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.

“Open your eyes, people”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#8419 Jun 13, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Of course; no one lies in divorce court.
Idiot.
For most judges, the job is to determine which lies are closer to the truth than others.
<quoted text>
Some people are actually honest, DICK BREATH!

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8420 Jun 13, 2012
Marvin in Denver wrote:
<quoted text>
I could call my two dogs are married too, but saying it would not make it so.
You seem to be unaware that marriage requires the consent of the participants and registration with the state. Are your curs up to that?
Marvin in Denver wrote:
<quoted text>
And my assertion of their marriage would never be anything but a joke in he eyes of anyone with an ounce of common sense.
No, actually YOU would be the joke in the eyes of anyone with an ounce of common sense for calling your cur married. That's something only an idiot would do.
Marvin in Denver wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have a problem with "Civil Unions" as long as they are available to any two people who want to legally bound.
Well, then go get one. I don't have any interest in a seperate institution created for the sole purpose of segregating me from other human beings. I also have no interest in seperate drinking fountains or sitting at the back of the bus. Sorry hon, but you don't have the autority to assign my place in society. I don't give a rat's patoot what you do or don't have a problem with....those are YOUR issues, not mine.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8421 Jun 13, 2012
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
We refer to that as "if the shoe fits."
<quoted text>
My goodness, that sounds like an accusation. From the childish insinuation, one can only read into that snide remark that you feel that gays are promoting some personal prejudice against you or against straight people. Would you care to spell out with specifics what prejudice is being levied against you? Or are you one of those fundies that just speaks in non-specifics?
<quoted text>
Well, Pietro, I'm not personally aware of any gays that "oppose" marriage equality (psssst - there's no such thing as ssm, there's only marriage). Can you present one of these people? I'm aware of many gay people that don't beleive in the institution of marriage and have no desire to enter into one, but I've not met a gay person actively working to deny other gays their right to marry. Please do supply us all with a link to information about these gays that are "opposing" other gay's rights to marriage. Because quite frankly, it sounds to me like your just speaking out of your azz.
<quoted text>
I'm not aware of any gay people who foolishly beleive that if gays are able to marry that that somehow magically translates into "marriage will no longer be between a husband and wife". That's only a message I hear fundies trying to sell. Again, please present us with these gay people you keep inferring.
<quoted text>
I'm not aware of a Rainbow Club. Perhaps you could provide me with a link about them too.
Tell me, do they teach a class in how to be a condescending little prick in your Sunday School, or is that just something you were born with?
<quoted text>
Again, please present me with some information about these gays that are actively "opposing" the marriage equality of their fellow gays.
<quoted text>
My turn to wait now. Can't wait to see the links to these hoards of gays diligently working to "oppose" marraige equality.
NO POTTY MOUTH TALK! As to the rest of it, I will respond in due time.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8422 Jun 13, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
Psst....it's what a Same-Sex Couple does as well when they take their marital vows......but we'll just keep that our secret......lol!!!
See, I was asked to I take this woman as my lawfully wedded wife.....and I said "I do"........she said the same thing......so, in essence we became that which you continue to say we aren't.
Really, all that it takes to create any one of us is an egg and some sperm.....then someplace to put the two together and let'm grow..........that doesn't always require a physical act of sexual intercourse.
A same sex couple accepts each other as husband and wife? Does that mean one wears the pants in the family?:)

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8423 Jun 13, 2012
Here's one

http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/ga...

Living in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal, this is one of the hazards of being gay. Everyone expects you to be pro-gay marriage, and I can’t say that I am.

Don’t get me wrong. I think Sam should have inheritance/pension/social security rights, be my healthcare proxy, get the tax breaks, be eligible for citizenship, etc., etc., exactly like heterosexual married couples. What I’m against is the use of the word “marriage,” and I think we would have achieved equal rights by now, on a national level, if so much breath hadn’t been wasted and the right-wing gotten its knickers in a twist over the nomenclature.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8424 Jun 13, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
How about "coitus"? Is that specific enough?
What about it? Has something changed about it since I addressed it yesterday? Perhaps in your anger frenzied zeal to thrust yourself into conversations about things you obviously no nothing about you overlooked it.

http://www.topix.com/forum/us/politics/TQATTK...

Unlike you fundies, I have absolutely no problem with specifics dear.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8425 Jun 13, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting all those prohibition, even between non blood relatives. Kinda puts a damper on the "marry a person of one's choosing" argument.
If the "prohibitions" are being applied equally to everyone, where is the "damper" you mention? Oh, that's right....solely in your head.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8426 Jun 13, 2012
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/02...

Dan Dinero, a PhD-candidate from New York City, has a partner who is a non-U.S. citizen. "The main thing for me is finding a way for Diego to live in the U.S. with me," he says. "I don't think we should have to get married to do that. And that is the problem with gay marriage: it forces queers to fit into a very straight-centered way of life in order to access basic rights."

The religious implications of marriage are one of the deterring issues for Meredith Cummings, a graduate student in environmental studies who has been in a domestic partnership for two years. "It really gets to me when gay couples try to have a traditional wedding, especially in a religion that doesn't support homosexuality," she says.

There's the unsettling possibility that we've spent the past couple of decades fighting to fit into an institution that doesn't necessarily fit us.

But there's a subtler, even more insidious anxiety lurking beneath the surface of our gay-marriage win. It's the unsettling possibility that we've spent the past couple of decades fighting to fit into an institution that doesn't necessarily fit us. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone wince if I referred to my partner as my wife. And I might wince a bit myself. We've been so focused on getting marriage "equality" that we've hardly stopped to think about how we'd feel about actually being married.

I don't bring up these concerns very often. Questioning the idea of gay marriage makes people think your goal is to subvert the whole gay-rights agenda—we need numbers, to be unified on this matter as our top concern. For gays to talk about not wanting to get married is taboo. By expressing my doubts, I am clearly a dissenter in this persistent force for progress. But getting married, gay or otherwise, doesn't seem like progress to me.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8427 Jun 13, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither do you get to 'redefine' what a word means. Now what???
Unlike you, I haven't tried to.
Unlike you, I don't need to.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8428 Jun 13, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Jon
Of the data that we have so far where ssm is legal, is there any indication that is true ? Do gay men marry less because there is no female pressure to marry? The numbers so far clearly indicate that lesbians marry much more often than gay men.
And?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8429 Jun 13, 2012
http://m.voices.yahoo.com/gays-against-gay-ma...

Gays Against Gay Marriage

Published: Fri March 16th, 2012 By: Andon Fox Category: Opinion and Editorial COMMENTARY | Washington State legalized same-sex marriage in February while Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey vetoed a similar measure. On March 1, Maryland's governor signed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. Vermont-based Ben & Jerry's just launched a new flavor to promote gay marriage in the UK.

With all the hype surrounding the issue of same-sex marriage, it's important to note that there is no consensus in the LGBT community on the issue. Not all gay men and women support gay marriage, just as not all women support contraception and abortion rights and not all minorities support affirmative action. Tammy Bruce, the openly gay nationally-syndicated radio talk show host put it this way: "Despite what you hear from the Gay Elite, there is not a consensus in the gay community about gay marriage. We do not all operate in the cultural or political equivalent of a Vulcan mind-meld."

You'd be hard pressed to find an African-American against equal civil rights for blacks, but finding a gay man or woman against gay marriage is not uncommon. Many homosexuals that aren't publicly "out" or are more conservative in their perspective oppose gay marriage. While these individuals may not be the most vocal; they argue that their viewpoints are equally valid.

Al Rantel, the openly gay radio talk show host and media pundit formerly with KABC Los Angeles, blasted "political correctness run amok" from the "cultural liberals in America [that] want to force others to accept their social view." He contends that individuals against the gay "social agenda" are labeled "bigots" and "homophobes" and are "scorned and forced into silence," while those participating in gay pride parades are hypocritical because the same individuals flouting their sexual preference also demand to be "left alone."

The reasons for gay objections to same-sex marriage are varied. Some are moral, some political, some religious. Some gay individuals believe that marriage should not be state-sanctioned at all; that it should be a purely civil matter. Others believe that if the government subsidizes marriage with financial benefits, it should subsidize marriages that promote the traditional nuclear family with a mother and father. Still others take a more stereotypical view, and claim that homosexual relationships are more about sex and lust than love.

“Open your eyes, people”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#8430 Jun 13, 2012
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry dear, I don't argue based on tradition. That would be stupid. You might want to look up "logical falicy" when you have some spare time.
How about if YOU start by understanding that consummation is NOT a requirement of marriage. No matter how much you harp on it. What else you got?
I don't have to look up the word "Logical Falicy" and I will give you an example of one to prove it:

LOGICAL FALICY EXAMPLE:
"Since a man having sex with a woman is normal, a man having sex with another man is also normal."

That's a perfect example of a LOGICAL FALICY for your silly ass!

Meanwhile, any marriage that is NOT consummation is NOT a real marriage to anyone with an ounce common sense. It is merely an idiotic but legally binding agreement to eventually give away at least half your sh!t for nothing meaningful in return.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha!
Passing Through

South Bend, IN

#8431 Jun 13, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said it was a legal requirement, nor it need to be proven in order to have a valid marriage license. That's not the point. The legal requirement, in non ssm states, is husband and wife, period. That's it. They are not required by law to consumate, procreate, cohabitate, etc. No same sex couple can meet that singular significatnt virtually universal requirement.
The sex of the participants isn't the only requirement for marriage either. And even that restriction is becoming less universal both within the US and outside it.
Pietro Armando wrote:
The meaning of "sexual intercourse" is widely accepted and commonly understood. If an opposite sex couple states they have sexual intercourse, or sex, there's really not much doubt of what that means.
The actual meaning of "sexual intercourse" includes a range of sexual activities. Just because you presume which specific activity others meant when they indicate they've had sex doesn't make your assumption correct in all cases.
Pietro Armando wrote:
It's only when its modified, as in "anal intercourse", does the meaning change.
On the contrary, "sexual intercourse" refers to a range of sexual activities, not a specific sexual activity; the modifier to indicate the specific activity which you seem to assume is the universal and exclusive form of opposite sex sexual activity is "vaginal" intercourse.
Pietro Armando wrote:
If a male couple state the had sex, the reasonable assumption would be anal intercourse.
But not all gay men participate in anal intercourse, much less exclusively. So your assumption will not always be correct.
Pietro Armando wrote:
No newsflash here, never denied it, nor said it is, or was, a requirement. The ONLY requirement other than, age, concent, citizenship, non-relatve, etc., in non ssm states is.....are ya ready?.... HUSBAND AND WIFE. THAT'S IT! You guessed right! Now lets all gather around and have our picture taken with the bride and groom. Now everybody say "coitus".
Now that you agree sexual intercourse and consummation are not requirements for marriage, perhaps you'll stop implying they have any relevance to the discussion.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8432 Jun 13, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
In a way yes. Considering the time, effort, and money being put into the cause of ssm, it seems odd that the number, male couples marrying vs female couples marrying, are not roughly equal.
I see. So you are under the impression that equality is on a sliding scale based on percentages. Got it. That says alot.

Your concern for our time, effort and money is touching.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8433 Jun 13, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Wife, husband, bride, groom, etc....these words haven't changed.
Actually they have. Wife and bride previous were terms applied to property.

But, in modern times, their meanings are pretty stagnate yes. And the meanings to these words aren't altered one tiny iota when gays marry. They all still mean exactly the same thing.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
How can you expand access to an institution created, built, and has been either legally, socially, culturally, aand/or religiously, etc. on the male femle relationship by removing one half of it?
LOL!! Who's removing half? Not us gays. I'm half of my marriage, my husband is the other half. Feel free to try again though.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
That make no sense.
Um, actually you are the one not making any sense.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I know let's remove the hamburger patty from the bun, replace it with a veggie patty, and still call it a hamburger.
Why do fundies suck so bad at creating analogies? The PROPER way to have created that analogy would be by recognizing the root, which is the BURGER. And they are both still burgers. the "ham" would be a distincter, just like "same sex" or "inter-racial" or "hetero".

Please feel free to try again though.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8434 Jun 13, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I beleive I stated that in my answer. The primary requirement, and the reason the state has an interest in marriage, is a couple accept EACH OTHER AS HUSBAND AND WIFE. PERIOD. All else stems from that. There doesn't have to be requirements to consumate, procreate, conjugate,....because thats what men and women do. Not all, but a large significant percentage. But you knew that already silly rabbit! Not one of us on this thread would be here if a man and a woman didn't have coitus, aka sexual intercourse, aka sex. Unless there was a immaculate conception of someone here.:)
So, let's see if we can get this to a nutshell.

You know you have no argument, you simply like reminding everyone that gays don't procreate as a couple. Yes dear, we're all aware.

What else you got?

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8435 Jun 13, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said it was a legal requirement, nor it need to be proven in order to have a valid marriage license. That's not the point. The legal requirement, in non ssm states, is husband and wife, period. That's it. They are not required by law to consumate, procreate, cohabitate, etc. No same sex couple can meet that singular significatnt virtually universal requirement.
The meaning of "sexual intercourse" is widely accepted and commonly understood. If an opposite sex couple states they have sexual intercourse, or sex, there's really not much doubt of what that means. It's only when its modified, as in "anal intercourse", does the meaning change. If a male couple state the had sex, the reasonable assumption would be anal intercourse.
No newsflash here, never denied it, nor said it is, or was, a requirement. The ONLY requirement other than, age, concent, citizenship, non-relatve, etc., in non ssm states is.....are ya ready?.... HUSBAND AND WIFE. THAT'S IT! You guessed right! Now lets all gather around and have our picture taken with the bride and groom. Now everybody say "coitus".
TRANSLATION: "I still got nothin'."

“Open your eyes, people”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#8436 Jun 13, 2012
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be unaware that marriage requires the consent of the participants and registration with the state. Are your curs up to that?
Well, if we can change who can get married, then we CAN also change what is needed to prove marriage. So, my dogs are now married because I SAY SO. SAME SAME!
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, actually YOU would be the joke in the eyes of anyone with an ounce of common sense for calling your cur married...
But two guys screwing each other in their filthy bong hole isn't, RIGHT? That's just a nature, normal, behavior that any logical thinking person would aspire to have their children experience to the fullest, RIGHT?

Bwahahahahahahahaha! Don't make me laugh, SUCKA!
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, then go get one. I don't have any interest in a seperate institution created for the sole purpose of segregating me from other human beings. I also have no interest in seperate drinking fountains or sitting at the back of the bus. Sorry hon, but you don't have the autority to assign my place in society. I don't give a rat's patoot what you do or don't have a problem with....those are YOUR issues, not mine.
I don't want to assign you anything in society.

I just don't want to smell your sanky ass after some hairy bald-headed guy has been banging your sweaty crack all night. Nor do I care to hear about it, or for you to try to legitimize such insanity in the culture inwhich my future generations will reside.

I don't want to see you hurt or injuried for what you are, but no matter what laws are or are not passed, you will never be anything but a confused freak to me.

“Crusading Fundies r hilarious!”

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#8437 Jun 13, 2012
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
NO POTTY MOUTH TALK!
You mean like this?
Marvin in Denver wrote:
<quoted text>
Some people are actually honest, DICK BREATH!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#8438 Jun 13, 2012
Jonah1 wrote:
<quoted text>
TRANSLATION: "I still got nothin'."
TRANSLATION: "I can't see the obvious from inside the rainbow whale".

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) 3 min RoxLo 1,580,079
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 5 min Uncle Tab 286,519
News The Military Coup Against Donald Trump of 2018,... 5 min Retribution 33
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 7 min DR X 24,984
News Rural America Braces for Labor Shortages After ... 10 min DR X 5
News One dead after car plows into group of proteste... 27 min Trump_Is_Fake 175
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 28 min UIDIOTRACEMAKEWOR... 222,160
News A Celebration in the Streets, Then Screams 1 hr Mojo Risen 309
News 'God has given Trump authority to take out Kim ... 1 hr Red Crosse 223
More from around the web