Obama Announces Full Support for Gay Marriage

[Mona Lott]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
In a sense you don't, nor do u wish "equal protection" be applied the same. Gender, as opposed to orientation.

That made no sense. Try different translation software.

[Mona Lott]

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
She's not the only one.......it seems that others feel Romney will win in November and magically squash the right to marry for Same-Sex Couples......they could all be very unhappy if Obama wins!!!!

Do you really think Americans want to give the keys back to the same people that drove the car into a ditch in the first place? Romney is a goofball Mormon! What kind of fundie is going to vote for someone who does NOT believe that Jesus was born of a virgin? If they do, they are dumber than I thought. Still, there are more sane people in this country than there are fundie idiots. Fundies just make more noise.

[Pietro Armando]

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you really think Americans want to give the keys back to the same people that drove the car into a ditch in the first place? Romney is a goofball Mormon! What kind of fundie is going to vote for someone who does NOT believe that Jesus was born of a virgin? If they do, they are dumber than I thought. Still, there are more sane people in this country than there are fundie idiots. Fundies just make more noise.

The fudie that doesn't want Obama back in the White House.

[Drew Smith]

Pietro Armando wrote:

Are marriage laws based on "group" interests, or on the sexual, complimentarily interaction, potentionally procreational, aspect of the male female relationship?

Neither one, since the state recognizes male-female relationships even in those cases when procreation is not potential.

[RnL2008]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Is, "happiness" relevant to the state's interest in marriage? If a couple of "mixed orientation" marries of their own free will, that marriage is legally valid in the eyes of the state, and it is possible the marriage can be just as successful and satisfying to the couple as many marriages are of the same orientation. We shouldn't automatically ASSume otherwise.:)
Here's a story somewhat related.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-128...

Yes, I believe it is......even if you married just because your wife was a female......I married for many reasons both love and attraction were a part of those reasons and the state doesn't care......but I do!!!

Well, when DC granted the right to marry for Same-Sex Couples......most of the testimony they received was from the divorced mixed-orientation spouses who all stated that if their ex's had had the right to marry the person of their choosing and who they were in love with.......they would not have been married to these individuals and therefore there would have been a lot less hurt involved!!!!

So, you can think what ya want.......and post links to whatever ya want.......but real live ex-spouses would disagree with ya!!!

[RnL2008]

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you really think Americans want to give the keys back to the same people that drove the car into a ditch in the first place? Romney is a goofball Mormon! What kind of fundie is going to vote for someone who does NOT believe that Jesus was born of a virgin? If they do, they are dumber than I thought. Still, there are more sane people in this country than there are fundie idiots. Fundies just make more noise.

No, I don't......but folks like Palin and others believe it is okay that the nuts run the asylum!!!!

Frankly......if Romney does win......it will be so bad, that the US might NEVER recover!!!

[RnL2008]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
You're confusing personal motivation with state interest. Does the state care if I was "in love" or "in like", "have lust in my heart" or a "lukewarm libido", or, "committed" or "care less"? The state does care what are relationship can, and did produce, four chilren, and that we, their parents provide them with a stable home life, thus its interest in marriage.
Did the state of California care if, you,an your wife, were in love or like, have a lustful libido, or a lukewarm one, and/or committed or could care less, when it issued the marriage license?

No, I'm not......THE STATE DOES NOT CARE IF YOU MARRIED HER JUST BECAUSE SHE WAS A WOMAN OR NOT.......the state cares that you are unrelated by blood, are divorced, if you were married to another and over the age of 18. The state cares NOT about the 4 children you produced......just as long as you take responsibility for them!!!

That's it......the state don't care if you were married when ya had them or married after the fact!!!

No, the State of California DID NOT CARE.......they also did not care if we had children or not, or even planning to.....they cared about us meeting the state requirements in order to obtain a marriage license.....AND NOTHING ELSE.....oh and pay our fee in cash!!!

[Quest]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
....
People can and do act opposite to their orientation. Are marriage laws based on "group" interests, or on the sexual, complimentarily interaction, potentionally procreational, aspect of the male female relationship? Can the state, distinguish between relationships, and legally recognizes those based on a distinction of which it determines are part of it's interest?

People can and do act the opposite of their orientation. But the state should not REQUIRE it only of gay folks who choose to legally marry. Straight folks are not required to make such a choice to obtain a marriage license in ANY state in the USA.

And this nice thing is that there is no reason whatsoever for the state to take an interest in the genders involved in a marriage relationship, since all other relevant factors are equal, including the same benefits in raising children and added security for elderly married couples.

Procreation is not a part of the state's interest, of course, since it is currently not required to obtain a marriage license, anywhere, and no marriage license is required to procreate.

"Complimentary interraction" is a meaningless term, unless you are using it to explain love, commitment, and mutual support in a marriage. And then is applies equally to gay couples.

Marriage offers ALL of the same benefit and security to gay couples and their children that it offers to straight couples, with no harm whatsoever to any other couple who is married, or the state itself.

Unless you can prove that families that are more secure harm society. Good luck with that one.

[Pietro Armando]

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I don't......but folks like Palin and others believe it is okay that the nuts run the asylum!!!!
Frankly......if Romney does win......it will be so bad, that the US might NEVER recover!!!

Oh, and there's not nuts running the asylum now? Never recover from what?

[RnL2008]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, and there's not nuts running the asylum now? Never recover from what?

I'll let you figure that out.....you don't care about my opinion anyways!!!

[Mona Lott]

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I don't......but folks like Palin and others believe it is okay that the nuts run the asylum!!!!
Frankly......if Romney does win......it will be so bad, that the US might NEVER recover!!!

Not to worry, honey. Romney won't win. Keep the faith! Better times are coming.

[Pietro Armando]

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, I believe it is......even if you married just because your wife was a female......I married for many reasons both love and attraction were a part of those reasons and the state doesn't care......but I do!!!

"...even if you married just because your wife was a female...."
Uhhhh....Rose what else would she be?:)

Well, when DC granted the right to marry for Same-Sex Couples......most of the testimony they received was from the divorced mixed-orientation spouses who all stated that if their ex's had had the right to marry the person of their choosing and who they were in love with.......they would not have been married to these individuals and therefore there would have been a lot less hurt involved!!!!

Right, they would've been married to someone else. So what's the point? The ex spouses, couldn't have married someone else? The other orientated spouse should have said something prior to the marriage? That doesn't negate my point that there are some mixed orientation marriages, however few they may be, that are successful and satisfying to the couple.

So, you can think what ya want.......and post links to whatever ya want.......but real live ex-spouses would disagree with ya!!!

Disagree with what? That there are no successful mixed orientation marriages out there? That defies logic.

[Mona Lott]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
"...even if you married just because your wife was a female...."
Uhhhh....Rose what else would she be?:)
<quoted text>
Right, they would've been married to someone else. So what's the point? The ex spouses, couldn't have married someone else? The other orientated spouse should have said something prior to the marriage? That doesn't negate my point that there are some mixed orientation marriages, however few they may be, that are successful and satisfying to the couple.
<quoted text>
Disagree with what? That there are no successful mixed orientation marriages out there? That defies logic.

If you think living a lie is being successful, you have bigger problems than a lack of logic.

[Pietro Armando]

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I'm not......THE STATE DOES NOT CARE IF YOU MARRIED HER JUST BECAUSE SHE WAS A WOMAN OR NOT....

They care because she is a woman, and I a man.

......the state cares that you are unrelated by blood,

Except in states that allow first cousins to marry.

are divorced, if you were married to another and over the age of 18. The state cares NOT about the 4 children you produced......just as long as you take responsibility for them!!!

Actually that's where the primary state interest is, the products of the male female relationship, children. Why else ban marriage between close blood relatives? Presumption of paternity pertains to what? It matters to the state if my wife and I stay together, as it does for our children. If we don't the state steps to ensure the children are taken care of, support payments are made, visitiation, health care, etc. Its in the state interest that my wife and I stay together.

If sex between men and women didn't produce offspring, would it matter who married who?

That's it......the state don't care if you were married when ya had them or married after the fact!!!

As long as the mother and father of the children are married. Very good...we're making progress.

No, the State of California DID NOT CARE.......they also did not care if we had children or not, or even planning to.....they cared about us meeting the state requirements in order to obtain a marriage license.....AND NOTHING ELSE.....oh and pay our fee in cash!!!

Are the prohibitional requirements as they apply to an opposite sex couple, applicable to a same sex couples? No need to worry about close blood relatives marrying if the couple is of the same sex, as there is no possiblity of conception, right?

Why does the state of California care if two women are married? Or is that not a question that should be asked?

[Pietro Armando]

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
If you think living a lie is being successful, you have bigger problems than a lack of logic.

Who said, "living a lie"? So there are no openly sucessful mixed orientatin marriages in this whole wide world? Is that your contention?

[Pietro Armando]

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>Not to worry, honey. Romney won't win. Keep the faith! Better times are coming.

and marmalade skies too!

[RnL2008]

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>Not to worry, honey. Romney won't win. Keep the faith! Better times are coming.

I am hopefully optimistic that Romney won't win.....but there is still that reason to remain cautiously realistic!!!

[RnL2008]

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
They care because she is a woman, and I a man.
<quoted text>
Except in states that allow first cousins to marry.
<quoted text>
Actually that's where the primary state interest is, the products of the male female relationship, children. Why else ban marriage between close blood relatives? Presumption of paternity pertains to what? It matters to the state if my wife and I stay together, as it does for our children. If we don't the state steps to ensure the children are taken care of, support payments are made, visitiation, health care, etc. Its in the state interest that my wife and I stay together.
If sex between men and women didn't produce offspring, would it matter who married who?
<quoted text>
As long as the mother and father of the children are married. Very good...we're making progress.
<quoted text>
Are the prohibitional requirements as they apply to an opposite sex couple, applicable to a same sex couples? No need to worry about close blood relatives marrying if the couple is of the same sex, as there is no possiblity of conception, right?
Why does the state of California care if two women are married? Or is that not a question that should be asked?

No, not really......if you lived in a State that allowed Same-Sex Couples to marry.....the State would not care if you were straight and wanted to marry a man!!!

What does first cousins getting married have anything to do with this discussion?

States DON'T care if a couple reproduces or not.....remember that fertility is a privacy issue and the state does not ask nor cares if children may be produced.

Truly the only reason that the State is interested in marriage is that it generates REVENUE.......through taxes and other things!!!!

Actually, the state only cares about you and your wife taking responsibility for the children regardless of whether you stay together or not......the State does NOT want to be responsible for ANYONE'S children!!!

Obviously it must because that is what the anti-gay marriage folks keep claiming!!!

If the parents of the children are not married, yet take care of their responsibilities, the state doesn't care.

I believe that the same reasons that straight couples are prohibited from marrying certain folks also applies to Gays and Lesbians as well......remember that each state has certain martial requirements that must be met before a marriage application/license is issued......and they apply to any couple regardless of gender make-up!!!

The State of California doesn't care any more about 2 women marrying as they do about 2 men or a man and a woman marrying......the folks who do care do so on some fallacies that simply haven't been proven......my marriage has not made any opposite-sex couple more procreative responsible or prevented children from being born!!!

[RnL2008]

Pietro Armando wrote:

Right, they would've been married to someone else. So what's the point? The ex spouses, couldn't have married someone else? The other orientated spouse should have said something prior to the marriage? That doesn't negate my point that there are some mixed orientation marriages, however few they may be, that are successful and satisfying to the couple.

If a Gay man had been able to legally marry the man of his choosing instead of marrying a woman.......is what the divorced spouses were referring to!!!

I'm certain that there are mixed-orientation marriages that do work, but probably more than not, they have issues and especially when one can no longer live in denial about who they really are!!!!

[cpeter1313]

Not really; they probably think we'll be allies for polygamy. It's an entirely different argument.

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
The issue is not fraud, but legally recognizing a marital relationship between consenting adults. Look at Ameria's favorite polygamists, the Brown family. One legal wife and marriage, the rest "sister wives" and spiritual marriages. All of them are in it together. Wives two, three, and four, all made an informed choice to marry Kody Brown, their husbans and have children by him. So where's the fraud?
And yes they have spoken out in favor of ssm. It's all about love. Maybe a "P" should be added to the Glibtee marque?
http://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/article...
One Alt. Lifestyle
Supports Another
The family behind the hit TLC reality show Sister Wives -- now in its third season -- is coming out in support of gay marriage. Surprised?