Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

[Frankie Rizzo]

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
Yea we all know how you are interested in the broads.
We also know you have no interest in the law which is what the marriage argument is based upon.
Why not go out and get laid?

OK! Wanna take a walk on the wild side toots?

[Pietro Armando]

Jane Dodo wrote:

<quoted text>For me personally, I have no interest in getting married. If a couple wishes to be married and they are, for whatever reason, denied, they have a right to take their grievance to court.

Absolutely, its the American way. If the state is going to recognize marriage as a legally privleged relationship, it has the authority to set the requirements for it. The question is how does the state, and/or society define marriage, and why is it privleged to begin with?

[Pietro Armando]

cpeter1313 wrote:

Marriage has primarily been about property--acquiring it, keeping it, inheriting it, and marrying it. Wives have been the possession of their husbands for millennia; men and women being equal is a VERY modern idea, only the last century or so.

I'm not disputing that, just the notion that elevation of the wife in the marital relationship, somehow means that she is not required for the marital relationship. Gee...we progressed from the "wife is equal to the husband" to the "wife can be replaced with another husband". Just think she only had a few decades of equality before she is shown the door. Oh well....all in the name of progress.

In this culture, at this time, marriage is about two people committing to each other with the protections and responsibilities outlined by the state. Neither gender nor fertility are necessry to that concept.

Hmmmmmm......oooh so close...actually its about what that "two" becomes...three or four or five....sex between men and women still makes babies....I would think that Mr. & Mrs. Munster's baby boy CPeter who resides at 1313 Mockingbird lane would understand this concept. Yes I know one does not need to be married in order to procreate, and out of wedlock births have risen considerably over the past 10 to 20 years. That still doesn't change the orientation of marriage...get it?...toward the procreative sexual aspect of the male female relationship. There's really not much dispute that children do best when conceived and raised by their OWN biological mother and father in a low conflict stable marriage. My parents did, I did, my children are. Even gay kids I would imagine would prefer their own married mother and father in a stable marriage and home life.

Why does it matter to society at large that two men/women marry? Are there legions of unwed pregnant men out there? If two men/women don't marry, what will happen? If marriage is such a hot item within the gay community, why is there such indifference to the idea? Why aren't more couples, that can, legally marrying, other than the lack of nationwide recognition, which I don't think is the primary reason? Why do more female couples marry than male?

[Pietro Armando]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
OK! Wanna take a walk on the wild side toots?

Actually Frankie, for him, it might be considered, "on the straight and narrow".:)

[Jane Dodo]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
You never answer. You just say the question isn't valid! That's because you're angry enough to post but not smart enough to be effective.
Your welcome!

If I never answer, then how can my answer be flawed? Focus.

[Jane Dodo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Absolutely, its the American way. If the state is going to recognize marriage as a legally privleged relationship, it has the authority to set the requirements for it. The question is how does the state, and/or society define marriage, and why is it privleged to begin with?

If the state is going to recognize???? I think they already do recognize marriage as a legally protected relationship. The question is: what is the State's interest in denying equal protection to a specific group.

[Pietro Armando]

Jane Dodo wrote:

<quoted text>If the state is going to recognize???? I think they already do recognize marriage as a legally protected relationship. The question is: what is the State's interest in denying equal protection to a specific group.

Every state recognizes "marriage" as a legally protected relationship, distinct from all others. Each state defines marriage differently. Some states have removed the opposite sex requirenment, while others have constitutionalized it. The question is: What is the state's interest in recognizing a specific group if said group's pairings, same sex, do not share the same foundation as the larger group's pairing, opposite sex. Why does a same sex relationship need recognizing at all, and/or in the same way an opposite sex relationship is recognized?

[Frankie Rizzo]

LuLu Ford wrote:

<quoted text>
That's what the court is debating Jackass.

Aw c'mon toots. Let's be honest. Jane Dodo is a much bigger jackass than Pietro. Pietro is a gentleman! Jane Dodo is, er, ah, not.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Jane Dodo wrote:

<quoted text>If the state is going to recognize???? I think they already do recognize marriage as a legally protected relationship. The question is: what is the State's interest in denying equal protection to a specific group.

No, the topic is Obama.

YUK!YUK!YUK!

[Frankie Rizzo]

Jane Dodo wrote:

<quoted text>If I never answer, then how can my answer be flawed? Focus.

To pull Jane Dodo sh!t on Jane Dodo- When did I say it was? Focus yourself jackass!

[Frankie Rizzo]

Jane Dodo wrote:

<quoted text>If I never answer, then how can my answer be flawed? Focus.

There's a big difference between an answer and a response dufus! Just look at your posts. You respond, but you don't answer.

[cpeter1313]

When you replace something, you must remove one thing and put another in its place. You cannot do that in marriage; you can only dissolve the contract. If a marriage is between two men, there is no replacement; the spouse is original to the contract. No woman was ever involved.

It's hard for a child to be conceived by anyone BUT their biological parents, isn't it?

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not disputing that, just the notion that elevation of the wife in the marital relationship, somehow means that she is not required for the marital relationship. Gee...we progressed from the "wife is equal to the husband" to the "wife can be replaced with another husband". Just think she only had a few decades of equality before she is shown the door. Oh well....all in the name of progress.
<quoted text>
Hmmmmmm......oooh so close...actually its about what that "two" becomes...three or four or five....sex between men and women still makes babies....I would think that Mr. & Mrs. Munster's baby boy CPeter who resides at 1313 Mockingbird lane would understand this concept. Yes I know one does not need to be married in order to procreate, and out of wedlock births have risen considerably over the past 10 to 20 years. That still doesn't change the orientation of marriage...get it?...toward the procreative sexual aspect of the male female relationship. There's really not much dispute that children do best when conceived and raised by their OWN biological mother and father in a low conflict stable marriage. My parents did, I did, my children are. Even gay kids I would imagine would prefer their own married mother and father in a stable marriage and home life.
Why does it matter to society at large that two men/women marry? Are there legions of unwed pregnant men out there? If two men/women don't marry, what will happen? If marriage is such a hot item within the gay community, why is there such indifference to the idea? Why aren't more couples, that can, legally marrying, other than the lack of nationwide recognition, which I don't think is the primary reason? Why do more female couples marry than male?

[Pietro Armando]

LuLu Ford wrote:

<quoted text>
That's what the court is debating Jackass.

In Italian American lingo it would be, and this is the phonetic spelling, "chooch". Capeesh?!

[Pietro Armando]

cpeter1313 wrote:

When you replace something, you must remove one thing and put another in its place. You cannot do that in marriage; you can only dissolve the contract. If a marriage is between two men, there is no replacement; the spouse is original to the contract. No woman was ever involved.

There was at one point, or neither man would have been there in the first place.:)

It's hard for a child to be conceived by anyone BUT their biological parents, isn't it?

There's hope for you yet. "1313"? Mockingbird Lane?

[Pietro Armando]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Aw c'mon toots. Let's be honest. Jane Dodo is a much bigger jackass than Pietro. Pietro is a gentleman! Jane Dodo is, er, ah, not.

Thanks paisan.

[Jane Dodo]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Every state recognizes "marriage" as a legally protected relationship, distinct from all others. Each state defines marriage differently. Some states have removed the opposite sex requirenment, while others have constitutionalized it. The question is: What is the state's interest in recognizing a specific group if said group's pairings, same sex, do not share the same foundation as the larger group's pairing, opposite sex. Why does a same sex relationship need recognizing at all, and/or in the same way an opposite sex relationship is recognized?

The State acts on the behalf of ALL its citizens, not just the majority.

[Jane Dodo]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
To pull Jane Dodo sh!t on Jane Dodo- When did I say it was? Focus yourself jackass!

Post #26177

You really are quite the dullard.

[Jane Dodo]

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
There's a big difference between an answer and a response dufus! Just look at your posts. You respond, but you don't answer.

Let's try this again.... If I don't answer, then how can my answer be flawed?

[Pietro Armando]

Jane Dodo wrote:

<quoted text> The State acts on the behalf of ALL its citizens, not just the majority.

Exactly...you're catching on! That's why its in the best interest of ALL of its citizens, particularly its younger citizens, not to tamper with one of its fundamental institutions, if not the institution, crucial to its stability, conjugal marriage.

[Frankie Rizzo]

Jane Dodo wrote:

<quoted text>Post #26177
You really are quite the dullard.

I said your response (singular) was "one big flaw" not your answer was flawed since you didn't answer, you only responded with an insult. Then I said you never answer you just respond and there is a difference. Remember dullard? Sure you do!

So I'll ask again- When did I say your answer was flawed? Before or after I said you never answer?

What a DULLARD!