Shared publicly  - 
Mehdi tejrani's profile photoMark Edward Thomas Piotrowski's profile photoAaron Sherman's profile photoMichael Farnbach's profile photo
Good information...but, Wyoming is, by no stretch of the imagination, part of the Northwest.
Crazy that CA lags so many other states in gay marriage.
+Brian Holler I don't think that's "northwest" as in "Pacific Northwest". rather, it's a rough division of the U.S. map. Wyoming is definitely in the northwest quadrant of the nation (being west of the central east/west line that runs through its neighbor, Nebraska and north of the central north/south line that runs through its neighbor, Colorado).
Gays have the right to be gay. Beyond that the have no more rights than anyone else, which these days are next to none.
This is going to take some reading to appreciate the per-state situation...
The only thing I see as history repeating itself of Romney's anti-gay bashing campaign is der Fuhrer Adolf Hitler coming to power. Shall we all say... Zeke Heil Mitt?
Makes me proud of my home state of CT & not so proud of my adopted state of OH
+Andrew Brown I'm only guessing but maybe states that would register as zero just aren't included - just a guess
+Randy Hudson can you be more specific? The infographic has a bunch of examples. I don't see any rights there that the average straight couple doesn't have...
WoW! The midwest, SouthEast and NorthWest are basically SHYTE!
+Jim Budzynski you just said "thank God" in relation to oppressing others. I'm not sure if you've heard if this cool book that talks about loving your neighbor, turning the other cheek and not judging others, but I think you may want to check it out...
ici au Québec bien ouvert à la communauté gay
In this whole debate, I find it interesting to see so much judging and intolerance from the supposedly "open and tolerant" for people who disagree and hold different values. As for the Hitler reference, that is more in alignment with the government taking more control of our lives which seems to be an epidemic in both dominant political parties.
Not sure why so many are against gay marriage, they aren't going to ask YOU to marry them so it isn't like it will affect you in any way.

If I am free to marry the woman I love, why shouldn't they be free to marry the person they love? Just because it isn't something I or those of you opposing it would do doesn't make it wrong. Let them be happy and have the same rights as everyone else.
two consenting adults entering into a contract with each other.WHY is this even an issue?
So great we are talking about this and not the fact our economy hasn't seen a GDP over 3% and the NDA allows our own government to arrest you, put you in jail indefinitely and even execute you with no trial. just let the gay marriage subject go to rest and let's look at some real issues that affect us all, gay and straight!
+Barrie Tingle the reason that gay marriage is a hot-button issue is that many people are still not ok with the idea that homosexuals exist. They don't want to be confronted with male/male cake-toppers, gay divorce-court on TV, female characters marrying in movies, their neighbors driving home with cans attached to the bumper, etc. It's a simple fear change.
Robyn, I was merely using the Anglo-Aryan slangology of Zeke because those right right Nazi's Mormons wouldn't even know how to
+Aaron Sherman , I call shenanigans... there are many people who are against neutering the definition of marriage by removing the reference to "man and woman" because there are specific rights and responsibilities unique to that relationships ability to create children that would then go unrecognizable by the government.
It's a shame to think that we are all American citizens with the rights and freedoms set down within the US Constitution. But unfortunately, the United States is flawed and hypocritical in their law abiding translation. I rather give up my full citizenship and become a Brit or EU member than become a Neo-Nazi Mormon with craze notions of Gestapo controls..
+Mark Edward Thomas Piotrowski , wow, that started as a good comment but then devolved into paranoia and hatred.

Sorry, but could you expand on what you meant, particularly in the first part? And if you have a reasoned basis for the last part, I'd be happy to hear it as well.

I'd hate to become a neo-nazi too, however likely that seems to me right now. But if you know something I don't I'd be happy to read it.
+Michael Farnbach I was raised by a mother who had had her ability to mother children compromised by cancer and a step-father. You're saying that that wasn't a marriage and we weren't a family?!
+Michael Farnbach I have no idea, but if one of the requirements for "marriage" is that there has to be the potential for children, then all couples that can't have children aren't real marriages, right? That would include gay couples, but we should also deny marriage rights to older couples, women who have had hysterectomies, men who have had vasectomies, and generally anyone who doesn't pass a fertility test, right? I mean, children are the entire point, so why let these non-breeders marry?
+Aaron Sherman, you brought up a situation where some people are disabled. Lets explore that a second...

Categorically, biology recognizes "man and woman" as the procreational relationship. That is because 100% of reproduction happens between a man and a woman. Biology doesn't require all man and woman pairings in order to recognize what type of relationship creates children.

Exceptions are noted as disabilities. Infertility requires a reasonable expectation to be able to create children, including the acts between a man and a woman for a reasonable amount of time (like 3 years).

In biology and medicine, it is not a contradiction to say that infertility is (and only is) a procreational type relationship. It is a disabled procreational relationship.

So, the question is, do we deny people access to what they normally would be able to do if they weren't disabled?

Some societies don't, and infertility is a reason for annulment. Our society favors the support of the disabled, trying to restore everything we can for them.

One of the most regrettable conflations that I've seen in this debate is saying that homosexuality is a disability like infertility. I don't think homosexuality is a disability. Or on the other side of this is a denial that a disability is a meaningful distinction for our additional support, which I also find regrettable.

So in short, I don't claim any procreational relationship, even the handicapped, should be denied a marriage license.

The fact that they are missing out on a part of marriage is painfully evident to them, however. I won't prick an open wound. The billions they spend on infertility treatments and such, show just how much they miss it.

And it is because I regret their situation that I support giving them everything we can to restore as much as we can for them.
Add a comment...