

We all know what you'd say to a friend that had never heard of civil unions and asked what it meant. You'd reply "Oh it's when gays get M A R R I E D". DUH.

Marriage means two people making a commitment to spend their lives together. End of story. There's no need to invent a new word for it. We already have one. "Marriage". You just want your special rights.

Since: Oct 11

Beggs, OK

#5249 May 26, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>

4.) I teach my children by example. Love is important. How one displays that is far more important. Love is a verb. Romanza, l'amore, e' passione. "Makin' love has consequences", I tell them,"just look in the mirror". LOL. Marriage also combines the love of one's mother, with love of one's father. My daughters also see, on virtually a daily basis, how a man should treat a woman, an example a same sex relationship cannot provide.
Maybe you should just be teaching them how one human being should treat another???

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#5250 May 26, 2012
Your post was all about impregnating women as being "normal", which is somehow related to gays marrying. I pointed out that impregnation isn't required for marriage.
Realist wrote:
<quoted text>Guess you have comprehension issues. Where did I state there were marriage laws that define impregnation is required for marriage ? You loons always are unable to comment on what was stated so you invent. The key words are being 'accepted as NORMAL'!
Pietro Armando

Syracuse, NY

#5251 May 26, 2012
Cheyenne277 wrote:
<quoted text>
What functions are you referring to? Procreation? Because if that's it then we should move quickly to anull all marriages where people have decided not to have children or who have adopted.
Equal means equal. My partner and I make a commitment to spend our lives together. That's called marriage. A heterosexual couple makes a commitment to spend their lives together. That's called marriage. Equal.
Not at all. I am refering to the fact that a man cannot by definition be a wife, and a woman, cannot by definition, be a husband. If your argument is that two of the same who "make a commitment to spend their lives together" is the defining element, than by that reason, any same gendered pair, could marry.

"Equal" does not necessarily mean two of the same.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#5252 May 26, 2012
But this is based on the premise that bisexuals and lesbians are essentially the same thing, and they are not. Bisexuality is its own orientation. Lesbians do not become bisexual; at best, bisexuals may be more attuned to one gender over the other but they have the capacity to be attracted to either.

Orientation isn't a matter of categories but of a continuum, with 100% gay on ne end and 100% hetero on the other, with many points in between. In the center is 100% bisexual. Most people fall somewhere between the absolutes, with one or two experiences with one gender but a primary interest in the other.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't paste it all, most of it though. Interesting. I think there's less, not sure what word fits here, opposition maybe, fear, angst, to female same sex relations, than male. Women in general are more affectionate with each other. It might also explain why female couples outnumber their male counterparts at the altar.
http://www.aphroditewomenshealth.com/news/200...
This research provides the first empirical examination of competing assumptions about the nature of bisexuality, both as a sexual identity label and as a pattern of nonexclusive sexual attraction and behavior," wrote U-of-U psychologist Lisa M. Diamond. "The findings demonstrate considerable fluidity in bisexual and lesbian women's attractions, behaviors and identities and contribute to researchers' understanding of the complexity of sexual-minority development over the life span".
Key findings include:
Bisexual and unlabeled women were more likely than lesbians to change their identity over the course of the study, but they tended to switch between bisexual and unlabeled rather than to settle on lesbian or heterosexual as their identities. Seventeen percent of respondents switched from a bisexual or unlabeled identity to heterosexual during the study - but more than half of these women switched back to bisexual or unlabeled by the end. By year 10, most of the women were involved in long-term monogamous relationships - 70 percent of the self-identified lesbians, 89 percent of the bisexuals, 85 percent of the unlabeled women and 67 percent of those who were then calling themselves heterosexual. Women's definitions of lesbianism appeared to permit more flexibility in behavior than their definitions of heterosexuality. For example, of the women who identified as lesbian in the last round of interviews, 15 percent reported having sexual contact with a man during the prior two years. In contrast, none of the women who settled on a heterosexual label at that point reported having sexual contact with a woman within the previous two years.
"This provides further support for the notion that female sexuality is relatively fluid and that the distinction between lesbian and bisexual women is not a rigid one," Diamond concluded.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#5253 May 26, 2012
Why would I want to be considered "normal"? That means being average. Do you applaud when your kids consistently get "C's" on their report cards?

If the entire world was populated only with homosexuals, it would be because you heteros got really stupid and wiped yourselves out. Meanwhile, we gays will use both natural means and IVF to repopulate the world. BTW--how would you eliminate all the heteros and all the bisexuals?
Realist wrote:
<quoted text>Naw, ignorance to me is attempting to read your illogical comments. Appears that all loons have a comprehension proble. That might be 10% of the problem and 90% is pretending not to understand. Now that is downright disingenious ! You gays are hilarious in attempting to demand being considered NORMAL! You are not normal. If the entire world was only populated with Homonsexuals, within a hundred years or so, the entire human race would no longer exist.

Since: Oct 11

Beggs, OK

#5254 May 26, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. I am refering to the fact that a man cannot by definition be a wife, and a woman, cannot by definition, be a husband. If your argument is that two of the same who "make a commitment to spend their lives together" is the defining element, than by that reason, any same gendered pair, could marry.
"Equal" does not necessarily mean two of the same.
Oh no. Then we'll get into the definition of what husband and wife means and if in all "normal" marriages the husband is the breadwinner, the wife is the homemaker, etc. Ridiculous. This is 2012.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#5255 May 26, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
That's why I used the words "virtually all states". Obviously in 6 states out of 50, one can legally marry someone of the same sex. So thats what percentage? 12%?
And 88% does not constitute "virtually all".
Pietro Armando wrote:
In approximately 90% of the states, one can only marry someone of the opposite sex, thus the words, "virtually all states", were used.
And were therefore used incorrectly.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Note the absence of any legal requirement to, procreate, love, have sex, etc., in order to obtain a marriage license.
Which means that those laws are discriminatory on the basis of gender.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#5256 May 26, 2012
But a growing number of hetero couples choose not to procreate, even going so far as to abort any accidental pregnancies. And, of course, you have the millions of heteros who procreate without any thought to getting married. I guess we shouldn't mention all those hetero couples who procreate through IVF and other means, so that the kids may not be their genetic offspring at all.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That is true to a degree, except for one crucial procreational difference. Opposite sex couples who marry to procreate, wish to do so, sio that thier respective wife, or husband, is the mother or father of the children.

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 Denny CranesPlace 1,520,446
News Al Gore: "I Could Become Catholic Because of Th... (May '15) 3 min Defeat Nancy Pelosi 50
News Longtime GOP Texas Gov. Perry wins another term (Nov '10) 6 min UIDIOTRACEMAKEWOR... 24,306
News Attorney General doesn't realize Hawaii is a state 13 min NotSoDivineMsM 165
News Racism motivated Trump voters more than authori... 15 min NotSoDivineMsM 214
News Will Islam Inherit the Earth? 16 min lies 10
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 17 min George Justapose 26,110
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 48 min NotSoDivineMsM 264,989
More from around the web